User talk:KIENGIR

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KIENGIR! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

=

ANI Board

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Telling everyone in a thread on ANI that you would respond to a block by creating a new account is basically asking to be indefinitely blocked, repeatedly. This is a very unwise choice of words, especially on a noticeboard which is heavily patrolled by administrators. --Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Blackmane, I have nothing to be afraid of! I have made a reaction to this post as well in the ANI board. There you will understand why I made this kind of ironical statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Mihai Viteazul

KIENGIR, I've been following the Mihai Viteazul discussion with close attention and have noticed that while some progress has been made, agreement on certain matters still seems distant. I think some of the problems might stem from a simple misunderstanding; it's perfectly possible to talk of a "union" in the sense of a "personal union," that is to say distinct territories, with their own political systems and particularities, all falling under the personal rule of a single person. Obviously, Mihai's control over Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania didn't result in all three principalities literally becoming one state. Even the most enthusiastic Romanian nationalist historians find themselves compelled to admit that, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise. Would you be more comfortable with the article if we specified that Mihai's control over the three principalities was a "personal" union that did not imply all three principalities "uniting" into one unitary state? Hubacelgrand (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, will answer on your talk page(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Hello - I've left a response on my talk page. Cheers. Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian language

Hello,

I have started a discussion on the talk page about recent edits. If you wish, please participate in the discussion and in the meanwhile don`t change the established and referenced part of the article. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Please continue this discussion at the talk page of the article. I have not caused a conflict last time[1] neither it is in my interest to do this now. You must understand that wikipedia works according to some policies which every wikipedian should respect. I have seen your message on my talk page and I think that this reasoning is wrong. Let`s talk as (for an example) Chilean people (me) and Scottish people (you). Please try to talk outside of who is who and focus on the data. I am not here to "help" my nation nor do I believe you are too. I think that is the best way to achieve neutrality. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am always ready to talk about any article. For Eric Bicfalvi article there is a respectable source ( Gazeta Sporturilor ) that writes a section about his origin where they state he is of Swedish origin. On the other hand we have a source claiming to be of Hungarian origin. Please check other similar articles, you will notice that this is a standard usage in cases like this. If you wish, please check this case with other users to get their opinion too. When there is a dispute among sources, to preserve neutrality wikipedians usually use the "According to xxx, according to yyy" phrase. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made a change at the Eric Bicfalvi article, I made the information about the Hungarian origin as primary. You must understand that if you have a source that the Lima is located in Scotland we will add that data to the article, it doesn`t matter if it is true or not. Unless it is some unknown source mambo-jumbo. Newspapers are taken as a pretty serious source. I don`t know what is your experience regarding wikipedia but you must understand that verifiability is everything. WP:SOURCE - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Please read this policy. If you have any doubt in this, please fell free to contact any other user to consult. For an example, if you have a reliable source that Victor Ponta is Zimbabwean this info would be included in the article. In what form that remains to be seen, but in would be included surely in the form "According to Criss Rain, Victor Ponta is of Zimbabwean origin". This is how wikipedia works when it comes to adding data. I hope I managed to explain this. Adrian (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

G'day

G'day KIENGIR. I suggest you self-revert per Talk:Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. I will not revert you, but you are sailing too close to the wind and will end up getting done yourself for editwarring. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have answered on the page. My argumentation is professional and can be understood by any historical expert or English speaker, or just even ordinary people. I have demonstrated all points a will make no further edits after any discussion. It is long, some things cannot be explained very shortly, because the trollers then try to find 1000 ways of arguments and false premises, that's why it is better to see almost all colletaral things leading to the conclusion. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thehoboclown. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am surprised and hurt, I asnwered, no evidence was presented by FromOradea, unfortunately only a manifestation of a frustrated and fantastic mind, but see the deatils there, I also will answer on your and his personal page also. It is so pity some people instead of being interested in a professional encylopedia, they make weird accusations. Yours (KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

I just noticed the accuser (FromOradea) was banned for sock-puppetry :) What a change of screenplay...well, Thank You for all for the objective arbitration (KIENGIR (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Tesla's citizenship discussion

I invite you to participate in the discussion. I opened a RfC and presented some sources. I also have one request, since, you and me agreed upon your edit on 10th of May that Tesla's citizenship from 1867 until 1892 should be stated as Austrian. Since then I investigated some sources and I find that to be false (you can see the sources on talk page). I tried to revert your edit and start a discussion so a consensus can be established, but people keep reverting me with the explanation that I haven't established a consensus to revert you, where in fact I participated in the consensus that introduced that edit. That is completely unreasonable since in that logic I can make an ridiculous edit (for instance that the Earth is flat) and revert everyone with the explanation that no consensus is established to revert my edit. The motive to revert your edit is to force a consensus be established on the presented sources. I'm afraid that a lot of people will oppose and that the conclusion will be that there is no consensus to change the present formulation. I found myself in the similar situation when I tried to edit Tesla's birthplace. I presented several dozen sources of which a great majority supported my side, however a lot of people "voted" for no change, so the present formulation remained although the majority of the sources are against it. There is a chance that this happens now, and that would be irrational since the present formulation is not sourced. In my opinion the best thing is to revert your edit and establish the consensus upon presented sources. I hope to hear from you soon on that matter. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- MrX 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Disruptive editor

Hello KIENGIR ,I'm responding to this comment of yours. That user has been disruptive for a long time now. He made a report against me, and I would appreciate if you could share this opinion here. You can see that I had done some investigation and it turns out that this user is a puppet of another user that demonstrated the very same behavior. Detoner (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, it's interesting how users that find the Croatia in the union with Hungary article or similar ones contentious are never from Hungary. Tzowu (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, you are overreacting it. Since these persons are well-known experts about Hungary and very old an experienced Wikipedians, it is a natural action if you just ad hoc plan to rewrite history!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

You left a message on my talk page. I'm not sure what you want? I have skim read the wall of text that contains a debate. I do not know this history. I can only flip a coin as to who is right. You guys seem to be arguing quite well about a point but you need to agree exactly what this point is. If it is "Did country A legally exist in 18??" then that can be checked and argued over. As it is you seem to be wondering around. I will not watch this page so you need to leave message (if any) on my talk page. Victuallers (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungary 1526-1857

User:KIENGIR. Please wait what Fakirbakir has to say. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Alig van idom, probalok az unnepek alatt idot szanni a temara. Boldog Bekes Karacsonyt! Fakirbakir (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Austro Hungarian Compromise

User:KIENGIR, the text you reinstate here was, as you've repeatedly been told, removed by consensus AND is denied reinstatement by WP:DENY because it was introduced by a sock of a blocked user. In case you don't understand, agreement between me + User: 82.119.98.162 vesus sock of blocked user = consensus. Do not involve this article in our dispute or I will make a new ANI report. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you, I did not see any consensus, and if I am understanding good you want to say the majority decides about consensus or what? (2:1) Then also I could say regarding the two other articles that User: Fakirbakir + Me vs. Hebel is 2-1...how could one editor and an ip address decide on such a "consensus"? Then better take it to the ANI since the consensus that I do not find is also unacceptable, since it is hindering the true content of the sources and removing very important pharapraphs, clear vandalism look like! Moreover the history does not start with sockpuppets, since before it was originally put by non-sockpuppets, so be careful with the explanation! And the most inmportant is, I did not reinstated anything former, since I added the pharapraph with modified content! (KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

Empire of Austria related articles

User:KIENGIR. Perhaps we should get away from some of the language we're now stuck in. Just a thought. Nothing chiseled in stone and not final yet but just an attempt to make text that can work:

"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also the ruler of the dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty within and outside the Holy Roman Empire founded the Empire of Austria in which all his dynastic lands were included. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s Imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. Apart from now being included in a new “Kaiserthum”, the workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which they had always been considered a separate Realm. In the new situation there were therefore no Imperial institutions involved in it’s internal government." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think first the Kingdom of Hungary (1526-1867) article should be resolved, since it is the most easier as having the less debated content. I will answer on your page.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC))

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello KIENGIR. I too wrote something on the above report. You may want to read that. Frankly, your modus operandum confuses me. We have an agreement on the Hungary article, that could be a good basis for agreement on the Austrian Empire article as well, for which I already made a proposal. Which I also commend to your attention. Why this (frankly rather problematic) stuff on the other article specially now at this point? A 1RR violation? What were you thinking? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It was not a willfull 1RR violation, a I checked the time two times before, but it seems because of the time zone confusion it could happen, not any Administrators answered my question about this, even after the edit the time did not have less then 24 hours, but after I saw it was recorded 10 minutes before. I told you earlier my point that at least if we did not touch two articles this one should be left as it is until new consensus, the pages may have similar content but they are not identical and I don't see any problematic content. You should not have intervened and leave the case - this 1RR - to resolve with only 123Steller and the Administrators. I am sure because of your text I was blocked that was again not as accurate as it should have been!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

Edit warring at Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at this edit warring complaint (permalink). I'm also alerting you of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE (see below). EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles about Austria-Hungary are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KIENGIR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi everybody, this is the warning in the talk page of the corresponding article: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. -> I thought I did not make more than one revert in 24 hours, since I carefully checked the time, but I see my last action was made 7:56 January 3. that is 10 minutes earlier than 24 hours according to the last edit...although I checked the clock and I remember 08:47 CET....just for curiosity, in the English Wikipedia always the editor's current time is recorded, or GMT? Thanks for the asnwer!KIENGIR (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. Watching the clock so as to continue to edit war without violating a revert restriction is still edit warring, and that's what you are blocked for. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello KIENGIR. It appears you have been steadily warring to add this material between December 22 and January 3. At one point, User:KrakatoaKatie placed the article under full protection to stop the war. When protection expired, you were right back at it. In your edit summaries, you have been telling other people to follow dispute resolution, while you continue to restore your material over and over. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you're quickly becoming the definition of a tendentious editor. Katie^talk 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KIENGIR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

--jpgordon,Katie,EdJohnston, I do not intend to appeal for more unblock request's until expiration, but please all of you explain to me carefully why the other users who continously reverted my edit were not sanctioned, although on this page I added a new, modified content, a did not reverted primarily anyone's edit, and if a user does not agree with something he should discuss until resolution as I and other's followed on the other disputed pages in which one has been already resolved. Yes, according to the official clock I broke a rule without wanting, I am very much sorry for that, but you all have to see my good faith some other editors did not proof and they do not seem to keep fair play. They continously speaking about a consensus that I still did not see and anyway the three articles's content are not identical, so that untruthful argument that "I would reinstate something that I already agreed to remove" is not true and a slight slip...If you carefully check the talk pages you'll clearly see who was provocating who and who is professional in the topic. I see heavy double measure of some other editor's who are even disturbed of my existence, I was accused of many things that were never proved to be true, but they have the right to revert or remove anything unsanctioned and they put non-valid/distorted information for Administrators sparing the important details, and they identify me as a problem! Katie, I just read what means in Wikipedia terms "tendentious user", I do not agree with it's details would represent me, since I have always a neutral point of view and the struggle to have valid, factual and flawless content of Wikipedia can be really called as "tendentious" as the word is meaning. The fact I touch sensitive topics is not willful, but it is hard to bear if non-valid content is present and some groups does not seek the professional resolution but eager to make accusations. So I have to pinpoint again, the rule is to keep the page unharmed until resolution, and I wanted to see and have the right if the other parties are respecting this as we did on the two other articles, but they still under resolution added new materials to the article. Not I was the one who started the reverts in the corresponding page, thus those should be trialed who reverted continously my addition, before seeking resolution consensus first! The fact by mistake the 1RR was broken, is now an unfortunate casus belli to put me in the front but meanwhile the root cause is forgotten. I am very much sorry, though I checked two times the clock! When Katie first protected the page, she said the actual state freezed has no connection to which version should be left until dispute resolution, that's why my intention was to have that version that should be valid, as it is always in Wikipedia. Only this was my goal, and not to continue edit war, this was continued by some IP addresses, Hebel and 123Steller users. Please check more carefully in the future, Thank You! KIENGIR (talk) 11:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

There is no reason for unblocking given in this request. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• KIENGIR, your block will expire soon, but if you continue the behavior that led to this block, you may easily be blocked again. So, I strongly advice you to follow the WP:BRD process and not to edit war. You are repeatedly speaking about the clock, but you have to understand that clock is irrelevant. WP:EW policy is clear about this: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time (or second time in this case) just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR, you posted an additional comment on the closed report at WP:AN3. It is hardly useful for you to continue your complaints about the conduct of others. Not only did you break the edit warring policy, you appear to be pushing a WP:POV. This gives you little credibility if you are still appealing for help from administrators. It is best for you to engage in negotiations on the article talk page. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

If an other user involved himself without any invitation to accuse me and present the things in a very one-sided way and he stated not factual things I think I have the right to react and to defend myself. Regarding the edit policy I acknowledged my mistake, however other's brake was not even taken into consideration. I do not push any WP:POV and those who take the time and carefully check the chronological happenings on he three pages, moreover read the content of the talk pages will notice what I have referred to. If someone has a credibility here, it is me, since I support factuality against those who are tending to hide some things finding any reason to distract the reader or administrators. There is not a more important support for this as the history of the pages and the content of the talk pages. Try me any time, some more experienced editors can very easily compromise any good-faith editors with less-experience, the devil is always in the deatils. However I pinpointed clearly and sharply how some other editors are acting in an improper way, still I am presented/treated as a bad boy. This is my only problem, a kind of double measure. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

Clarification

Regarding your text about me: "you do not want me to repeat things", I want to make it clear that I did not accuse you for repeating anything. I was referring to the proposed text, where Hungary was described as a kingdom, a country, and a (separate) realm in the same phrase, which looked a little redundant to me. If Hebel's new version is unchanged on this portion, I will not insist of it. Let it be as you want (with "country" untouched) if it is important for you.

I did not read all the long discussions on this subject, and I don't consider a specialist as much as Hebel. If you reach a consensus with him, I will not raise any objection.

Thanks for the patience in finding a compromise. Peace! 123Steller (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Transylvania

I apologize for the incidents at the articles about the Principality of Transylvania, I should not have engaged in the edit war.

Btw, I found this old map Transylvania [2] where, besides Saxon and Hungarian counties, there are also Wallachian and Moldavian regions. What do you know about them, which was their status? 123Steller (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I accept the peace offer! I checked the map carefully. Old, medieval age created maps have many times distortions regarding today's maps or fair geographical locations. After a longer check - as well knowing the exact borders and territorial extent of Principality of Transylvania - I verified all that is shown in the map is part of the Carpathian Basin, it does not surpass the historical borders neither the classic Kingdom of Hungary or Principality of Transylvania. Thus it does not contain historical Wallachian or Moldavian regions (= and territory or region from the Principality of Wallachia or Principality of Moldavia). I think the author wrote and attested about the population of the current time, as it is exactly written in the South-Transylvanian border, near Hátszeg area that is a well-known place were Vlachs were settled in early times thus there their population grow in centuries. The same I consider about the "Moldavia" designation, since in those areas the Hungarian Kings earlier granted feudal rights in exchange for allegiance of Wallachian/Moldavian landlords, and more of them - with their settled Vlach people were later expanding to the territory of Principality of Moldavia also. So I think - similar to the Saxon and Hungarian, Szekler latin deisgnations - above the official borders and counties, we get a picture about the near ethnic-composition of regions & historical, traditional regions extension whether they are official or unofficial - i. e. traditional Saxon cities or areas, although this does not exclude other ethnics were also present.

Short conclusion: the "Wallachian" and "Moldavian" regions did not have any (official) status, they are just an unofficial designation by the author of the map about ethnical presence (I now do not intervene in the Moldavian ethnicity debate - the author - as contemporary times - is referring to the state of origin this way).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

Subotica

Subotica is a city in Serbia, the only official language being Serbian. Hence, Szabadka is not an official city name. Which part of this simple logic do you not understand? Sideshow Bob 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems you did not understood well. CONTEMPORARY OFFICIAL NAME OF THE CITY IS SZABADKA. Which part of this simple logic do you not understand? Cheers! (KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

Subotica is in Serbia, where Serbian language is official. Problem? Also, caps lock don't make your argument less stupid. Sideshow Bob 07:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I see, your problem is with the English language. You do not understand what means CONTEMPORARY. Check a vocabulary or talk with an English teacher,maybe the third time you won't make yourself again ridicoulus!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

Hello non-ridiculous intelligent super-editor. Try learning the difference between the word "contemporary" used as a noun and as an adjective, if you know what those are, and try understanding the difference. Also, please do not contact me anymore, since I couldn't care less about your passive-aggressive tantrums and this issue as well. Goodbye. Sideshow Bob 07:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your grammar lesson is what you had to learn, since then you would not make the edit that you made, where it is OBVIOUS what means contemporary, next to the CURRENT official name :) The rest is a useless trash talk. If you do not answer anymore, I do not intend to continue this discussion. So long!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

(Talk-page spalker, yes I admit) Hey KIENGIR, there has been a missunderstanding here between the two of you. You are right, and Sideshow Bob is wrong for the tone he used, but his missjudgment there is not uncommon at all. When I first saw that table I had the same first thought as he did cause in many languages the term contemporary would refer to present day. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, peace.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

Italy, Hungary and Trianon

Hello User:KIENGIR. sorry that I havn't been able to find much about your earlier question to me, I'll be looking into that in the next weeks. But a question about this edit you made. What territories did the Kingdom of Italy get from Hungary at the Treatry of Trianon? It couldn't have been Fiume (Rijeka) because that was allocated to Yugoslavia at the time (although eventually annexed by Italy). And what about Poland? I seem to remember they annexed some territories on the North of the Carpathian, but I think that was only in 1939? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerard von Hebel,

I hope you will find out the truth abouth my last question, I am looking forward to it. Let's start with Poland. You are wrong Poland never annexed any territory from Hungary after, maybe you confuse it with the annexation of Teschen in 1939 from Czechoslovakia? Poland gained a 589 km² territory from Szepes and Árva counties. Regarding Fiume - as you see it also in the attached map -, it is also indicated in the traditional or commonly used maps where the losses of Hungary is demonstrated. Since from the beginning the status quo was disputed between Italy, Kingdom of SHS and some other's this is referring better the end, since it was divided between them thus Italy got a part of it. If you think, you may add "finally" since the section is meant to the losses of the territories and their final (interwar period) status quo, not necessarily when the pen was left from the documents signed on 4 June 1920....also consider, the legistlation and enactment and codification of the treaty was internationally finished only in 26. July 1921....similarly as the WWI closing treaties were enacted in 1947....so all of this meant as the final, legal, internationally recognized status quo, as the final result of the dissolution of the territory of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

OK Thanks, where Poland is concerned I was indeed thinking about the Szepes and Árva counties. But I somehow thought that played a role in the Munich agreement as well. I seem to remember that there was an occupation of Fiume by Italians who took it from Yugoslavia and based some kind of "Free state" there before Mussolini annexed it. No problem about referring to the end situation as such, but I was wondering if there may have been some territory there added to Italy in 1920/21 already. Oh and you should change "littlier" into smaller. Littlier is not really an English word. Although even the Dutch would transcribe it as such..Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok(KIENGIR (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited László Bárdossy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Károly Bartha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very sorry instead of a collaborative discussion you introduced a propagandisctic personal attack against me. That is against good faith and collaborative efforts to improve articles. We don't live anymore in Ceaucescu's regime, wake-up! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

Issues regarding edits on the Hungary-Romania football rivalry article

I think it's a bit ironic that you are the one who is schooling me about being impartial. For example, i took a look on that Dailymail article you cited and noticed that a large portion of the Incidents section that you edited on the Wiki article was simply copy pasted from there. But one thing i noticed regarding that Dailymail article is that the only incident that you didn't bother to copy and paste into the Incidents section on the Wiki article was about Hungarian fans setting several seats on fire. I, of course put it in the Incidents section with a citation, but i must ask why didn't you bother to put it up there in the first place? It's because you don't really want people reading to know the truth about hungarian fans, that's why. Hungarian fans are notorious in the football world for their extremely violent and overally nasty behavior, yet when i discovered that Wiki article there was virtually no information on the incidents caused by them in the Incidents section. You only put the incidents regarding the matches at the Arena Nationala (Romania) there, and even so you didn't bother to report the incidents done there by the hungarians specifically. You even said the Romanian anthem is never booed in Hungary yet whenever i watched my team play there i could only hear booing by the Hungarian fans. You continuosly deleted that info from the article until i added some citations to confirm that what i was saying was true. Are you ashamed by your peers behaviour, that's why you so desperately try to deny and hide it? Also, i didnt delelte that section about Romanian fans beating each other necesarilly because i wanted to hide it, but because it was badly written. After you re-added it and added one more citation to it i fixed the phrasing and kept it there. Also, you are saying you're working with the Wikipedia Staff, yet when i took a look on your talk page i saw that you were banned multiple times by them regarding your edits on articles concerning Hungary, and that you have made a habit of editing a lot of articles concerning both Romania and Hungary giving them a more positive stance on Hungary than Romania. I say you should just stop letting your national pride get in the way of Wikipedia editing because these are articles are made for the rest of the world to read and your hungarian bias is very unfair in this matter. If this is how the articles about Hungary-Romania look on the English Wikipedia due to the edits made by hungarians then i can only imagine what kind of lies about romanians are on the Hungarian Wikipedia. I won't bother editing any of those articles such as the Hungarian-Romanian War because it's just too much effort. All i can do is encourage foreign users to use other more credible sources about Hungarian-Romanian history because the articles here are written in hungarian points of view. I will also encourage you to take a look on this 30 minute short movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DauT5r34Gl4 Anyway, i rest my case. The Incidents section now looks alright and fair after my edits so my mission is complete, but this whole debacle we had will just show the world how hungarians deny their nasty behavior to the world by trying to delete it from Wikipedia, and how desperate hungarians are about having a positive image in the world even if that means hiding truth here. It's very laughable, i must say. --Scheianu (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Scheianu,

- I did not make any extensive edit in the correspondent article less than you did

- I had to warn you because you harmed those rules that I cited, moreover you were not netral but heavily biassed, as you proved also your heavy dislike for Hungarians

- In this article that what is put "on the first place" has no real relevance, chronological order better

- B****s..t, if I would have wanted to hide anything from the Hungarian fans I would have make disappear half of he content that is heavily citing everything about Hungarians, but less the incidents about the other side

- In Arena Nationala the first major incident was in the Romanian sector where Romanians beated Romanians, after the Romanian security started to beat these Romanian groups, including children, journalists, etc., it had no connection ot the Hungarian fans

- Then you have a big problem about objectivity, since in the broadcasts you clearly hear the Romanian national anthem and only very little time your hear anything disturbing that not the majority of the Hungarian fans, but very rarely some little groups. In Bucharest, everybody is horribly whistling and booing, so you continus modus-operandum about disrupting the article to maintain that lie that Hungarians generally "boo" the anthem and meanwhile silencing about the continous and persistent horrible behavior in Bucharest is one the greatest shame of all time of yours, and it is ridicoulus you try to wash yourself out from this!

- I let that one sentence citated because if we check all the matches, the behavior of the Hungarian fans there was the most apparent, although still the anthem is clearly to be heared, my objectivity and good heart was the reason although you did not deserve it. It my citations was badly written, why did not you rewrite it immediately? :) Maybe you were concentraing of the your Hungararian-hatred...

- I am not ashamed of anything, you have to ashamed about your behavior

- I was NOT banned "multiple times", once it happened by mistake because I did not check the clock and my action violated a time limit. I never gave "any positive stance" in the favor of Hungary, my edits were increasing obejctivity, moreover I corrected heavy and childish mistakes, inaccuracies, etc. thus I raised the trustability and credibility of the pages. Any yes, I work together with the Wikipedia Staff if any issue is emerging

- You again mixed your person with me, in Wikipedia there are Wikipedians, no natinalities, not any national pride is influencing me, but you showed in from of the Wikipedia community that you are heavily disliking Hungarians moreover you wanted to bias the article about the national anthems, than can be VERIFIED by every people since ALL THE MATCHES ARE RECORDED. Point.

- You have again a bad faith, because Hungarian Wikipedians mostly struggle to put on an objective manner the heavy imbalance in some articles, recently mostly Romanian Wikipedians are fair most of the times and they are also interested in good articles, not proaganda articles.

- The youtube video I know, it has heavy propaganda and bias towards the events, it is silencing of many-many other distractions that any objective, professional documentary should contain

- We don't hide any truth, the laughable is now you want to act in the manner of being objective, but also with your continous Hungarian-accuser, prejudicate statements you just prove the opposite that you'd like to appear.

- As you proved it also with your last edit, you again posted information of the Hungarians, but not anything that would be negative about Romanians. This is your way of the "truth", "obejectivity", etc. We know your type, generally we meet this regarding some beginners (the youtube video you wanted to use as stress pattern of your views, claims, opinion about the Hungarians and with this you wanted to justify your negative approach on the Hungarians today, moreover regarding a sport event that has not connection to the video. Amateur.)

That's all for now.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Revolt of Horea, Cloșca and Crișan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ip massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ip (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dschslava:, the edit war was rendered by Biruitorul as during consensus building he reverted and edit the second time and thus he fulfilled the frame repeadtedly. I did not revert his additions instead of one case when I proposed a new consensus and the I also reverted my formed edits, despite he reverted my edits more time. I initiated a discussion with him with more attempts on his talk page, he refused to communicate and continued his activity. I totally followed the WP:BRD princpiple, however I am aware your warning is an automated message.

@Helmut von Moltke:, please show me a proof where I attacked any editor, because I do not know about such a case, meanwhile I suffered continous personal attacks and I just responded to defamations and false accusations and I raised a question of an improper behavior. You should have warned those who attacked me. I feel a serious imbalance here, don't let yourself to be coined by any user who already tried to coin other editors or Administrators.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC))

This edit summary constitutes a violation of WP:NPA. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Helmut von Moltke:, well if you regard as a violation of WP:NPA that I ask a question of a possible behavior of the future meanwhile I am threated and I meet continous personal attacks, I ask you again, you do not find a little bit a double measure that for similar reasons you don't warn the other user who attacked me with "obsession" and "revisonist agenda" although these have also no connection to the content of the edit? (KIENGIR (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

Biruitorul has also been warned for personal attacks due to the incidents you mention. However, perception of being attacked by another editor is no justification for you to engage in personal attacks on anyone. If you want to debate the neutrality of Biruitorul's edits, you can do so at AN/I under the relevant subsection. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, when I checked first I did not see, I know my rights, however I am not that type that is eager to generate incidents. Finally, I did not mean to justify anything, I just reacted to the possible double measure.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will check it soon.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC))

"false information"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#/media/File:Magyarorszag_1920.png

So does that look like false information to you? Once again i'm telling you, stop trying to hide the truth from articles, people need to see it. That info was actually very important for the article because history is the key source of this rivalry, btw. I'll add it back, this time you better not delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheianu (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scheianu:, You are very near to be reported for personal attack, I warn you again and this is my final warning! You put false information, since the number of Hungarians were not 1 million, moreover you put a misunderstandable emotion on the subject - that anyway does not belong here, but to the relevant history articles - since Romanians not always had a clear majority in Transylvania, moreover the word "clear" is arguable if it's about a little bit over 50% percent - anyway it is funny you have linked a map that does not support your statements fully. People can gather these information where it belongs, but not to this article. It seems you are working hard to collect all the negative informations on Hungarians and you do not concentrate on objectivity or NPOV. Don't add it back until consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

I'm not trying to focus on negativity i'm just trying to add the truth. You shouldn't be the one talking about obiectivity, as prior to me discovering and starting editing this article, the incidents section was only filled with bad stuff done by the romanians, despite the hungarians causing more incidents. Why wasn't there anything about incidents caused by hungarians? If i leave out that info then it will make the romanians look likes big evil thieves which is not true, that map that i linked and many other articles here show that. The number from what i know was around 1.000.000-1.600.000, but not any more than that. Yes romanians had a majority a little over 50% but hungarians weren't anywhere close to that, as there were plenty of germans as well. History is the key cause of the rivalry between the two teams so i think it should be fitting that it is included in this article. Why can't you accept it? I don't have to agree with any consensus with you, as there are plenty of articles here on Wikipedia that favor what i wrote. And if you keep deleting it, I shall be the one reporting you. Scheianu (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scheianu:,

Sorry, your edit history clearly shows that primarily you add one-sided content mostly and you speak about "truth", on the other hand you don't want ot objective but provocative. Prior to your appearance, I did not edit highly relevant content on the article - that anyway contained much littlier and not one-sided information - I have no responsibility on the former content, however now the article is filled mostly by your additions that is tolerated also mostly in a very liberal way.

"If i leave out that info then it will make the romanians look likes big evil thieves which is not true, that map that i linked and many other articles here show that." -> This is just you personal opinion, frustrated POV, if we make a reference on the Treaty than the reader can pull information from there, and the map is also there.

The number was exactly around 1 600 000, not 1 million! The rest you mentioned does not change anything on what I have said. The key cause of the rivalry is already mentioned and it is the Treaty of Trianon and it's consequences. Your wordage was anyway incorrect in a way because Hungarians could have been unsatisfied not necessarily loosing territories, but about the injust borders, i.e. it could have been arranged that less Hungarians remain outside the borders, and anyway, I repeat it does not belong this article, any explanation would be too long and out of scope.

Be careful, because you have to have consensus with me, you don't know the rules of WP:CONSENSUS? However, I did not delete you addition but modified it, and you would be ridicoulus if you'd make a report since I did not harm any Wikipedia rule, and don't forget, my report on your personal attack just depends on my well-known good heart (WP:NPA), so better collaborate not to be surprised in a negative way. You should behave like a Wikipedian, without any personal emotions or patriotic feelings!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

Natasa Dusev-Janics

I don't know, I never heard of her. Tzowu (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Megyék

Itt válaszolok, hogy ne Borsoka vitalapját írjuk tele. Rendben, legyen úgy, de lehet, hogy ebből nagy vita lesz. Szerintem sokkal inkább probléma, hogy az összes egykori vármegyéről szóló cikk elég katasztrofális állapotban van. Sajnos alig van itt magyar szerkesztő, pedig nagyon sok a teendő, én sem vagyok már annyira aktív, mint korábban. Most Budapest polgármestereit írom meg, aztán remélhetőleg visszatérek a középkorra. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Norden1990:,

ok, bármikor írhatsz. A vitákhoz hozzászoktam, öt éve folyamatosan támadtak, támadnak, már vagy ötször mószeroltak be vagy jelentettek fel, de mindig elbuktak és végül az a módosítás, illetve szükséges objektivitás amit forszíroztam ma már permamens és az összes szócikkben gond nélkül ki lehet javítani őket, és olyan horderejű dolgokról van szó, ami szomszédaink tudatlanságát illetően hatalmas felháborodást kelt, de a történelmi tények azok tények (és senki nem merte feszegetni őket). Borsoka nagyon elegáns és kimért, nem megy bele feltétlenül folyton vitákba, de ha hasonló dolgokról van szó, nagyon kitartóan és kulturáltan képviseli a megfelelő álláspontot, Fakirbakir Hál'Istennek ha kell keményebben is belemegy a dolgokba, sokat segít nekem. Körtefával keveset tudtam beszélni, kár hogy talán nem annyira aktív mostanában. Én igyekszem folyamatosan a vadhajtásaimat lenyesegetni, ehhez azonban a Ti támogatásotok is kell, nem maradhatok mindig egyedül, hiába van igazam, sajnos ezen a helyen a lobbi is számít és sajnos sokszor nem azért használják fel amire kéne, de én is egyre jobban fejlődöm. Azért kérlek ne add fel és próbálj aktív maradni, nekem sem volt időm az elmúlt négy évben de ezen a nyáron változtattam és felturbóztam magam, viccesen fogalmazva én vagyok az elővéd ütközőzóna, Nektek már csak remélhetőleg higgadtan söprögetni kell :) Azért a Wikiproject Hungary-t jobban össze lehetne fogni, bár nem tudom most hogy áll a dolog vagy ki irányítja, illetve mennyi inaktív user van, tényleg csak titeket látlak szinte történelmi témában, habár Enginerfactories-el mostanában sokat találkozom, azt mondja egy csomó cikket ő írt, de mindig elfelejti az accountját és újat csinál, elvileg az egész Austria-Hungary cikket ő írta. Egy szó mint száz, nagyon sok torténelmi ügyet kiharcoltam és ezzel lehet hogy tisztelnek - és tartanak is tőlem - de az adminok is egyre jobban megismernek és sokszor segítenek is. Úgyhogy innen már nem léphetünk vissza, ki kell állnunk az objektív és hiteles történelemszemléletért.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC))