User talk:Bendeguz

Transylvania

What is a point of that letter about Transylvania? In every region or country of Europe there are people with, to say, unpopular ideas, but that is a reson why such ideas will not be implemented. Think why Basque Country is still not independent despite the fact that ETA fight for that independence for decades. There is simply no support for independence among the majority of citizens of Basque Country. Same can be said for Transylvania and also for Vojvodina if you want. There are also another regions like Kosovo where the majority of population support independence. One must know the difference between these two different groups of regions. PANONIAN (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have no need to go back to 1914 or 1918 because Vojvodina was pretty rich region in 1989. I hoppe that you did not forget that Serbia for all these years was under economic sanctions, that NATO bombardment devastated the country, etc... That have nothing with Balkans but with the politics implemented by Milošević during these years. Political stability is a condition for better economy. It will be better in Serbia after 10-15 years I hoppe. As for cultural change which occured in Vojvodina during the last century, so what? It was not first time to happen in its history. Here is interesting example: in the 16th and 17th century there were many Muslims and many mosques in the cities Vojvodina and Islamic culture flourished here. So, where are they all now? How many mosques you can find in Vojvodina today? Culture is something which is in constant change. In various historical periods various cultures were dominant. If something changed, it changed, and since history never repeat itself, it is not history what will make a better life for people, but understanding where they are and where they want to go (no matter where they were yesterday). History is only history, nothing more, nothing less. PANONIAN (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

What my problems with local history you speak about? Regarding map of Subotica municipality, I draw that map by using layers in Photoshop and another map, meaning that this map is simply mirror version of the original one that was not drawn by me. I will compare this with another map that I have to see what is wrong. Also, I do not understand what you mean exactly with the problem of national identity for 21th century? PANONIAN (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more important thing: what is a base for placing "Battle of Zenta" article into history of Hungary category? It was not part of Hungary in the time of the battle and it is also not part of Hungary now. So, why you placed it there? PANONIAN (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, pošto vidim da dobro vladaš srpskim, ajde ovako: što se tiče tih mesta Šajkaške, problem je (štamparska) greška u mom izvoru (i u drugom izvoru koji je baziran na ovome). Autor je jednostavno pogrešno naveo redosled sela i onda napisao da su zadnja četiri sa spiska uključena u Šajkašku, a problem je što nije na zadnja četiri mesta naveo prava mesta, već ih je izmešao u spisku. Međutim, to sam shvatio, i problem je rešen. Što se tiče Žednika i Male Bosne, tu si u pravu i popraviću mapu. Ova originalna mapa na osnovu koje sam bazirao moju je izgleda prilično loša što se tiče tačnosti. I stvarno bih te zamolio da mi odgovoriš u vezi relevantnosti kategorije history of Hungary u pomenutom članku. PANONIAN (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U redu, odgovor pod slovom B mi se čini dovoljno opravdanim za tu kategoriju. PANONIAN (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nemci

Pa ako baš hoćeš da predstaviš Nemce kao žrtve zlih srpskih partizana onda će te zanimati podatak da je naučno dokazano da je čak 95% Nemaca iz Vojvodine bilo učlanjeno u fašističku organizaciju "Kulturbund", pa ako baš hoćeš da napišeš da su ih partizani poslali u "prison camps", onda moramo napisati i zbog čega su ih poslali, zar ne? PANONIAN (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naravno, najbolje je da zadržimo sadašnju neutralnu verziju članka koja ni o kome ne piše loše, ali ako ti je baš namera da iznosimo (obostranu) prljavštinu, veruj mi da bi u takvoj verziji članka Nemci ispali mnogo prljaviji od Srba. PANONIAN (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre svega, ti si ljude koji su se doselili u Nakovo iz Bosne hteo da predstaviš kao ljude koji su oteli tuđe kuće. A šta misliš zašto su oni došli da žive u te kuće? Zato što su njihove kuće zapalili fašisti u ratu. Mojoj porodici su nemački fašisti takođe zapalili kuću u ratu i posle rata su vlasti mojoj porodici dali 2 opcije, ili da dobiju kuću koja je nacionalizovana od Nemaca ili da čekaju da im se napravi nova kuća. Izabrali su ovo drugo i zato su se malo duže mučili u izbeglištvu. Dakle, za sve te događaje su krivi oni što su za vreme rata palili kuće i proterivali ljude. I sada ti želiš da događaje posle rata izvučeš iz konteksta i da pomeneš posledicu bez njenog uzroka i da žrtve (ljude čije su kuće zapaljene i koji su došli da žive u nove kuće koje im je dala država) predstaviš kao lopove odnosno kao kradljivce kuća. Sledeće, ja u članku nisam napisao "German population fled from the village together with occupant German army before the village was liberated", već sam napisao savršeno neutralnu rečenicu "German population fled from the village". I nemoj molim te da mi pričaš o nemačkoj imovini, jer nije ni Nemačka platila mom dedi za zapaljenu kuću niti za to što je proveo nekoliko godina u izbeglištvu. Jasno je ko je započeo drugi svetski rat, ko je palio ubijao i proterivao ljude, i zato molim te mani se prekrajanja istorije, Inače biti kulturni srednjoevropljanin znači biti tolerantan prema komšijama a ne koristiti svaku priliku da pokažeš kako su Srbi lopovi, ubice, itd, jer u odnosu na ono šta su neki drugi radili u Vojvodini za vreme drugog svetskog rata (o čemu na Vikipediji baš nije mnogo napisano iako se zaista ima šta napisati), krivica Srba je mizerna. PANONIAN (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E pošto nemam vremena da pričam o obaveštenosti Vojislava Koštunice i o spratu na kome živim, da pređemo odmah na stvar. Ova tvoja rečenica je suština problema: "ja sam te ljude hteo da predstavim kao žrtve politike jedne umišljene države". Dakle, mi ovde imamo jedan geografski članak koji nije mesto za kritikovanje države ili režima i za iznošenje političkih stavova. Ako je tema članka Nakovo, onda se piše o Nakovu. Ako hoćeš da kritikuješ SFRY, onda se to radi ovde: SFRY, ako hoćeš da kritikuješ partizane, to se radi ovde: Partisans (Yugoslavia), i ako hoćeš da pišeš o isterivanju Nemaca posle 2 sv. rata, to se radi ovde: Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Za sve postoji pravo i pogrešno mesto. Članak o jednom malom selu nije mesto za kritiku režima i iniciranje katarze u društvu. Toliko. PANONIAN (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kako god. Samo, moj ti je savet da radije uradiš nešto korisno za Vikipediju, jer su većina tvojih izmena urađena sa ciljem da dokažu poentu, umesto da poprave kvalitet Vikipedije, a to se svakako smatra destruktivnim ponašanjem. Pogledaj samo svoje izmene u zadnjih nekoliko dana i sve će ti biti jasno: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Bendeguz PANONIAN (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs?

Guns & Xenophobia? Cyrillic alphabet? Are you sure? :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Orthodoxism - Hmm... je li to uopce rijec? Inace, da, slazem se; sada i oni ne-pravoslavni Srbi mahom prelaze u pravoslavlje, pa generalno mozemo biti s time nacisto (iako ima izuzetaka) - mada se mozda ne bih slozio s Vama u porslosti.

2. Cyrillic alphabet - Pa, kakve veze to ima. Primjerice, Latinica je sada jaca... ne vjerujem da ce vlasti uspjeti da zaustave umirucu cirilicu... no, zbog hrvatske cirilice,, opet se ne bih slozio s Vama u proslosti

3. Celebration - e, to je proslost

4. i 5. Ovo ovdje je preveliko preuvelicavanje. Ivana Dulic-Markovic je (bila, a i ostala za sada) potpredsjednica vlade Srbije i ministarka poljoprivrede. Nju cesto pohvaljuju na Radio Televiziji Srbije. Kada su je mangupi iz Srpske Radikalne Stranke izvrijedjali, cijeli svijet se ujedinio protivu njih. Koliko se sjecam, bio je pokret da se drzavno SRS zabrani )peticija). Ona je Hrvatica - a dalje, tu je Rasima Ljajic, Musliman (iliri Bosnjak), te i vodja (u neku ruku) te nacionalne manjine u Sandzaku. On je drzao (a i drzi) razna mjesta u vladi. Ne vjerujem da ce slicnih stvari biti u okolnjim drzavama. Npr. u Hrvatskoj su mase protestovale kada je jedan Srbin kupio Hotel, pa je morao da ga proda... a u Srbiji je bez problema kupljen Frikom. Ima mnogo drugih primjera. Vojvodina je uzor multietnickog zivota Balkana, a i sire. --PaxEquilibrium 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasima Ljajic? LOL :))) PANONIAN (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Where are you from? Do you live in Serbia?

P. S. not to seem like I'm intentionally hiding the true nature of this question, but you don't seem to really like that country (nor most of its people). Not offensive - just a question (may yet be an error-type opinion that could easily change!)

Also, please, have a say in here. It doesn't matter if you don't really think you have a full-scale solution. That's just a little poll of mine. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novi hobi

Novi hobi, Bendeguz? Crtaš mape? There is hope for you yet. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Panonian

I have answered Panonian and told him the truth. Please, could you help me with him further on. Thank you very much. --Öcsi 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, mister Öcsi, what you told me was the "truth" and there is big difference between the "truth" and the truth, indeed. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahó, még írtam neki egy pár dolgot. De úgysem lehet egy emberrel diszkutálni, aki azt mondja: Az egész világ SZLÁV. Olvasd csak el: Németország szláv volt, Ausztria szláv volt, Magyarország, Románia, mi jön még, Pápua-Ujgínéa? Nekem nincs semmi bajom a szlávokkal, én meg sem kérdöjelezem hogy a magyarok keveredtek a szlávokkal. Valószinüleg a legtöbbünkben van szláv vér, bár ez nem is létezik, mivel a szlávok indogermánok, és csak minmálisan külömböznek a többi indogermántól, bár már ez a kicsi is elég, hogy máshogy nézzenek ki; a csimppánzal is 99% százalékban genetikailag rokonok vagyunk, de hasonlítunk rá? Nem nagyon. De hogy azt mondani, hogy a magyarok 99%-ban Szerbek (ez a kiszólás valahogy Slotára emlékeztet), egy bazi nagy hülyeség! --Öcsi 13:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Még valami: Ilyen ember nem tart senkitöl, esetleg Titótol, vagy még attol sem. --Öcsi 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Török nevek

Tudtam hogy valami nem stimmol a nevekkel, ezért magyarra változtattam öket. Ugye nem török nevek voltak (én azt gyanítom hogy szerbek voltak...)? --Öcsi 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prijevod s mađarskog

Hvala puno na pomoći, bilo je brzo! GregorB 08:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Mkastely1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mkastely1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Cselszövö

Hol nézzek? Szerintem elment. (köv. válaszok lásd az én vitalapomon) --Öcsi 19:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, elment. (mindenestre a beloggolt user:panonian) Öcsi

Hát, ez olyan egy jellemtelen ürge! Elöbb megfenyeget valakit, aztán azt hazudja hogy elment! Jobb rá se bagózni! --Öcsi 08:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Na ez aztán gyorsan ment, már újra teljesen visszatért. Igaza volt Vincének, ez az egész csak egy kamu volt, bár nem tudom mit akart ezzel elérni... --Öcsi 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damjanić

Ne znam na šta si konkretno mislio. Ako si mislio na moje preimenovanje članka i nazvao ga ,,prisvajanjem", onda ti mogu reći da sam za ovog čoveka sinoć prvi put čuo pročitavši članak. Ime članka sam promenio, jer je on bio Srbin (valjda se tako izjašnjavao). On u svakom slučaju pripada i srpskoj istoriji i od toga ne treba bežati. Pozdrav, --Pockey 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odgovor

Dakle, lepo je da pratiš sve moje izmene, uostalom, pratim i ja tvoje. :)) Što se Damjanića tiče, pročitaj ovde šta mislim o tome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pokrajac Ni najmanje me ne zanima koje ćemo od ta dva imena koristiti, jedino sam sugerisao Pokrajcu da pri promeni imena članaka obrati pažnju na duple redirekte, jer je i ranije menjao neke nazive, a nije promenio i duple redirekte. Što se tiče mape, pogledaj na primer ovo: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pali%C4%87&oldid=92761814 Jel misliš da je estetski prihvatljivo da infobox tako pojede članak? Da infobox zauzima tri četvrtine stranice, a tekst samo jednu? Jedino sam sugerisao čoveku da mapu prvo prepravimo i učinimo je estetski boljom i da je tek onda tako izmenjenu stavimo u članke, a on umesto toga revertuje moje izmene a neće ni da razgovara o izgledu mape već me napada lično. Lepo, zar ne? PANONIAN (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adour.png

Hi Bendeguz. Thank you for your maps of Adour. It's a great idea. Unfortunately the representation of the basin is to restrictive. I've figured the correct outline on your map Adour-en.png:

from Bayonne to south, NE of Saint-Pée-sur-Nivelle, the Gorospil, the Gorramakil (@W of Bidarray) border, Urkiaga, Urkulu, head of valley of the Nive, Pic Mendibel, Pic d'Orhy, border till Pic de la Munia, the Néouvielle, the Arbizon, col d'Aspin, along the Bouès river, the Douze, W of Eauze, N of labrit, S of Sabre, W of Morcenx, E of Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse, N of Bayonne.

I hope you'll have the possibility to update these usefull maps. PA 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portál Erdély...

Kicsit kipofozhatnád a portált, én sajnos nem tudom hogy kell egy portált igazán jól megcsinálni. Szolhatnál Zellonak is, hátha segít... --Öcsi 14:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Одговор

Стварно немам воље да исправљам све твоје неистине, нарочито јер знам да си сто посто убеђен да си баш ти у праву. Ја лично сматрам Золтана Данија за једног великог јунака Србије, а тебе сматрам искомплексираним клинцем (бар се надам да ниси старији), који криви друге за своје личне неуспехе и покушава тако лечити своје фрустрације. Ако ипак хоћеш да разменимо мишљења, пошаљи ми МСН адресу имејлом преко Викија. Поздрав.--Еstavisti 17:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Па ти си стварно слеп ако ниси приметио да се наша држава односи говнарски према свима. Иначе, пензионисан је вероватно због "реструктрирања" војске, а није добио одликовање зато што је наша држава лоше организована. Већина успешних Срба не добије никакво признање. И то је дискриминација, је л'? Него, нећу да превише скренемо у тај један случај. По чему су Мађари "грађани другог реда" у Србији? Стварно, по чему? Можда је мађарски језик забрањен? Можда Мађари немају слободу вероисповести? Можда су економски дискримисани, па су сиромашнији од осталих грађана? Реци ми реално, по чему?--Еstavisti 00:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Hi. Tour recently added map (Hungary in the beginning of the 10th century) looks really great. But what are your sources? Many regions of Slovakia are "uninhabited", according to you map yet contradictory to archaeological evidence. The most conspicuous example are Turiec and Spiš, which had a large population and their own castles by that time. Moreover, borders of "Hungary" on your map also seem to be questionable. Certain areas of northern Slovakia (such as around Podolinec) were acquired only in the 13th century. Most of Slovakia (for example Zvolen) was conquered by Stephen I in the 11th century. I would like also to know why Moravia is shown as a Hungarian territory. As far as I know, that region was raided, not garrisoned or settled by Magyars. Tankred 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only confirm what Tankred has said here. The map is completely wrong. And generally, the 10th century is a very chaotic period, you should have chosen something around the 13th/14th century, when the circumstances were stabilized. Juro 19:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. It is a pity that the map has the problems that I highlighted above. Your map looks really professional and I am sure you spent much time on it. Tankred 23:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my comments and citations at Image talk:Hungary b. 10th century.png. Tankred 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nem valami jó az a térkép, sok a hiba benne. Keressél egy jobbat, biztosan találsz eggyet! --Öcsi 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Az elsö szembetünö hiba az, hogy az alföldröl hiányzik a magyarság, és túl sok magyar van a hegyekben - ahol aztán végkép nem voltak, pár gyér Gyepüör lakosságon kívül. Idemásolhatnád, mert úgy könnyebben segíthetek. --Öcsi 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A másik, hogy Tankrednek igaza van, hianyzanak a Túroczi és Szepesi slávok (~szlovákok). --Öcsi 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Én is ellene vagyok hogy töröljék a térképet, de elötte egy kicsit ki kéne javítani a hibákat (ha lehetséges) és elérni az 'alkut'. --Öcsi 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You...

Why didn't You answer my question (where're you from)? --PaxEquilibrium 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pa ne, vidim da govoris srbijanski, ali nisi pretjerano impresioniran Srbijom, zato mi je vrlo konfuzno. --PaxEquilibrium 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mapa

Dakle, što se tiče tvoje mape porušenih crkava u Vojvodini, sklonio sam je iz članka o srbizaciji jer je potpuno neprimerena tamo - komunisti su te crkve rušili sa ciljem sekularizacije, a ne srbizacije, tako da ta mapa jednostavno ne spada tamo. Naravno, to ne znači da imam nešto protiv same mape, i zaista ne bih imao ništa protiv da tu mapu staviš na primer u članak Religion in Vojvodina, ali u članku o srbizaciji joj jednostavno nije mesto. PANONIAN (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premestio sam mapu u članak Religion in Vojvodina. Ako zaista hoćeš nekom da skreneš pažnju na te porušene crkve, onda ćeš to najbolje uraditi ako mapa stoji u tom članku. Međutim, ako tu mapu hoćeš da iskoristiš za sopstvenu političku propagandu i da je staviš u potpuno neprimereni članak, time ćeš samo izazvati kontraefekat. Ne postoje nikakvi dokazi da su komunisti rušili te crkve da bi područje srbizovali - njihov cilj je bio da šire ateizam a ne srpstvo. I u bivšoj Jugoslaviji upravo je srpska crkva bila verska zajednica koja je od komunista najviše stradala. Zato molim te ne izvrći teze. A što se članka "History of Vojvodina" tiče, tamo nema mesta da stavimo sliku baš svakog događaja iz istorije. Trenutno se tamo nalaze samo neke važnije slike vezane za političku prošlost regiona, a kad bismo hteli da ubacimo i slike drugih događaja u članku bi bilo više slika nego teksta. Pored toga, u tom članku čak nema ni slike vezane za fašističku okupaciju u drugom svetskom ratu, a zna se da je spram genocida i progona koji su nad narodima Vojvodine počinili fašisti, ovo rušenje crkava od strane komunista mačiji kašalj. PANONIAN (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiri se malo...

...molim te. Stvarno imam pametnija posla nego da popravljam tvoje nacionalističke prolive i zato ako sam ne želiš da uradiš nešto korisno ovde, onda ne ometaj druge korisnike u njihovom radu. PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mapa 1910

Zamolio bih te da ne stavljaš netačne mape u članke jer dobro znaš da popis iz 1910 nije sadržao rubriku o etničkom poreklu, već o jeziku, i zamena jezika etničkim poreklom je čist primer falsifikata. Razliku između jezika i etničke pripadnosti jasno možeš videti na primeru opštine Subotica sa zadnjeg popisa iz 2002 gde je etničkih Srba bilo 24.14%, dok je srpski jezik govorilo 46.60%. Dakle, potpuno je jasno da nisu svi koji su 1910 govorili mađarski bili Mađari. Takođe, na mapi treba napraviti jasnu razliku između etnički mešovitih sredina (gde ni jedan jezik nije govorilo više od 50% stanovništva) i onih gde je više od 50% stanovništva govorilo isti jezik. PANONIAN (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone mad?

Jesi poludeo malo? Ako jesi, idi leči se ali prestani da vandalizuješ članke na Vikipediji. Svoje frustracije i mržnju prema ljudima koji su drugog etničkog porekla ispolji na nekom drugom mestu. Lepo te molim da prestaneš sa vandalizovanjem članaka. PANONIAN (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja ne radim ništa za "srpsku stvar", već neću da mi se dogodi ono što se desilo mom pradedi koga su ubili mađarski fašisti. A ako pustim ljude kao ti da pišu istoriju, neće dugo proći dok neko ne dođe da me ubije i baci pod led - jer većina tvog rada ovde svodi se na pokušaje "dokazivanja" da Srbi nemaju prava da žive u Vojvodini. Dakle, radi se o pitanju života i smrti, Bendeguz. I ne razumem zašto imaš potrebu da vandalizuješ članke o srpskim selima i gradovima u Vojvodini - nisam primetio da gajiš isto interesovanje prema vojvođanskim mestima sa mađarskom većinom. Što se tiče Berber Miloša, moje prvo mišljenje o njemu je bilo da je on tvoj sockpuppet (a i sada baš nisam siguran da nije), a ja mogu popraviti svakog ko (makar i nesvesno) piše lažnu verziju istorije. I nemoj mi srati o nedužnim ubijenim Nemcima, jer ti isti Nemci su bili članovi Kulturbunda i glasali za Hitlera i Hortija, koji su odgovorni za smrt mog pradede. I jedna stvar Bendeguz: mene nikad ne možeš optužiti za nacionalizam - ja nisam nacionalista. Ja podržavam mir u svetu i zalažem se da svi ljudi žive u miru i slobodi. Zbog toga na primer podržavam i nezavisno Kosovo jer ne vidim razlog da Srbi vladaju nad Albancima, ali isto tako ne vidim razlog da Mađari vladaju nad Srbima u Vojvodini. Sad stavi prst na čelo i moćićeš da vidiš da si se sa mnom raspravljao upravo oko vojvođanskih mesta koja imaju srpsku većinu - a ta mesta srpsku većinu nemaju samo sada već su je imala i ranije pre habsburške kolonizacije, čak i kod Kruševlja možeš videti da je to prvobitno bilo srpsko selo kasnije kolonizovano od strane Nemaca. Pa o čemu mi onda ovde pričamo? Pravo je pitanje za čiju ti stvar ovde radiš. A reći ću ti i odgovor: radiš za to da napraviš novi rat i da svi odemo u kurac (uključujući i tebe, jer onaj ko potpaljuje vatru se obično i sam opeče). Zato ako te sutra na ulici neko istuče što govoriš mađarski, znaj da je to zbog onog što si ti pisao na Vikipediji, a nikako zbog onog što sam ja pisao. PANONIAN (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ne, Bendeguz, ja nikad nisam pretio ni jednoj manjini i kamo sreće da si shvatio ono što sam tamo napisao. Najveća pretnja za manjine su upravo ekstremni pripadnici manjinskih zajednica koji šire mržnju prema većinskom narodu. Dakle, ti si taj koji preti većinskom narodu, a neki pripadnici većinskog naroda koji čitaju tvoje ekstremne stavove i sami zbog toga postaju ekstremni i onda se dešava to što se dešava. To je cela poenta onoga što sam pisao. Ljudi kao ti predstavljaju najveću pretnju upravo za sopstvenu etničku zajednicu. Sad što se tiče konkretnih stvari: termin "South Pannonian Plain" je mnogo tačnija odrednica od "South Hungary", jer države dođu i prođu a Pannonian Plain je uvek Pannonian Plain - pored toga u članku Kruševlje se govori o vremenu turskog osvajanja, dakle kada je umesto ugarske vlasti uspostavljena turska, pa bismo jednako mogli koristiti reči "južna Ugarska" i "severna Turska". Međutim, zbog tačnosti, najbolje je koristiti reč Pannonian Plain. Takođe, na drugom mestu gde se termin koristi, to čak i nije bila država Ugarska, već Habsburška Monarhija, pa uopšte ne vidim svrhu korišćenja reči "Ugarska" tamo. Očigledno je da se ovde radi o tvom nacionalizmu i želji da gde god možeš ubaciš reč "Hungary". I naravno, cela Vojvodina spada u south Pannonian Plain, uključujući severnu Bačku. Takođe, korišćenje reči "occupied" u slučaju srpske vojske i Vojvodine predstavlja POV jer stanovnici Vojvodine srpsku vojsku ne smatraju okupatorskom već oslobodilačkom (a članci koji pišu o nekom području ne treba da budu uvredljivi za stanovnike tog područja, to je osnova neutralnog pristupa). Da li će se ta reč koristiti za bilo koga drugog potpuno je nebitno. PANONIAN (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priče i o Kosovu i Vojvodini su jasne - u Vojvodini su većina Srbi a na Kosovu Albanci, tako je bilo i pre 100 godine a biće i za sto godina. Ako na primer pročitaš nešto od Dimitrija Tucovića, jasno ćeš videti njegovo zalaganje za poštovanje prava većinskog naroda na oba ova područja - ali to je već viša nauka za tebe. Što se tiče mapa gde ne piše Hungary, ima ih podosta, pa ako ih potražiš naćićeš ih. I stvarno me ne zanima na čiju si verziju vratio, jer moraćeš još mnogo puta da vraćaš na tu verziju, sve dok se ne zapitaš "ima li svrhe"? Dakle, moj ti je savet da ne trošiš uzalud i moje i svoje vreme na te reverte, jer verujem da ima korisnih stvari koje obojica možemo uraditi umesto toga. Što se reči "occupied" tiče, reč je neprimerena jer time vređaš osećanja Srba, koji čine etničku većinu u tom mestu. PANONIAN (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pa naravno da je srpska većina pala na relativnu pre 100 godina posle agresivne Austro-Ugarske kolonizacije i mađarizacije, ali pre 300 godina ta većina je bila preko 90%. A mogu i sa velikim stepenom verovatnoće da kažem ko će gde biti većina za 100 godina. Inače, pošto ne vidim da bilo šta konstruktivno mogu razgovarati sa tobom, zaista nema svrhe da nastavimo ovaj razgovor. Zaista ne razumem ljude kojima je jedini cilj ovde vandalizovanje Vikipedije, ali tvoja je stvar šta ćeš uraditi sa svojim slobodnim vremenom... PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use English

I noticed that you have posted comments on an article or user discussion page in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you are addressing your comments. This is because comments should be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. —Psychonaut 13:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Szia

Thanks for your clarification. However, I hope the dispute at Demographic history of Vojvodina can be resolved first. PANONIAN says that the 1910 Austro-Hungarian Census only recorded language and religion, not ethnicity. I am pretty sure he is correct. Tell me, what's so bad about just having a linguistic map? I my opinion, it would be more accurate than an ethnic map, which shows disregard to Hungarian-speaking Jews for example. Khoi khoi 12:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mkastely1.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Mkastely1.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image, and that, just as with all of your text contributions, you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can be of assistance or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. MER-C 10:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mkastely1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mkastely1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mkastely1.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Mkastely1.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 08:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Europe native???

Sorry, if you are Hungarian you can`t be native Central European, you can`t even be native European. Maybe you are born there, or your family lives/lived there for many generations, but native implies your nations origin, and that can`t be Central European, or European. Only if you were maghiarized, then maybe, but i doubt that you are not Hungarian , most probably Hungarian from Vojvodina because of your knowledge of the Serbian language. Or maybe just because you are an optimist so you consider yourself Central European :). Nothing personal, just noticed on your page. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ethnic map 10th.png

The file File:Ethnic map 10th.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]