User talk:Hobartimus/Archive 1

Hello!

As I see you are interested in the history of hungary, so I belive, that you are a hungarian. You should know that I dont think, that slovakian names should be used in the KOH county articles, but if you vandalise the articles, you will serve nobody.Baxter9 14:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The slovak language was never an official language of Hungary, but somewhat similar regions exist in Slovakia there is nothing wrong with having articles on those. But those slovak regions are not the same as the counties of Hungary and they are not part of the series, which is shown on the map and navigation bar on the regular county articles. A slovak region should not have an old hungarian map on it.

I know. First I also moved the article, but I realised that it will be reverted. Please see the consensus reached at Talk:Spiš#Requested_move. In the cases like this, you should not move the whole article. You should create a new one. Baxter9 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I never moved a single article you should really check the facts first. Could you give me a link where I moved an article? All articles on the slovak regions are perfectly fine I just removed the map from them. You can put the map back if you want but I really dont see the point in that.

Ok, sorry. Create county articles if you want, you have the right, like everyone on the english wiki. I suggest, that let them to use the KOH map, and you can put the slovak region map under it.Baxter9 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are making a huge mess with Slovak counties. I understand that you try to move the articles to their proper former official names but you are creating forks and changing the contents of the original articles in an irrational. The result is confusing and becames more and more entagled. Please stop this. I try to help you with the content dispute but somebody should make order in this mess now. Zello 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained before I do not move anything. Those are not forks, but the proper articles about Hungarian counties. Slovak was never an official language in Hungary, and the counties have their official names as seen on the maps, templates and such. Every one of those articles state their purpose for example" Árva ( German: Arwa, Polish: Orawa) is the name of a historic administrative county Comitatus (Kingdom of Hungary) " see? The article is not about Slovakia, those historic counties were never part of anything but Hungary (as the province of the roman empire Gallia Aquitania is not part of France for example), if you want to write about the Slovak region that is another article, not part of the historic administrative county series. Hobartimus 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what you did is creating new articles under the Hungarian name because you were not able to move the original articles (because of Svetovid). But these are forks. You should move the original articles under Hungarian name. Zello 17:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I never wanted to move the articles, why should the old one be destroyed? If someone wants to write about Slovak regions or something they can do it on those articles. It must be made clear that those articles are about slovak regions not historic hungarian counties. I don't think articles should be destroyed with a move ,the slovak articles do not bother me. On a different not you should keep an eye on Slovakization article, some vandals keep dumping parts of Magyarization into that article which is on a different topic. Hobartimus 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't simply rename the old article saying that now it is about the present-day Slovak region. The article has a content also :). Take a look at Abaúj and Abov. Some time ago I created a similar separation for this county/region as you now but then I had to totally rewrite the content also. Otherwise it's only a fork. Zello 17:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We will rewrite the content but that takes time and it will be that much harder if we never start... I'm not sure what your objection is ,please clarify. Hobartimus 18:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My objection is against creating another article under the Hungarian name and re-write the lead of the original. The latter is very misleading. The existing articles should be moved (or rather re-moved) and Slovak users should write new articles about the present-day regions. Zello 18:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok I understand now. Should've told me earlier. The only problem is, vandals like Svevtovied will keep moving the article under the Slovak name. Hobartimus 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Svetovid's Slovakization campaign was reason behind the whole mess but now we have so much confusion that only an admin can repair it. I called for help. Zello 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Hobartimus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Szepes/Spiš forks

My reverts of your cut and paste moves do not imply that I support one or the other article name. They are simply corrections of the damage you have done. Cutting and pasting is NOT the way to move an article. You destroy the article history this way. The article history is trapped at the Spiš county now, so that's why I copied it back there (twice). BTW, have you heard of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule? Markussep ^Talk 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok I do not revert you I see that's what you mean by this rule but please explain why is that damage? What do you mean destroy history, the history is there in both articles, that's why you can revert to it. Also what's this obsession with the history? Why do you care so much about article history it seems that's the most important thing to you? Hobartimus 23:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and Help:Moving a page. It's about copyright, the history shows who wrote which part of an article. If you cut-and-paste a page, you can't see where it came from in the article history, because it suddenly appears in one piece. See e.g. Spiš county and Szepes county, the Slovak version tells you that the article was started in November '06, not May '07. Markussep ^Talk 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Wikipedia policies here, just read them, and if you don't agree, discuss it using arguments. And no, the histories aren't exactly the same. The history of the Spiš county shows it's a split from the Spiš article (started October 2003), so it's traceable. I suggest you go and fix the damage you've done to other articles, Wikipedia is certainly not helped by all these duplicate articles. Markussep ^Talk 08:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a special case because the Spiš county article was split off from the Spiš article. Szepes county is/was just a copy of Spiš county, its article history misses all changes between November '06 and present. The proper way to handle this is to delete Szepes county (create a redirect) and to propose a new name for Spiš county, for instance at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary or Talk:Spiš county. If there is consensus or a majority for another name, it can be moved. Same for all the other county articles, although some of them may need to be split. Markussep ^Talk 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are really incorrigible. Your latest action is exactly against all the rules I explained to you. I will restore it to a version that might be acceptable to all of us. This disruptive behaviour of yours is intolerable. Markussep ^Talk 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Without Croatia

In the History of Hungary article, we have the line, According to the census in 1910, 54% of the population of the Kingdom (without Croatia)...

What does that mean, "without Croatia?" I think that's unclear. You put in the statistic, so I was hoping you could explain it, and perhaps provide a reference for such a precise number. Thanks, TheMightyQuill 21:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Hungarian rulers

Dear Hobartimus, I apologize for my error on Rudolf II, sorry. I supppose le same situation on Maximilian I? or not? I think can be useful a "note" on the last column on the List of Hungarian rulers to explain the different situation (Rudolf V. in austria, Rudolf II. in bohemia, Rudolf I in Hungary), do you agree? As last, in the List of Hungarian rulers, I corrected the link to John II (Szapolyai János Zsigmond), because it linked to a disambiguation page (John II) in place of the correct page (John II Sigismund Zápolya. Do you agree if I do again this correction? Let me known. regards. --Mario1952 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Hungary

Yeah, I totally agree with you that the chronology should be organized like Poland's. Most history chronologies are, but it's not an easy task because of the way it's been done. As well as a series of "History of Poland (XXXX-XXXX)" the country also has a whole other series of articles on the various incarnations of Poland (see Template:Polish statehood). Same with Czechoslovakia, with both history articles and country articles, related but separate. I'm in favour of that, but the History of Hungary articles have merged the two. Creating a whole second set of articles would be a lot of work. I'll support you in it, but you'll probably get a lot of opposition, and I can't promise to help, as I'm moving across the country next week, so I won't be doing much editing for a while. Best of luck. TheMightyQuill 02:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Vojvodina

Look this finding [1] .This Serbia source is speaking very clear:"214,078 inhabitants who were brought to Vojvodina in the organised migration known as colonisation" Rjecina 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

About vandal you can do like I on 27 August 2007. I will not do it again in so short time because administrators can start to look weird on me. IP 91.150.78.239 and IP 91.150.77.134 are not 2 users but only 1 user from Serbia. It is possible to block him but this block will last only 24 - 36 hours. Page where you need to give demand for blocking because of vandalism is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism . Between 27 and 28 I have blocked that way 2 IP address. On discussion page of article Creation of Yugoslavia you have new interesting link. We are now having legal situation of BBB :)) Until tomorow in 05:00 I will revert vandals, but I will not demand block--Rjecina 16:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of vandal attacks my user page is semi protected (against vandals without user name). This protection is created by User:Alison so if you need something similar you know where to ask.--Rjecina 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It is OK in wikipedia rules that you write article in your user space. Look this example [2] from my user space. I want to say that it is OK write article and then put it on place where you want. --Rjecina 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok look this Creation of Yugoslavia . In my thinking on discussion page we will put internet links which will be used in article. Point is that we all see this sources of future statements.--Rjecina 20:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My only thinking is that you can give demand very similar to his. If you think that revert done by 195.252.126.204, 91.150.78.195, 91.150.77.134, 212.200.199.125, 24.220.109.122 are in reality done by PANONIAN you can give Requests for checkuser. For other information and possible solutions look please part of discussion on PANONIAN talk page. He has been blocked on 2 July 2007 because of 3RR rule and because he has called other editors vandals. In my thinking if you want to block him because of word vandal (or something else) it will be best to ask for that user which has blocked him on 2 July :)) --Rjecina 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Zólyom/Zvolen

What I'm doing is cleaning up after you. See my edit comment. If two articles are identical, it's called content forking, but I shouldn't have to explain that. If you think the article should have a Hungarian name, fine, but there's no need for two identical articles. The edit history was at Zvolen county, that's why I made this redirect. Markussep ^Talk 15:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted as GDFL-violation. Agathoclea 18:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to your comment on my talk page (You still cannot do what you are doing, you disruptively delete the whole article and then change even the links at other places. What you should understand that there was never such a thing as Zvolen county. Now the article has history at two places both contains only a handful of edits like ten, so who are you to say which history is more important. Even if we accept that that history is so important then you should move the article and ask admin help to do it you cannot do what you are doing even editing related templates and such. Hobartimus 15:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ): the "Zvolen county" article was clearly the original one, with edit history back to 2004, while "Zólyom county" was started in May 2007. As I already said in my edit comment, my point is not about the title of the article, but the fact that you created an unwanted duplicate. Your accusations are uncalled for, I don't like your attitude at all. But well, Agathoclea repaired everything, and I'm satisfied with the result. Time to move on. Markussep ^Talk 08:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that it's resolved and you are pleased with the situation. Sorry if I used a harsh tone, it's just the title of the article was an important detail to me. Hobartimus 20:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm not so sure whether it should have the Hungarian name, since this county also existed in the period when Hungarian wasn't the (only) official language in the KoH, and its population was and is mainly Slovak-speaking. But for now it's OK as is. Markussep ^Talk 08:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh

But it actually deals with the article. Also note that removing is yet another edit, occupying space - so just leave it if it hurts no one. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --PaxEquilibrium 22:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

! Why did you break whole sentences? That destroys completely...--PaxEquilibrium 19:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bačka

We are having consensus on Bačka demography so it is possible to change article without fear of rv. war. I am on wikibreak (only english wiki) for next 2 weeks...--Rjecina 07:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that you will like to read about neo-nacist Hungarians in Serbia. Look article Nacionalni stroj :)) I do not know what they have with serbian neo-nacist organization ?? --Rjecina 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of this "honvedi" it seems they want to lessen the crimes of Serbian neo-nazis by putting it into the article. Btw do you know if PANONIAN uses any other accounts? He doesn't seem to use that account any more so watch out for weird stuff and any possible new names he uses. Hobartimus 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There are 6 Neo-Nazi groups in Vojvodina. Five of them are Serb and one is Magyar.

I don't think PANONIAN is anything like that. Probably his studies are occupying his real life => notice the date (1st September). Also he's the oldest and one of the most experienced user in all of Balkans. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles I of Austria

Read the article talk page and don't try to equate controversy to incorrectness. If I were to revert your move after a day, by your logic it would mean you were wrong. I notice that you speak of going back and forth but tell me to go to RM. To that I say note the original title of the article and note how many requested moves there were to move it away from "of Austria" to "of Hungary". If you had no fingers on your hands you'd still have enough of them to count. Charles 06:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have thousands and thousands of articles that I watch and sometimes I don't catch them all. The fact of the matter is that you moved it undiscussed to the Hungarian title and then you later reverted my restorative move, so you can't use that to say it is controversial in that all you have shown so far is that it is controversial to you. Also, you don't note that the article was at the Austrian title for months and months (seven, actually, and also the title under which it was created) and then it was moved, undiscussed and without a RM, to the Hungarian title. Furthermore, you categorized the moves as "silly" and "butchering" and then tout the WP:RM card (which applies in the cases of changing titles) when there is also WP:NPA to be observed Charles 06:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Austrian title was intact for seven months when it was changed without discussion. That was caught a month later and you changed it a month after that! The Hungarian title did not go "uncontested for months" as you say. On that note, when does it become okay for your undiscussed title to remain? Let's break it down:

Austria (7 months) → Hungary (1 month) → Austria (1 month) → Hungary (2 months) → Austria, Hungary, Austria.

At what point, from the title of creation, were changes to "Hungary" discussed? For what reason is losing track of a move to Hungary reason to deny a restorative move back to Austria and sending it to an RM? To me, it seems, that it also stayed at Austria (the original title) once for at least a month (let alone the other 7). Shouldn't that send you to RM for a change in title? Really, this is ridiculous. Read the article talk page for this and the note of your apparent personal attack. Charles 06:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "restorative move" after months pass. Also there was no personal attack anywhere. Your argument seems very weird to me (basicly you don't want to accept that you changed the status quo), but I respect your contributions and I don't want to needlessly escalate this dispute so just tell me what would suit you? You want me to put in an RM to move an article that was moved 1 day ago? If i list an RM would that solve the situation? Hobartimus 07:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: ...but I ask you not to bring 3 months old things into a dispute that started 1 day ago. 1 day ago you wanted to move an article to a new name It does not matter under what name the article was started or anything else that happened months ago, the only thing relevant to the current dispute is the status quo before your current actions. There is to expiry or best before date for matters here on Wikipedia and I take those remarks as a last-ditch attempt to discredit the process I ask you to talk that you ask of me. For matters of precedence, the initial title does matter for the case of undiscussed moves away from it. Charles 07:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found an intresting edit by you. [3] Seems when you made this edit you felt you needed to bring the issue to RM. I wonder what made you change your mind Hobartimus 11:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Only because you locked up the proper title, thus preventing a restorative move. Charles 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify, what is There is to expiry or best before date for matters here on Wikipedia?Hobartimus 07:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant "no", not "to"... Meaning past things cannot be automatically discounted. Charles 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigismund Arms

Is there a reason you took out the template I added? -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Peace of Pressburg

I think the most widely known English name for Pozsony was the German 'Pressburg' these times, so we have to use it. Please check out new version of the lead. Squash Racket 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with Squash Racket's version. Tankred 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I was already accepting the earlier version by Tankred so your version is ok too. Hobartimus 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Magnate conspiracy

You have a better suggestion for renaming the article? Squash Racket 12:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

User:Milanmm has broken 3RR, you too be careful with this. Squash Racket (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are you removing Magyarization

Hello. Why are you removing the Magyarization link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Then, you should probably remove both, Magyarization and Slovakization. What is the difference except that the Slovakization article favours Magyars?147.175.98.213 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Magyarization is about converting Slovaks (and others) to Hungarians. Slovakization is about converting Hungarians to Slovaks. I don't see a reason, why only one of them should be there. Remove both or none of them. You cannot deny, that part of Hungarians in Slovakia are the result of magyarisation. I would prefer, if you would leave both links there. If someone thinks it is irrelevant, he will simply not read it.

Gon't get me wrong. I don't try to offend you or anybody else. I have several friends among Magyars and I thing, that overall, the Magyars are good people. What I want is complete, unbiased and objective information.

147.175.98.213 (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, again? Can you tell me the reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you. On the other hand, you stopped discussing and started deleting instead. Please, make your point in the discussion to the article. I would like to solve this...147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the answer in the discussion of Hungarians in Slovakia

Don't use Edit summaries for discussion, if possible.

You wrote: "If you mean you will use talk pages more that's great, but only you win with that." The answer is, that I will use talk and discussion pages. I also used them before. But maybe you should try to use them before you start an undo-war. I had to ask you several times until you started to discuss your reverts.

So now, you are discussing, I am discussing, hopefully, everything is going to be OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Victor Vasarely

[Arguments concerning specific article removed] Tankred (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungary

You are disrupting the article with your deletions. Don't do it please. Excuse me. Gregorik (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Read point 6 on the article talk page (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)

OK, our goals seem to be the same, getting the article to GA status. Do as you see fit. Gregorik (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungary Economy

Hello Hobartimus, i see you want to improve the Hungary article page, but id like to tell you that undoing my work just because i didnt exlpain the changes I did will not help to the goal we have. I understand youd like to know my changes but id really apreciate you dont undo my work just because of this. I could explain my changes on your talk page if you are interested. I already explained the work i did on the article, but it took me like 1 hour to do it and I didnt like you just undid it. I hope we all can work together to do this one a great article, but lets work on doing it right. Thank you--Philip200291 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing Hedviga Malinová

You vandalized it 5 times: you deleted Hedviga Malinová and destryed its history. You changed my edits that improved the article. You removed tags. You moved the article back to Hedvig Malina, which is an incorrect name. And you added a comment that has nothing to do with the article. If you keep vandalizing it, you will be reported.--Svetovid (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd accusations of vandalism are considered personal attacks. Your undiscussed edits to this controversial article were unacceptable. It is highly advised that you discuss any changes esp. moves (moves done outside of request move process will be reverted). Also you should know that this is not a the Slovak wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Plz you do it, OK? Squash Racket (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what he is thinking, but he wrote this message on my talk page[4]. Squash Racket (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trencsén

Svetovid managed to break 3RR. Would you revert his pointless edit? Squash Racket (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting him again would be pointless. He already revert warred against 4 people over several days AND beyond 3RR, this cannot be resolved without admin help. Hobartimus (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

He broke 3RR and still won't stop. I advise you to not make more changes, you too have two reverts. Squash Racket (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary

I guess only one sentence is made up. The first paragraph is well-referenced, the last sentence is easy to check, though it tries to confirm the original research which is misleading. I added some info about the questionable sentence being original research. Squash Racket (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you speak Slovak? Squash Racket (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood something, this question here gave me the wrong impression. Sometimes someone with a little Slovak knowledge would be helpful. Squash Racket (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical maps

thnx ... it is not a big stunt ... I use the everyday Paint.Net. Regards --fz22 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Hi,

I have approved you for AutoWIkiBrowser. You can get to work immediately (you can download it from here). Good luck!

  jj137 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

hungarian flag

I thought I was pretty clear when I wrote that every country that has state flag uses it in the article except Hungary.Why? (Argentina,Spain,Serbia,Belgium,Austria,Bolivia,Finland,Ecuador,Costa Rica,San Marino,Guatemala,Haiti,Venezuela...etc. all use state flag instead of the civil flag). --Avala (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I change Argentina, Belgium, Spain, Serbia, Bolivia, Ecuador, San Marino, Guatemala, Haiti, Venezuela as well? --Avala (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Hungarian law state flag has coat of arms. And whenever there is difference between state and civil flag Wikipedia uses state flag in the article about this state. But OK as you wish. --Avala (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Hungary

Can you please write me link for web pages which are speaking about Hungarian interregnum (1301-08) or historical maps for that period ? Euroatlas is having very bad map for year 1300. --Rjecina (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Either do constructive edits or stop destroying the work and invested time of others.--Svetovid (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the user giving this "warning" was blocked for disruption shortly after leaving this message.

Yugoslavia Creation

Hobartimus, the act was self-determination of ethnicities. In Transylvania and eastern Banate only Vlachs had voted. In these areas, of course only Slavs voted. This of course didn't prevent them from electing some even pro-Yugoslavian Germans and Hungarians. This is far more a neutral version. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I know see what is the error. The "Universal suffrage" bit.

However, you should keep on mind that that was no discrimination at all, and that it was accepted by all, recognized and a standard democratic principle.

Truly, the participation/percentages is not that quite relevant at all.

And lastly, I do not understand why you insist on this sole moment, just on Vojvodina and nothing else at all. Does this mean that all the other self-determinations that occurred in 1918 are OK to you and only the ones in southern Hungary weren't, and if so, why do you think that? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

But that's what I am trying to say. That was completely normal. They spoke in the name of the whole territory, which had a Slavic majority and not just parts of it. That is why they are called National Councils, representative bodies of a nation, mostly the majority one. You should not view something that occurred almost a century ago from modern eyes. Let me remind you that this is before 1945 and the firm basis of international law. It's totally different from 1918 when that was generally accepted and standard practice, on the basis of self-determination - yes "simple" back then. Self-determination of ethnic groups.

No, no; there won't be. It'll be covered by the Kosovo, Kosovo Status Process, Constitutional status of Kosovo and Constitution of Kosovo article. There is an ongoing discussion over at the bottom of Talk:Kosovo. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaking but if we speak about National council in Vojvodina there is small mistake. Slavs has been minority on territory in which has voted by Serbs national council in 1918. --Rjecina (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no. The Slavs were relative majority. Even the Serbs alone had plurality.

And it wasn't just "Serb", but all-Slav.

P.S. Hobartimus, what do you find wrong with the Podgorica Assembly article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PANONIAN words: "On territory of present-day Vojvodina Population in 1910 is: 33.8% Serbs, 28.1% Hungarians, 21.4% Germans" .

For real population number in name of which Assembly has voted we need to lower Serbs number because Serbs of Syrmia has not been in territory for which BBB Assembly has voted. On other side we need to add Hungarians because they have voted in name of Pecs, Mohacs and Baja which has returned to Hungary so Serbs have been minority !! --Rjecina (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbs were nowhere near plurality. Then again you can't simply count together Croatian and Hungarian lands. Lands that were part of Croatia have to be counted separately. And you absolutely cannot say things like "all Slav" and other intresting things, because remember they wanted to get these territores and make them part of Serbia not some all slav state but specifically Serbia, what reason do they have to take away Croatian land if they were all in the "all Slav" category? The answer is that they didn't care so much for other Slavs as for their own plans to create Great Serbia. As the events of the recent days showed this plan is coming to an end as the level of Serbian oppression weakens. Hobartimus (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hobartimus, thank you for calling my attention to this page: Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. I won't be very active (I am very busy nowadays), but I'll watch it. --Szilas (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

The weather here has made access to the e-mail server problematic. I posted on the Talk:Hungary page as soon as I saw the notice. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The servers were having trouble hooking to the microsoft network serversfor whatever reason. I don't know why. The weather here has been more than a bit problematic. Actually, today is supposed to be, as time goes on, the worst day of the storm cycle in the area, so, because I don't know how any of the details of the network around here, it might happen again. Actually, the network connection itself completely collapsed around 1 o'clock yesterday for several hours. That's why, right now, I don't think that msn is necessarily more reliable, considering it went down first earlier. John Carter (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

merge tagging

It is proper, in addition to putting a discussion on the talk page, to also put on the mainpage of the project that the merge proposal is there, that is proper Wikipedia procedure. That way all who see the page can vote. I am putting the tags back there. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need a source

Bezzegország lett Szlovákia: A gazdasági növekedése tavaly a legnagyobb volt az EU-ban - Sikereket és megszorításokat hoztak a reformok.
Relax and have a good day.--Svetovid (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

I find your accusations about me very absurd and obviously false. First, you don't know the background of this so I don't know by what do you have the right to judge me. Second, you have cited two alleged personal attacks, which are irrevelant - I've apologized for the first one and that second is my personal business, so don't create a false image of me. I know you will remove this anyway, but I think you should at least refrain from your comments, especially when I've been acting within the limits. Or do you consider the recent accusation of Nazism normal? MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I always tried to make clear by using the word "possible" that I'm speaking of concerns only. I also addressed them to user:Nmate instead of any public forum. This user is a new user and on top of that he has trouble with the language but his good faith was not called into question by Tankred for example [5] and was even recognized for adding information based on "verifiable published works" [6] while having other issues of a struggling new user. I think the best would be if you two just stayed away from each other('s talk page especially) I don't know of any accusations of Nazism and I consider any such thing unacceptable. Hobartimus (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of unsourced content

Is always allowed. Please provide sources if you want to keep that map.--MariusM (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I need your help

Mr. Hobartimus, I just realize that it is written in the article Kosovo: "Kosova" redirects here. For other uses, see Kosova (disambiguation). but that is not the case as when I type Kosova it does redirect me to "Kosova (disambiguation) and not to Kosovo". So I would appreciate your help, Sir. --Tubesship (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your successful intervention! :-) Tubesship (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask again for your assistance

Hello Hobartimus, contrary to a reached consensus there is a splitting going on instead a merging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Split_completed --Tubesship (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

Just in case you didn't know, your edits were mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Help_on_getting_help_with_Hedvig_Malina.3F. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would actually post at the link above I provided (everyone can write at the admin noticeboard, it's just a name). That is the place where all admins pay attention and it's best to keep a singular record. Most of the details (the AFD, the block) are all clear, so I wouldn't bother to repeat that. However, I would suggest that you start to use the warning templates and WP:AIV to report his vandalism. If it's a slow steady of the same nonsense, then report it to WP:AN or WP:ANI where other admins can make their opinion. I take your comment and put some of it at WP:AN. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied here from above

Do you speak Slovak? Squash Racket (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood something, this question here gave me the wrong impression. Sometimes someone with a little Slovak knowledge would be helpful. Squash Racket (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

re:Hi!

Thanks and hi :) --Rembaoud (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Rembaoud, thanks :-)--Silverglory (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, they did it again and moved Kosova

Lord, have mercy upon us... it is just outrageous what is going on there! --Tubesship (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

No, you're the first one to ask this. :)

I barely get to touch it (as you guessed). I grant you the full right to edit my user page (as long as it's not something bad, lol). :-) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

False statement --Rjecina (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What? How come? Also, remember WP:STALK yourself. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OK ! It is time for me tell user Hobartimus that his talk page is in my watch list from time of our discussions with PANONIAN. This is OK or your want that I unwatch your talk page ?--Rjecina (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You can watchlist it as much as you want, it is not a problem. Just tell us which part was the "false statement". Hobartimus (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

About retirement. My comment on 3 March has been:"You are very active for retired editor :)" [7] and than he has answered on my talk page.--Rjecina (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about that. ;-) Also that pretty much reminded me, you still didn't explain whatever (?!?) you meant by that?

No, but posting like om User talk:Hxseek's talk page connecting my words with something of one of our content disputes, and then just not answering. It's not the sole example - are you saying that you just put all those pages completely unrelated to you in the moment we interacted again after a short pause? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed that User talk:Hxseek has started discussion with me and not I with him ?

Other thing is about what I have started to speak :)

You are forgeting many things. This is weird for person which has ended faculty in year of two ago ? Many of us know about your other mistakes ( example: This is ). Because of this discussion I have looked your 6 nominations for administrator. It is very interesting reading :))--Rjecina (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but because of many similar mistakes it is very hard to trust your good faith during edits --Rjecina (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Since it is obvious that I have become too involved, I have asked for other admins to comment at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread

Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian counties

Hi, I see you're edit warring with Tankred about counties of the Kingdom of Hungary. I wouldn't call his behaviour Wikipedia:STALK, because that implies intended disruption. IMO this is just a dispute that covers several counties in present Slovakia, Slovak POV vs. Hungarian POV. I suggest you two stop reverting and start discussing the disputed topics in the articles. From what I see, taking Komárom county as an example: [removed material relating to specific article] Markussep ^Talk 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide wheter a user was disruptive and should be blocked, we have administrators for this job. Administrators already decided in several cases that user:Tankred was disruptive and his editing was detrimental to Wikipedia see his block log. Since my talk page is not a general forum I removed edits concerning specific articles please feel free to post them at relevant article talk pages. Please note that this issue is not about content but stalking. Hobartimus (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't decide, I give my opinion. As far I saw, most of his blocks were due to the 3 reverts rule, in related subjects, in which you were also involved. As I have contributed a lot to these county articles, I'd like to put an end to these endless disputes. I moved the discussion about Komárom (which may be a specific article, but is exemplaric for many related disputes) to Talk:Kingdom of Hungary#Disputed edits in articles about counties. Markussep ^Talk 09:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So harassment and stalking done by a multiple times blocked disruptive user is OK why exactly? Beccause he has "only" a few blocks by editing low traffic articles where disruption gets noticed slower? Two things can't be mixed together one is content related and should be dealt with on article talk pages like the Komárom county talk page if you want to go into extremely specific details about content of an article. The other is policy related about WP:STALK and other Wikipedia policies about disruptive editing. Mixing the two only confuses the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to discuss this by e-mail. What I was trying to say is that what you perceive as stalking, looks more like two clashing POVs to me. What I see, but I've only looked at the county articles, is continuing reverts between two versions, neither of which is very extreme (no plain vandalism or disruption). I think the "stalking" problem (which is not my problem) can only be solved if we can find a neutral solution for this. My issue, and this is the only thing I want to discuss with you, Tankred and other interested editors, is the content of the articles. So please respond on the above-mentioned talk page. Markussep ^Talk 13:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't expect the rest of us to wait until you find the time to discuss with us. Markussep ^Talk 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You say you have a few concerns relating to me, well, that's interesting. If you can't say it in public, don't say it at all. Don't worry about getting in conflict with me, I consider myself a reasonable person, and I'm not easily provoked or offended. Markussep ^Talk 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Markussep ^Talk 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple personal attacks as leaving(?) message

Look at this - Tankred is giving a line excusively to Nmate to describe him as who is "attacking other editors and nations". While Hungarian users in general are described by him as "obnoxious chauvinists" and "fanatics trying to degrade non-Hungarian nations". This, combined with your comment(s) here about Tankred should be posted on WP:ANI. I have something similar, but without names on my userpage, so I cant, but want to report it. Please do it, as browsing his userpage history, it has been revealed to me, that this was not the first time, he "quit" with similar attacking statements[8] and he came back within two weeks. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Friend, I do not want to continue your revert war. It is a reason for your blocking, you know, and also it is stupid... But I dont care, do what you want. --Wizzard (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

improving wikipedia

In response to your post on my talk page: I do remember adding some Hungarian names, for instance here [9]. If I added more Slovak than Hungarian names, probably the starting situation was unbalanced.

About my reactions on Nmate's edits (and Vargatamas'): I think his edits are so outrageous they are very easy to refute, for instance with these excerpts from Encyclopaedia Britannica [10] [11]. Markussep ^Talk 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right EB writes "Slavic" and not "Slovak" in its Žilina article. As the Slovaks are a Slavic people, and the most likely Slavic people to settle in the Žilina area are the Slovaks, this is not very relevant IMO. Both are probably correct, and "Slovak" more precise. But correct me if I'm wrong.

I started watching Nmate's edits because he was involved in the county edit wars. I invited him over to our discussion at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary, but he declined. Since I'm generally interested in geography (you should know that, you've seen my France-related edits), it's not so strange that I react on edits on articles about towns, is it? What/who does this while you previously refused to even look at edits of a certain user which were made outside the "county articles" even while you made comments about his contribs in general refer to? Markussep ^Talk 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

False summaries

Please do not use false there or false something it doesn't assume a good faith. I didn't notice that it is not a WikiProject but I reverted that edit in a good faith. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the word "false" does not imply intent, you might confuse it with other words that contain the implication that the act of making a certain statement was intentional. Hobartimus (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then use wrong or mistaken but not false. False doesn't sound as good as you think. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)