User talk:Fakirbakir

User talk:Fakirbakir

Princes

Dear Fakirbakir. I am afraid you misinterpret some sources. For exemple here [1] indeed you can find that Szőllösy (Herczeg), but it does not mean that the family had princely rank, rather Herczeg was their alternative surname. Also there is no Worum Würtemberg family, Worum and Württemberg are 2 different families, and only the last one was princely, but they were listed alphabetically. I am going to fix these problems. Thanks. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Csesznekgirl. I used reliable source. These families were presented in Kindom of Hungary.

• List of Historical Surnames of the Hungarian Nobility

Fakirbakir (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added most of the families that appear in the Royal books. Please, feel free to add more from Tötösy's list, if I have forgotten them. BTW, stay out of edit wars, you might be blocked. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you wanted to write Andlow instead of András. Tötösy lists it as Andlow. The source used by Tötösy probably was Béla Kempelen, but Kempelen mispelled the surname, correcly it was Andlau. I have fixed it. Have a good night. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Hunyadi. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was obvious vandalism. I added sources and somebody wanted to delete it immediately.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be neutral, I was, who added neutral sentences about ethnicity. (e.g.probably Romanian or Hungarian). Moreover, I contributed on the Hunyadi's talk page to discuss it.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your editing was more than scandalous. I had tried to fix page of History of Hungary up after User:217.23.241.3 and you reverted me with ridiculous justification.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

After that User:Attilios's editing proved that I was right.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

House of Koháry

Hello. You recently added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [2]).

I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to participate at this discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

WikiProject Dacia

Template:WikiProject Dacia Invitation --Codrin.B (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fakirbakir. You have new messages at Borsoka's talk page.
Message added 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Romania in the Middle Ages Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

{{adminhelp}} Could you please explain me why I got it? I did not harm the three-revert rule. I think Yopie is a nationalist user who can not bear dissimilar point of views. I had a deal with him before (half year ago). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) If he was not right about this, please remove this edit war tag. Thank you.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Yopie is trying to be helpful. You have reverted twice on the same article in a short period of time, if you do it once more you will be in violation of the rule.--SPhilbrickT 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, an IP added a statement to the lead, presumably to improve the discussion. You reverted the addition, as it was not referenced. Yopie apparently agreed that a citation was warranted, so re-added the statement with the citation needed template. So far, everything is fine. The next step is for all interested editors to retire to the talk page and discuss the issue - does the sentence belong in the lead, if so, where is the reliable source supporting it.

However, rather than going to the talk page and discussing, you simply reverted again.

Yopie restored the sentence, with the need for a citation, again, time to go to the talk page, and rather than let you revert again, and possibly earn a block, Yopie let you know that you were close to three reverts.

I suggest going to the article talk page and discuss whether the sentence belongs, and if so, whether it can be properly sourced.--SPhilbrickT 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 13:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this and this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Navigation template

Hi Fakirbakir, since you're interested in history, maybe you would be a good person to ask this question. I would like to create a navigation template (like this Template:Turkic topics) for all the different ancient cultures that were assimilated into modern Eastern Europe and Asia. I'm not sure where to begin, but I think such a template would be very useful. Would you be interested in collaborating or advising on a project like this? For example, I'm not sure what time periods should be covered or what geographical areas to include. I think I can get technical assistance from a task force, and your knowledge of history would be very valuable. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. USchick (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hunyadi

Hi

Here are some sources for you that referenced by Britannica Online. The New Advent is already used in the Wiki Hunyadi article.

• New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia
• Hunyadi, Lajos Elekes (1952) - In Hungarian

I do not know if you have access to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I have added a message about it to Talk:John Hunyadi

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

TURANID RACE

It was a scientific rasist fantasy ideology before the ww2. You can't cite modern real (academic) scientists anthropologists who support the existence of that fantasy. According to modern geneticist and anthropology: The turanid race have never existed. Genetic science: Ironically, the Slovaks Belorussians European Russians and Ukrainians have more Asian (aka: Mongoloid) haplogroups than present-day Hungarians. Please learn genetics (which is a real science) instead of reading pseudoscientific fantasy books of uneducated self-appointed Historians. Many of the uneducated authors of these fantasy books about the origin of Hungarians haven't any thesis/diploma/(Huns planet-sirius, "Jesus was a Hungarian" , hungarians related to sumerians etc...)--Wrongcopy (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That wiki page was not correct. Pal Liptak, Lajos Bartucz are renowed anthropologists, Hungarian academics use this term.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

and please stop personal attack.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

weak faulty reasoning...Lipták and Bartucz lived and worked before the discovery of DNA and Y and mt DNa haplogoups, therefore they are not relevant in modern sense yet. Czeizel deny the relations between easterners (asians) and modern Hungarians

Turanism, or Pan-Turanism, is a political movement for the union of all Turanian peoples. It implies not merely the unity of all Turkic peoples (as in Pan-Turkism), but also the unification of a wider Turanid race, also known as the controversial Uralo-Altaic race, believed to include all peoples speaking "Turanian languages". Turkish proponents of scientific racism purported that this racial group embraced"

Turanid is a now obsolete term, orinially intended to cover populations of Central Asia associated with the spread of the Turanian languages, that is the combination of the Uralic and Altaic families (hence also "Ural-Altaic race"), in human genetics,[1] physical anthropology and historically in scientific racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this book, which was written by Czeizel: http://www.libri.hu/konyv/a-magyarsag-genetikaja.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You mix the science with the early political movements. Liptak's works are dominant in terms of early Hungarians or Avars. He was an academic, and anthropologist. Czeizel's work is just one point of view, however he established historical processions without any backround (historical).Fakirbakir (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Turanism is racism (see Jobbik party in Hungary and Turkish extremist groups) Turanism and the very early anthropology is not considered as real sciences in the terms of 21th century. Modern anthropology is based on genetics.

Phenotypes subraces are depend on genetic haplotypes. Turanism estabilish fantasy "kinship" between nations which are genetically NOT related to each other. That's why It's obsolete fantasy term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you deny (decades) works of Hungarian academic anthropolgists? Because, according to you Turanid race is obsolete term, It does not exist, and there are racist researchers if somebody of them dare to use it? It is ridiculous. Please read something about Liptak!s work and you will see his astonishing good knowledge about migration period, Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it estabilished kinship betweeen nations which genetically/biologically are NOT related to each other. These anthropologists were born too early. The genetic researches were changed radically the anthropology similar to the carbon isotope dating changed the archeology.--Valosag (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowadays Pal Liptak, Lajos Bartucz are considered outdated and false. The collected nomadic weird-look face photos from cuman jassic minorities. Read about it: http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/ostortenet-nemzettudat/ch05.html --Balkuin (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks "Current ethnolinguistic Slovak nationalism traces the roots of the Slovak nation to the times of Greater Moravia, claiming the polity to have been the ‘first Slovak state’. However, there is no continuity in politics, culture, or written language between this early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation." source: Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. This is a joke, right? They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation: example Ján Stanislav: Slovenský juh v stredoveku I.-II. (1948; 1999, 2004), Starosloviensky jazyk (1978; 1983), Dejiny slovenského jazyka I. - V. (1956, 1957, 1958, 1973, 1974) and million others grammarians and historians...

You wrote: "Please cite your source, and do not delete or transform cited sentence" Ok, for example my source: Hrnko, Anton (2009). Language is not only an Instrument of Communication. Casting of Doubt on Slovak – Causes and Consequences. in Insight into Slovak-Magyar Relations. ed. Prof. PhDr. Ján Doruľa, DrSc., Slovak Committee of Slavists in cooperation with the Institute of Slavonic Studies of Ján Stanislav of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, BRATISLAVA 2009. ss. 18 - 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

you can insert those If you have source about the subject, however we do not delete citations. These are wiki rules.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia

They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation, only stupid magyar fasist on wiki do not see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.114 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. Can you please take a look at this thread: [3]?

Hello, Fakirbakir. You have new messages at Talk:John Hunyadi.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Iaaasi (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Matthias Corvinus

The link refers to place of origin (the link is to Wallachia), not to ethnicity. As you put it: You are not right, He was probably from Wallachia this is a place and it does not explain his origin, and we do not know whether he was Vlach, Cuman, Serb etc. Origin and the place where from he was originated are different things. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Serban

Your sources make some strange suppositions. Serban is a typical Romanian name... (Iaaasi (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

According to the source, SORBE is the correct form.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sorbe had supposedly Tatar-Cuman origin, because the second part of his name 'Bâg' was a Cuman dignity name ('prince') and 'Sor' also means 'Calamity' ('Sor' was an Altaic people in that period as well" - Sorbe or Sorbâg? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

It is Turkic, different to write and to pronounce. But I am not linguist and they are.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

However, the Turk source may be biased when supporting Turkic origin (Iaaasi (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I have no right (and I am not enough) to decide it is biased or not, It is right or not. I insert what the source states.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Golden Team

You might be interested in the latest proposal at Talk:Magical Magyars#Requested move 2, proposing a move to Hungarian Golden Team. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to your suggestion to roll back the article to its "non-vandalised" version, can I request that you compare the article as it is now, against the version that the original author wants to roll back to? The original author has previously claimed that I have "vandalised" his work, so I referred the article for independent review, and my version was preferred. This is all documented in the Talk page if you wish to check it. I hope this helps and that it becomes apparent that my "vandalism" was just judicious editing :) Coopuk (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99

I respectfully ask you not to support the edits of his socks. As the admins said, his IP range is too wide for a range block, so the only way to stop him is reverting his edits. If we support him, he weill create tomorrow another account, knowing that his contributions will be accepted even if the account will end up being blocekd. Thank you (Iaaasi (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Move proposal

I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread: [4]. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys(Iaaasi (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

A-H

You should not blindly reverting

Read the complete phrase:

The "Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867", in creating a semi-independent Hungary, entailed the rise of an assertive Magyar identity within the Kingdom of Hungary.

Hung was semi-indep because foreign policy etc were controlled by Vienna (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Vienna is just a city. The place of the common ministry of foreign affairs is not interesting, perhabs Vienna was geographically closer to Schönbrunn than other cities.

The Austrian half of the empire had the same voting-rights and delegation as Hungarian half of the Empire.

The key man of the foreign affairs was the Emperor-King, who had extra voting rights in voting-standoffs. --Lbombardiers (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Austria became semi-independent as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Black army of Hungary

There are dosens of anachronistic patingts in the black army of hungary article. Many leaders of the black army are depicted in 17th century hussar uniforms. That pictures mislead the reader.--Gyrospeen (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian nationality or Natio Hungarica?

Hello, I think that more correct term for the nationality from the Hungarian Kingdom before 1918 is Hungarus or Natio Hungarica. It covers all people from the kingdom regardless of their ethnic origin. English does not distinguish between Hungarian before 1918 and Hungarian after 1918. For example Ludevit Stur was Hungarian patriot and Slovak patriot in the begin of his political career. Hungarian because of his loyalty to Hungarian Kingdom and Slovak because he was Slovak, he loved Slovak people, Slovakian Upper Hungary and Slovak language. So in English it would be written that he was a Hungarian politic - but its not clear if Magyar or Slovak. The term Natio Hungarica or Hungarus is clear, and its historicaly recorded and more correct. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22natio+hungarica%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= --Samofi (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Natio Hungarica should be redirected as was done by administrator Dbachmann. I see you meant well by trying to rewrite it. If the topic merits an article it should be under an English name like Hungarian Nation or "Hungarian Nation in the Middle ages" or any other English name that fits the topic. And it was an administrator who turned it into a redirect which is a pretty strong action and shouldn't be undone without discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you with the help with article Natio Hungarica. Dbachamann is not an administrator, you can check his profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann. Hobartimus just try to manipulate with the facts. Natio Hungarica is historical term and does not mean "Hungarian Nation" or "Hungarian people" - its status, which used Magyars, Slovaks(Slavs), Saxons and next other nations. After Natio Hungarica, it was identity Hungarus in the Kingdom of Hungary (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hungarus#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22hungarus%22&aq=f&aqi=g-l1g-lm2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5915f5820557ebd8&biw=1680&bih=811). Later I would like to expand this article. Next article with which I would need help is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovaks_in_Hungary --Samofi (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Dbachmann is an administrator. [5]--Nmate (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

{{help me}}

I was willing to contribute on page of Natio Hungarica however 2 administrators recommended to delete that page. I understood them because this theme is related to Hungarian nobility. The administrators redirected this page 2 times. There is another question whether it was a good redirection or not because I think page of name of Hungary can not handle this subject as opposed to page of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. In my opinion the page of Natio Hungarica is entirely equal with Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. After the redirection, I inserted my contributions from the redirected page of Natio Hungarica to page of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. I was surprised when I saw the page of Natio Hungarica exists again. So I deleted my contributions because it was duplicated (here and on page of nobility of the K. of Hungary).I do not understand how it happens. Everybody can restore redirected pages without discussion? Can we alter the redirections? I would appreciate if somebody explained it to me. I understand page of Natio Hungarica perhaps unnecessary. The redirection would be good solution if it was page of Nobility of Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy done, Reverted back to admin User:Dbachmann redirect, and protected. The page was never deleted, so the old pages were still in the history, and easy to restore. Any changes will now have to be admin approved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. To check for an admin status - the only way is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Dbachmann  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Nobody deleted that article, I miswrote my comment they recommended to redirect and not to delete.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you

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. --Samofi (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary

Give me a link that a discussion was closed by admin. --Samofi (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think a source from the 18th century should not be regarded as a reliable source. The expression "Hungary" referring to a period preceding the formation of the state sounds strange. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• After a more than month of studying (hungarian, slovak and english) matherials I have to agree with Boroska. Majority of sources use term Hungarian tribal alliance for period before 955. From 955 (2 sources from 933) sources talks about ethnogenesis of the principality, but Hungarian principality. In 972 we can clearly talks about Hungarian principality or Duchy of Hungary. Expression "Principality of Hungary" on the period of the arrival of Hungarians is same anachronism like to say "Principality of Slovakia" to Principality of Nitra. --Samofi (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Careful!

These edits could be falling under WP:CANVAS. Please try to avoid them in the future. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. (Partially)Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You should fully remove the paragraph, because Samofi's edits were done before you started a new thread in WikiProject Hungary . You have to also remove Koertefa's edits as related to your canvassing activity.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolutionary War

I think your revert was incorrect. What do you think? Metricopolus (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The term Hungarian Revolutionary War is used in connection to Hungarian Revolution of 1848, please check Google Books results [6].(SamiraJ (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Hungary 13th cent.png

The map is not accurate. According to the original map (which I am surprised you found so fast, given the fact that the upload was done by other account), there were no Wallachian local autonomies in Hungary. In Partium the we have "románok", not Wallachians. The Banat of Severin and the Carpathian strip is not depicted as a Hungarian territory. Also, the Wallachian bubbles form the Banat of Sevein are not drawn like that in the map. Another thing I don't understand is the hole from the middle of Szekelyfold (SamiraJ (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

I suggest that some minor changes should be made on the map. For example, the existence of Székely communities to the west of the Danube and in the Felvidék in the end of the 13th century is highly dubious; similarly dubious is the claim that parts of Romania (with the exception of the Banate of Severin) were under the Hungarian monarchs' suzerainty after the Mongol invasion; finally, I think that the names of the Banates should be revised - maybe the Hungarian form (Ozora, Szörény, Só, Macsó, Kucsó) should be consequently used. Otherwise, I think it is an excellent map. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Austria - semi independent?

As far as I know, the foreign policy was still an attribution of the Austrian (Habsburg) side (SamiraJ (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Please see,Talk:Austria-Hungary#Semi-independent_Austria Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read Anti-Hungarian propaganda and bias here the following: "In the Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hungary), decisions relating to diplomatic and military matters were taken in Vienna (41). In July 1914, the Hungarian government was firmly opposed to the aggressive Habsburg policy towards Serbia (42). However, the Hungarian objections were overruled by the Austrians, and Hungary was forced to accept the decisions taken by the Habsburg government. The accusation that Hungary was responsible for the war is therefore unfounded". If Austria was dependent of Hungary, A-H would not have been able to declare war without its accept (SamiraJ (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Because the imperial/royal House (Emperor-King) had voting rights in stale-mate situations. Amen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.29 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ganxsta Zolee

hi i need a hungarian native speaker here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganxsta_Zolee its a new article. thank you --Samofi (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nem ott kellett volna jelenteni, mivel 3RR-t sértett

So I reported this individual here.--Nmate (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Message to admin Favonian about Matthias I

You can read the original message here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian&action=edit&section=47

User:Iadrian yu is romani-an chauvinist Iaaasi's meta/sock -puppet. Why do you support his edits? (you always restored his bad faith edits or chauvinist provocation in Matthias Corvinus article.

Moreover, there is no other English language (real printed!) encyclopedia in the world, which use so-called bynames/nicknames in the title of the articles. "Matthias Corvinus" is not official name it's just a nick name of the Monarch. Please Modify the title of the article to Matthias I of Hungary.

Columbia Encyclopedia

Encyclopædia Britannica

Encyclopædia Universalis

Encarta Encyclopedia (2009)

Brockhaus Enzyklopädie

Encyclopaedia Larousse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.29 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And whose little edit-warring, IP-jumping sock might you be? The current name of the article was the result of this discussion. Edit-warring to effect changes against consensus is disruptive and may well lead to you being blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

HAhaha:)))))) consensus of laymen? The voters were Romani-an users Serbs Slovaks? Who are not from native English speaker countries, who are not even Hungarians. It is an English (not romani serb slovak etc...)encyclopedia about a Hungarian (and not romani-an serbian slovak) king. British American Academic historians call him officially as Matthias I of Hungary, every english language encíclopedia use the Matthias I of Hungary title. Matthias Corvinus are represented as byname.

Hello

Hello, sorry to bother you, but please don`t accuse me for blind reverts [7] because according to the wikipedia policy any suspicious, unreferenced data can be challenged with reference needed tag (or remove if it is very strange)/ or new data - as in this case, simply removed until a valid reference appear. Blind reverts would be If I would revert when a reference is present, which I did`t do so far. Adrian (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is confusing

I tried to solve an archiving problem at talk page of Kingdom of Hungary, however I am not entirely familiar with this archiving process. There were two Archive1 pages, I redirected one of them to Archive2, however I can not see this Archive2 on the talkpage. It is a wee bit confusing. Moreover, I think Miszabot is not working well, because it left the old discussions. Could you please help me?Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there are a couple things going on here. I think I have sorted it all out. The old archive was at /Archive1, when you added the bot archiving it was configured to archive to /Archive_1, which it did. The template on the right was manually set to go only to Archive1, so when you moved Archive_1 to Archive2, it didn't update. I have moved it to Archive_2, and requested a move over redirect of Archive1 to Archive_1. When that is complete, the talk page header will have the archive links, and the bot will continue archiving into Archive_2, and as new archives are made, the talk page header will automatically update with them. Monty₈₄₅ 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Fakirbakir (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fz22's maps

Thank you for warning me. Regards --fz22 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Off wiki links

Do not post on Wikipedia links to videos that reveal personal information about users. If you do so in the future, this account will be blocked. Keegan (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You were reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_the_activities_of_some_editors_.E2.80.93_ethnic_abuse_and_edit_warring_from_the_side_of_eastern_european_editors

statement about Slovakia

In this edit in June 2010, you said:

The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state where the hungarian minority is just a thing what they have to assimilate into the slovak society.

That kind of sweeping generalization is a textbook example of a disruptive statement and it's really no wonder that it annoyed User:Samofi. It certainly violated the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTAFORUM. In January 2011, you archived the same statement yourself at Talk:Slovakization/Archive 3, so it's not necessarily clear whether you stood by it or wanted it removed or neither. What are your thoughts on the matter? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I admit it was a strong statement and can be disruptive. I was charged because of this statement on the admin noticeboard. I do not understand why I have to explain it again. I know that I have to avoid this sort of behavior. I was new here and I was not familiar with wiki rules (as I have been editing here for 22 months), If you want I can remove it immediately from the archives.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As I see from the comments [8][9]User Samofi is working against me, again....please see this:[10]Fakirbakir (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you link the old explanation here please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[11]Fakirbakir (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Samofi continuously accuses Hungarian users (User:Norden1990, User:Koertefa, User:Hobartimus, User:Nmate, User:Baxter9, and me). I think it is incorrect.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was punished for my behaviour. Your behaviour, edits and POV-pushing are wrong but you were not even warned or banned. It was you who placed me 2 times to ANI in 2 weeks, because of your synthesis Principality of Hungary. You told you are changed and you was a newcomer then.. So why do you call other editors nationalists and hungarian-haters (a month and half ago)? It touched me, I have a basic knowledge of hungarian language, i have a lot of hungarian friends, colegues in work and i had no personal problem with hungarians. You did not change, you are the same. You are only more careful with words you say, but sometimes your true nature and your despect to Slovakian culture or scholars rise on the surface [12]. Hungarian medievalists are right and Slovak opinion you cant accept, yes? Btw zoltan pastor is an ethnic hungarian and member of academy of science. only ferenc makk and kristo gyula write a "true" history? in the fact they are only a significant minority view - "patriots". We have Hungarian historians with different opinions such: kovacs, gyorffy, sugar, hanak, pastor, lazar, kontler, szarka, lendvai, soos.. If you have an interest you can try to read this, its cooperation of Slovak and Hungarian historians (Slovak/Hungarian book), maybe your mind will more open to cooperation and compromises: http://www.saske.sk/SVU/downloads/publikacie/Regionalna_identita_2007.pdf --Samofi (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it is just your opinion about my work in connection with page of Principality of Hungary. And you always repeat that Hungarian views are in minority (I can cite you if you want) or fringle theories and Hungarian historians are nationalist (I can cite it as well). I could cooperate with you If you was not always shrill.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Muhi csata és a puskapor

Olvassad el lassan tagoltan ha kell többször is azt az idézett könyvet. Nem beszél semmiféle puskaporról, csak siege weapons-ról Magyarországon Lengyelországon. Nem is beszélhet, mivel sem a magyar sem a későbbi mongol krónikák nem említik. Forrás nélkül pedig hazudozás vagy spekulatív komolytalan szöveg lenne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.222 (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Mc Neill, cited:"Chinese gunpowder may have been used in Hungary"
• Kohn, cited:"Plain of Mohi......Mongols attacked with flaming oil and gunpowder launched with catapults"
• Cowley, cited" In this primitive form gunpowder weapons reached Europe in 1241"
• Lloyd, cited "The Mongols are known to have used gunpowder and firearms in Europe as early as 1241 at the Battle of Mohi in Hungary."[13]
• Fakirbakir (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha, spekulatív (képzelt) történelem. Nincs rá egyetlen krónika se magyar se korabeli mongol. Innentől kezdve tényként ne kezeld. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.222 (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fakirbakir, the part of the article that discussed the "Role of Gunpowder and Firearms" was deleted (by a user who was later blocked for disruptive editing). I myself have never heard about that theory, but it seems sourced. What do you think, should we put it back? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should. Actually gunpowder in battle of Muhi was also new to me, but there are reliable sources about that. I can not decide whether it is false or not. Thank you for telling me.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK and I see that you have already put it back. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kuruc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magyar (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) 10:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Avar Khaganate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ostmark, Antes and Dulo

Sarir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pelso Plate

Szia! Ebbe a cikkbe némi pontosítás kéne. Jelenleg úgy tűnik, mintha a Pelso az egész északnyugat-magyarországi aljzatot jelentené, pedig csak a Dunántúli-középhegységet és a Dunabalparti-rögöket foglalja magában. Nyugati folytatásában még az Északi- és a Déli-Alpok közötti 10-20 km-es zóna tartozik hozzá (Gail-völgyi Alpok, Karavankák, stb.). A huwikin a hu:Magyarország földtana cikkben találhatsz egy térképet is, amin a dunántúli-középhegységi egység néven szerepel. Üdv Laszlovszky András (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hungarians

Hi Fakirbakir, I have a question. The first line of the Hungarian people article was the following:

• "Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Template:Lang-hu), are a nation and an ethnic group native to the Carpathian Basin and primarily associated with Hungary."

But you have changed it to:

• "The terms Hungarian people or Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Template:Lang-hu) are used in English to mean "a native or inhabitant of Hungary"."

I think that the original one was better and more in line with similar articles (e.g., English people, Scottish people, French people, Norwegian people, Portuguese people, Greek people and Austrian people, etc.). I also think that the expression "native to" does not contradict the fact that the ancestors of Hungarians came from Central Asia. Moreover, this article should not be about everybody who live(d) in Hungary (cf., Talk:Hungarian_people#Hungarian_Nation). What do you think about that? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I withdrew it. The page of Finnish people was my example. Yes, your variation is a bit better.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx! KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Hello, I saw you removed my POV tag. Please don`t do that anymore. Please read When to remove this tag and when is this tag used. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, everybody agrees that the collapse of Austria-Hungary was one of the events (among many others, e.g., the national assembly in Alba Iulia, the end of WWI, the Bolsheviks, etc.) that led to the Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919, the dispute is only about whether this event was fundamental, whether it should be mentioned right in the lead. I do not think that it is POV issue. Anyway, if Adrian prefers, I can accept keeping the POV tag during the discussion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Du Nay is a pseudonym, not a real name and comes from Duna (Danube)

Who said he is French? Gábor Vékony believes he is Romanian: [14]

His name is, according to his own account, a pseudonym: [15] so we don't know his real identity to be able to to assess his competence on historical issues.

Gábor Vékony, an accredited historian, refers to this specific work of him and claims that "it has many printing errors and, at times, its conclusions seem to be based on inadequate information": [16]. Romorinian (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read WP:SPS. The fact that this text was published somewhere - by an anonymous author that writes under pseudonym: [17] - does not make it automatically reliable 79.117.141.39 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Janus Pannonius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bosnian

János Vitéz (archbishop) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bosnian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary

Hi Fakirbakir, I would like to ask your opinion. Some days ago we spoke about the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary (KoH), before the compromise. We said that though it was not an independent country, it was still a "proper" kingdom, for example, the kings were elected. Then, why does the article about it provide the flag of the Habsburg Empire as the flag of the Kingdom of Hungary? Just because there was a personal union it does not mean that there was no flag for the KoH. For example, the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia displays a contemporary Croatian flag, not the flag of the Habsburg empire. These two approaches are clearly not consistent with each other. What do you think, should the article about the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary display a different flag than the flag of the Habsburg Empire and if yes, what kind of flag should be used? I am really looking forward to your opinion in this matter. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 02:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did not find any flags about Habsburg Hungary on the page of Wikimedia commons[18]. There is a good page (it is school website) about Habsburg Hungarian flags[19] and coats of arms[20]. This page states that the Hungarian coats of arms were used in the Habsburg Monarchy (A magyar címer (s általa a nemzeti színek) védelmében sikeresen lépett fel a Magyar Udvari Kancellária a 18. és 19. századokban. ) and -as you see on the pictures- the Habsburg coats of arms preferred to use Hungarian symbols as Árpád stripes, crown or double cross etc., moreover the Habsburgs were cognate descendants of the Árpád dynasty, but the flags were usually the ordinary Habsburg flags "officially", irrespective of the Hungarian domestic traditions (A Habsburg Birodalomban (központilag) ez idő tájt a fekete-sárga színeket használták a kiegyezésig, nálunk a piros-fehér-zöld terjedt el egyre inkább.). The question is whether the Hungarian flags were in official status or not. I am going to seek sources about it.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Fakirbakir, for the information and the links. It is an interesting question and I will also try to look into this matter. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pannonian steppe

At page of Puszta was for a period one month move request, nobody reacted. I made article which coverering Puszta and Pannonian steppes. As I know Hortobagy steppe is part of Pannonian steppe (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2007&docType=pdf). You told: "I could not find this in the source: "Pannonian steppe is a steppe biom" Puszta is the grassland biom, pannonian steppe is a biogeographical or botanical expression". You probably dont know what the biom means. Why it should be article Puszta when the Puszta is non-english name for a Pannonian steppe? --Samofi (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You always want to move or delete Hungarian related pages. Why? Why do you have to move page of Puszta if there are lots of source and explanation about it. And what if it is part of the Pannonian steppe??? Actually Pannon Region is also a biographical expression "A PANNON BIOGEOGRÁFIAI RÉGIÓ" [21] and Pannon steppe is part of it. Should we create a new page (The Pannon Biographical Region) and move the page of Pannon steppe there because it is part of it? Actually I was a bit confused because I mixed Pannon region with Pannon steppe and did not realize that Pannon steppe is synonym with "Puszta" first, but you should not be sarcastic. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Its a same biom these grasslands in south Austria, Slovakia, Serbia and grasslands in Hungary. Just a look pictures. They are in Pannonian basin, same flowers, same animals, same geology... In the English language scholar articles are these Grasslands Pannonian or Pannonic steppe. Pls say me the difference between Puszta and Pannonian steppe. It was you who removed information about Pannonian steppe in Hungary from the article [22]. Is it your aim to create small articles with non-english names? Same like in the case of Betyars, it could be article about highwaymen from KoH or from the Carpathian region. All foreign languages are linked to articles about highwaymen from Carpathian mountains. But no, its better to make a 3 small articles about Betyars, Zbojniks and Oprisheks.. For example article about Shepherd's axe, do you wanna make a separate articles about valaška and about fokos? Valaska is a little bit different than fokos. But on the other hand you had not problem to move Royal Hungary without discussion or official merger proposal, probably you did not read WP:MERGE. This can be also useful if you have a time for study: WP:NOTDICDEF , WP:AT --Samofi (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Internationalist and National (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) 10:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

John II

It is customary to wait for responses before actually moving the page. -- Elphion (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Speyer

Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Treaty of Speyer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Komlosaurus.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Komlosaurus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hungarian landtaking

Wow! Great article! I would like to congratulate. You just made ​​up for one of the biggest gaps in the Wikipedia about Hungarian history. Congrats! --Norden1990 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not my merit. There was a two years old proposal and I just did split the page of Hungarian prehistory yesterday.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Muhely szervezes

Szia!

Eloszor is koszi, hogy jelezted szandekod a tortelem muhelyben valo reszvetelre! Most azt szerenem megtudakolni, hogy mint az egyik legaktivabb WP HU tag, aki regota szerkeszt es ismeri a dorgest, lenne-e kedved illetve erod megszervezi a tortelem muhelyet? Akar egyedul, akar Koertefaval osszefogva. Kiindulasnak ez az iras sokat segithet, amihez hozzaadva a te sajat tapasztaltaidat ki tudnad alakitani a muhely oldalat. Esetleg nas aktiv muhelyeket is meg lehetne nezni, annak a felepitesek, mukodeset tanulmanyozni es atvenni belole ami jonak tunik. Kerlek irj, es ha ugy erzed, vedd fel a kapcsolatot Koertefaval is. Gondolom ismeritek egymast :) (Nem tudom, hova szeretsz valaszolni, de figyelolostara tettelek, ha esetleg itt irnal.)

Szep napot,

Thehoboclown (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation. I am not entirely familiar with these projects, however I will try to study them thoroughly. (Egyébként nagyon jó ötletnek tartom a kezdeményezésedet!) Fakirbakir (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom

To be honest, I don't understand yours and Koertefa's approach. The Treaty of Varad was in effect for only 2 years (1538-1540), more exactly the EHK was recognized until John Zapolya's death, when EHK should have been reunited with the rest of the medieval Kingdom under the Habsburg crown. If we mention 1538 in the infobox, we should also include 1540, the ending year of the agreement. Between 1540 and 1570 the Habsburgs did not recognize the division of the medieval kingdom Bozo1789 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to read--Nmate (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

map of Poland

It seems like what this map [23] really needs is the addition of end dates for when the respective territories ceased to be part of Poland, rather than re-coloring "Upper Hungary" to blue, as that is not internally consistent with how other temporarily acquired territories are marked. I also see that there has been some pretty consistent edit warring over this map over at commons.VolunteerMarek 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your editing is also dubious. You have placed back that disputed and inaccurate map in the articles.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the "newer" version is the one that's disputed - per talk page on Commons [24]. And it is the older version which is sourced. With one caveat that the thick red border needs to be redrawn to reflect the source [25].VolunteerMarek 14:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The newer version is sourced as well. There is an academic source by Ferenc Makk. The original map is highly dubious. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't have access to that source, but all it seems to support is the fact that that portion was conquered by Hungary in 1018, which is beside the point here.VolunteerMarek 15:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is the Polish occupation lasted only 3 or 15 years. The presented map is misleading because it states that the Polish occupation was from 1003 to 1025. Moreover it features a non-existent entity "Slovakia" instead of the proper designation of that territory (around 1000 AD) "Upper Hungary". Fakirbakir (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested that the end dates be added. As to the "Slovakia" vs "Upper Hungary" stuff - well, the source says "Slovak region" so we should follow the source. My understanding of the history is that before the Polish conquest the area under consideration was part of the Principality of Nitra, which might have been controlled by Kingdom of Hungary, though apparently there's some dispute over to what extent this control was exercised directly. At any rate, it doesn't make sense to color that portion blue when all other temporary conquests are colored in pink.VolunteerMarek 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if Fakirbakir quoted his source correctly here then his source says that area in question "stayed as part of Poland until 1018", so there is no basis in this source to paint this part of Poland with the color of neighboring country like Fakirbakir done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polska_around_1000.png Furthermore, is there an evidence that term "Upper Hungary" was used in year 1018? As far as I know, term "Upper Hungary" originates from much later time period. PANONIAN 17:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Upper Hungary", "Northern Hungary", "North Hungary" etc... It is just localization issue.... It was part of medieval Kingdom of Hungary, it's fact.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, after 1018. But the source refers to this part as "Slowanszczyzna" which means "Slovak region" (not "Slowacja", btw - there's no implication that there was a political entity called "Slovakia" at the time). It just simply means that it was an area inhabited by Slovaks. Again, my understanding of the matter is that while after 1018 the region can properly be called part of kingdom of Hungary, before the Polish conquest this is not the case. At any rate, the source says "Slovak region" so we follow the source.VolunteerMarek 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no such political entity as "Slovak region" in medieval Kingdom of Hungary. It is misleading, false. In this case we should call Szekler Land in Romania "Hungarian region" or "Szekely region" !officially! because those Romanian counties are inhabited by Hungarians?!?! Fakirbakir (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there was no such political entity as "Slovak region" in medieval... Europe, but that's exactly why map says "Slovak region" rather than "Slovakia" - it indicates that the area was inhabited by Slovaks, nothing more. I have no idea about "Szekely region". And at any rate, we follow the source.VolunteerMarek 19:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually we know nothing about ethnic ratios in Kingdom of Hungary at the beginning of the 11th century. Moreover, the Carpathian regions were mostly uninhabited, covered by mass of woods. Why do we use a "modern" name if we have the proper political name of the territory? Because an inaccurate source states that?.... Fakirbakir (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is reliable. What has happened here is that you first edit warred over the map over on Commons, trying to upload "your" version over the existing one, and when that didn't work you uploaded a POV-fork version of it and have been trying to replace the previous version with it. But there's several problems with your version (and as I already indicated there is actually one problem with the original one, in terms of the borders in 1025) - specifically, there's no reason to color this particular region a different color from other regions temporarily captured by Chrobry, and the source for the map specifically refers to the region as "Slovak region" rather than "Upper Hungary". You may think the source inaccurate. But it's still a reliable source, and that trumps your own personal opinion. Honestly, the most likely reason why it refers to the region as "Slovak region" is because before the Polish conquest the political control over the region is uncertain, but what is relatively certain is that it was inhabited by Slovaks (ethnic composition of Kingdom of Hungary overall is neither here nor there). Rather than edit warring over the map, this should probably be worked out over at Commons.VolunteerMarek 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What if I find some reliable sources to justify my version? I am sure I can find academic sources about Polish occupation of "Upper Hungary" in the era of St Stephen. Actually I think you disregard "the historical accuracy" in this case. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have other reliable sources, let's see them. Links and all.VolunteerMarek 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting map....[26].Fakirbakir (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: even though a source supports the name "Slovak lands" it still pretty much sounds like a fringe theory, as it is quite controversial whether we can speak about the Slovak nation that early. Even if we can, we hardly have enough information about the ethnic composition of that territory in the 11th century, as Fakibakir has pointed out. Providing a map with such a text sounds like violating the neutrality point of view principle, since it would mean an obvious side-taking in that question. On the other hand, PANONIAN is also right that using the term "Upper Hungary" may also sound anachronistic. The map should not contain either of these terms. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: Another problem with these maps is that they are not in English, so they should be avoided in English Wikipedia... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur "Upper Hungary" may sound anachronistic, however a simple geographical term "Northern Kingdom of Hungary" seems to be fine in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine with me, too. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Main point here is: during Polish administration the area was not "Northern Kingdom of Hungary" - it was rather Southern Poland. PANONIAN 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the question of "ethnic composition of that territory in the 11th century", is there any serious source that says that Slovaks did not lived there in the 11th century? I do not see why lands where Slovaks are living should not be named "land of the Slovaks". Also, Polish sources are certainly more reliable than Hungarian ones when history of Slovakia is in question - it is because of the simple fact that Poles do not have territorial pretensions towards Slovakia and therefore, I see no any reason why an Polish source would be biased when it speaks about history of Slovakia. Contrary to this, some nationalist Hungarian authors would include bias in their work in order to support Hungarian territorial pretensions towards Slovakia. But, even if we have this in mind, I am not aware that any Hungarian author claimed that Slovaks did not lived there in the 11th century. PANONIAN 13:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If we followed your reasoning, Pomerania and Lusatia would be "West Poland", Moravia would be "South West Poland" etc etc... OR Kosovo would be "Northern Albania" (I am just joking)?!?! I know that according to you all of the Hungarian academic works are rubbish... I am used to your point of view. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa - I don't see how calling the region in question "Slovak region" or "Slovak lands" is a fringe theory. And I agree with Panonian that while there aren't going to be any sources which give you the exact % break down of various ... ethnicities, I guess, since nationality was not well defined, it's pretty clear that the area was inhabited by Slovak people (more strictly speaking pre-Slovaks, who probably spoke old form of Western Slavic).

With regard to the map being not in English, this is often the case and we use non-English maps on English Wikipedia all the time. If someone wants to make an English version of the map and upload it (as a separate file) that'd be great (I'd do it myself but I'm not very good with graphics).

Fakirbakir - actually I have a problem with Droysen's maps in general as they tend to represent 19th century nationalistic viewpoints.

If you guys want an exact answer as to what the area should be called then it'd be something like "Slovak lands, at the time controlled by Poland, but which became part of Hungary in 1018" or something like that - but you can't fit that into a map.VolunteerMarek 19:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek: as far as I know, the first written evidence in which a part of this territory was referred to as "Slovak region" (without clear definition) is from the 15th century. It is most likely that the word "Slovak" only became widespread in the 15th century, as well. Therefore, writing "Slovak region" to a map showing the 11th century is highly questionable. Of course, I do not doubt that there were significant Slav population in that area, but whether they were the absolute majority or whether they were all ancestors of the modern Slovaks is doubtful. The population of that region was always quite mixed and mainly consisted of Slovaks, Hungarians, Ruthenians (they are also Slavs, but not Slovaks!) and Germans. Identifying it as "Slovak lands" sounds like projecting back the current borders and inhabitants to 1000 years earlier, which is clearly unacceptable.
• PANONIAN: you wrote: "I do not see why lands where Slovaks are living should not be named "land of the Slovaks"". The problem is: it is doubtful whether the Slav population of that region can be called "Slovak" in the modern meaning of the word, also we do not know whether they where the majority. We simply do not have enough data about that. You also wrote " Polish sources are certainly more reliable than Hungarian ones when history of Slovakia is in question - it is because of the simple fact that Poles do not have territorial pretensions towards Slovakia". That's a very strong POV. Of course, you cannot say that Hungarians in general have "territorial pretensions towards Slovakia". I am sure that there are some radicals who have (as there are radical nationalists in Serbia, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, etc., as well), but it is unacceptable that you want to decry Hungarian scientists based on that. Regarding the claim that "I see no any reason why an Polish source would be biased when it speaks about history of Slovakia", have you ever heard in Serbia about that concept of Pan-Slavism?
• Summary: we do not know the ethnic composition of that region, thus, we should not suggest the reader an interpretation. The map should not talk about that at all, since if it does, it violates verifiability. Also, since the map shows the area between 992 and 1025, but that territory only belonged to Poland between 1003/1015 and 1018, the map should give information about the state where it belonged to outside that period. This is the Kingdom of Hungary (or the Principality of Hungary before AD 1000). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa - it really doesn't matter whether the population living in this region was called "Slovaks" contemporaneously (in 1000 AD) or not. What matters for our purpose is how modern sources refer to this population and, more specifically, region at this time. And here we have an explicit source which calls it "Slovak region". You say that the map fails verifiability but this is simply not true - we have a source that the map is based on, hence WP:V. Rather putting in "Upper Hungary", since there's no source for that, fails verifiability.

As regards bias, honestly, if anything Polish maps would tend to be pro-Hungarian. But I don't think this has anything to do with bias one way or another here.

(The question of ethnic composition of this area in 1000 AD or so is an interesting one, but actually besides the point here).VolunteerMarek 14:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This case is typical falsification of history. This debate is senseless. I am going to make a good, accurate map with reliable sources in the close future. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the original map can indeed be seen as an attempt to falsify history, or at least as an attempt to push a strong POV. I encourage the creation of a better, more accurate, English map about the area in that period, which is based on reliable academic sources (and not on fringe theories as the one we were talking about). All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no single evidence that this map is made with purpose of "history falsification". Do you have an reliable author that supports your claim or it is just your personal opinion? Furthermore, do you want to say that Polish and Slovak historians should not write about history of their own country or what? PANONIAN 06:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying such thing, i.e., that they should not write about their own history, would be foolish. You were the one who said something like that with respect to the Hungarian historians. And of course, it would be quite hard to find an academic source which claims about this specific map that it falsifies history. Naturally, that fact does not mean that it doesn't falsifies. :) I could also draw a map showing Europe under Martian occupation and there would be no specific source claiming that it was false. The question is whether a map is in line with the mainstream views (i.e., no weakly supported fringe theories, please). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words - I spoke about "some nationalist Hungarian authors", not about "Hungarian historians in general". In fact, by my opinion, reliable Hungarian authors are proven to be the best sources that disproving stupidities written by these nationalist authors. So, do you have any evidence that this map is falsification or you just based your opinion on a fact that author of that map is from Poland and that he might follow "Pan-Slavic ideas"? Not to mention, that it is ridiculous that we speak about an 19th century liberation movement in the 21th century when Slavs are no more oppressed by foreign powers. Contrary to this, Greater Hungarian nationalism is very live today and it is no less evil and aggressive than it was some 100 years ago (and contrary to Pan-Slavic movement which advocated liberation of Slavs from foreign rule, Greater Hungarian idea is and always was an idea of imposition of such foreign rule on other nations). As for maps, you can draw any map, but you should have source for it - if you draw such sourced map then one cannot claim that your map is wrong if he does not provide source for his claims. So far, the Polish map is the only one here that is sourced: http://ingner.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/boleslaw_chrobry_mapa.jpg Hungarian source provided by Fakirbakir fully supports this source and we have no source that contradicts it. PANONIAN 07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Szia. I'd like to seek assistance from you, because I am still unable to create maps. Do you have access to the book Erdély történetének atlasza (Bereznay András; Méry Ratio; 2011; ISBN 978-80-89286-45-4)? There are many interesting maps in it, but I would like to draw your attention to maps on pages 63 (Római uralom, újlatin nyelvek) and 65 (A románok őshazája). The latter map could be expanded by information based on the second map between pages 192-193 in Dákok, rómaiak, románok (Vékony Gábor, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989, ISBN 963-05-5540-9). Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing those sources out I really appreciate it. Unfortunately I do not have access for these books at the moment (I live in UK), however I will try to find online sources (file sharing etc..). I know we truly miss good maps about Erdély. I also know Transylvania is a sensitive issue ([27]. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fakirbakir. I am just thinking of a possible solution. If you are interested in drawing maps based on the above works, I could describe them for you (for instance, in Hungarian) here, in your Talk page. What do you think of this approach? Szép napot! Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have found a couple of maps from Bereznay(below), however I am still looking for that book (I have checked the libraries in UK and -unfortunately- they have not got it). I have not found online version about the book yet. I think I would really need a sample. Could you scan the most important maps? You could send me them by email or upload the scanned maps to "kepfeltoltes.hu" and in this case I would need only a link to see them.

• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Decebal.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Gotok.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Romaiakel.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Hunok.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Gepidak.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Avarok.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Bulgarok.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Balkans1360.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Europe1180.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/ContinuityWest.html
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Tatars.html
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/BWSamples/Hungaryfineriver.htm
• http://www.historyonmaps.com/ColourSamples/Hungary.htm

Fakirbakir (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Banate of Mačva

I requested move in the case of Banate of Mačva article. May I ask you to tell your opinion? See: talk page. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Raab, Talk:Napoleonic Wars

Szia! Nem tudom, ha te akarnál bekapcsolódni, de fontos volna: külföldi szerkesztők tarthatatlan érvekkel a győri csatáról szóló cikkből el akarják távolítani a magyarokról szóló részeket. Szerintük Magyarország ekkor nem létezett, nem volt önálló a Habsburg Birodalmon belül, argumentálnak semmitmondó külföldi forrásokra, amelyek azt állítják, hogy a győri csatában csak az osztrák hadsereg volt jelen. Az egyik szerkesztő, aki sorozatosan állítgat vissza francia, a másik aki Magyarország függetlenségével kapcsolatban tett kijelentést román. Doncsecz^talk 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.101.149 (talk)

Talk:Napoleonic Wars

Na kisegítettelek a vitalapon (Hungary as part of the Austrian Empire szekció), cserében viszont rendet kellene tenni a Lajbi fejében, aki a fekete sereg cikkben erőltet egy hamis félrevezető táblázatot. Persze a vitát komoly érvek nélkül elvesztette, csak adminisztratív eszközökkel próbálja érvényesíteni akaratát. Köszi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.94.117 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vilma Hugonnai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (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) 11:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template

The comparison with the Romanian template isn't right, because the Romanians don't have an initial event - for Magyars and Croats, there's that moment when they arrived, and so the link from their history to the earlier history of the lands they inhabit now is easily made generic - the latter is not integral to the national histories. Romanians, on the other hand, have a prominent theory of Daco-Romanian continuity, that the lead section of Origin of the Romanians describes as equally valid as the more immigrationist theories, so they seem to have a valid claim of Roman Dacia as an integral part of Romanian history. If you'd want to argue otherwise, I think you should first start at the aforementioned origin article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that I only included the most relevant example there. An analogous argument can be made in case of Template:History of Albania and Origin of the Albanians. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not my fault why they do not have initial events. You should not mention "valid claim" because it is just leading to historical debates. Moreover Roman Pannonia is also an integral part of History of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; if the place wasn't called "Hungary" at the time, the inference that "Pannonia" was a historical part of Hungary is misleading and should be avoided. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

And the converse at Template:History of Serbia, which I just fixed as well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that I'm not watching your talk page; if you wish to continue this discussion, please use the relevant template Talk page or a noticeboard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

moving khazars to khazar khaganate

on 18:16, 26 March 2011, i suggested the same thing. and we moved the page to: khazar empire. it stayed like this for a few months, but they moved the article back to "khazars" again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbesogullible (talk • contribs) 14:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing the tag on the Khazars page was discussed in the Talk section with no objections. A number of editors have been working on revising that page, mapping out how it ought to be done in Talk. Please discuss how you would accomplish such a split and why you believe the page is too long. That would be much more helpful than simply slapping a tag on the page and moving on -- that is how the page got out of control to begin with. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Kérdés

Bocs, de te érted, mi a baja jóembernek a Magyarország története template-tel? Miért nem akarja a római tartományt szerepeltetni? Én teljesen el vagyok veszve. Semmilyen logikát nem tudok felfedezni az ő magyarázataiban, de lehet, hogy elkerülte a figyelmemet vmi. Előre is köszönöm. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sajnos én sem értem :(. Először arra gondoltam, hogy csak az adott területen ma létező ország nézőpontjából szövegezett oldalakat akarná a prehistory részben megjeleníteni. De ez nem "fair" mivel más országoknál meg szó nélkül otthagyja az adott régióra vonatkozó "eredeti" pl. római tartományok oldalait. Még az amerikai template is tartalmaz nem ország-specifikus oldalt a prehistory-ra vonatkozóan. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you to watch the templates History of Portugal and History of Slovakia. I would like to avoid edit warring with our strange friend. Thanks in advance. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alba Iulia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyula (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) 12:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Sibiu

Please, tell your opinion. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Köszönet

Köszönet a segítségért. (És a dícséretért, habár az erősen túlzás.) Mellesleg, azon gondolkodom, hogy valahogy segítenünk kellene többeknek, mivel bizonyos magatartások nagyon visszatetszőek kivülállóknak. Például ez az "azért mondod, mert a Marsról jöttél és utálod az uránusziakat" stílus, amelyet többen használnak, nagyon-nagyon nem comme il faut itt a wp-n. Mit gondolsz? Borsoka (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nincs mit. Amúgy ha már magatartás, néha azért nekem is sikerül "elvetni a súlykot" (főleg régebben)... Mára azért már rájöttem (többnyire:)), hogy a saját szubjektív véleményem csak másodlagos. Ugyanakkor az információ "fegyver" (ezt nem is ragozom tovább...). Alapvető fontosságú a tárgyilagos hozzállás. Ezért is meglepő hogy a "neutral" hozzáállásod másoknál mennyire kiveri a biztosítékot. Pontos idézés, forrásmegjelölés, objektivitás, tárgyilagosság, haha nincs Apelláta!!! Ezt elég nehéz azoknak megemészteni ahol 40-50 évig vagy akár máig a történelem összefonodott a politikával, és akik ebben szocializálódtak..... Viszont a fő problémát én inkább ott látom, hogy történelemnek ezen kis kelet-európai szelete az angol adminok -többségének- a fejében csak egy "sötét köd" és hiába a józan érvek, az állandó edit warringok, véget nem érő viták és revertek az ő szemükben csak gyanakvást és elutasítást keltenek.....Fakirbakir (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Köszi szépen a biztató sorokat. Nem tervezem a visszavonulást, maximum a kényes témákat hanyagolom. Igaz, a középkori kontextusban előforduló román, szlovák változatú magyar helységnevek továbbra is szúrni fogják a szemem. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Így még nagyobb a kihívás. Oszlassuk közösen a ködöt kulturáltan! További jó munkát! Borsoka (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Old Hungarian (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) 11:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Map

I see you put your hand into a wasp's nest. We are on the losing side now :). I think that the core subject of the map should be catched: hydronymy. What about a map on the river names and their origin? The same source could be used as a basis, but other sources could also be added. Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I see they have already nominated it to deletion on wikicommons. I do not care really because this is the Hungarian point of view. Actually the map is properly sourced there is no valid reason to delete it. There are hundreds of maps which ones show the Romanian POV. I can put into the map "based on hydronymy" however it would be futile in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Two new sources were added to the map. What is nice, that the map from the History of Transylvania is not based exclusively on place names, but also on archaeological finds. :) :) :) :) Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Szia. I cannot answer the last question here. Would you help me? Borsoka (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Köszönet. First of all a question: why did you add the words "Hungarian perspective" to the map? Why is it a Hungarian perspective? That the Carpathian Basin was inhabited by Hungarians, Slavs and Turkic groups is not a Hungarian perspective. Furthermore, I suggest that the "yellow" territories should be marked as "densely forested areas" or something similar, while the "white" territories as "lakes and marshes" (in line with Kniezsa's work). All the same, good work. I wish I could design such quality maps. Minden jót! Borsoka (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I added it because of User: Hxseek's opinion. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Ethnic_map_of_11th_century.jpg), Do you think it is unnecessary? I am going to repair the map soon in accordance with your suggestions. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I conclude with Borsoka and also think that the addition "Hungarian perspective" is unnecessary. Science is universal, something is either supported by the facts or it is not supported. Of course, I know that there could be many diverse perspectives, but still: a scientific statement should not depend on the nationality of the scholar (ideally). By the way: nice work. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is done.I mean check the map :). Fakirbakir (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Koertefa, you are wrong, history is not science. The map is the result of personal interpretation of the toponyms/hidronyms and their possible etymology + personal idea of linking toponyms/hidronyms with ethnicity Transerd (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is science in that sense. Even physics, e.g., relativity theory, is the personal interpretation of some scholars. There are infinitely many possible models of the world which all fit our experiments. I see your point, but your argument that we should not link ethnicity to toponyms/hidronyms is a scientific question and thus we should leave it to qualified scholars (we should not decide in scientific questions here, that's not our role). On the other hand, as I understand, other sources were also added which are based on archaeological finds. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Visigoths

Congratulations for your new map. I suggest three smaller modifications: (1) Thervingi instead of Visigoths; (2) Greuthungi instead of Ostrogoths; and (3) "Kaukalanda" could be added. I know that the source map uses the terms "Visigoths" and "Ostrogoths" (fully in line with Jordanes and a number of scholars), but contemporary sources used the "Thervingi" and "Greuthungi" denominations. The next source could be added for the terms "Thervingi" and "Greuthungi": Heather, Peter (2008). The Goths. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-0-6312-0932-4 (page 99). Minden jót! Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principality of Upper Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (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) 11:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khazars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tourkia (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) 10:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The East West schism article

Hello I hope all is good. I was wanting to ask for your input on the talkpage for the East West Schism article and about the fall of the Western Roman section. There appears to be some difficulty clarifying that the Western Roman Empire fell to "goths". Thank you. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Constitution of_Hungary".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Főméltóságok Helló! Magyarul írok, mert így inkább megértetem magam, mint angolul, és azért neked, mert ahogy láttam, Borsoka már egy hónapja inaktív. Azért írok, mert kis segítségre lenne szükségem. A közeljövőben a célom az összes főméltóság és vármegyék hivatalnokjegyzékét elkészíteni, ehhez a megfelelő archontológiákat (Zsoldos, Engel, Fallenbüchl) már beszereztem. Gondban vagyok a névhasználattal. Borsoka a középkori neveknél a latin használatból eredendően az angol keresztneveket használja (pl. Stephen Kórógyi, Nicholas Garai), ezzel korábban nem értettem egyet, de most már indokoltnak tartom. Viszont a későbbi korok tisztviselőinél már nem, hiszen a könyvnyomtatással és a reformációval együtt a magyar nyelv is széles körben terjedt el, hiába volt a latin 1844-ig hivatalos. Tehát nem tartanám szerencsésnek Széchenyi apjának nevét megváltoztatni Ferencről Francis-re, csak mert főispán volt. Mit gondolsz, szerinted melyik év legyen az a határ, ahol a listán át lehet térni a magyar nevek használatára? Én 1526-ra, a középkori királyság bukásának dátumára gondoltam. A másik gondom egyes tisztségek angol megfelelőjének elnevezése. Te hogyan fordítanád a személynököt? Latinul personalis, de az angol nevére ötletem sincs. Fallenbüchl könyvében a Chief Justice megnevezéssel találkoztam, de ezt más helyeken az országbíró meghatározásánál láttam. Szerinted? :) Ha időközben felmerülnek ötletek vagy más művek, nyugodtan írj. :) Várom válaszod. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Eleg bizonytalan vagyok a szemelynokkel kapcsolatban, valaki Chief Justice-nak forditja [28] Viszont masok, sajnos neten talaltam nem tudom ki a szerzo mivel ha raklikkelek a linkre (masodik link) egy konyv (Kosary Domokostol) ugrik be[29], szoval talan Kosary Domokos irta ezt "the offices of the lord chief justice and the szemelynok (the crown-appointed official who presided over the tabla regia and the formal sessions of the lower house of the diet)" . Tehat eszerint a chief justice meg a szemelynok az ket kulonbozo dolog. Igen, de ha megnézed itt a "Lord Chief Justice"-ra utal a szerző, ami az országbírónak felel meg (Fallenbüchl is ezt használja, de itt a wikin már Judge royal néven született róla cikk). Köszi a választ. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Igaz, akkor lehet megis jo a "szimpla" Chief Justice. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC) A nevek hasznalataval kapcsolatban meg gondolkoznom kell. Szerintem, a szemelyek a magyar tortenelem targyat kepeztek, magyar szemszogbol lesznek bemutatva meg akkor is ha angolul kell irni roluk, ezert nyugodtan lehetne a magyar neveket hasznalni, ertem ezalatt a kozepkori magyar kiralysagot is, bar tudom a latin forrasok meg a szomszedos orszagok eltero tortenelemszemlelete miatt ez elegge "bajos". Hozzateszem a kozepkorban a magyar nyelv joval elterjedtebb volt a magyar kiralysagban, mint mondjuk a 18. szazadban. Eleg csak az etnikai aranyokra nezni. Hogy az irott forrasok latinul voltak, azzal nincs mit tenni, hiszen a kozepkori Europa nagy reszeben latin volt az adminisztracio nyelve. A nemzeti ebredes, felvilagosodas korszakatol kifejezetten magyar neveket kellene hasznalni, ami legyen mondjuk a 18. szazad masodik harmada a Habsburg Magyar Kiralysagban, bar pl Erdely eseteben a nem Habsburg (tehat kb 1711-ig) fejedelemsegnel csakis magyar nevhsznalat johet szoba. Szoval elegge zavaros az ugy. Szerintem nyugodtan hasznald a magyar neveket (akar 1526-tol), akiknek ezzel baja van, az meg hasznalja a talk page-t. Sok sikert az uj oldalak szerkesztesehez!Fakirbakir (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Köszi, így fogok tenni. Az 1526 alatti neveknél meg maradok az angol formulánál, hogy megmaradjunk az egységesítésnél. Persze még ott is van teendő, hiszen biztos, hogy Lackfit fogok használni a Lackovic helyett, hiszen ez a család echte magyar származású volt és csak az egyik ága töltött be horvát méltóságokat. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Írok azért Koertefának is, hogy ő mit gondol. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Helló! Elkészültem a személynökről szóló szócikkel, végül maradtam a chief justice elnevezésnél. Ha nem nagy kérés, megtennéd, hogy amint van időd, átnézed nyelvtanilag? Sajnos nem túl jó az angolom... :( Ha van esetleg tanácsod és/vagy hozzáfűzni valód, csak nyugodtan. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Re: A barnstar for you! Thanks! :) --Norden1990 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Constitution of Hungary DRN filing A proposal to close the filing as stale has been floated at WP:DRN and in less than 48 hours will be acted upon unless there is significant objection. Please consider if the dispute is still active and respond if appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC) WP:AIV Regarding your vandalism report here, you may consider dispute resolution if you are having difficulties with another editor. If you are unclear as to how the AIV page works, please see this guide. Thanks. SQLQuery me! 19:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC) ANI Hi Fakirbakir, you were mentioned on ANI by user Hortobagy. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 21 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarian dialects, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moldavian (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) 11:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 28 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mazurian and Gothic War (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) 14:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC) May 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Székelys may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 6 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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. Captaincy of Upper Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added links pointing to Kassa and Lang Captaincies of the Kingdom of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Lang Captaincy of Kanizsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver) added a link pointing to Kanizsa It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Re:Captaincies Magyarul válaszolok, ha nem baj. A 6 felsorolt főkapitányság mellett felállítottak 4 kerületi kapitányságot is, ahol a nemesi felkelést vezették és a rendek irányítása alatt álltak. Erre azért volt szükség, mert a rendek háborogtak, hogy őket kihagyják a határvédelemből, ezért létrehoztak egy egymás mellett működő kettős szervezetet. Egyébként nem is voltak teljesen letisztázva a hatáskörök, így ebből konfliktus adódott. A 4 nemesi főkapitányság: horvát-szlavón, dunántúli, Dunán inneni (Pozsonytól Gömör vármegyéig) és felső-magyarországi. Azaz az utóbbi név alatt volt egy "rendes" és egy "nemesi" főkapitányság is, egymás mellett léteztek. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Nem vagyok abban biztos, hogy lenne alá-fölé rendeltségi viszony, szerintem csak egymás mellett léteztek. Nyilván a 6 udvari főkapitányságnak volt nagyobb szerepe, amelyeket a bécsi Udvari Haditanács irányítása alá rendeltek. Na azért ennek majd utánanézek. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Nem tudom, szerintem csak (elviekben) más volt a funkciójuk. A főkapitányságokat a vármegyék felé szervezték, az biztos, a kerületi főkapitányságok pedig a rendek érdekeit képviselték. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Itt van még pár nagyon jó forrás! [30], [31]. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Marosvásárhelyi pogrom Thank you for your great contributions! --Rob.HUN (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Your welcome :)Fakirbakir (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited László Skultéty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad (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) 11:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 21 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Captaincies of the Kingdom of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaton (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) 11:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) June 2013 When moving pages, as you did to Magyarphobia, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Reply gepids Casually parousing through articles, i saw a question you posed long time ago here [32] to which I replied. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your answer. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Hi User:Fakirbakir, the link to the dispute resolution page is here: WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ferenc Szaniszló. Hopefully we can all come to some agreement. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 15 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principality of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moravians (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) 11:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Hungary Names Thanks for that very clutch and judicious application of the loanword tags. I was totally disappointed when I noticed that those edits were back. Frankly, I only saw that the horrible-looking "Nagy=Large/Grand" style formatting had returned, which led me to see everything was back to Hungarian for everything. Looks like those edits and the false reference were hidden in another multi-section edit. Cheers! JesseRafe (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for August 29 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natio Hungarica (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) 11:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Canis familiaris Raisits, 1924 is the author. The latin name is Canis familiaris pastorialis villosus hungaricus, by Raisits, 1924. In this http://people.inf.elte.hu/kubraai/pasztorkutyak.html. Hafspajen (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC) October 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Name of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: ' or ''Madjgharīyah'' (''e.g.'', by [[Ahmad ibn Rustah]]), ''Badjghird'' or ''Bazkirda'' (''e.g.'', by [[Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī|al-Mas’udi]]}, ''Unkalī'' (''e.g.'', by [[Abraham ben Jacob|al-Tartushi]]), and ''Turk'' (''e.g.'', by [[Ibn Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Magyar tribes Nekem személyesen nem tűnik jó ötletnek. Kellene várni egy évet. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Tényleg azt javasolom, hogy nem kellene most erőltetni. Nem lehet véletlen, hogy mindannyian távol tartjuk magunkat. Borsoka (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Yep, I think so, too. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for October 2 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Name of Hungary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Khanty, Mansi and Tourkia (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) 13:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Eurocentral He is not Iaaasi, you are free to make a SPI but I assure you that he is a different person. Checlk his geolocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.112.3.21782.79.213.79 (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Yes, the first vote is mine, but don't involve others in this. Eurocentral is innocent 82.79.213.79 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC) I do not care, you can not delete comments. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC) At least don't modify Eurocentral's comment. He deleted his IP that he revealed by mistake https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Romanian_words_of_possible_Dacian_origin&diff=581910126&oldid=581909668 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.213.79 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Something is stinky there. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Eurocentral edits since 7 December 2012, if it belonged to me it would have been blocked by now via CheckUsers 82.79.213.79 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Köszönet! Éppen nagyon jól jött. Két kisebb módosítást javasolok: (1) XIII. század (mivel a Bolohovok csak ebben a században szerepelnek) (2) Rus' principlaities a Kievan Rus' helyett, mivel a XIII. század már a fejedelemségek kora. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC) It is done. :) Fakirbakir (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Pozsony/Pressburg Hi. Category lead said that "Please place only city articles to this category." I think categorizing of Bratislava will be correct, but is also not recommended.--Rovibroni (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC) These new informations and instructions throw new light upon the categorization of Pozsony and Pressburg, so we can do it. Thanks for reply and new infos.--Rovibroni (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Ezúton szeretnék kellemes ünnepeket és sikerekben és szerkesztésekben gazdag új esztendőt kívánni. :) Üdvözlettel, --Norden1990 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for December 24 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magyarization, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Turkic and Avars (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) 08:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Vannak A forrás téved, ha tényleg ezt írja. Szinte egész Erdély tele van román eredetű nevekkel. Borsoka (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Talan rosszul ideztem, "No place names or body of water of Romanian origin - which would indicate a continuity of Romanians - can be found in Transylvania", javitom. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC) Javitottam a forras szerint, aztan toroltem, mert nem odavalo. Igazaban mindenhol dakokat latok :), meg ott is ahol nem kellene. Most az egyszer tenyleg csak Vlah leszarmazottakrol szolt a bekezdes es en ertettem felre. (legalabbis remelem) Fakirbakir (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC) OK. Köszönet. Igen, jött egy büszke dák leszármazott. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Köszönet Hálám üldözni fog. Lehet, hoty tsak szoorakoszom az elftaarshakkal? :):):) Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Map improvement Map 1 Map 2 Hello! I noticed that you have some skills in map creation and I was wondering if you can help at the addition of counties name in the adjoining map (map 1). Some of the counties also exist on map 2. 79.117.168.162 (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC) I will help you gladly if I have some free time. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks For your edits at Hungarian Turanism. I hope mine were ok - the editor before me was pretty upset with me, as you can see on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Latin peoples article deletion Article Latin peoples is nominated for deletion. I'm notifying everyone involved in the related merge discussion. Diego (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Kérés Bocsánat, de te biztos érted ezt. Én képtelen vagyok bármit csinálni, mivel teljesen hülye vagyok ezekhez a dolgokhoz, viszont fontos lehet. Kérhetek egy kis segítséget? Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Hat, en sem ertem....probalkozok, de egyenlore meg nem jottem ra, mit is kell pontosan csinalni. En is hulye vagyok ehhez :). Talaltam valami magyarazatot, de egy kicsit kinai..:User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Hát, a tapasztalatom az, ha valaminek a használatát nem lehet 5 perc alatt megérteni, akkor azzal nem is érdemes foglalkozni. Ne nekem kelljen gondolkodni, hanem a tervezőnek, mivel én csak fogyasztó vagyok. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Mongolfolt Nyest.hu-n olvastam hozzászólásodat a mongolfoltról. Jókat derültem! Czezel prof véleménye erről: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n4Bgx1IHlY Egyébként a sötétebb bőrszínű népek csecsemőinek sajátja: negroid mongoloid arab indiai australoid népeknek , spnayol d-balkán d-olasz stb... Nyilván ők is rokonok.... Magyarországon cigányfoltnak is nevezik a szülésznők... hiszen cigány származásra szokott utalni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.192.128 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Oszinten szolva annyi elmeletet (hulyeseget) olvastam mar a MO-i mongolfolt szarmazasarol, hogy teljesen tanacstalan vagyok. A "sztargenetikus" Czeizel ur velemenyet en nem vennem keszpenznek. O is mar annyi "butasagot" hordott ossze, hogy szamomra o teljesen elfogadhatatlan (kezdve a kevert magyar nepesseg hangoztatasa (ugye konyvet is irt errol) utani palfordulasarol, amikor elkezdett a magyarok nagy (pontosabban donto) reszenek !perzsa! szarmazasarol beszelni.....)Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC) A szülésznők cigányfolnak nevezik. Talán szakemberektől és nem mariskanénitől meg blogokról kellene infot szerezned. Czezeel genetikus szülés-nőgyógyász, tehát temérdek szülést látott. Így néz ki: http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD085/550px/img0003.jpg és így: http://newborns.stanford.edu/images/slategrey4.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.178.40 (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Turáni mesék Miért törölted ki az amerikai indiános részt? Az része vlt a turanizmusnak. Olvassad el: http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/ostortenet-nemzettudat/ch07.html Másrészt a Habsburgok vezető szerepét is meg kell említeni a Turáni Társaság megalapításában, szponzorálásában. Valamint jó lenne megemlíteni hogy a társaság elnökségi tagja Gr. Károlyi Mihály volt.--Friarjuli (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC) ???En nem toroltem semmit....Fakirbakir (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Hungarian Genetics Ironically, the most Slavic speaking nations, and Northern Germanic nations (Sweden Norway Northern Germany) contain higher ratio of Mongoloid asian haplogroup markers (like N1C1 and "Q") than Hungarians. Unlike the Hungarians, Balkan people (incl. Romanians) have also very high ratio of middle-eastern Near-eastern and Northern African haplogroup markers, which caused their average darker pigmentation (eye, hair color, skin tone) See the genetic chart of European nations: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml --Friarjuli (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) The "Trefort quote" was debunked: It was a primitive type of counterfeit You can read about it here: http://toriblog.blog.hu/2010/12/07/hamis_e_a_nemzetveszto_trefort_idezet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarjuli (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Cumania and fake Neo-"Cuman" people in "Kunság"region The most importandt and strongest center of Turanism is the Kunság region, where a very special identity crisis (and double identity) exists until this day. Why are many cumanians turanist? Cuman minority were turkic speaking people, whose language remained until the end of 1600s. Therefore they want to link the Hungarians with themselves, by the claiming that weird belief that Hungarian is a turkic language and ethnic group. However very very few Cumans survived the Ottoman wars. However there are thousands of (fake) "neo-Cumans" in modern Hungary. You can read about it here: "Kunok legyünk vagy Magyarok": http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok The Habsburg conspiracy theory in Turanism Two good readings about the roots and origins of Habsburg anti-turkic anti-turanian conspiracy theories: http://www.tenyleg.com/index.php?action=recordView&type=places&category_id=3115&id=319584 http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/akiknek-el-akarjak-venni-a-multjukat --Friarjuli (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC) File:Famous Hungarians.jpg Csak az lenne a kérdésem, hogy a fent hivatkozott képen Álmos (nem igazán hiteles) képe helyett nem lenne célszerűbb Árpádházi Szent Erzsébetet szerepeltetni? Ráadásul Álmost senki nem ismeri a Lajtától nyugatra, a Kárpátoktól keletre és délre, míg a hölgy az egyik legnépszerűbb katolikus szent. Például a következő kép egész jó: . Üdv, Borsoka (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC) De celszerubb lenne, mivel "ferfiuralom" van a kepen. Sajnos alig talaltam akkoriban legalisan felhasznalhato (es hasznaveheto) kepeket a wiki commons-on hires magyar nokrol, de talan o elkerulte a figyelmem. Ha lesz egy kis idom megcsinalom. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Done.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC) March 2014 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rába (company) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: The '''Rába Automotive Holding Plc.'''({{lang-hu|Rába Járműipari Holding Nyrt.}}, commonly known as '''Rába''', is a [[Hungary|Hungarian]] It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 3 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sigismund (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) 08:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Blogen, miért támogatod a turáni áltudományt a Hungarian people cikkben? Amikor a turanizmus áltudományként van nyilvántartva? Itt pl: Hitelesnek ismered el az ál-tudós Bíró András Zsolt gagyi referenciáját, aki a Magyar Turáni szövetség elnöke, és kurultájt is szervezi. Ez egy lexikon, és ha még "szabad" lexikonként van definiálva, ez a szabadság nem a dilettáns vélemények és a butaság "szabadsága". Holnap miből fogadsz el referenciát? Az ezeregy éjszaka meséiből? Mád-jár jelentése= Mohamed barátai, hithű muszlim Itt vannak a Madjarok: http://csk.blog.hu/2009/02/12/madjar_vagyok_turista , http://csk.blog.hu/2009/02/12/madjar_vagyok_turista --Balkuin (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Nem tamogatom oket (Blogen?). Pamjav Horolma ismert genetikus MO-n (ELTE), a cikke pedig az American Journal of Physical Anthropology-ban jelent meg (ergo "reliable source"). A cikk tartalmanak megvitatasa pedig az akademikusok feladata, nem az enyem. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Áltudományos, mivel a turán szövetség elnökeként Bíró kérte fel erre. Másrészt azok az emberkék török nyelven beszélnek hybrid mongol-kukázusi keverék arcuk és szemük van, génjeik alapján pedig félig-meddig kínaiak félig európaiak. Másrészt a nevük pedig Allah barátait jelenti, semmi közük a magyar népnévhez. Lehet a kunoknak rokonai a kazahok , de a magyaroknak biztosan nem. Harmadrészt mivel a Magyarok genetikailag megkülönböztethetetlenek, vagy alig különböznek a csehektől lengyelektől szlovákoktól osztrákoktól, viheted egész Közép-Euróát a türk mongol Kazahokhoz:))))--Balkuin (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Ilyen olyan blogokkal nem fogod megcafolni Horolma megallapitasait. Ha mar blogokrol van szo, tessek itt egy masik errol a nem is olyan egyszeru temarol: [[33]] Fakirbakir (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Nowadays Pal Liptak, Lajos Bartucz ma már elavult vicces figurák akik fura jász és kun kissebbséget (akik a jászságban és kunságban is apró kisebbség) fényképeztek turáninak. Teljesen elavultak, erről itt olvashatsz: http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/ostortenet-nemzettudat/ch05.html --Balkuin (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Liptak Pal kutatasait egyenesen Balint Csanad idezi, aki nehezen nevezheto "turanistanak". :) link Fakirbakir (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Nem számít már tekintélynek a 21.században, csak történeti jelentősége van. Tudod a természettudományok gyorsan fejlődnek, itt már 20 év is elavult. A természettudományok nem olyanok mint a művészetek, ahol pl: Homérosz ma is király lehet, ahol Leonardo ma is császár a maga nemében.--Balkuin (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Template:Hungarian parliamentary election, 2014 Helló! Köszi szépen a szerkesztésedet. Sajnos nem igazán értek a táblázatokhoz, ezért téged kérdezlek, ha van kedved/időd, nem tudnád a Fidesz-KDNP és az Összefogás esetében megcsinálni a táblázatot a Template:Croatian parliamentary election, 2011 mintájára? Tehát külön fel lehetne tüntetni az 5 db pártot illetve a KDNP-t, illetve a mandátumaik számát (a voksok száma és a %-os arány közös). A számokat én beírom a valasztas.hu alapján, csak képtelennek bizonyultam e változat szerint átalakítani ezt a két sort. Nos? :) --Norden1990 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC) En sem vagyok egy nagy expert, de megprobalom. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Köszi, eredménytől függetlenül. Kicsit változtattam a táblázat összetételén (német mintára), remélem nem rondítottam bele túlságosan. Egyébként az adatok még változhatnak, úgy érzem, az angol kollégák a számokkal kissé előredolgoznak. Nem is beszélve a parlamenti összetétel ábrájával. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Rendben, köszönöm szépen, nagyszerű. :) Még annyi kérésem lenne, hogy megtennéd, hogy addig a sandbox-ban hagyod, amíg nem jönnek ki a 100%-os eredmények? Most már szombatig (?) nem akarom variálni, egyszerűbb lesz egyszerre beírni a helyes adatokat.--Norden1990 (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Persze, otthagyom, meg addig is foltozgatom majd a meglevo adatokkal. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Egyébként szerinted az Összefogás ("Unity") név maradhat? Mert a szövetség márciustól elejétől már nem használja. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Hmm,a szavazaskor "Kormanyvaltas" ("Change of government") volt a nevuk. Szerintem javitani kellene majd. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Viszont a Unity sokkal elterjedtebb a nemzetközi sajtóban, s nem mellesleg a wiki cikk neve is az. :) Szerintem most már maradjon (sablonok is épülnek rá, stb.) --Norden1990 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Nekem mindegy :). Fakirbakir (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Azért nem kell őket feltüntetni, mert az ehhez hasonló táblázatok számait az előző választáshoz viszonyítjuk. A DK, PM stb. ekkor (2010) még nem léteztek. Ráadásul, mivel az MSZP-ből és LMP-ből váltak ki, így az ő előző számuk (10 és 8) már megvan jelenítve az 59 mszp-s és 16 lmp-s között. A korábbi 386 illetve a mostani 199 képviselői számnak ki kell jönnie, eltérés nem lehet. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 12 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pál Lipták, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian (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) 08:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Madi -jar people= Bíró (who is president of pseudo scientific Hungarian Turan society,and Jobbik Supporter) and originally Central Asian Horolma is not realiable source. Read the critics here: (from page 3) http://ahea.net/admin/?path=admin/modules/journals/4/journalarticles/25/journalarticleattachments&request=modules/journals/journalarticleattachments&download=83&ajax=1 Their real name is madi-jar and not madjar people! It means friends of Mohamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Madjars Elnézést, de szerintem ez tényleg nagyon áltudomány és nagyon gáz (egy kicsi csoport, amelyik állítólag nem tipikusan közép-ázsiai, állítólag bizonyítja, hogy a magyarok közép-ázsiai eredetűek????). Miért ragaszkodjunk hozzá, hogy bemutassuk ezt az elméletet? (Mellesleg, lehet, hogy a magyarok k-ázsiai eredetűek, de ezt valamilyen hihető érvvel kellene alátámasztani, nem ilyen "ez-a-publikáció-nem-jelent-volna-meg-a-kazah/üzbég-állam-támogatása-nélkül" cikkekkel.) Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Erdemben senki sem cafolta meg Horolma eredmenyeit (nem Biro turanista tevelygeserol beszelek). Addig igenis fel kell tuntetni ezeket a kutatasokat is. Felre ne erts, nem vedem, de en meg normalis genetikustol nem hallottam, olvastam semmilyen cafolatot. Jah, hogy Balint Csanad ezt meg azt irta...Neki nem ez a szakterulete. Idezni fogok kesobbi Horolma kutatasokat is, mivel kb egy eve ismet kijott egy komolyabb mai magyar mintakkal foglalkozo munkaja (azt hiszen Zalan Andreaval egyutt, ha jol emlekszem). Fakirbakir (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Ugyan már, fantasy. Majd ha egy rendes akadémikus (MTA vagy más külföldi tudományos társaság rendes tagja vagy legalább levelező tag) professzortól hallod akkor komolyan veheted. MTA szimpla kis doktora lehetsz egy sima PHD vizsgával. Miért kellene komolyan venni? És mint bizonyítottam. Ez nem más mint Bíró András Zsolt saját ötlete expedíciója és mintái alapján született Horolma iromány, ami egyetlen Y haplocsoport variánsra épít. (mint mondtam a magyar populációban minimum 11 Y haplocsoport jelen van van). http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml Ráadásul legtöbb szláv népben magasabb arányban van jelen. TELJES LOGIKAI BUKFENC, amely politikai motivációk alapján született. Lásd a szoros kapcsolatot az ötlet kiagyalója Bíró és Horolma között. Már azt propagálta a Bíró, hogy megvannak a Julianus barát által felfedezett keleti magyarok :)))) Csak most éppen madi-jarok ( mohamed barátai) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Your recent reverts Hi, You can add the links or urls for the sources. Take a look to google books or something. lf you find the urls to confirm the informations, these informations can be displayed. Regards. Lamedumal (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Hi, I have answered here. I think instant deletion is not a proper solution (IMO). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Nyugi Nem kell mindjárt elkeseredni. Lesz még jobb. :) Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Talk:Banská Bystrica/GA1 Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Banská Bystrica article for which you are one of the top ten contributors. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding several MoS issues, see Talk:Banská Bystrica/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 10 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Science and technology in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (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) 08:50, 10 May 2014 (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. Csak egy tanács Szerintem sem túl elegáns egy vitában arra hivatkozni, hogy valaki magyar, román, szlovák, bissau-guineai. Ilyen alapon nőkről szóló cikkeket csak férfiak, vagy hermafroditák írhatnának, míg az emberiségről szóló cikkek megírására fel kellene kérnünk egy földönkívülit vagy egy értelmesebb hangyát. :) Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Elegans? Hat persze, hogy nem az. Csak eppen "bizonyos" szerkesztok miatt annyi a nemreg letrehozott oldalamnak. Masok, akiket nem erint a tema, "lesz..jak" az egeszet. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you Thank you! :) Fakirbakir (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Kérlek mindenképp nézz utána Kedves Fakirbakir, Mivel fő működési területem a magyar wiki és idegen nyelveken nehezen fejezem ki magam, hozzád fordulok. Az alábbi térképet és egy másikat számos szócikkben használták fel, szerkeszteni bonyodalmas lenne. Szerintük 1280-1320 között halicsi uralom alatt állt Kárpátalja. Pár dolgot tisztázni lehetne: 1. IV. Béla rövid időre a halicsi vejének engedte át a munkácsi uradalmat, de ez nem jelentett impériumváltást. Ez hasonló birtokjogot jelent, mint mikor a moldvai vajdák megkapták a fogarasi várat. 2. Az oklevéltárak szerint a magyar fennhatóság nem szakad meg. Az 1280-as években támadó fellépésre is futja. 3. Azóta olvasni ilyen vad dolgokat, mióta az országuk felbomlóban van. Eléggé orwelli színezete van a térképeknek. --Rosszkornyifog (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 20 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greater Romania (political concept), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalism (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) 08:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Comment moving I moved the content of Original research in the first paragraph? paragraph to Talk:Greater_Romania_(political_concept)#Combination_of_material_from_multiple_sources (the topic was the same), if you disagree I'll excuse for this and I'll undo this action. Avpop (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC) That is ok. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Zemlja kralja Stefana Alright, I have nothing against it. I wasn't so sure if land of king Stephen was acceptable.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC) You can check The Serbs by Sima Cirkovic. Maybe there is something.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC) In fact, the term is first used by Mauro Orbini. I dont know if there is a English translation of his book "The Slavic Kingdom".--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Greater Romania Your edits to the Greater Romania article have repeatedly reinserted material removed by another editor [34][35][36][37]. This amounts to edit warring and needs to stop. The essay at WP:BRD has some good advice and I suggest that you follow it. I am also concerned by your repeated use of edit summaries to accuse another editor of disruption. This shows an unwillingness on your part to assume good faith, a requirement for editing on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 12:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion Hello, Fakirbakir. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Mariupol standoff.The discussion is about the topic Mariupol standoff. Thank you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Banate of Macsó Could this be renamed in Banate of Mačva, or Mačva banate or Banate of Macho? I know that Banatus Machoviensis was a part of Hungarian kingdom for a long time, but inhabitants of the banatus were Greeks and Slavs. John Van Antwerp Fine, Jr. uses the term Mačva banate to refer to what is called in Latin Banatus Machoviensis or Banatus de Macho.--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC) A HAJÓZÁS szekcióval MI LESZ a magyar technikai tudományos cikkben? A HAJÓZÁS szekcióval MI LESZ a magyar technikai tudományos cikkben? Nem nagyon fejlődik.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumbsder (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Mariupol standoff Hi. Back on May 13, you put the "disputed neutrality" tag on the top of the article Mariupol standoff. There has been quite a lot of discussion and editing since then, and it seems to me that the article has improved substantially in terms of NPOV... I wonder whether you would agree to removal of the tag now? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 27 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthias Corvinus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyrical (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) 08:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Edit in coordination with User:Avpop? Hi, Out of curiosity, do you and Avpop coordinate to edit articles? Do you two know each other? NickCT (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC) I've answered User_talk:Avpop#Edit_in_coordination_with_User:Fakirbakir.3F. Avpop (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for June 12 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian (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) 08:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Monomach korona Biztos vagy abban, hogy András kapta? Mindenesetre, a forrás megjelölésével, írni kellene erről a szövegben is: "ebben az évben, ilyen alkalommal Monomach küldte ezt a koronát Andrásnak....". Van egy erős gyanúm, hogy ez csak POV. Ha jól sejtem, északi szomszédaink szerint a koronát, amit Nyitraivánkán találtak meg, Béla kapta, mint "nyitrai herceg" (egy Nyitraivánkán talált furcsa korona nyilvánvalóan csak egy nyitrai hercegé lehet :) ) Mintha létezne egy olyan vélemény is, hogy I. Géza bizánci feleségének volt a koronája. Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Egy masik forumon eppen ezen a teman vitatkozom :). Igy van, egyes szlovak velemenyek szerint ez Bela koronaja, ugyanakkor magyar forrasok szerint a korona Andrase es Salamone. Forrasokat is csatolok.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Help, help Elnézést, de szükségem lenne egy kis segítségre. István királyunk peer review-jának legvégén található néhány megjegyzés a képekkel kapcsolatban, amelyeket én sem értelmezni, sem javítani nem tudok. Esetleg lenne időd megnézni, hogy tudsz-e kezdeni velük valamit. Szeretnék egy featured article nomination-t kezdeményezni, hátha augusztus 20-ig átmegy. Előre is köszönöm. UI: Mostanában nem csinálsz térképeket? Borsoka (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC) Discretionary sanctions notification Please carefully read this information: The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, 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. This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Template:Z33 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC) Köszönet! Milyen nagyszerűen együtt fogunk működni új barátunkkal, aki olyan kitűnően ért magyarul. :) Ő nyilvánvalóan nem lehet azonos azzal a már eltiltott szerkesztővel, aki bozgornak nevezte a magyarokat egy edit summary-ben [38], kiváltva örök haragomat. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Biztos vagyok benne, hogy igazad van es egy regi "baratodat" tisztelhetjuk szemelyeben. Egy kukkot sem ert a nyelvunkon. Viragnyelven kell irni, akkor meg a gugli forditoval sem fog sokra menni. :) Fakirbakir (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Ejnye, ne legyél ilyen rosszhiszemű! Nézd meg milyen szépen megköszönte az üzenetemet a lapján. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy megértette az egészet. Ezután, természetesen magyar nyelvű üzeneteinkkel a lapján, be tudjuk vonni mindenféle közös dolgainkba. Borsoka (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Más: térképeket már nem készítesz? Borsoka (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Google forditoval meg kinai "koszonom" is lehetseges "謝謝". :-) De keszithetek terkepet, mi a tema? Van hozza online forras? Fakirbakir (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Igazából az tűnt fel, hogy a XII. századi Magyarországról nem találtam térképet, pedig jó lenne a királyainkhoz. Sajnos, forrást nem tudok, de utána nézek. Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC) Ismét segítség! Ismét mindenféle tagokat kérnek a képekhez [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen I of Hungary/archive1 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia|itt]] az "Image review" cím alatt. Én még csak fel sem fogom a probléma lényegét. Előre is köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for October 5 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarian Turanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tourkia. 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) 09:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Unfriendly action of Fakirbakir The statement The earliest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of the Romanians' ancestors in the reign of one "King Vladislaus' inserted by them in the article Origin of the Romanians isn't apparently existing in the provided source, namely Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. The word Vladislaus isn't even present in the book. Eurocentral (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at [[Origin of the Romanians]] regarding unfriendly action. The thread is [[Origin of the Romanians#thread name of the discussion|thread name of the discussion]].The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Eurocentral (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC) I even provided a link for you. Could you please read the book? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Our friend FYI Borsoka (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Help, help! (Ismét) Elnézést, de ismét problémák vannak a képekkel egy GAR során. Kérhetem a segítségedet itt (alul a "Comment" részben jelzik a problémát). Előre is köszönöm! Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Elvileg most mar jok lesznek. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Azt hiszem a Manuel I Comnenus kepnel meg mindig rezeg a lec, mivel ellentetben user:Csanady-val aki odairta, hogy o fenykepezte a Kepes Kronika oldalait, user Tokle nem irt oda semmit. Tehat nem tudjuk, honnan van a kep...... Ha megnezed a 3 kep leirasat akkor latni fogod a problemat. Lehet megis torolni kene a Comnenus kepet. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Köszönet a segítségért! Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Help, help! (Again) Ismét valami problémák vannak valami képekkel, ezúttal itt. Kérhetem ismét a segítségedet? Én egyszerűen képtelen vagyok megérteni még az alapjait is ezeknek a rendkívül fontos ügyeknek. Köszönet! Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Borsoka, Elvileg megcsinaltam a kepeket, de a multkori vitam utan Szent Istvan talk-page-en, sajnos mar nem vagyok biztos a dolgomban. A vicc az egeszben az, hogy itt a wikipedias userek probaljak "agyonvedeni" a "PD" kepeket, de a wiki commons-on hiaba vannak " PD " nak feltuntetve, nagyon pontosan bizonyitanod kell a kepek eredetet... Mar tobb kepemet letoroltek ott emiatt... Szoval a harom kepnek megvaltoztattam a licence template-jeit, talan atmegy.... :I . Fakirbakir (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Köszönet! Én még a problémát sem értem. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Nagyurak Esetleg nincs kedved az oligarchákról egy térképet készíteni? A jelenlegi térkép nagyon északi irányultságú. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Ha lesz idom szivesen csinalok egyet. :) Fakirbakir (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Köszönöm! Így mindjárt jobb. Két kisebb változtatást javasolok: (1) Moldávia és Havasalföld szerepeltetése anakronisztikus (egyik sem alakult még meg ebben az időszakban) - helyettük az Aranyhordát lenne célszerű szerepeltetni (mondjuk, ahol most Moldávia van). (2) Halicsot jó lenne feltüntetni, mivel voltak olyan oligarhák, akik a halicsi királyna ajánlották fel a koronát. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Latin Szerintem félreérted a latin nyelv szerepét a cikk alapján (például nincs szó az udvarról, hanem bíróságokról). Latin a jog nyelve volt, de egyébként nem nagyon használták, nagyon egyszerű oknál fogva: a nők nem tanultak latint, és már azokban az ősi időkben is előfordult, hogy a nemes férfiak igyekeztek hölgyekkel beszélgetni, ha más okból nem, legalább a család fenntartása érdekében. Ráadásul a cikk nagyon "laza": nem teljesen egyértelmű, hogy milyen időszakról beszél (mikor töltötte be az általa sugalmazott szerepet a latin?). A 30-as évek vonatkozásában azt mondani, hogy azért védték a latint, mert az volt a nemesség közös nyelve abszolút hülyeség: legalább az 1840-es évek óta a magyar volt a közös nyelv (előtte pedig a német).Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Borsoka Hat persze hogy birosagokrol ir. Azt is irtam "at the courts". Talan a "the" nem kell, felreertheto? Az teny hogy nagyon "vague" a forras, nem tudni melyik idoszakrol beszel. Teny, hogy a 18.szazadban jelentos volt a latin nyelvhasznalat, de a kozepkorban annyira nem ( a nemesek kozotti "beszelt" nyelvre ertem). A kisnemesseg, koznemesseg nagy resze egy betut nem tudott latinul, viszont a magas rangu arisztokratak azok bizonyara tudtak. Teny hogy van mit finomitani, de kell ra forras.... Fakirbakir (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Próbálok én is utána nézni. Más: milyen archeológiai bizonyítékok mely időszakból sugallják, hogy "the nobles and the prelates may have lived in stone houses"? Az a bajom, hogy a megfogalmazás teljesen Dákó-román kontinuitás szerű: "sok archaeologióai bizonyíték található mindenhol minden korból arra, hogy az romanizált autochton population túlélte a migratory peoples' migrations..." :) Borsoka (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Atirtam. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Fakirbakir accused of vandalism Your edits containing personal points of view and original research were reported to Administrator. An investigation will start. Eurocentral (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2014 (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.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for November 26 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bucura Dumbravă, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian. 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) 12:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Was Hungarian nobility in the Principality of Translyvania or not? An IP has a different opinion than you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istv%C3%A1n_J%C3%B3sika Get an agreement! I ask you to decide! Were Hungarian nobles in the Principality of Transylvania or not? Because István Jósika is described as a "Hungarian noble in the Principality of Transylvania". There are 2 options 1. Change the starting section of Hungarian nobility to include tTransylvania 2. Stop calling István Jósika a "Hungarian noble in the Principality of Transylvania" Which is your choice? Zoltán Meskó Zoltán Meskó is a NAzi!!! can you read english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.120.74.13 (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Mesko is an American football player.... Zoltán Meskó (American football) Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Nagyon eltűntél Már éppen aggódni kezdtem, hogy egyedül maradtam. De látom, hogy aktuális eseményekkel kapcsolatos cikkeket szerkesztesz. Érdekes témakör. Igazából azért kerestelek, mert van egy halvány érzésem, hogy a legutóbbi átnevezéses ügyben nem volt igazunk, még ha a mi elképzelésünk szerint zárult is le. Mit gondolsz? Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC) In conformity with the directives from WP:SPEAKENGLISH, I am requesting User:Borsoka to provide the translation of the comment above. Thank you in advance! 109.175.102.239 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Nem tuntem el :), Csak sok a dolgom mostanaban. Ugy gondolom a regeszek biztos csovaljak a fejuket, hogy ez maradt az oldal cime. Viszont azt is latom, hogy a magyarsag tortenetevel foglalkozo angol nyelvu munkak tobbnyire csak atveszik a magyar specialistak muveit es nincs meghonosodott angol kifejezes a magyar ostortenet idoszakara. Megfelelo kontextusban azert egy angol anyanyelvu is erti a "Hungarian prehistory" kifejezeset, de talan furcsanak talalja. Arra is gondoltam, hogy a Hungarian prehistory anyaga valojaban a "Hungarians" oldal temakorebe tartozik, viszont eleg "hulyen" nezne ki, ha a magyar tortenelem a honfogalassal kezdodne a Wikipedian (gondolj a History of Hungary template-re). Osszegezve, nem tudom mi legyen a cimmel, talan "Prehistory of the Hungarian people"[39] vagy "History of the ancient Hungarians"[40] pontosabb elnevezesek lennenek.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC) In conformity with the directives from WP:SPEAKENGLISH, I am requesting User:Fakirbakir to provide the translation of the comment above. Thank you in advance! 89.111.241.126 (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) WP:SPEAKENGLISH doesn't apply here on my talk page. Summarizing our comments, we are a bit unsure about the proper English term for "Hungarian prehistory". Fakirbakir (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Köszönet. Igen, ez a P_o_t_H_p egész jól hangzik. Szerintem most hagyjuk, de ha esetleg megint felvetődik a kérdés, elő lehet venni. Ha jól sejtem, egyik kitiltott ismerősünk érdeklődik, úgyhogy nem válaszolok neki. Mindenesetre, minden szépet és jót kívánok! Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Szekely Land Hi, Fakirbakir! You wrote on the Szekely Land that the region is inhabited mainly by the Szekely people. I believe this is incorrect as the depending on the sources (estimation/census) and year (2002/2011) the percentage of the Hungarians varies between 56 and 61%. Also please notice that very few declared themselves at the census as Szekelys so there's a debate about how many of the Hungarians in the region consider themselves Szekelys. In the absence of any exact figures I think that the term majority is a fair compromise. Would you agree to this? Also the term "enclave" is not appropriate. Look to the definitions I found: - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enclave 1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another. 2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enclave - an area with people who are different in some way from the people in the areas around it. Szekely Land is not a country, clearly not a bounded area (the proposed limits of the territory are subject of dispute even between Hungarians), people are not generally different from the surrounding area (same mixture of Romanians, Hungarians, Germans and Gypsies with the same traditions), just that there are more Hungarians and even so, within the territory the population is not compact (largest city - Targu Mures has Romanian majority and so there are other cities as Toplita or Balan). Would you agree cancelling the statement about the enclave? Thanks, ID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Hi, again! You should be reading properly the information referenced regarding the Union of Transylvania with Romania. It says clearly that it refers to the entire Transylvania that became part of Romania and as far as I know the Szekely Land is located in Transylvania. Also the references present the progress of the Romanian army in Transylvania (crossing of the river Mures) and the fact that the Austro-Hungarian administration has been replaced "de facto". As for the interpretation of the international significance prof. Laszlo Kurti (teaching at Miskolc) states clearly (and I quoted him) that 1918 is the year of the Union. I could have found tens of other opinions saying that (everybody recognized 1918 as the year of Union between Transylvania & Romania, including wiki page on Transylvania), but I think his credibility and expertise cannot be challenged (I'm not sure why you are doing it). Just for your info, the moment for the independence of USA is considered the proclamation from 4th of July 1776, not the Treaty form Paris signed in 1783 that recognizes the sovereignty of the US over the territory. As it regards the area of Covasna, Harghita and Mures you’re very wrong again. The figure presented by Minahan is very questionable (as his book is too - already a debate on the talk page) so the people should at least know the area of the 3 counties (which strangely equals Minahan's estimation - another proof that it's not correct). As long as the population of the 3 counties is presented (again, because there are no other official data/ census) the related area should be presented too. I'm sorry, but I need to report this incident as it's not 1st time that the contributions on this page are remeoved without a serios reason. Fakirbakir, you recently vandalized the page Szekely Land by malicious editing my contribution (said Transylvania was occupied by Romanian & Soviet army instead of liberated) and supported this by my references which were not saying this. I'm sorry, but I have to report you. Idsocol (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) Pls read your own references. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC) ID Idsocol (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC) WP:ANI There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slovaks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natio Hungarica (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) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) History of Slovakia I think we should wait for comments instead of commencing a new debate with our coeditor who thinks that he is an authority and can judge what is mainstream history. :) Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Good idea.--Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC) Return I'd like to inform you that my unblock request was accepted, I got a second chance to fix my previous errors. If you have question or need help, cooperation, something else, please feel free to write me. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Good to hear you are back! Fakirbakir (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Fakirbakir (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Picture 1) The picture of the Khanty man is well sourced and reliable, as well. 2) His features are very typical Khanty (basically Uraloid). If you take a look these original black & white pictures of Khanty you will see that he resembles them very much: [41] [42] [43]. 3) One family picture is already included in the article. Quackriot (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC) No the "Khanty man" picture is NOT well-sourced, see its description. There is no evidence that he is a Khanty man. However, the family picture was taken by an ethnographer Merja Salo.. Moreover, there are no typical Khanty features. They are basically a mixed race. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 1) The Khanty man picture IS well sourced. The description clearly states the man is a Khanty man. 2) Merja Salo is NOT an "ethnographer". She is a photographer and a professor at Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. 3) The Khanty are not mixed race. Their Uraloid race is sometimes considered an intermediate race, but some anthropologlists classified it as just a variation of Mongoloid. See any older pictures of Khanty (the examples I posted in the initial text here). Nowadays, intermarriage with Russians is quite common which exlains the much more diversified phenotypical appearance and a lesser amount of Uraloids in the modern pictures, in comparision with all older pictures of Khanty. 4) Now you state "there are no typical Khanty features", but in the edit summary you claimed "the man has no typical features". You shoudn't have claimed absence of typical features in that case. You contradict yourself. Quackriot (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC) The scientists are not even sure that the "Uraloid race" exists. It is an obsolete term. "The man has no typical features" means there are no typical features. Merja Salo took the picture for the "Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki". Fakirbakir (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 1) I said anthropologists, not scientists. Scientists even dispute the existance of races in general, in which case your term "mixed race" is also obsolete. Besides, it's very ironic for you to dispute anthropology and the existence of Uraloid race, considering the fact that you clearly are a proponent of anthropology regarding the obsolete term such as the "Turanid race", as evident on your talk page. You either recognise racial anthropology or you don't. You're being ridiculous. You can't pick and choose if you want to be considered reasonable. 2) That doesn't make her an ethnographer. Her linked website clearly states her expertise is photography. 3) No. Saying "the man has no typical features" implies an absence of typical features on his face. 4) You stated no reasonable arguments to dismiss the picture of the Khanty man, you are clearly just making stuff up. As I mentioned, the article already includes one family picture, but doesn't yet include any similar close-up picture where the face and features are clearly seen. Quackriot (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC) You are being naughty.. It doesn't matter what I said years ago. My opinion can change every hour.... A family picture in the lead is far better. When I uploaded the picture I had to contact Salo (OTRS) who gave me instructions about her photo. Your "khanty man" picture is at least dubious, unreliable. There is nothing in its description. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Rogers Biztos vagy abban, hogy a 402. oldalon bármit is ír Moráviáról? Egyébként nem töröltem a könyvet, hanem módosítottam a hivatkozást, mivel a vonatkozó részt Jan Szymczak írta. Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Ket forrast hasznaltam, az egyik Roger Collins aki a 402-ik oldalon targyalja Moraviat, a masik Clifford Rogers (editor) konyve ahol a 293-oldalon vannak erdemleges informaciok. Ha a 402 volt Rogers mellett akkor az eliras.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC) One question Can you please give me advice on how to contact the National Board of Antiquities regarding approval of using the picture? I don't know about the process but you have done it before so I'm asking you. Including that picture can enrich the article, so, for the sake of being a positive contributor to Wikipedia, I really hope you will be kind enough to help me with some advice about this. Thank you. Quackriot (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC) First of all, I am not sure if OTRS or permission is needed because it's an old photo, the author of the picture died more than 70 years ago. However, a copyright sign is clearly seen on it. The more experienced editors at the deletion debate will help us to decide what to do, hopefully. Regarding the OTRS process, when I contacted the National Board of Antiquities via email (Museum of Cultures, http://www.nba.fi/en/about_us/premises) a curator answered me that the real copyright holder of the photo wasn't them but Merja Salo (University of Helsinki) and gave me Salo's contact information. After that, I discussed the issue with Salo who gave me permission to use her picture. If OTRS is needed, then you have to read the proper procedure, here: OTRS. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for this info. I tried emailing them, however till this day they didn't reply to me, unfortunately. Quackriot (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC) 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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Fakirbakir PLEASE HELP Hi! An editor - HEBEL - want to make inproper changes in the Austrian Empire article and also made some changes in the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) article that I did not check entirely. He seems to rewrite history, check the discussion page the Hungary section! If you think it is necessary, also please contact with Borsoka. Thanks for your help! All the best! (KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC))