Te barbár állat! Szétcseszed a Hungary cikket az angol wikin, a képek időbeli kronológikus sorrendjét széttúrod te bunkó jószág! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.3.109 ( talk) 21:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
My edits to the Bridge to Nowhere were based on a large consensus discussion you may not be aware of that began on the "political positions" page where it was agreed that the more extensive text there should be on the main page, with a summary on the political positions page. In fact, I'm putting it back right now. As I describe on the talk page, I think it is more important in Palin's entry to give her views rather than to give other people's views. I don't believe in cutting direct quotes from the subject of the entry on the subject of the section, and I doubt you do either. Better to cut other people's views that belong in their entries. See talk page. (Working on it now.) GreekParadise ( talk) 15:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_math.png-- Nina.Charousek ( talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Fair point on the new reference, as you say this is MSM coverage of a trend in multiple poll results and totally worthy of inclusion. I tried to incorporate it in a way that avoided redundancy with the other poll references already in there, but if you want to change my edit to something you feel better represents the source go right ahead. I would self revert but I don't have time to look at it right now. If I have a problem with what you have written I'll PM you rather than revert rudely. I'm sorry for edit warring with you on the McCain campaign page, I won't do that again. T0mpr1c3 ( talk) 19:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please STOP all your edits on the Bridge to Nowhere without discussing them first. Many of them violate a long-standing consensus that has taken place over several days and is included in the talk page. I'm trying to stop you now because I know how frustrating it is when you've made changes and someone reverts back. But I am reverting. If you want to delete content, could you please tell me which content and why? GreekParadise ( talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I need help, you reverted Jedlik, but in
Names of the territory that (with some exceptions) finally became Austria-Hungary:
-- Nina.Charousek ( talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. I'm not sure I got to the 3RR stage? Maybe I don't yet understand the definition. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 06:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been editing for a while, usually more like 300 edits a day, and no one ever said anything like that to me? I'm a little confused. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 06:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
300 edits per article. :) LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe that's an exaggeration. But Palin is certainly not one of my most heavily-visited articles. LamaLoLeshLa ( talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate you refraining from further empty threats. I violated no policy as you well know. You made several major edits without consensus to an article on probation. These edits removed major blocks of important and well-cited information on the subject. I will not revert your edit again, but will pursue this through the article's talk page. Arjuna ( talk) 09:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you removed the religion section in the article. I appreciate your interest. It would have been nice if you had not interferred and interrupted the attempt to build a consensus on the matter. As you know, there is a survey in the talk section that was running until midnight tonight. Taking a brief look, indeed I think there would have been consensus for removing the section. But, your interruption of the conclusion of the survey will now always leave that in doubtm rather than the consensus being able to be quite clear, which was my hope. Sure, it is unlikely tha there would have been a vast change -- but someone who wants to have it differently in the future will always be able to argue that the concensus was not clear because the survey was interrupted. Frankly, in the scope of the article life, I don't see how 36 hours of waiting to build a consensus is that huge a time frame, or unreasonable. The benefits of making the consensus clear are huge. Atom ( talk) 13:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Like at least one other poster on your talk page, I object to your behavior. I ask you to stop making baseless, defamatory statements and threats, and remove them from my talk page. I added no unsourced material, never have, and never will. Dagoldman ( talk) 09:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you persist in putting up unsourced information that is POV, I will put POV tag on the site and we can all vote on your changes. GreekParadise ( talk) 15:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I find GreekParadise to be errant on this, and consider his belief that he, and he alone, can make changes to a section, to be also errant. Collect ( talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Bob Weinstein released copyrights to me ;) Duuude007 ( talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The sentence I put back was accidentally removed by Collect. He never went to talk page. It has never been removed before. If you remove it you would be suggesting that Palin NEVER supported the bridges, which you know is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise ( talk • contribs) 01:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Just read the section with and without that sentence. GP is right: the section without that sentence just makes no sense, because it is not about Palin at all.
Homunq (
talk) 02:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, you're the first person to reply with a reasonable reason to keep the data out. Cheers, Jim. Jimmetzler ( talk) 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Please take a look at the Weatherman/Terrorism RfC Hi! This is a form notice sent to several editors who have contributed recently at the Bill Ayers page or talk page (sent in accordance with WP:CANVASS). A proposal has been made near the bottom of Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC concerning the Bill Ayers article in connection with use of the word "terrorism" and discussion of it in the article. Other proposals have been made concerning similar articles, and a large amount of information about sources on this topic are available on the page. Please take a look and consider supporting or opposing some of the proposals. Thanks. -- Noroton ( talk) 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit on this page here. I don't know why because you didn't leave an edit summary besides that you were reverting. I was restoring information that was relevant to the page that had been removed initially by User:EconomicsGuy II here. The information concerned information about Sarah Palin and her connection to evangelical pastor Thomas Muthee. The information had been included on Sarah Palin but removed and I assumed that the conversation was ongoing about the removal. The edit that I restored filled in information and I did not consider it to violate rules against the talk page being a forum. Perhaps you disagree. I invite you to discuss this further at my talk page as EconomicsGuy has made it clear that he does not want to discuss it on his. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. You might want to drop by Talk: Sarah Palin as it looks like a definition of conses=nsus may be required. Thanks! Dave Collect ( talk) 20:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
! [3] thanks István ( talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie ( Talk | Edits) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Tautologist has been playing in Muthee again. Collect ( talk) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please review your facts before making claims that you know nothing about. I reverted to the version prior to User:Dof's edits, if somebody else removed previous versions of the article, I don't know what those edits were, I reverted because Dof was removing the hidden text that the article was about the father, not the son. Corvus cornix talk 07:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please point to any diff in which I removed the reference. Put up or shut up. Corvus cornix talk 07:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, After taking into consideration the feedback from other editors regarding the Carson City image at Sarah Palin, I have created a new version with the intent of pleasing those who have contributed to the discussions. The quality of the image has been significantly improved. I would appreciate your opinion here: [ [4]]. Thanks, IP75 75.25.28.167 ( talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Being called Gypsy, Nazi, Bullshit, and other stuff in the edit summaries by your lovely compatriot are reasons enough so that he will to be accused of vandalism ? Rezistenta ( talk) 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
hi there,
I have reverted back the article to the original name where it was. As to your comment of a consensus I cannot find one on the talk page. The crown is known almost universally as the Crown of Saint Stephen, see also Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen for example. Gryffindor 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hobartimus, this is to explain why the article Révay should include both the Slovak nobility and the Hungarian nobility categories. Although the counts Révay might have been Hungarian in nationality (although noone has provided any sources for that, so even this cannot be considered a proven fact), they lived, worked, died and influenced the politics and history of the Turiec/Turóc county, which lies in the present-day Slovakia, for 500 years. In my opinion this in itself warrants their inclusion in the Slovak nobility category. Noone here is trying to steal anyone's nobles or heroes as has been suggested by one of the editors. PeterRet ( talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've been watching the debate on Sarah Palin and I thought I might figuratively take you aside. Your effort to maintain Sarah Palin to the standards of WP:Biographies of Living Persons is laudable, and I thank you for your efforts. However, the BLP policy is not meant as a replacement for the normal wiki process. WP:BLP is the "nuclear option" of debates. Our primary use of BLP is to immediately remove egregious material. It is not meant as a guide during content disputes, disputes about how much weight is proper, what sources to use, what order do the paragraphs go in etc. Wikipedia thrives on the discovery of consensus through discussion of the merits of the content, editing the article, and achieving a compromise, not through citing policy. Happy editing!-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to participate at this discussion. Cheers! -- Olahus ( talk) 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We have a discussion in the talk page.-- Olahus ( talk) 18:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Didn't you notice that every Wikipedia article does have a talk page? No? Then, take a look here. Regards! -- Olahus ( talk) 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You reversion of a routine discussion page item with which you disagree will be construed as vandalism if you do it again. Please stop. Student7 ( talk) 02:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please do continue to give your reasons for your edits, but avoid commenting on contributors, ok? Remember to focus on the content, not the contributor. I know in less edited and less contentious articles it can be easier to have a "discussion" via summaries, but when things are more heated, and the article more contested, it really does look like attacks. No sense making things any more tense than they are already, right? Thanks! KillerChihuahua ?!? 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Hobartimus. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Please see WP:OWN. Editors don't own the articles, and shouldn't edit unless they are ready to see their contributions edited mercilessly. Editors don't need permission from the main contributor to move a page to another title, and much less it was moved in order to comply with a wikipedia policy (as it was moved under WP:BLP1E). Please understand that this is the way wikipedia has to grow and change. Also, please don't revert it again or you will be on violation of the three reverts rule. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for speaking up for me on east's talk page. It's not the kind of inconvenience I'll be bothering anyone with again. -- Noroton ( talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Our agreement is that Holocaust scholars are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust Extermination camps (stupid definition but ....). Our disagreement is about creation of sub section other extermination camps. With knowledge that there has been many others extermination camps and sites (I know 7 of them) question is: Will we create subsection in The Holocaust template for this camps ? Can you please hear your comments about this question in section Non involved users because maybe even Hungary will have place in rewriten template (events in 1944)?-- Rjecina ( talk) 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I have reported your continuous reverts regarding the Cernova Tragedy talk page. Please stop editing other peoples opinions simply based on the fact you dislike them. Bko79
Hey Hobartimus, I responded to your question at my editor review. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks, Grsz 11 →Review! 16:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
There's an AfD discussion about "Zeituni Onyango" -- HERE. Justmeherenow ( ) 10:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Zeituni Onyango, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeituni Onyango (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, John Hunyadi's father was not Erzsébet Morzsinay because Erzsébet was a SHE :))) Regarding the text I inserted: since the information is well sustained by an encyclopedia I do not see the reason you deleted it. Carpaticus ( talk) 13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I may be accused of trying to innoculate Lolo Soetoro, but I'm going to nominate it for deletion and redirection to Family of Barack Obama right now, since I believe that such a result would be consistent with the majority of the discussions above. (FWIW I believe the charge of attempted innoculation to be somewhat ridiculous in any case. An instance of discussion won't "innoculate" the community's consensus from evolving; just look at the 2nd nominations above or even " Obama family" itself, which
Thank you for your contributions! - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
In case you didn't mind reading the talk page, the version to which you reverted has been addressed by me on the articles talk page, and was tacitly recognised to be not so NPOV even by other (that is Hungarian, to put it bluntly) editors. If you want to revert again, please adress the issues from the talk page first. ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 16:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a suspicion about Hungarian Wikipedians who lie and always change the articles about personalities of not Hungarian nationality born in then Kingdom of Hungary, don't you think ? I have read like hundreds of disputes about nationality of personalities on discussion pages of Wikipedians and discussion pages of articles. It is always the same story and these Hungarian Wikipedians know that what they do is not moral. Is it going to end one day or what? Seriously, this is ruining the whole project of Wikipedia. What is great about writing that some non-Hungarian born between 1000 and 1918 in then Kingdom of Hungary had Hungarian citizenship, Hungarian ethnicity, Hungarian nationality, whatever other thesaurus of nationality exists..., was a proud Hungarian, preferred Hungarian language, made his pupils speak Hungarian, fought for Hungarian nation, was member of many Hungarian organizations... When we look at the articles about true Hungarians we can see that the nationality of these people is not emphasized that much. That says for itself. If Hungarians want the other nations of once Kingdom of Hungary to not hate them, they have to stop this. Otherwise, Romanians, Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenians, Ukrainians and Rusyns will hate Hungarians forever. Jasooon ( talk) 22:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Now I see that you did exactly what I was complaing about - you changed back all of my editings. There is only one thing I want to say:
The God sees all and he knows all of your sins. Jasooon ( talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, no evil intention, that "don't bite newcomers" was just a friendly reminder, basically intended for that "learn first English..." I think people can contribute with not-so-great English, there are enough people around to correct it. I think it's better to encourage people to contribute even if their English is not perfect, even if they don't know yet how Wikipedia works. But I will remove that from the talk page. man with one red shoe 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
In article Stefan Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia you are having very interesting statement about "bad" Hungarians without any source :) -- Rjecina ( talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I do observe the WP:NPA - could you point out where exactly have I been uncivil in regard to User:Baxter9? He engaged in a subtle nationalistic fervor and edit wars before (he was even banned for breaking the 3RR rule), especially in sensitive topics such as Transylvania and the Hungarian-Romanian relations. Posting a picture with the German troops entering Bucharest would suggest the idea that occupying Bucharest was the last event of the campaign, however the campaign ended on December 9, 1917, with the Focşani armistice. Concerning the picture in the Aftermath section, I believe it belongs there since the war of 1919 is regarded as a continuation of the World War I - since when is there a "one picture in only one article" rule? And please make sure you have solid reasons of accusing someone of engaging in personal attacks - otherwise it's considered itself a form of personal attack. Cheers, Mentatus ( talk) 13:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Of course he removed the warnings from his talkpage. Dont you want to ask User:Biruitorul to help? I hope some users are not more equal than others, or are they? Baxter9 ( talk) 15:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. And for the sake of consistency, please delete the picture depicting Falkenhayn's cavalry entering Bucharest on December 6, 1916 from the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919. I hope some pictures are not more equal than others, or are they? Mentatus ( talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I've come across the word földközitengerre in several places in my Hungarian source for A-H submarines, as in this sentence: "A Cattarói-öbölből a földközitengerre indult bevetésre." Any idea what the word means? Thanks again for your help. — Bellhalla ( talk) 16:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Péter Lékó#Requested move. Peter Ballard ( talk) 06:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I have reverted the move mainly because of the majority of the people think it should be Peter Leko. I think there should first be consensus before the page be moved to anything else. It would be good to have a firm wikipedia policy on diatrics. Regards, Voorlandt ( talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
O.K, but what do you think about the other edits like music and sports ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishGunner ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but when I use a resolution above 1400x900 the pictures in the Hungary article pile up on the right side of the page, pushing the remaining images out of the relative sections, and by the middle of the page the image File:BushInBudapest2.jpg is at the same height of the "science" section. Do you know any way to solve this without removing some files from the page?-- Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso ( talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Reffael 02.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The street is in Tei, Bucharest. 89.33.128.101 ( talk) 15:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sztojka.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
We are having new-old Hungary-Croatia problem. Newly created disruptive account is called user:Bizso. Can you please talk with user and if nothing else discover his knowledge of hungarian language so that we can know if this is Toroko or somebody else ? -- Rjecina ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What the heck? I feel like being in the USSR. If a say a word that is not the accepted by SOME PEOPLE then I am accused of being a vandal? Do you know what the concept of FREE SPEECH means? Are you accusing me because of the Croatia Hungary relationships?! THAT's CALLED A DISPUTE! And it's not only me! Historians argue on ACADEMIC LEVEL! WIKIPEDIA is NOT YOURS!. It's meant to present the sheer facts! Wikipedia lists all significant viewpoints! That the policy of NPOV:Balance. What you do is you oppress one of the viewpoints, so that you artifically justify yours! ALL viewpoints should exists beside one another if there is a dispute! Are you going to ban me for citing the opinions of other academics that do not conform to you ideas? Who the hell do you think you are? And who the hell are those names that you put on my user page? Are you paranoid? Am I Torokko? Rly? I didn't know that. What you do is you exploit your admin rights to censor Wikipedia. But it is not just you. In the Croatia in personal union with Hungary talk everything was deleted that cited sourced Academic Level References of the other viewpoint. And because I readded them I am called a Vandal? That's the Joke of the century! -- Bizso ( talk) 22:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WE MUST ALWAYS FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH? Is that your motto?? LOL
DISRUPTIVE ACCOUNT? Omfg I shit my pants! Man try to restrain your dictatoristic attitude
Rjecina and also my other nationalistic Croat firendes like
User:Ivan Štambuk!--
Bizso (
talk) 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain it to me
User:Rjecina why you removed the information on the dispute about the
pacta conventa in the article
Croatia? I am looking forward to you answer!--
Bizso (
talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
--
Bizso (
talk) 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
OMFG. You not only CENSOR the articles but the TALKS PAGES AS WELL! You DELETED the
Croatia in personal union with Hungary Talk page AGAIN
Rjecina Somebody? Hey? Hello?? Admin?? Is this normal here?!?!
I can't believe this. You not only deleted the
Croatia and
Croatia in the union with Hungary articles and all their talk pages!! But you removed any traces of this dispute in all other articles too! You virtually erased it form WIKIPEDIA! LOL Is this serious?!
And you are indeed an ADMIN and now you threaten to block me!.... OK that's too much, I need to have a nap.--
Bizso (
talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)