User talk:Juro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Juro/Archive 1

Contents 1 Košice and Kosice 2 Hung. kingdom 3 Magyarisation 4 Infoboxes 5 Diacritics and page moves 6 František Alexander Zvrškovec 7 Arpad vandal 8 Slovakization 9 3RR Warning 10 "Fascist views", "ethnic propaganda" 11 Juro, 12 References 12.1 Blocked 13 Request 14 Arbitration application 15 hmmm 16 Košice again 17 Spiš 18 Welcome back! 19 Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary 20 Karkonosze/Giant Mountains/Krkonoše 21 Hooray for Juro 22 No personal attacks 23 Further personal attacks 24 Czechoslovakia articles & plagiarism 25 Czechoslovakia 26 No time? 27 Mátra-Slanec Area

[edit] Košice and Kosice

I have recently redirected the Kosice article to Košice because (1) there is no other article that could be a source of confusion and (2) the city of Košice is significantly more important than the village of Kosice (Hradec Králové District), which might have a separate article in the future as you pointed out. However, you have just reverted my edit. Hoping that we reach a consensus, I would suggest that we redirect Kosice to Košice and add a disambiguation tag to the main article about Košice, leading to Kosice (disambiguation). In other words, we would use the procedure that is usually applied whenever one meaning of the word attracts much more interest than other meanings of the word. Please, see Pushkin as an example. Would you agree with this proposal? Tankred 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, if both towns were named Kosice (without š), but they are not, so that in this case, actually, Kosice should contain the text on the village and only - if any - a tag redirecting to Košice (with š) (do not forget that there is no reason to look for Kosice - the village - below the title Košice). Therefore the disambiguation is the best solution - somewhere in the middle between only Kosice with a Košice-tag on the one hand and Košice with a Kosice-tag on the other hand.

Well, non-Slovak users usually do not type š because they do not use the Slovak diacritics. For them, Kosice and Košice is the same word. Moreover, an existing article about a major city is in my opinion more relevant than a non-existing article about a small village. I would understand why you oppose my proposal if the Kosice disambiguation article leads to a dozen of relevant normal articles. But now, it simply directs the user to Košice and to one red link. So, why not to change it into an ordinary redirect? I would like just to simplify life of non-Slovak users searching information about Košice, that is all. I would be grateful if you think about my arguments again. Tankred 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Because the redirect is wrong, because Kosice is not the correct name of Košice, it is only the form used due to technical restrictions. I.o.w. strictly spoken, any redirect from Kosice to Košice is wrong. The name of the village on the other hand is really Kosice. Secondly, a good encyclopaedia must be exact, and thirdly the current solution still redirects you to Košice, so I do not see the problem - are you afraid that a user will not understand the "long" disambiguation page or have no time to click once more?

I currently lack a "š" on my keyboard and encountered the disambiguation page somewhat to my surprise. The village of Kosice would certainly, under normal circumstances, occupy the Kosice article title, but these circumstances are not normal: Košice is clearly far more important, and most users would only be able to access it by typing in "Kosice". That would suggest that a WP:HATNOTE on Košice, and leaving Kosice as a redirect would be a good idea. But on further consideration, I think that a disambiguation page has a very strong advantage. Any article that links to Kosice is ambiguous - one does not know whether the article means the Czech village or Košice itself. There are various projects and techniques to attack the problem of inappropriate links to disambiguation pages, so those bad links would end up being fixed (in time). So the disambiguation actually serves a good purpose. It is not the same as the situation is for, say, Nashville (which redirects to Nashville, Tennessee, with a WP:HATNOTE there linking to Nashville (disambiguation) from which other Nashvilles, such as Nashville, Georgia may be reached) because while they all share the same spelling, a wikilink ([[Nashville]]) or user search for "Nashville" will invariably be for the Tennessee city (otherwise they would be disambiguated). It seems clear to me that while a reader might type "Kosice" into a search box with the aim of finding Košice, a wikilink [[Kosice]] should, prima facie, point to the Czech not Slovak settlement (after all, "Kosice" seems to be the only place called "Kosice"). This discrepancy makes a disambiguation page worthwhile, since it means ingoing links will be checked and corrected.TheGrappler 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hung. kingdom

Hi Juro! I have just finished my response to your last edit and than I read your edit summary. You are right. The term "Hungarian Kingdom" is more appropriate for the interwar period than the "Kingdom of Hungary". It would be great to write an article about this period. Although it is a very disputed era. My point is to indicate some sort of distance between pre-WW2 and modern Hungary. It is vitaly important. Why? Because the idea of political continuity to the "Hungarian Kingdom"(1920-1944) is very harmful to the modern Hungarian society. --kuko 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the aim HERE is not to make policy with names, but only to use usual/correct names. Using "Hungarian kingdom" for the interwar period is just misleading and unnecessary for 99 % of non-Magyar readers (because they could think that Greater Hungary is meant given that we have used "Kingdom of Hungary" previously in the article) and using just "Hungary" is definitely also correct and not-misleading. And above all, the term "Hungary" is linked to the Hungary article, where these details are or should be explained for those who are intersted. Juro 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point about the ambiguity. In this context your argument is acceptable.--kuko 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magyarisation

I've added some material on Magyarisation process in Slovakia, maybe you're intersted since I see you come from Slovakia. Best regards, --Latinitas 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I know these things and that texts is actually a very polite version of what really happened in this region around 1900. But, as long as vandals like Arpad alias all the other names he uses (who has "expelled" several Romanians from this wikipedia, and who as you can see even calls the work of the best contemporary western expert on Austria-Hungary and its ethnic issues -cited by all relevant sources until today - a "pamphlet" only because he does not like the content) are active here, any further discussions are superfluous. Juro 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can that Arpad vandal be blocked? Anyway I will try my best to keep an eye on the article. --Latinitas 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Hi, probably you noticed that in Romanian and Hungarian city articles a lot of inboxes were changed to bilingual, for example Oradea and Békéscsaba. The reason for this that minority names are official in settlement level in these countries. In Romania the translation of official documents and bilingual place name tables are provided by the law when a minority gives 20 % of the population of the town. In Hungary there is no percentage limit, but an official Settlement Codex was published in 2003 with the list of bilingual place name tables. In Vojvodina, municipalities with Hungarian majority also have bilingual infoboxes, for example Subotica.

I would like to ask you about the situation in Slovakia. What is criterion for bilingual place name tables? Can we use the recognized names in the infoboxes? Zello 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, 20%. But personally, I would not use the alternative names in the infoboxes (unlike in the intro) not even in Romania or Hungary, because they simply are no official names of the settlements and I think the infoboxes should contain official names only. They are "only" names allowed to be used in communication with the offices (which is not the same as an official language as some expert has informed me here some months ago) and allowed to be mentioned on the tables. The only CEE country where the minority languages are really official is Serbia. Juro 02:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the first line usage of the names and the infoboxes. In the first line all alternatives names are mentioned regardless of their status. You are right that infoboxes only contain official data - that's why we indicated only those names that gained official recognition on settlement level. A bilingual place name table means official recognition because it is set up and maintained by the government. In Romania and Hungary bilingual place name tables are frequent and their usage is regulated by the minority rights law. Although I have been several times in Slovakia I don't remember whether there are such tables there. Do exist bilingual place names tables in Slovakia? Did the Slovakian Parliament approved a minority rights law that regulates this question? Zello 02:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the last questions is yes and yes (of course; and if you visit the region once more, you will see that not only the tables, but every inscription is bilingual or even only in Hungarian). But the fact that people are allowed to use the name on tables or even in documents by law does not make the name automatically a second official name in the region - that' a purely legal issue, I have been told this. There is a difference between being favoured/allowed etc. and having the status of "official name". In practical terms, if you mention the name in the infobox, foreigners could think (I would definitely think) that it is the same case like in Canada or Belgium, but it is not. Two names in the infobox are therefore misleading. Juro 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is similar to Romania or Hungary. Obviously the recognized alternative names and the official names don't have an equal status. But the alternative name gained some degree of "officialty" by the governmental recognition. Békéšska Čaba is more similar to an official name than - for example - Päťkostolie but didn't became an equal alternative for Békéscsaba. You are right that these names are "weaker" than German names in Südtirol but "stronger" than not recognized minority names. Because of their transitional status or quasi-officiality I know that there good arguments against/for their usage. In Hungary I decided to change the infoboxes and no Hungarian user opposed this movement (I announced it on the noticeboard), so I think it is OK. In Romania Ronline and Dahn did the same, an edit war broke out but the majority of Romanian users accepted the new infoboxes. Obviously I would like to change the infoboxes of Southern Slovakia (according to the 20 % limit you wrote) but not at the expense of a major edit war. Zello 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think bilingual infoboxes misleading, see for example the official homepage of Solymár/Schaumar and Lórév/Lovra: lorev.hu and solymar.hu. Both use the bilingual form on the opening page. Zello 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I meant misleading at the en-wikipedia level, not at the internet level or elsewhere. (2) The solution would be simple if you had not changed these things for Hungary and Romania without explicitely previously organizing a voting or something like that (to say that nobody oppposed this is not enough, because for example I did not know about this). The solution would be: let's see whether there is a rule for such cases somewhere and/or how this is handled in the infoboxes of other similar (not only one) regions of the world: if it is handled like you propose it here I have no objections, if not I am definitely against creating the wrong impression that former KoH countries are somehow special, because if I - or anybody - see(s) a name in two languages in an infobox, this fact alone implies that those two languages are official languages in that region and that is certainly misleading. And let me just point out that otherwise I am not against mentioning the name in any language at the beginning or elsewhere in the article. Juro 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a generally accepted rule but the former KoH countries are certainly not exceptional. I found some examples: Koper, Alghero, Leeuwarden, Tetovo. Obviously it is possible to find other examples where the recognized alternative name is missing from the infobox.

I think in this case the probable pattern is always the same - there is a chance that users belonging to the ethnic majority (be it Hungarian, Romanian etc) will oppose the change. In the case of Hungary obviously I expected protest only from Hungarian users so I thought it enough to announce the change on the noticeboard. Things are more difficult with Slovakia because there isn't a national noticeboard yet. Zello 09:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the future: You have done the following: You have bypassed the need to acquire the consent of Slovak users here, by simply doing something for another country (without asking anybody) and then just claiming "now we have a precedense, so we will do that for the other countries too". Obviously, this is not how things should be done here, because then I could change anything in Slovakia articles without asking anybody (and obviously nobody would notice that, since we are not 1000 local users here) and argue "now I have already changed that, so we have to adapt all the other articles". I hope you understand the problem... As for the matter at hand, go ahead and add the Hungarian names then. Juro 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As for historical accuracy: Ronline started the whole campaign in the Romanian articles. Later there was a debate whether Hungarian users should intervene at all. After other Hungarian users made reverts in the Romanian articles I thought it more fair to create bilingual infoboxes in the Hungarian articles also. Of course I agreed with Ronline's arguments and look up the Hungarian minority law (1993) whether it allows bilingual names or not. It turned out that there is an established group of names that are officially recognized. Of course I think - aside from the legal arguments - that it is a positive step and causes no harm for anybody. What's more it adds a plus information for the articles - from the first line we know how much alternative and historical name exists, from the bilingual infoboxes we know that one of them is still living and used semi-officially. Zello 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. If I can join your discussion, I think that infoboxes should be as short as possible. I must oppose inclusion of any alternative names there. Names in the minority languages are already included in a special "Names" section (such as the one I created in Banská Bystrica) or in the lead. I believe that two names in an infobox may confuse a reader. In addition, the names in a minority language do not have the same status as the official name in Slovakia. This small yet significant legal difference can be nicely illustrated by the graphic difference between the "Štúrovo" and "Párkány" tables at the borders of the municipality. Tankred 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are "Párkány" tables - and that's an important difference compared to other alternative names mentioned in the lead. The status of the name "Párkány" is different from "Besztercebánya" or "Komorn". The bilingual infoboxes in cases when Hungarians (or Rusyns) give up more than 20 % of the population illustrate the different status of that names. Zello 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics and page moves

Hi! Recently several editors, including yourself, have reverted edits by User:Gene Nygaard which moved pages to diacriticless titles, or expressed concern at the moves on his talk page. Despite this, Gene has carried on making many moves of this type, some of which will require admin work to revert - this behaviour is becoming disruptive, and is reducing consistency in article naming schemes. Further comments, suggestions and opinions would be welcome either at User talk:Gene Nygaard or at the section started by Renata3 at WP:AN/I. I believe this may require a report at RfM - please let me know if you think this would be a suitable action or otherwise. Aquilina 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] František Alexander Zvrškovec

Could you please take look as an expert? The page is on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arpad vandal

Vandal Arpad is again on Magyarisation article. I've reverted his edits. Can you also watch that article? --Latinitas 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching that article since its creation, but I really do not have the mood for any form of contact whatsoever with an obvious idiot. You must understand that I have to deal with him here for months. And since the English wikipedia does not function properly anymore at the admin level since about 2 years or so, I see no solution. Juro 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Too bad. Anyway stay close Juro. --Latinitas 12:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One additional thing for your Magyarisation quotes: I propose you reduce the quotes to those related to Magyarisation and to those said by prominent persons and rename it to show that these are quotes of contemporary Hungarians, not "examples". Otherwise we cannot keep that, although the oroiginal article id definitely a Hungarian propaganda article, equivalent to Holocaust-denial (I do not mean that in terms of seriousness, but in terms of style). Ah yes, and Alphysicist is quite sure the 100th sockpuppet of the same person. Juro 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your valuable sugesstion. --Latinitas 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the original name of the vandal? HunTom or what? I need for posting in correct form at CheckUser. --Latinitas 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:HunTomy, but note that I am not 100% sure and Arpad has had many names in the meantime (even two in the same discussion - he pretended to be two persons). Juro 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's enough for the moment.--Latinitas 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovakization

I've put the article for deletion here. Please provide your input on this page. :) Borisblue 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Slovakization. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. I have chosen not to block you this time, as you were not warned during the reversions. Next revert, you will be blocked. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not made reverts, I have changed the text. Be careful. Juro 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fascist views", "ethnic propaganda"

[1]

It's very bad style to label other editors' comments as "fascist views" or "ethnic propaganda". It's also bad form to remove comments from the talk page.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

-- nyenyec ☎ 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not know the history behind. Arpad IS a fascist user permanently creating sockpuppets and permanently placing explicit ethnic insults, he called me "primitive shephard" without special motivation. He also places fascist texts and ethnic propaganda on the talk pages without any relation to the topic of the article or to the topic being discussed. Unless someone blocks his account I will continue to remove any such spam. Juro 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. And see also Talk:Treaty of Trianon

Regarding this: comment and others:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What "personal attacks"??Juro 10:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits such as this:

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --InShaneee 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no personal attack in the above quote. Juro 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean besides calling them liars, hypocrites, and nationalists? --InShaneee 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that someone lies and then explaining why, is a personal attack??? Hypocrite and nationalist is a personal attack?? Besides, Mr. Arpad called others nationalists several times, why do not you block him? Juro 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not in position to call anyone a "liar" etc. unless you support your statement with verified proofs. Other users' vandal activity cannot serve as a base for a similar behavior from your part, nor can it serve as an excuse. Moreover, if you "just return the fire" in a discussion, this can lead to an endless and pointless flame war, and when you meet each other in person, you will end up in combat. This is not what two neighbor EU nations need. Remember: One who fails to learn lessons of the faults of the history, is doomed to repeat them. Do not be an example. (And same goes to Hungarian extremists as well.)

First of all: Where is the signature?!!! Iow this text itself is a lie. Secondly, I repeat: I AM in the position to say that someone (especially this particular chronic lier and vandal having tens of sockpuppets) lies, because each time I say this I say why, see for example the Slovakization discussion. The rest is irrelevant, you can discuss this with someone in the street. Each sentence User Arpad (alias Alphysikist etc.)says is a deliberate lie, each time he "quotes" from a source he lies and cites his own words, he adds fascist propaganda on the talk pages, he insults users, he vandalizes Slovakia and Romania related pages, and now he even denies his own statements made in this wikipedia. He is a case for doctor. Juro 10:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A visitor has no signature but has opinion so focus on that. The essence is that you keep using strong emotional expressions like 'liar' or 'lie' a bit too carelessly. Your reaction by which you take the peaceful warnings and suggestions ('rest is irrelevant') can seem rather arrogant too. Please calm down. You are definitely right about Hungarian extremist vandals. Believe me, even most of normal Hungarians think they are a**holes, as ANY extremists, vandals and nationalists are. Slovak extremist idiots are already disrupting Slovakia's respect by brutal assassinations of Hungarian minorities (Nitra, Komarno, Sládkovičovo, just to name the places of the past days incidents). I hope you agree that verbal or physical fighting is pointless. Regards, Visitor.

The person, currently Alphysikist (alias Arpad) knows very well who is meant by this and why. In his last edit he does not even hide that he is a sockpuppet - and nobody cares (that's my problem here). I am definitely entitled to call things by their proper name (a liar is a liar, a vandal is a vandal, an extremist is an extremist). What happens in Hungary and Slovakia recently is only a big (very big) coincidence and has absolutely nothing to do with what happens here (at least for all users except Arpad), so, you are interpreting things into this technical vandalism that have nothing to do with it. Juro 14:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not intended interpret things into others, I just wanted to emphasize that sorrowful ethnic-based incidents in Slovakia and improper/stupid responses in Hungary (ie. posters by extremist soccer fans) can give an aggressive boost for activity of vandals like (as you mentioned) this Arpad character. You also mentioned that noone cares about the observed sockpuppeting -- how comes? You reported this, I presume, so why WikiAdmins not take actions? You better rely on them, hm? I hope that your complaints will be processed, vandals will be repelled and you don't have to enter yourself into fights and thus getting punished repeatedly. Best wishes, Visitor.

For your disruptive accusations and threats here immediatly following your last block, you have now been blocked again. --InShaneee 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your only warning: No more of this and no more accusing others of being a sockpuppet or you will be blocked yet again. --InShaneee 19:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you block me this time again, and again with no arguments (this is no reason: this), I will start a procedure against you, because of disruptive behaviour (last time you have deleted normal text from a talk page with the comment "personal attack" althought the comment contained no such attacks). Do not think that you will pass with this again. Juro 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to threaten me. Start whatever 'proceedures' you wish to start, but the fact doesn't change that if you are uncivil and disruptive again, you will be blocked again, and for longer than you were before. --InShaneee 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for an explanation how this this could be classified as uncivil and disruptive. And do you not bother threaten ME. Juro 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this: This is your only warning. Any further disrespectful and disruptive behavior will result in another block. --InShaneee 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with you, InShaneee, but Juro's use of the word "mess" may be seen by many people as a suitable description. He replied to a misleading, factually wrong and slightly offensive comment, in which Árpád (1) abuses the statistical data (because the initial numbers of "Hungarian" schools in Slovakia was a result of the preceding Magyarization of predominantly Slovak regions), (2) individual episodes of vandalism (eg. destruction of statues) presents as the state policy of Slovakization, and (3) denies existence of Slovak history before 1918 (which is from the historic point of view non sense and I would be grateful if anyone could explain me what the "Hungarian architectural pattern" is about). Please, consider the context of the ongoing disputes before you decide to block one particular user. I feel offended by Arpad's persistent attempts to rewrite history of my home country. If you really want to punish disruptive behavior, perhaps you can block some other users too. Tankred 19:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The two statues was destroyed in 1919 as one of the first actions of the new Czechoslovakian government. It was a highly symbolic act that should be mentioned in the article. So actually Árpád was right in this question... Zello 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We will add the erection of Arpad statue on Devín to the Magyarisation article then (as an example)...We could not be more ridiculous than this. Juro 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I still think that the incidents did not follow any long-term systematic government policy, you are right that it was a state-sponsored event. So, I should exclude it from the list. But how about two other points? There are more users with "disruptive" behavior involved in the recent disputes, but InShaneee is blocking only Juro. Tankred 20:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The others claims need a lot of research sdo I can't say anything about them now. About the other users: I posted a message to Alex Bakharev talk page and called his attention to the sockpuppet accusations. I thing it would better to launch a Checkuser process to get rid of real sockpuppets and clear of other users under constant charges. I hope that Alex will do something as admin. Zello 22:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you think this "see a doctor" thing is, but it's disruption and it stops now. --InShaneee 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I will summarize the above for you, because you - obviously deliberately - do not want to understand: What is disruptive here, is every single statement of user:Arpad on the talk pages and he continues with such statements although he was told to stop this repeatedly by several users since last Christmas. You are not informed and intelligent enough to see that, so Tankred and I am telling you that now and here. What I say, are just reactions. Juro 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Given your resolve to continue attacking other users in such a manner despite many, many warnings, you have now been blocked for one week. --InShaneee 23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no "attacks" on my part. The only thing I see are attacks, threats, stalking on your part and harassment, all of which justify that you be immediately deprived of any admin rights you have. Juro 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a semi-neutral Admin to this issue, an investigation of comments posted shows a high level of probable incivility (telling users to see a doctor about thier views, etc), but I dont really see where he has actually threatened users or called them deliberate names (Ex: "I'm going to XXXXX you if you revert me again", "you are a XXXXX for your views, etc). I would suggest that Juro simple reword his talk page views in a calmer tone and that the other admin give him a little bit more slack unless it is a very clear threat or an intentional name call on another user. Just my view. -Husnock 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're hardly helping your case any. One more personal attack on this page and your block will be extended and this page will be protected, as well. --InShaneee 03:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite here the "personal attack" in what you have deleted (this is the third time you have deleted my text claiming it contains "personal attacks" while it contains none) and explain to me, since when normal admins are allowed to delete private talks between two different users (and how someone can be "attacked" when I am not talking to him).Juro 17:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juro,

I guess you still haven't read my message for you: Talk:Ján Slota

My answer to your reaction is already there. Laddy

[edit] References

I hope you can list here some Slovak literature about the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization#References Currently, only Serbian sources are listed and this could lead that somebody think that article is entirely based on Serbian sources. PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently, I have to normalize the artificial "Slovakization" article. Later on I will improve the Magyarization article. Since Magyarisation is a central part of Slovak history, my actual problem will be, what to leave out :)) Juro 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you wait to start that CheckUser? and an RfC against those bastards?

Because the central vandal has a dynamic IP, I would have to list at least 10 users for a check (which is too much) and I have no proofs other than general observation and they require a "proof" on the CheckUser page. Juro 12:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro, I will be happy to support you if you initiate the CheckUser procedure. Perhaps we can prove that several IPs worked in collusion with HunTomy and Arpad. I think this is quite obvious in case of Arpad and the List of Slovaks, but it would be more difficult to provide evidence for the link between HunTomy and Arpad. Another (very weak) evidence is that none of them disagreed with your accusation of sockpuppetry. As for Arpad's socpuppets, the list should definitely include User:HunTomy, User:Enigma1, User:Árpád, 81.183.183.12, 81.182.208.176, 81.182.208.215, 81.182.167.190, 81.182.208.155, 81.182.208.161, 81.182.209.198, 81.182.209.170 and possibly also 84.2.101.211, 86.101.74.39. The collusion between those 81... IPs and Arpad can be documented by Talk:List of Slovaks#Thököly, Báthory, Selye. Perhaps you can find similar arguments for HunTomy and Enigma1. For example, cooperation of a sort between Arpad and Enigma occured on the Treaty of Trianon talk page[2]. Enigma1 and 81.182.209.170 colluded here[3] and here[4]. Well, good luck and if you need any support in proving this case of sockpuppetry (and related cases of vandalism and personal attacks), feel free to drop me a line. Tankred 14:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovak articles attacked by Hungarian vandal (aka HunTomy,…)

• User: 62.24.70.212
• User:Árpád
• User:Zello
• User:Kissl
• User:194.105.21.41
• User:Kelenbp
• User:Vengo, vedo, vinco!
• User:Peter.orosz
• User:Deep0
• User:68.55.218.241
• User:81.182.194.89
• User:81.182.144.238
• User:84.2.198.149
• User:84.2.139.195
• User:Zsakos
• User:KIDB

Other irredentist Hungarian vandals…

• User:213.160.168.183
• User:213.160.168.130
• User:213.160.168.44

My personal guess is that the vandal now is Kelenbp who use this account as the “good account”. Kelenbp is HunTomy. Zsakos is for sure HunTomy.

Ahh!! Don’t forget about another vandal…User:Khoikhoi (User:Hottentot) alias User:Român and User:Ungurul.

Good luck mate!

Just curious: are you someone I know already and if so: from outside the wikipedia, or from inside the wikipedia? Juro 19:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Your pal Bonaparte. Sorry for all, I remember when I propose you admin. I'm sorry friend for not being elected. However I will support you as I can.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Slovakization. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. —Khoikhoi 18:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zello has already broken that rule (I do not know whether within 24 hours). Why do not you block him? I can not believe what is happening here. Juro 19:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...no? He only made 3 reverts: one two three. If Vay is his sockpuppet then we would have a 3RR violation, but of course every Hungarian user is a sockpuppet of someone. —Khoikhoi 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't reverted more than three in 24 hours time and I don't have any sockpuppets. Zello 19:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

These are your last 4 reverts. Even if the last one was outside the 24 hours, I see no warning by Khoikhoi on Zello's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovakization&diff=72207739&oldid=72075910 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovakization&diff=72257587&oldid=72235993 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovakization&diff=72274137&oldid=72269902 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovakization&diff=72444729&oldid=72444671 Juro 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not all in 24 hours. The first one was 16:18, 27 August 2006 and the last was 19:16, 28 August 2006 . If he had reverted before 16:18, 28 August 2006 then he would be blocked. —Khoikhoi 19:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And where is Zello's warning?Juro 19:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Good question... —Khoikhoi 19:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for a normal answer. Juro 19:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You should realize that I didn't broke the 3RR. Probably I reverted a bit too often but remained behind the legal borders. Zello 19:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Actually, a bit of the content was the same every reversion. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Copied from my talk page:

Could you please confirm on my talk page, that the last content of the Slovakization article is not same like before, so that the unjustified block can be removed? User:Juro 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can justify that your last contribution at 20:12 wasn't a revert but a normal change of the text discussed on the talk page. I can also justify that the content dispute in the case of that hotly disputed paragraph was solved and we found a neutral and acceptable version. But your former contribution at 19:31 was a revert and the fourth one in 24 hours time. Zello 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No it was not, because the text was totally reworded (compared to the previous versions) and 50% of the text have been removed. This is the standard way how articles are changed in the wikipedia, nobody can be blocked for this. This is a matter of principle. User:Juro 22:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that at 19:31 you re-instated the disputed paragraph but really omitted one longer sentence in brackets. I really don't know whether this is considered a revert or not. Zello 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I referred to the previous edit... text removed by User:InShaneee on September 2, 2006.

""Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR Vay 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, because it applies to every second edit in the wikipedia. But many things are ridiculous here over the last months, right ? Juro 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro and Latinitas are blocked... How funny is that? löl

Juro, I am trying to help you and I really hope you will get unblocked soon. But maybe you can cool down a bit too. I am sure you can choose more descriptive and less insulting words than "total incompetence". I know you are upset, but such behavior will not help you at all. Instead, your block will only help that guy, whose presumable sockpuppet once called all Slovaks "shepherds". So, please refrain from unnecessary and inefficient provocation. Take care. Tankred 23:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration application

VinceB (talk • contribs) has filed an application on Requests for arbitration concerning a dispute with you. [5].

I am involved only as an arbitration committee clerk. I have helped him by formatting the application and notifying you. --Tony Sidaway 13:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I am blocked until September 10. When I tried to object that on the incidents page, my contribution there was deleted and block was prolonged for sockpuppetry. This is the 4th time I have been blocked for untrue reasons. I cannot participate in anything here, because I will be immediately blocked and user:InShaneee (having similar problems with other users, see her talk page several days ago) is literally waiting for that. It is absolutely inacceptable not only that it is me - and not the revisionist vandal Arpad - who is put on RfA or wherever, but above all that I am put somewhere while I am blocked and any statement of mine against anybody is classified as a personal attack and immediately leads to a block. I have been warned by another user that all such blocks end in a permanent block, and now I see in practise how this works. This is a concerted effort from the beginning, in which I have absolutely no chance to defend myself and nobody cares. This is called tyranny in politics. Juro 18:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are still blocked, I explained the situation on your behalf and I hope that VinceB's application will not be accepted. Tankred 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been unblocked to participate in arbitration. Please do not engage in aggressive editing. Fred Bauder 13:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hmmm

I hope you won't get discouraged and leave. If you take look at WP:RfAr you'll see that getting harrased by a troll is sort a badge for good editor. Pavel Vozenilek 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Košice again

Hi Juro,

I just came across the disambig page created instead of the Kosice redirect. I understand your logic in making that disambig page, but are you aware that the over 50 pages that link there all are supposed to link to Košice? It's not as much about correct spelling than about common sense, it's not likely that more readers will look for 3 small Czech villages than for Slovakia's second city. BTW I usually tried to type the name correctly but the letter š is not easy to find and this might prompt other Hungarians to link to it as Kassa, are you sure you want that? – Alensha  ^talk 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiš

Hi Juro,

did you notice there's a move request for Spiš to Szepes? I think splitting it up is a better idea, as Tankred suggests. Markussep 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!

I am happy that you returned. Tankred 23:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I activated my e-mail here, so it should be fine now. If it is not, just drop me line and I will send you my e-mail in a different way. Tankred 00:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary

Where does it belong else, he? Öcsi 19:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a joke? Into the main articles, of course. Juro 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this isn't a joke. If somebody wants to download a list with the Counties and its demopraphic situation, he can do it now. Please stop trolling. Thank you. Öcsi 08:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is called Administrative divisions and not ethnic composition, and stop vandalising.Juro 17:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this revert war with astonishment. I agree with Juro that this is not really the place for the ethnic composition of the counties. There's a lot of data available from the 1910 census, and some of that is already in the individual county articles. If you think an overview of major ethnic groups by county is a good thing to have (and I don't see a reason against it), wouldn't it be a better idea to create an article about the demography/ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary, e.g. Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary? Markussep 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karkonosze/Giant Mountains/Krkonoše

Just in case you're interested, there's a new Karkonosze → Giant Mountains or Krkonoše vote here. Cheers! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hooray for Juro

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on the History of Hungary page and it's sub-articles, I award you this Epic Barnstar. -- TheMightyQuill 23:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Hi, I believe you know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable here. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. KissL 09:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"And KissL of course takes advantage of this to threat with a block." You know just as well as I do that if I had the habit of "taking advantage" of things like that as your comment suggests, I could have done that like a hundred times in the last one year. And if you don't choose to overlook it, you'll also notice that even now, I didn't warn you about a personal attack against me, even though I'd have had the opportunity to do so. And I warned the other party too with the same {{npa2}} template. If after all this you still prefer to think that I'm after getting you blocked, that's your own affair. However one thing is true: I've had enough of the endless ad hominem's in every imaginable topic, and every imaginable situation. There is a policy against it here, and you'll have to comply with it, that's all I have to say. KissL 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I remind you that first user Mt7 alias Reti has provided no counterarguments to what I have said (but that does not "interest" you somehow, interestingly) and that's what I have reacted to. Second you should have noticed that I have not used any "ad hominem" about you, although I could have done so and it would have been appropriate - I have not done so, because it was not pertinent in this case and because you have tried to provide at least some normal arguments. Consider this an answer to your ridiculous assumption that anyone can write anything he likes in an wikipedia, even if he is unable to read or write. Unfortunately, we have more of this kind of users here now. Secondly, this is a coincidence (I have not forced him to discuss there), but he really is a very serious case in terms of lack of intelligence (and this is a very polite formulation, I cannot be more precise, otherwise I will be accused of personal attacks). He should restrict himself to soccerplayers etc. (his favorite edits) or even better not make any edits in the wikipedia in the first place irrespective of the matter at hand. Finally, a general remark: (1) The current version does nor correspond neither to our agreement with Zello that Latin will be used, nor to the current Naming convention proposal, nor to the quite obvious principle that you use either the current name of a town or the contemporary name of the towb (not the current version of the contemporary version in a language of a third country). The article has been blocked at a version for which no arguments have been provided (other than that Petofi was Hungarian, which is no valid argument for toponyms), i.e. at a technically wrong version. And that has something to do Khoikoi's very obvious "bias" (I cannot be more precise, otherwise I will be be accused of personal attack), actually unacceptable for an admin. Juro 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll organise mine in two separate topics:

1. About personal matters:
   • I warned Mt7 with the same template message as you, and at the same time; I didn't mix your arguments (or lack thereof) into this matter, since as long as you guys are talking about the content, not each other's mental capabilities, that's my business only as long as I'm interested in the topic and have time to spare on it.
   • You are right that Khoikhoi may have his own bias in this matter (at least so it seems to me too). If I were him, I'd have asked another admin to protect the page and leave it to that other admin's decision which version he protects the page at. (However, if the page were protected at the version I disagree with, I wouldn't consider that a serious problem: this is not a high-profile article, and protections usually do not take more than, say, a week.)
   • I believe the only real problem that blocks cooperation between us (and I have reason to think that it is the same between you and other contributors) is that your definition of what constitutes a personal attack is much more restrictive than it should be. For example, alleging that someone is "unable to read or write" is a slanderous exaggeration at the very best, and as such it qualifies as a personal attack. Also, I think there is no situation where an ad hominem is appropriate either against me (as you suggested above) or against anyone else, even against a real complete idiot. An ad hominem is not providing any argument but it does provoke and insult the parties opposing you. It is in no way constructive. The NPA page describes this in very precise detail. Note that on the same basis, I'm not saying "you're not constructive" or "you are insulting others" or any of that stuff. I believe you have the formal intelligence to understand why this kind of talk is both bad and useless. KissL 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I always try to calm down, but if the ...ity repeatedly stems from the same user (any user) and exceeds a certain level (in this case combined with sockpuppetry, which he does not even deny), I see no other way. I cannot help if I am the only one who notices this in many cases. Originally (years ago) I tried to deal with such people in a polite way - I have achieved nothing. Secondly, try to understand that people having no idea about say the quantum theory cannot be considered capable of leading a dispute about quantum theory articles. The same applies to toponyms, linguistics and history, even though nowadays many people think that these are areas where anybody's opinion somehow "has to be" be accepted. This is not and should not be case... And finally, I agree that I understand a "personal attack" basically as a threat, and not as any negative ad hominem statement about a person. Juro 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
       • I think that if there is no other way, there is no way. In such cases, I usually look for help with other users – there are many more sensible users than unintelligent POV pushers, at least in my experience it has been like that – and go on to win the revert war. Of course, if the other party starts sockpuppeting, that's a different story, but there are again ways to deal with it. Wikipedia's definition of a personal attack is broader – the first two examples here show that – but the main problem is not that it's not allowed, but rather that it doesn't work. (At least I doubt you have ever succeeded in convincing anyone about anything by just asserting they don't know the subject, even if you were right.) KissL 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. About the content dispute:
   • I believe the ethnic affiliation of Petőfi should be a factor in deciding which name to use as primary in the article about him. This is in line with the consensus formed by a relatively large group of editors in the Gdansk-Danzig debate. Feel free to explain what the problem is with that consensus, but without such an explanation, I cannot accept that "that Petofi was Hungarian ... is no valid argument for toponyms". KissL 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I understand your point, but please try to understand that what I am saying are purely technical ibjections: I do not know any rule saying that the Gdansk-Danzig debate should be relevant for anything in the wikipedia, and Danzig is a completely different issue (a town which constantly "changed" the countries). But, even if it was so, what you are claiming here (that the nationality of the person at hand determines the language of the toponyms in the text), is a at best a misinterpretation. Are you suggesting that articles about French persons should call London "Londres" or Pressburg "Presbourg" (as an extreme example)?? Of course not and this would be clearly illogical. And I can only repeat that we have agreed with Zello to use Latin names and that the current naming convention proposal, as I understand it, would imply the use of the current name.... Maybe - maybe! - you could claim what you are claiming if the town had say Hungarian and say Slovak inhabitants and we had to decide which one to choose. In reality however, this particular town had German and Slovak inhabitants at that time and the official language of the country was Latin. In other words there is no argument whatsoever for using Hungarian at all, other than claiming that Petofi was Hungarian (but this is not a valid argument - see the French person example). You could use the Hungarian name - correctly - after 1867, but not in the early 1830s. Can you follow?
       • True, nobody said that the Gdansk-Danzig debate should be relevant for anything else, but nobody said the opposite either, and I thought it would make a fair precedent. You are right that in our case, it wasn't the country that was changing over time. Still, to your example with the biography of a French person, "Londres" would of course be out of place since this is the English Wikipedia and this overrides all other considerations; but if the name "Presbourg" was used in French relatively widely, I'd support using that. Remember, it would read "Jean Dupont went to Presbourg (today Bratislava) in 1777", so there is no confusion for the reader! And of course, the Bratislava article would continue to explain in detail what the name was in various languages and in various times. That said, I'm also fine with the Latin name – just let's not scare the readers with 4 names for every settlement. If you watched the Hungarian noticeboard at that time, you probably noticed that I was one of the supporters of the idea. KissL 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
   • I think that for the sake of clarity, we shouldn't prefer contemporary spellings, or even variants, of a toponym when the current spelling or variant is clearly the result of the evolution of the contemporary name. This is based on the guideline that content should be optimized more for the general public than for specialist readers. That means I definitely prefer 'Banská Stiavnica' to 'Sscawnica' (or what) and, similarly, 'Selmecbánya' to 'Selymeczbánya'.
   • Finally, I'm strongly against listing multiple names like this: "the boarding school in Banská Stiavnica/Schemnitz/Selmecbánya". First, the general reader will have no idea which language each name is in; second, it's a mess: it makes the text very hard to read. (We can fix the first by adding even the language names, but that screws up the text even more.) So however difficult that may seem, we'll definitely need to agree upon a convention to choose ONE name for a settlement, with the current official name in parentheses if it is different. KissL 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
     • You are worsening the problem I have mentioned above by the fact that not only you insist on the wrong language (i.e. neither official, nor representing the town's population), but you even try to ban the correct names (i.e. Latin as the official language, Slovak and German as the languages of the population) at least as alternatives. I think we have discussed this already somewhere, but Scawnica and Selymeczbánya represent not only changes in orthography, but also in pronounciation. The difference is relatively small, I know, but those are the most official names known to have been used at that time (after 1808). It is certainly more correct to use contemporary names without changes than to use a modern Hungarian name for a town currently outside Hungaryn in an English language encyklopaedia. As for the name agreement - provisionally, we have agreed to use Latin names (but nobody implements this) and a naming convention is in preparation (the discussion is too long, I do not know what exact state of preparation it has achieved). Juro 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
       • I'm not challenging the point that those changes in ortography reflect changes in pronunciation. My problem is just that this is a specialist detail which is fine to deal with in the article about the place in question, but not in any and all articles referring to such places. Remember that out of those reading e.g. the Petőfi article and having an idea about where Banská Stiavnica is, those who will even know details about how the place's name changed over the centuries (and thus will be able to identify the place by its name using the contemporary spelling) will be a clear minority. For the majority, it's a disturbance. And for the minority, it should be perfectly enough to find this information after clicking on the name. KissL 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
       • Oh yeah... and careful with the phrase "you are worsening the problem" :))) KissL 11:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further personal attacks

This edit summary is entirely inappropriate. You have a long history of making personal attacks and I am here as a neutral admin to tell you that your behavior here is simply unacceptable. We have a strict policy prohibiting personal attacks. Please read it and understand it. If you make further personal attacks, I will block you. Thanks, Gwernol 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

--Öcsi 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can make an error once. But what you are doing, REPEATEDLY trying to falsify population and other data both in this and the German wikipedia is clear vandalism (, unless it has the reasons I have mentioned several days ago and for which I have received the warning above). Juro 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not talk about your errors :). The problem is that you are ignoring me. You write that my edits are crap, nationalism, etc. But this isn't a normal conversation, you never try to discuss with me about a topic... but it wouldn't have any significance, if this encylopedia was on your own home page. Therefore: Try to discuss with me in a normal manner or let it be anyway. --Öcsi 19:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

An example: Can you explain then how it comes that you - in direct contradiction to the reality and to any source - REPEATEDLY claim that the Hungarians form a "majority" in a plain, in which they in fact form a very evident minority, and then - when you finally allow someone to correct this - you simply invent a non-existing district to increase the number of Hungarian districts, and then - when you "allow" me to correct even that - you invent a majority in a freely chosen third district. Can you explain how anyone not being an extreme nationalist can make a set of such "errors"?. And I could add your "error", by which you have added further 500 000 Hungarians to Slovakia's population etc. Juro 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You still do not understand it, the thing about the number of hungarian native speakers, right? Moreover, I have never wrote that they are living 1.000.000 people in SK, who claim that they are native hungarians; but maybe I have forgotten it, so could you cite me, please. :)) --Öcsi 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you have not answered my question (because there is no way how you could justify what you have done). And I also understand that not being able to explain the first part, you will now try to lie about the second objection forever at least. Juro 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a new edit for you to get angry about! [6] :DDD --Öcsi 13:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czechoslovakia articles & plagiarism

Unless I'm very confused, it seems that a number of articles you added about Communist Czechoslovakia were lifted directly from the Library of Congress Country Studies Page. Certainly Religion in Communist Czechoslovakia, Government structure of Communist Czechoslovakia, Mass media in Communist Czechoslovakia, Health and social welfare in Communist Czechoslovakia, Education in Czechoslovakia, Society of Communist Czechoslovakia, Demographics of Czechoslovakia, and possibly others? I'm trying to assume good faith here, so could you care to explain this before I go about reverting all the work that I and others have put into these articles since you posted them in 2004? Thanks, TheMightyQuill 08:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Further examination suggests that a number of the History of the Czech lands articles have been taken from the Country Studies page as well. TheMightyQuill 08:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also:

• Normalization (Czechoslovakia)
• 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia
• Transport in Czechoslovakia
• Foreign trade of Communist Czechoslovakia
• Youth organizations in Communist Czechoslovakia
• Trade Unions in Communist Czechoslovakia
• Origins of Czechoslovakia
• Industry of Communist Czechoslovakia
• Agriculture of Communist Czechoslovakia
• Ninth-of-May Constitution

Yes, of course, as far as I remember, they were all taken from there (I do not know anymore whether all of them by me). What's the problem? Is anybody claiming the opposite? They are public domain texts. Juro 01:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize that site was pd, and since they weren't cited, it seemed a little suspicious. Glad i asked instead of just blanking them all. =) TheMightyQuill 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czechoslovakia

Do not change redirect pages into disambiguation pages unless, and until, the links to the page are corrected. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No time?

I thought we hadn't finished above... but you seem to be busy elsewhere. What's up? KissL 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have not noticed your answers (probably because I had to explain to "Mr." Ocsi some basics again). But, irrespective of this, actually I have no time, especially given that whatever I write, Kh... will change that. I disagree with what you write (especially that you could use Presbourg in an English encyclopaedia, that is an obviously wrong statement), but who cares here? I mean I have explained my point at least three times and Pressburg is always Pressburg in English texts, that's all I can say. Juro 03:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mátra-Slanec Area

Hi! I just have a seemingly Slovak-related question. Does the term "Mátra-Slanec Area" refer to the Northern Medium Mountains (Hungary), or to somewhat similar? Thank you in anticipation, Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_Carpathians it should be the same (except that, of course, Matra-Slanec Area is a purely artifial term used only for subdivisions, while Northern Medium Mountains is conceived as a "loose" traditional designation for a mountain group). Juro 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)