User talk:Zello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Zello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! KissL 10:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Kingdom of Hungary

Don't be discouraged when your edits get reverted. Although this is not the general nature of Wikipedia, it happens fairly often when you touch sensitive topics (which is pretty commonplace with us Hungarians and history, unfortunately). I think your edits were good, though not perfect, so keep up the work.

Just to emphasise part of the welcome message above: you can sign your name and the date using four tildes (~~~~), and this is required for all Talk pages (not the articles, naturally). I admit that the introduction links are quite numerous, but it's really worth reading through most of them before you seriously start editing stuff here.

Also, while I'm sure we could talk in Hungarian, we shouldn't: these pages are kind of public, so everyone is supposed to understand us. Of course, you can visit my user space and send me an email using the "E-mail this user" link if you want.

Have a nice time here :)

KissL 10:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Do you understand German, Zello?Juro 20:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read. Zello 21:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Then you will find the information in the Bratislava article on the German wikipedia. I only add, that in the meantime I have found new information, so that the part saying that the name was not used in the late 19th century is not quite correct, there was for example a students association in Bratislava, in the name of which the form "Břetislava" was used. But such usage seems to be rather an exception. As for your question whether "Prešporok" was used after 1919, no it definitely was not, since the official name was Bratislava (also used officially in official Hungarian and German announcements at that time etc.), I cannot exclude however, of course, that some older people did not use it at home etc. for some years. Juro 00:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you it's really interesting. Thank for God that not Wilsonovo mesto was chosen :) Zello 16:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite...Imagine what an attraction it would be today for tourists and investors if they were to visit or invest in "Wilson City" in the middle of Europe...:))) Juro 17:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tovarisevo

Thank you for translating it, some unexpected events robbed me of most of the free time in which I was supposed to do that task . Dunemaire 06:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User categorization

Hi! You can add yourself to the Category:Wikipedians in Hungary if you want to. Btw, are you registered at HuWiki too? :) regards, Alensha 22:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanx! No, I'm not. Zello 22:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

Hi, Hungarian history is not my favorite topic, but maybe I could be of some assistance. I'm mostly interested in WW2 and to some extent WW1. Cheers, nyenyec ☎ 06:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Zello! Csak azért is magyarul, hogy az idetévedő külhoniak ne értsék :). Szóval érdekel a dolog, de elég ritkán jövök fel az angol wikire. Örömmel segítek bármiben, jómagam is történelemtanári pályára készülök. A magyar wikin ugyanez a felhasználónevem, ha valamiben kell segítség, szólj csak az ottani vitalapomon.

Horthynál itt elég nagy harcok mentek, abban már igyekeztem részt venni (alapvetően Budapest román megszállásának "negatív színben való feltüntetése" miatt panaszkodtak. Azaz azért, mert bele mertük írni, hogy fosztogattak, raboltak, és mellesleg ők voltak a támadók.).

Egyébként ha fáradhatatlan harcost keresel, ajánlom Gubb felkeresését... Ugyan matektanár, de nem látszik rajta annyira :D.--Mathae 14:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Szia! Ha ez valami összeesküvés-féle, akkor én is magyarul írok :-) A 20. századi történelem annyira nem a szakterületem, de próbálom majd rajta tartani a szemem a problémás lapokon. Az tényleg baj, hogy túl kevesen vagyunk itt magyarok, többségünk az otthoni wikiben dekkol. A Gubbot én is ajánlom, bár kicsit forrófejű, de ha ő egyszer egy szent ügy szolgálatába áll, arról nem lehet levakarni :D Alensha 14:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sziasztok, írtam neki is, remélem jelentkezik! A levlista azért lenne hasznos, mert így tudnánk róla, hol forrósodik fel éppen a hangulat. Láttam h KissL,Mathae és Gubbubu vívtak egy nagy harcot a Tanácsköztársaság cikknél, közben én is küzdöttem Juróval Dunaszerdahely kapcsán (most éppen a bukovinai székelyeket akarja Bonaparte törölni, összevonásnak álcázva a dolgot), de nem tudtunk egymásról. Ha feliratkoznánk egy levlistára vmelyik sűrűn használt mailcímünkkel, csak fel kéne dobni a cikk a nevét, és akinek éppen van rá ideje és energiája, segíthetne. Én megadtam a saját címemet a user page-en, küldjetek rá lécci egy-egy levelet, h meglegyen az összes cím! Zello 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hali! Szerintem használhatod koordinálásra a hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (egyéb) lapot is. Potenciálisan nagyobb közösséget érsz el vele, mint egy olyan listával, amire fel kell iratkozni. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Or you can subscribe to wikpedia-hu at yahoogroups.com
One thing I could help with is checking English sources at my local library if needed. -- nyenyec ☎ 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I subscribed, it will be OK! Checking English sources will be very useful, thanks a lot! Zello 01:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Collaboration

My short answer: yes, glad to help you! Gubbubu 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Egyszóval ha valami baj van, azonnal szólj egyrészt nekem (levelet nem tanácsos küldeni, mert gyakran csak hetenként nézem a mailjeim), a legjobb, ha a magyar Wikipédiabeli vitalapomon. Az ötletedet jónak tartom, már régóta akarunk kollaborálni, de csak most kezdünk hozzá elegen lenni (évekig nagyjából egyedül voltam, fél éve Mathae vagy Alensha néha besegít). A történelem nekem sem igazi szakterületem, sajnos (itt elsősorban az ókori kelethez és a kommunista diktatúrákhoz értek), de tapasztalataim szerint ha egy hülyeségre rászállunk, akkor kb. két-három hónap alatt mégis csak lehet eredményt elérni. A mailcímem gubbubu, kukacjel, és frímél pont hu, azért ha levlistát szervezel a magyarokból, küldj nekem is levelet. Bár az is megoldás, ha a magyar Wikipédia levlistát használjuk e célra (valahol a yahoo oldalán van, ha a magyar wikipédiában - talán a kezdőlapon? - utánanézel, szerintem megtalálod). Gubbubu 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Még egy jótanács. Ha vitába kezdesz, ajánlatos valami angol forrást találni, ami támogatja az álláspontodat. Ilyen általában nincs szem előtt (pl. a kommunizmus tekintetétben különösen elavultnak mondható az angol weben található forrásanyag), de ha nagyon-nagyon keres az ember, általában mégis akad. Gubbubu 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Fz22 is jelentkezett, vagyunk már négyen-öten. Megpróbálok feliratkozni a magyar wikipédiás levlistára, úgy tűnik az lesz a legpraktikusabb. Zello 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I am reminding you that some users understand what you write, and that you should write such things in English (you do not have to, but that it shows a lot if you don't). I also remind you that the English wikipedia is an international encyklopedia and not a battlefield. Above all, it does not become a battlefield each time you are in dispute with someone. It is also part of basic decency not to focus on articles in neighbouring countries, with which you have nationally bias problems. And that holds for any topic, where a user could be emotionally non-neutral. For example, none of the neighbouring countries started to edit articles on Hungarian towns and their history until now, and you should appreciate it, because there would be a lot to write. Juro 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested at all who understands this and who not (and I know you read Hungarian). I wrote in Hungarian because this is a collaboration project for Hungarian contributors in topics important for us. Every group has the right to discuss matters and strengthen partnership. Do the same with Slovak users or Christian users or vegan users or anything you like. As far as you or anybody writes valuable contributions about a town in Hungary with significant Slovak population (for ex. Békéscsaba) or Slovak-connected history I think all of us will be happy for your help. Excluding Hungarian users doing the same with towns in neighbouring countries is in contradiction with the most important policy of Wikipedia ie. representing different point of views. Zello 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You should be "interested" that you write in English in the English wikipedia. And I was referring to the initial "reasons" you gave for this whole "project", in which you mention - among other thing - my name. You are exhibiting very indecent behaviour. Juro 00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There aren't "initial" and "present" intentions. My intentions are clear. As I see Hungarian history in Wikipedia became distorted if we don't play a more active role here. As I see you represent a Slovak point of view. This is not a personal insult or even a fault. Do this at your best, look up datas which are important for you as you did until now, and tolerate when other people do the same. Sometimes we will reach agreements, sometimes not and then the article should represent this disagreement as Wikipedia: Neutral point of view clearly indicates. Collaboration among Hungarians is a useful tool to represent our point of view better. Zello 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I spoke about "reasons" given when talking to Gubbubu. And I am NOT representing the Slovaks here, I am just the (absolutely) only person that takes care of Slovakia-related articles. Juro 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I said Gubbubu that when he was fighting an edit war on Hungarian Soviet Republic article then I was arguing with you about Dunaszerdahely. And it would be useful to give news about such events to help each other if we have time and energy.

That is exactly what I meant by "not a battlefield".Juro 01:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
More people means more good argument and more research and so a better representation of the Hungarian point of view about the given topic. And indeed sometimes wikipedia become a battlefield. Nobody said we should pretend we agree when we don't. There are edit wars, this is natural. Zello 01:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize you that you are absolutely the only one who takes care of Slovakia-related articles but indeed it is not my fault. Zello 01:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep it cool Zello. Don't push it. Start collaborating first. Bonaparte talk 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You and your friends are trying to delete an article with a fake merging proposal. Don't preach about collaboration here...Zello 08:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

read WP:Civility. I will start an RfC against you if you don't refrain yourself from your personal attacks. Bonaparte talk 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You won't find any personal attack from me but Juro made serious ones. Don't teach me civillity then... Zello 21:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope for the moment from you to be neutral ok? You did vote didn't you? That's good. You said your opinion by voting. That's again good. Now that all things are good please refrain from future acts. Igen? Kösönöm. Bonaparte talk 21:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK. But you are trying to delete an important info about the candidate. Stop this and I won't do anything more. Zello 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Szia

Kösz az invitálást. Szerintem nagyon érdekes ez itt: ütköznek a különböző csoportok által felépített narratívák saját történetükről, és az ember sokat megtud arról, hogyan gondolkodik a másik. És a legnagyobb kihívás éppen az olyan konfliktusos területeken van, amelyekhez volt szerencsém hozzászólni - ha ezeket a történeteket mindkét fél számára elfogadhatóan tudnánk elmondani, az nagy eredmény volna. Mindenesetre feliratkozom a listára, remélem, lesz időm közreműködni. Szia, Vay 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A magyar wiki nyilvános kocsmafalán is elindult a kommunikáció, érdemes néha oda is felnézni, bár továbbra is azt hiszem, jobb lenne egy önálló levlista. A wikis levlistához küldök meghívót, ha nem vagy feliratkozva, írj a user page-emen lévő címre! Zello 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burgenland

Hi Zello. I just signed up to translate the German article about the Burgenland into English (long overdue), but it seems you have done this already, perhaps in collaboration with another Wikipedian. If this correct? Thanks for participating in this huge project.--Mmounties 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't translation rather editing and upgrading the article using other sources. Zello 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you did a really good job, Zello. Someone had requested a translation of the German article quite a long time ago. That article covered a lot of ground as well. Therefore, if you don't mind, I'll take a look at it and see if we can add to it anything that was covered in the German article on the Burgenland that perhaps didn't make it into the English article since you seem to have started from scratch. When I'm done I'll let you and some other people on the translation project know that it's ready for editing. At that time it would be wonderful if you could take another look at it and provide feedback. If I find anything you covered and the German article didn't, I'll let them know as well. --Mmounties 00:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, good idea! :) Zello 12:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magyars

Szia! Néha majd átnézem a közreműködéseidet, ahol tudok, ott segítek egy picit. Ha bármi gondod van (akármivel, ami wikipédiához kapcsolódik, pl. hogy kell kezelni a képletszerkesztőt :-)); nem csak a vitákkal), szólj nyugodtan Gubbubu 17:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on [[2]]

FYI: I was attempting to defend your edits against what Juro had to say. I don't think that an attack on me was warranted. If your comment, 'Your rethoric is not better, "mutt".' was not meant to be an insult, I would appreciate being corrected. Otherwise, I would like to point out that it doesn't help the cause of civil discourse on Wikipedia. Juro did have a point in his response, which I pointed out while trying to get him to see past 'your' ethnicity. This nastiness does not help either side, but looks especially bad and reflects on other Hungarians when you write such silly remarks. InFairness 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have used an insulting word, "mutt" for the people of the Kingdom of Hungary, and figuratively every Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian user. I'd like to remind you with my comment that your behaviour is uncivil. In the Kossuth case I don't have any content dispute with Juro although we argued previously and will certainly argue on things later. Juro mentioned my nationality because he had a minor edit war with another (anonymous) Hungarian user and he pointed out that the origins of the Kossuth family is not a "patriotic" case but a matter of facts. Zello 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
"I'd like to remind you with my comment that your behaviour is uncivil."... the only thing you have reminded me of is a paraszt who doesn't understand the meaning of "civil".
You called Kossuth and all Hungarian people "korcs". What are you speaking about? I only used your own word for you... Zello 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouvier des Flandres

Hi, sorry but I deleted Bouvier des Flandres from the list of Hungarian animals. I looked up sources and I've found that this dog comes from Belgium (as the name clearly shows). There are people who breed bouvier in Hungary but it is not a specific Hungarian animal. It hasn't got a real Hungarian name only called "Flamand bouvier". Zello 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry...I was doing research and didn't mean to put it there. I was looking at Hungarian dogs and my dad says we're getting a Bouvier, but I didn't think before I edited :(. Sorry!!! somody 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Köszönet

Köszönöm a leveled! Sajnos a munkám nem nagyon engedi ,hogy mélyebben belemeruljek az oldalak készítésébe ,csak információkat szerettem volna felrakni a falumról. Információ már van fent. Köszönöm annak aki megcsinálta. Józsi

[edit] asked

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in case Komárno --Mt7 12:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC) I did remove it, it is not so important. --Mt7 13:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I welcome other people's opinion in the debate. Zello 15:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration case because there wasn't too much mediation before that step. I'm not very familiar with dispute resolution process but as far as I know there is Wikipedia: Request for mediation and Wikipedia: Request for comment that seem to more appropriate. Zello 16:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefor now again to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I will not a editwar. --Mt7 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Komárno

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

In case you are interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania --KIDB 10:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi again

Hi Zello,

I've been off Wikipedia for quite a while... it's done me good :) Sorry I couldn't respond to your message earlier.

I do believe that we should be as open as possible even when it's about organising some kind of lobby so that important topics don't get distorted. This means that I prefer that we talk in English on talkpages, and make it clear that all of our actions are justifiable because we're building a better encyclopedia that way, not because "we have the right to defend our national image just as much as any other nations", or anything like that. Besides, whenever you are getting emotive and you fear that your words might be used against you by someone who chooses to misunderstand them, you can always send me an e-mail via the "e-mail this user" feature, in which case you can say what you want, and the way you like.

To my knowledge, you are the only Hungarian editor here who has learned History in higher education. Against stupid claims like the one around the 1919 invasion of Hungary, even I could bring up sources, but in more delicate topics the likes of me are no good... this is where we need you most. Unfortunately, that will often mean "fighting on your own", even though most of us will help you as much as we can, as you've probably seen from the responses.

KissL 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should breath life to Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. The Romanian version works really good, they speak about new articles, plans, problems etc. It seems they have COMMON things to do and I think Hungarians have too but we are not able to effectively cooperate yet. Regional noticeboards absolutely legal in wikipedia, people speak English and anybode can take part in the discussion. The frame is set only we should use it. Zello 13:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it, I'll take a quick look each time I'm around. KissL 09:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] again arbitration

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration in case Komárno again --Mt7 10:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santo Stefano dei Ungheresi

Hi. Nice article about Santo Stefano dei Ungheresi. Two questions:

  1. Could you please add references?
  2. Are you sure it is Santo Stefano dei Ungheresi, and not Santo Stefano degli Ungheresi, which would be correct in Italian?

--Panairjdde 13:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. My main source was the new Hungarian translation of Flavius Blondus. The introduction written by Klára Póczy, archeologist of the Aquincum Museum in Budapest contains a lot of data about the old Santo Stefano. I made the mistake with the name. I found now a map about the exact place of the church here: http://utenti.quipo.it/romeartlover/Vasi166.htm

Could you move the article to the appropriate name? Zello 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved. Could you please give me a reference to this work by Flavius Blondus and to the Hungarian translation? References are vital to Wikipedia article. Furhtermore, is there an article about this church or Santo Stefano Rotondo in Hungarian Wikipedia (sorry, I do not understand Hungarian and therefore I am not able to search for it)?
By the way, nice work with Santo Stefano Rotondo.
--Panairjdde 08:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Klára Póczy: Flavius Blondus műve és kora, in: Flavius Blondus: Az újraálmodott Róma. Roma Instaurata (translated by Edina Zsupán), Budapest, Pytheas, 2005 (pp. 169-172)

I think there isn't any article about the churches in hu wiki, at least I searched for them but didn't find. Zello 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

More on Santo Stefano Rotondo. Are you sure the names are Santo Stefano Celimontana and Hospital of San Giovanni Addolorata? The first should be Santo Stefano Celimontano, while the second sounds quite strange as is now.--Panairjdde 08:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the name on the homepage of the Pontifical North American College. There is an article about Santo Stefano Rotondo on http://www.pnac.org/station_churches/church_days/wk5fri.htm Of course it is possible that they made a mistake, I wouldn't have noticed because I don't speak Italian (yet :)

The name of the hospital is ok, but I missed a hyphen. Here is their homepage: www.hsangiovanni.roma.it/

Zello 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion komarno

Be not a vandale, I do not fake discussion, I have no problem, if you do a summary, but in a new section and please make commnet. that we see, that we have a summary ant it is not original discussion. --Mt7 07:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The summary is made up of quotations exactly as people commented the debate. I haven't made any interpretation - these are their own words. There is no other way to present a neutral summary. Why do you delete it? Zello 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_investigation&diff=56965041&oldid=56950867 --Mt7 07:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You delete everything that you personally dislike, in this case 6 peoples' opinion as explained with their own words. The case is simple and obvious... Zello 07:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

(responding the the WP:RFI) Having a summary seems fine, as long as it is made perfectly clear that it is quotes from other people, and if they are partial quotes that should be made clear as well. Petros471 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I made it clear that they are quotes and I quoted the relevant sentences from all the people participating in the debate. If you look through the summary you will see that I haven't omitted those opinions that differed from mine. Now I changed the summary to indicate that qoutes are partial as you proposed. Zello 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transport in Hungary

(if anybody interested in the discussion who don't speak Hungarian I will likely translate for him :)

a miskolci pályaudvar az miért csak architecturally important? szerintem más szempontból is fontos (pl. vonatok is megállnak ott meg ilyesmi :-) – Alensha 寫 词 00:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

azt hittem ez alapján akarunk válogatni a nagyobb vidéki pályaudvarok közül h melyiket említsük meg :) Zello 07:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
azokat nem muszáj, csak a nagyvárosiakat, abból is amelyik fontos nemzetközi vasútvonal mellett van, mert pl. szegény Eger igen távol esik tőle, de pl. Győr, Pécs elég jelentős állomások. bocsi, lusta vagyok most angolul írni... :) ez a kényszerített edit summary meg az agyamra megy >:-( – Alensha 寫 词 14:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Rendben, csak ki akartam kicsit egyensúlyozni a szöveget, mert Miskolc túl hangsúlyosnak tűnt önmagában :) Zello 09:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

ahhoz hozzá kell szoknod, tekintve, hogy én vagyok az egyik legaktívabb magyar errefelé, és szerintem Miskolc hangsúlyossága így van jól :-) viccen kívül, nem nagyon tudom a többi pályaudvar nevét, csak egyszerűen „Pécsi pályaudvar” meg ilyenek? – Alensha 寫 词 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Igen, nincs valódi nevük. Szerintem a tiszainak is csak azért van mert két nagy pályaudvara van a városnak Zello 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suzereignty -> suzerainty?

By the above word, did you mean "suzerainty" in the article Pannonian Plain? Adam78 20:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Persze, bocs, csak félig írtam át az eredeti sovereignty-t. Zello 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of arbitration

Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.

Please inform everybody who could be interested in.--AndriyK 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 16:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

You can steal more stuff from here if you want. :p —Khoikhoi 00:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I saw your warning here. "Ban" is the wrong word, as it means permanent. A block is just temporary. Also, to save you the time from having to write it, there are templates you can use instead. Just write them like this, for example:
{{subst:test2}}
And it will show up at this:
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
There is also {{test}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}, {{bv}} etc. Once you get up to test4, you can report them to WP:AIV. Also, don't use these templates for people you are in a content dispute with, only obvious vandals. And remember to always "subst" them (i.e. use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}).
Cheers! —Khoikhoi 01:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian Translations

Hi Zello. I wonder why do you insist on having Hungarian versions of geographic locations in Slovakia next to their current Slovak names. You recently reverted my edit of Imre Thököly arguing with minimum between Slovak, Roman and Hungarian editors. Honestly, I have never seen Roman translation as I neither have seen a Slovak one, next to a Hungarian city name. The rules for this issue (from what may be seen in the rest of Wikipedia) seem pretty straight forward to me: 1. English name of the location is used if it exists, otherwise the name in the local language is chosen, with exception of languages which have non latin characters, where transliteration is needed. 2. The appropriate place to list historical name alternatives, and/or translation to the local language (when it differes from the name used in English) is the article about the place itself. 3. The appropriate place for translations to all other languages is Wiktionary. Plus I can also imagine some small exceptions to the above, when it realy makes sense and especialy when it is helpfull for the reader, but I find it realy difficult to justify the need to translate Orava or Prešov to Hungarian language in-line. The point is, that this is international or English Wikipedia. The problem is not the article about Imre Thököly, but the attitude, which can be interpreted as the continuation of the magyarization. Such an attitude is usually perceived as higly offensive by Slovaks. Deffinitely it does not contribute to the spirit of collaboartion needed in wikipedia, and it triggers those endless discussions which are waste of time for all of us. Jurohi 15:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a debate what names wiil be used on the first place in historical articles about the former Kingdom of Hungary. Probably Latin, because that was the official, and other names that were used in contemporary official sources + local names of the majority population. We dont have a generally accepted naming policy yet. But nobody - except the most chauvinist editors - tries to delete alternative names from the second place (from the brackets). You said you are not able tolerate the existence of Hungarian names in the article at all - I have no answer for such an arrogant, highly intolerant attitude. Zello 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You should think twice before calling people arrogant and probably read more carefully what they write. If I was arrogant, I would just revert your edit without serious explanation as you did. You are citing me using words that I never used. I have never said that I can't tolerate Hungarian names or anything similar. Rather I was asking for the reason to keep Hungarian translations of Slovak locations in English Wikipedia. In particular the case of Orava and Prešov is quite absurd (IMO). Interesting your the point about latin names. Could you please indicate me where is going this discussion on? I would appreciate some serious reply to my arguments, possibly without offending. Thanks Jurohi 08:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the names - that means that you are not able to tolerate them. You called them "translations" which is absurd speaking about toponymy. Sometimes the Slovak, sometimes the Magyar name is older but that's not really matter. Békéscsaba is called by the local Slovaks Békéšska Čaba - but I would never say that this is a "translation" and delete from the article. In the former Kingdom of Hungary every village had a Magyar name and most settlements had two or three different names - all of them should have a place in historical articles. Until now no well-intentioned editor questioned this principle. Of course the same is true for villages with a considerable Slovak population in present-day Hungary. If I noticed that some chauvinistic Magyar editor begin deleting Slovak names I would similarly revert. As for the naming policy debate (it will be a very long one) see the Francis II Rákóczi article, the Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board and the talk page of the Kuruc article. Zello 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourism in Slovakia

I wanted to alert you of this article. Its been edit warred by User:Juro who I saw you opposed for nomination as an admin. To keep this guy in check, I'm asking various users to keep an eye on ther article to keep this user within the boundries of Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. He has already been blocked once for edit warring. -Husnock 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I had a lot of discussion with Juro, mainly about history articles. On the other hand I wouldn't like a personal conflict with him, or stalk his edits. Of course I can take a look at the article and give my opinion in your debate. Zello 13:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm trying to get various other opinions about keeping the film Hostel mentioned in the article. Your inputs would be welcome. -Husnock 14:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuity of the Hungarian state

Do you really think it can be questioned whether present-day Hungary has a continual connection with the Kingdom of Hungary, both historically and legally? The fact that with the Trianon Treaty Hungary lost many of its former territories doesn't mean that it's an entirely new state, leaving Kingdom of Hungary without any legal successor. That'd be absolute non-sense.

Borders change many times, not only in Hungary, but in many parts of the world. Do we suppose that with each change in area or with the change of the constitution an entirely new state is created? Hungary'd have quite a lot of breaking points in its history.

And by the way, how could post-war Hungary have payed reparation payments if it wasn't the successor of the former Kingdom of Hungary anyways? chery 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

One remark: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania had to pay reparation payments too, by the way. Juro 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree with you. But Slovak, Roman end Serb editors often deny any continuity between the KoH and present-day Hungary. According to their historical conception the KoH wasn't the state of the Magyars but a par excellence multiethnic kingdom which was ruined by forced Magyarization in the second half of the 19th century and ceased to exist in 1918. The paragraph I wrote emphasises that Hungarians consider the KoH simply the pre-Trianon Hungary. Zello 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, tough issue. Still I bet the rest of the world would agree with the Hungarian standpoint. Hungary was a state of Hungarians. Nobles and dominating people were Hungarian throughout the country's history. The fact that there were minorities increasing in number doesn't mean that the state itself wasn't Hungarian right since its establishment, only that it was multi-ethnic, regarding its population.
The paragraph in question makes the Hungarian standpoint look oddish and absurd. chery 08:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that it makes our point oddish and absurd? Zello 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it emphasizes that the Hungarians consider it so, which also indicates (although doesn't say) that others (and most likely the majority) don't. chery 09:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The former paragraph explains the other (Slovak and Roman) conception about the KoH. I don't know whether the rest of the world agree with us or not, but the article now presents the two most important POVs: ours and our neighbours. Zello 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Árpáds

Could you please drop some words on the Árpád dynasty talk to Laszlo? Especially about the relevance, sources used, and "original research" level applied. I really think that a Hungarian has to handle this. Thanks. Juro 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a well-intentioned, although a bit awkward contribution. I tried to present a more correct version. Zello 07:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goulash communism

Comeon, Zello, this editing war is unnecessary. Despite our obvious ideological disagreement I think I have found a feasible compromise in my last edit in mentioning both dates (1956 and 1962) and qualifying them respectively. I made it clear in the article that what is sometimes (and mostly in the West, in contrast to your assertion but I didn't revert this edit of yours because I consider it to be rather unimportant) and in a quite silly way referred to as "Goulash Communism" was characterised mainly by greater concern for public opinion and present material well-being. And this "turning point" (to use your terminology) started right on November 4, 1956 with the establishment of the Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants' Government under János Kádár and reached its first peak in connection with the national party conference in May 1957. That this happened simultaneously to the measures known as the "consolidation of the people's power" and the "suppression of counterrevolutionaries" is true but doesn't change it a bit, these being two different things in my opinion.
Besides: you may have noticed my extreme caution in referring to "the events in the fall of 1956" to avoid any accusation of being POV. So please be fair, too, and accept the compromise of mentioning both dates.
And believe me, you do not have to teach me Hungarian history (especially concerning its socialist period) - I already know it very well by myself. Yours, --Elsmlie 14:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now even added 1962 a second time in brackets, now it reads: between 1956 (or on other accounts 1962 respectively) and 1989. And furthermore it says (already in my original version): events in the fall of 1956 and the reforms implemented in their aftermath. Aftermath can (if you wish) also mean a few years after the event, for example since 1962. --Elsmlie 14:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Here is a reference that gulyáskommunizmus was only established by Kádár in the middle of the 60's not from 1956. The period between 1956 and 1962 was characterised by the repression after the Revolution.

"A jelenséget értelmezve elfogadható az a megállapítás, hogy a „gulyáskommunizmus” kibontakozása egybeesik a kádári hatalom teljeskörű konszolidálódásával, hiszen az életkörülmények érzékelhető mértékű javulása ennek a hatvanas évek közepétől a hetvenes évek végéig tartó periódus politikájának az alapját jelentette. A fogyasztói orientáció kialakulása azonban nyilvánvalóan nem „menthette meg” a szocialista rendszert, hiszen ennek társadalmi-gazdasági hatásmechanizmusa a létező szocializmus működési elveivel ellentétes irányba mutatott."

"A korszak első részét „gulyáskommunizmusnak”, második szakaszát pedig „fridzsiderszocializmusnak” is nevezték. Ezeknek a meghatározásoknak irónikussága önmagában is jelzi a vonatkozó társadalmi helyzetek felemásságát, a látszatot és a valóságot."

Written by historian Tibor Valuch, see http://www.rev.hu/html/hu/kiadvanyok/mitoszok/valuch.html

Another reference:

"A Kádár-korszakról szóló kortárs leírások ugyancsak a hatvanas évek első felére datálják „a nagy kompromisszum” megszületését; ekkortól kezdik Magyarországot úgy emlegetni, mint a hruscsovizmus mintaállama, a gulyáskommunizmus országa, ami a későbbiekben „a szocialista láger legvidámabb barakkja” jellemzéssel bővül. Ezek a jelzők majd negyedszázadon át, a rendszer bomlásának nyilvánvalóvá válásáig, az összeomlás előestéjéig állandósultak."

from "Magyarország a XX. században, Volume I", written by György Gyarmati, see: http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02185/html/45.html

Your claim that gulyáskommunizmus began in 1956 is totally misleading as the main features of that period was "appeasement" and encouragement of personal consumption as the name clearly shows. Between 1956 and 1962 the policy of Kádár was absolutely different. Zello 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By your latest edit you have (one more time, judging from the history of your talk page) proven to be unfortunately unwilling to engage in a serious discussion, let alone to find a compromise. Bringing in some second-rate Hungarian quotes (for instance, I cannot and will not accept texts stemming from the site rev.hu as serious evidence) doesn't make your arguments any more convincing - I could come up with a host of counterarguments but I deem such an effort to be useless in the face of your obvious refusal of any kind of compromise.
And what is more, you even did not not shrink away from the deliberate affront of changing my "events in the fall of 1956" to the "1956 Hungarian Revolution". I'm reverting one last time, go ahead if you can't bear it.
PS: I never wrote about "appeasement" (talking about the much more general and neutral concept of "public opinion" instead) and I fail to see the concept of "appeasement" "clearly shown" in the name gulyáskommunizmus ! And the "encouragement of personal consumption" is in no way contradictory to what you call "repression of the revolution" and therefore did not only start in 1962 (whatever on the contrary your wise sources may suggest).
--Elsmlie 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Both Tibor Valuch and György Gyarmati are well-know scholars and university teachers. The second book was edited by Ignác Romsics - the best expert of 20th century Hungarian history today. These are first-class references, and I don't see any reason why not to believe them.

1956 Hungarian Revolution is the commonly accepted name, not obscure "events". The French Revolution is the French Revolution not the "events of 1789" - you misunderstood NPOV. Zello 00:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Vagy csak sunyi komcsi, akik így maszatolja a dolgokat :)--Mathae 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tartózkodjunk a személyeskedéstől :))) Zello 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ugyan, kérlek, csak találgatok...--Mathae 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Egyébként persze hogy... :) Zello 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi Zello,

Would you mind leaving a comment here? This guy wants to remove the Hungarian names from all Romanian county articles. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 19:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

A personal question: Would you mind revealing to me how you have found out that Eliade is Bonaparte, i.e. how it is in general possible to detect something like that here? Thanks. I hope this is not a secret. Juro 00:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I only followed the events. Khoikhoi noticed first that his style and behavior is very similar to that of Bonaparte and he asked a checkuser. (Or it was Todor Bozhinov, a Bulgarian user, who had a conflict with him about the Vlachs). After that Eliade began to use anonymous sockpuppets in the Bulgarian debate, and an admin immediately blocked him even before the result of the checkuser. Here it is:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliade

I looked through the carrier of the known sockpuppets of Bonaparte some time ago. He is always the same, not only the POV-pushing but the heroistic gestures, small unreasonable edits here-and-there to create a history for the sockpuppet, constant wiki-lawyering, threaten other users with Rfc in a content dispute etc. The guy is quiet a typical lunatic :) Zello 09:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte

Hi Zello,

Could you please help me out with Bonaparte? He's trolling agian. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed but what can I do? We need an admin to ban these new sockpuppet (and the next dozen he will create after one another). Zello 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do is ask mikka, Alex, and now Aldux for help. Bonny appears to have gone away for now, but he'll probably be back. —Khoikhoi 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked Alex to take care of him. Zello 20:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zello. I see that Mikka has already arrived on the article. I just wanted to tell you that really there wasn't any need of my help; I only semi-protected the Transylvania counties articles, not fully protectected, so editors like you can edit without problems, while anonymous editors can't. This blocks Bonaparte, but it won't block legitimate editors like you, I mean. Ciao,--Aldux 23:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks indeed. Zello 23:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen I of Hungary

Hi, I wonder if you have Stephen I of Hungary on your watchlist. There have been some anon edits there today; judging by the spelling and grammar, I'm in doubt about their quality, but I'm not an expert and these are minor things, so I didn't want to just revert them. Could you please take a look? Thanks! KissL 18:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. The first two of the changes are absolutely OK, the third and the last is a bit awkward. I don't know, not anything really bad. Zello 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosenthal

Many thanks, Zello. Dahn 10:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] WTF?

why? What exactly from those citations do you not agree? It's not clear from me what do you have against those citations? Everybody knows them, so are reliable sources.--Latinitas 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1, This is an encyclopedia not a collection of interesting citations. It is absolutely not fit to a serious encyclopaedia to have a whole paragraph of scrappy citatations.

2, The article is about Magyarization, not Holocaust but there are citations among the others that are clearly about Holocaust.

3, The paragraph is highly tendentious and tries to present Hungarians as an "evil" people who continously kill other peoples from 1551 until now. Some of the citations are totally irrelevant. Who is Molnár József who said this idiotism in 2006? I live in Hungary, read the newspapers every day, and never heard his name. He is certainly not a very important figure.

[edit] References

"Hi, please give your references about this number, because the lowest estimate of Hungarian historians is 250 000"

I have two references about this:

  1. Dr. Dušan J. Popović, Srbi u Vojvodini, knjige 1-3, Novi Sad, 1990.
  2. Milan Tutorov, Banatska rapsodija, Novi Sad, 2001.

The first book claim that it were 20,000 Hungarian horseman in Levedia that migrated to Carpathian Basin (This imply that total number of Hungarians was larger because these horsemans had a families), but the second source claim that total number of Hungarians was 25,000. I would say that this is lowest estimation about this number. PANONIAN (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should change the text to show this huge difference between the lowest Serbian and lowest Hungarian estimates, and add the references. Zello 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can change it too. I do not have time now to change text regarding this subject. You have references here and you know what those references say, so you can do something with this if you want. PANONIAN (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hey Zello,

I recently created the Slovakization article, but Juro and Bonaparte don't seem to like it. It got nominated for deletion, so if there's anything you could add (with sources) to expand it, that would be great. Make sure to always check the edit history of the page before you edit it because things are always being deleted. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 19:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

These days I'm quite fed up with our common inter-ethnic wars, and I don't have too much energy for a new battleground article. It is really sad and typical that there is a long Magyarization article where every fact, theory and lie is presented about the minority policy of the KoH but the same editors don't tolerate a stub about Slovakization although some years ago minority schools were attacked by the Mečiar government. Zello 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, as a result mothing has changed at that time and even if it had changed, the article title is "Slovakization" and not "failed attempt to exchange two directors or change laws" or "Hungarians in Slovakia" . And what happened at that time applied to all schools in Slovakia not only Hungarian ones. But I expect such statements from our Hungarians users, I am not surprised about the absolute non-knowledge of basic facts even from the recent past. And as for Magyarisation, do not want me to write there what should be there. The article still does not contain what it should and I have been trying for months to avoid putting it there, but I can do it if you (plural) do not stop with this incredible falsification of history, constant provocations and well visible attempts to draw away the attention from and to relativize the article by creating artificial Romanization (yes even this article should not exist) and Slovakization articles. Juro 01:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

These are typical double standards. When Hungarian authorities tried to restrict minority language education in 1912 that is forced Magyarization, when Slovak authorities did the same in the 1990's than it is unimportant. Zello 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

??? It is unimportant in the sense that nothing changed in the end. And irrespective of this, you have wrong information, because nobody tried to restrict minority education (the only problem where the end-of year certicates, but that has not changed in the end). And the then Mečiar government, which you hope to be able to critisize here, has even codified the Rusyn and Roman language for the first time ever and has had grammar books and text books issued in those lnguages (while there was no money for Slovak textbooks for schools). Secondly, double standards are very pertaining here, because in 1912 there were de-facto no Slovak schools at all in the whole KoH and thereby also in the whole world, so how do you dare to compare that with Slovakia where there are purely Hungarian schools at all levels and kindergardens for all individuals (800 - 900 schools in sum), the state (i.e every Slovak) pays for Hungarian cultural associations etc., Slovaks are Magyarised in their own country, and where there is the only free-of-charge Hungarian-language university in the world (and I suppose the only Hungarian-language university outside Hungary)?? Do you really thing that you can hide the reality by naming two totally different things using similar endings (-ization) ?Juro 02:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Slovak language law in 1995 was criticized by the EU and other European institutions. The European Parliament sent a warning to Slovakia to respect the rights of minorities or they will close their office in Bratislava. There are tons of reliable sources about this issue on the internet, but until now no Hungarian user was able to collect them. And Meciar is only one of the episodes that should be mentioned in the Slovakization article. If Hungarian users began to do some research that article will be as long as the Magyarization, it depends only on our obvious laziness. Zello 02:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

And do you know why it was "critised" and what changed/did not change compared to the previous state and what is the difference/similarity compared to similar laws in the neigbouring countries etc. etc.? I suppose you don't. And, above all, if you care about the details of such laws, then we can expand the Magyarisation article to the present, and inform the reader that minority schools were abolished in Hungary in the 1960s altogether (Slovak or German was taught as a foreign language at the new "minority" schools), we can also inform the reader that there were officially 110 000 (in reality 400 000) Slovaks in Hungary after WWII and that now there are officially some 10 000 of them (i.e. virtually zero), we can also inform him that the Czechoslovak state has been paying for tens of Hungarian newspapers, magazines and cultural instututions and we can compare that with the other side: the number of Hungarians in Slovakia was increasing up to 1991 (probably because of "Slovakization"), they have had purely Hungarian schools at all levels; and the government of Hungary has paid for exactly 0 Slovak newspapers, 0 magazines and 0 institutions up to the 1990s etc. In other words, we can start with the really important things. And then we can proceed to what was "critised" in 1995. Juro 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The main reason why the Slovaks of Hungary disappeared was the forced population exchange, contrived by Czechoslovakia when half of the Slovaks (and obviously those with a stronger national identity) went away and communities were broken up. That's really not the fault of Hungarians but the Slovaks themselves. Zello 03:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The 110 000 (in reality 400 000) remained AFTER the population exchange. The main and quite obvious reason why they and other minorities in Hungary disappeared was that the schools were shut down in the 1960s and that the Hungarian government did not support them; they are repeatedly confirmimh this even today. A minority cannot survive without schools, literature or TV in its own language, that is impossible. There is satellite TV and the internet nowadays, but that was not the case in the 20th century. Juro 03:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your numbers are simply wrong: 141 000 Slovak lived in Hungary in 1920, their number decreased in the next decades to about 110 000, and in 1947 73 000 left the country. How much remained? About 50 000. In 2001 there were 17 000 Slovak in Hungary, so the real assimilation loss is 33 000 people in 50 years time - with a scattered, highly bilingual and broken community. The Czechoslovakian governement caused more harm to Hungarian Slovaks than any Magyarization. Zello 03:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not wrong, I have just confused the official with non-official numbers. The population exchange commission counted 470 000 Slovaks, so I always ignore those low numbers. But yes, of course, according to Hungarian figures the number was much lower (and there were 10 000 Slovaks in 1990, but "suddenly" 17 000 in 2000...). But even if there were 20 000 Slovaks, that does not change what I have said above for the simple reason, that (1) what I have said above obviously always hold, (2) an equally squattered much lower number of Slovaks lived in Romania and Serbia and now there is more of them then in Hungary, although these countries are much more distant (I cannot imagine how this last argument could be refuted). Juro 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vytvorenie súčasného národnostného školského systému v Maďarsku sa začalo po druhej svetovej vojne. Pred rokom 1945 neprebiehala jednotná výučba v slovenskom jazyku, nevytvorila sa organizovaná, na seba nadväzujúca školská sieť. V Slovákmi obývaných lokalitách existovali zväčša iba maďarské školy. Existenciu dnešnej slovenskej výučby v Maďarsku ovplyvnila zmena, ktorá nastala v roku 1948. Vtedy sa zrodila predstava, podľa ktorej treba vytvoriť pomerne ucelený slovenský školský systém, pozostávajúci z materských, základných, stredných škôl a z vysokoškolských katedier. V počiatkoch fungovalo šesť (Békéšska Čaba, Budapešť, Nové Mesto pod Šiatrom, Sarvaš, Slovenský Komlóš, Veľký Bánhedeš), neskôr päť školských inštitúcií s vyučovacím jazykom slovenským. Štyri z nich boli školy spojené so žiackym domovom, v ktorých sa učili deti z daného regiónu. V roku 1961 sa jednojazyčné inštitúcie transformovali na dvojjazyčné slovensko-maďarské školy, v ktorých sa humánne predmety dodnes vyučujú v slovenskom a prírodné disciplíny v maďarskom jazyku. Odbornú terminológiu sa žiaci v zmysle nariadenia učia aj po slovensky.

Paralelne so zakladaním škôl s vyučovacím jazykom slovenským v priebehu krátkeho času zaviedli v osemdesiatich maďarských školách slovenských lokalít fakultatívnu výučbu slovenského jazyka. Takto vznikol typ školy, v ktorej sa slovenčina vyučuje ako predmet a ktorá dodnes tvorí 90-95% slovenských školských ustanovizní s národnostným rázom.

According to the homepage of the Hungarian Slovak Self-Government there were Slovak schools in Hungary in the past decades. What's more after 1948 a lot of new schools were established. Zello 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is really laughable now, because the text contradicts what you are claiming. Yes there were such schools after 1948 and before the 1960s, but even this quote explicitely says that they were all transformed into "bilingual" schools (which in practice meant Hungarian schools and at some of them one or two were taught partially in Slovak - that's my addition -, and at which Slovak was taught - if at all - like a foreign language). And the text finally basically says that 90-95% of "nationality character" schools taught Slovak as a standard foreign language (my addition: not even that is correct, English is taught twice as much a week today).Juro 10:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the text says that after 1961 in the Slovak minority schools human faculties (history, literature) were taught in Slovak and real faculties (maths, biology) in Hungarian, although the special Slovak terms were also taught. That's a restriction but far from your claims that Slovak minority schools were closed in 1960. Another kind of schools (" szlovák nyelvoktató iskola") were a new addition, not for the Slovak but for the Hungarian children. There Slovak is taught as a standard foreign language. They are not minority schools at all, similarly as normal schools were English is taught as a foreign language are not English minority schools. Zello 13:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What I was claiming above is that in reality, according to non-Magyar sources, not even those few subjects were taught in Slovak and Slovak (analogously other minority languages) was even thaught only a few hours a week (that would be unsufficient even for English). Quotes from a third party - a representative of Hungarian Germans G. Hambuch (Union of the Germans in Hungary, 1993): "German schools have been shut down in Hungary in 1944-1945 and Slovak, Serbian and Croatian schools were shut down in 1960...It is however true that then they have opened several nationality classes, in which a small amount (of things) has been taught in their mother language....catastrophic state of supply with minority textbook, education of professors....." Another German Hungarian for the FAZ: "All Hungarian minority laws... remained only on the paper...in reality all minorities in Hungary have gradually disappeared, only remnants have remained...the grotesk situation that the level of minority assimilation compared to Romania and Slovakia in Hungary is by far the worst. Slovakia, so much critisized in Hungary, allows young Hungarians education in its mother language from the first class up to the matura [Juro: an now also at an university], the Slovak language is taught there only 4-6 hours a week...Also in Romania, the Hungarian minority has 33 high schools at which Hungarian is the language of instruction...[and now it comes:] Germans in Hungary have all subjects from the first class up to the matura educated in Hungarian and German is taught only 2 [sic!] hours a week as a foreign language." This was the state of affairs in the early 1990s, the situation is better now, but now it is too late for any minority in Hungary. Juro 13:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Germans were in a lot worse situation than other nationalities because of their persecution after WW2. But in Hungary they were able to survive at least what we can't say about Czechoslovakia. Of course they didn't have any problem with German minority schools after they expelled all the 3 million people... Zello 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above text applies to other nationalities as well, I have chosen this quote because I thought a non-Slovak is more preferrable. As for the rest, yes they were expelled almost completely (because Czechia was entirely occupied by Nazi Germany), but that is a totally different topic (Benes Decrees etc.). Juro 14:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The experiance of Hungarian Germans are totally different that of Hungarian Slovaks who where never persecuted. The main problem with Slovak minority schools is not an evil policy of Magyarization but the weak identity of Hungarian Slovaks. It's really hard to find children who would like to learn maths in Slovak language - and that was true in the 1960s also. That's no good but sooner or later the Hungarian state will have to close gradually Slovak schools in the country - not because of Magyarization policy but because of the parents who give their kids in Hungarian schools thinking they are more useful. Zello 15:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, the text was about a minority school (these schools were the same for every minority) not about the treatment of Germans in the public. Secondly, the "weak identity" thing is a nice lie, because then you have to explain why the Slovaks did not have "weak identity" in Romania or in Serbia and now there are more of them in those countries than in Hungary, although the opposite was the case after the population exchange (I will answer you: because their schools were shut down in the 1960s). Thirdly, you somehow "forget" that whether the minorities (not only Slovak) have a "weak identity" or not, the Hungarian government - unlike the governements of all its neighbouring countries - has abolished schools with the respective languages as languages of instruction (you can play with words, but that is a fact), bilingual schools - even if they worked, which they did not (2 hours a week)- are not enough and above all there was absolutely no reason for such a deterioration other then finishing the Magyarisation (and this aim was successfully achieved). Or are you implying that since the minorities had such "weak identity", the government decided to help them by cancelling education in their mother language?? Do you actually read what you write? Juro 00:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, stick to the facts. Minority schools were not closed but the real faculties were taught in Hungarian. Every other claim is an exaggeration. Hungarian Slovaks gradually gave up their language, and children are not able to speak fluently Slovak and follow the explanations of the teachers. That process began decades ago, and was well underway in 1960's. I only suggested that there was no need/ability to learn maths in Slovak. Knowing the situation of Hungarian minorities that explanation is much more realistic than your idea about an evil policy of Magyarization. In Hungary nobody was too much interested - nor postively, nor negatively - in the question minorities after WW2. The ruling attitude towards them is simply total indifference as they are few, scattered, highly bilingual and almost non-perceptible. Zello 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I always stick to the facts. Forget the Magyarisation term. And now a little summary of your claim (try to concentrate): There was full education in language X (like in Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia) and the government saw that (and this is your claim and is not true, because the same would apply to the neighbouring countires) the minorities start to lose their language. As a result it decided to restrict education in language X (you say to a few subjects, I say de-facto to 2 hours a week - but it does not matter), because there was "no need" to teach some subjects in their language (which is a sociolinguistic non-sense). This is an illogical and actually chauvinist statement. What any normal government should do in such situation (wrongly claimed by you) is AT LEAST not restrict education in the language. Secondly, bilingual schools are no minority schools. Minority schools are only schools were the full language of education is the given language. Therefore the minority schools were literally shut down. This holds by definition and cannot be subject to any exaggeration. Juro 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a play with words - if I say that all minority schools were closed nobody will think that they were only transformed to bilingual schools. Speaking about the motivations of Kádár government I think our opinions are pure guesses. We don't know the official explanation and what minority organizations and experts said about it. I think the reasons were simply practical, you think the reason was Magyarization policy, but we don't know exactly. Zello 19:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian directors were sacked and replaced with Slovak ones, and there was something with the bilingual certificates also. Hungarians living in Southern Slovakia organized protests for the defence of their schools. That's only one thing I remember from the recent past. Zello 21:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that helped me quite a bit. :) I'll do some research on Mečiar. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] elszlovákosítás/szlovákosítás

Hi Zello, I found this article, and noticed this:

Also, Gusztáv Beksics, Magyarosodás és magyarositás. Különös tekintettel városainkra [The Natural and Forced Process of Magyarization. With Special Emphasis on our Cities] (Budapest, 1883).

Does this mean that "magyarosodás" is natural while magyarositás is forced? Would that apply to "szlovákosodás" (natural Slovakization) and "szlovákosítás"? (forced Slovakization?). What is the "el-" before the word all about? I have to add that Hungarian is a very interesting language! —Khoikhoi 01:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! When we are speaking about a policy that is szlovákosítás, the spontaneous process of assimilation is only szlovákosodás.

"el-" is a verbal prefix that gives more emphasis and shows that the process is going to be completed. We can say: "Kassa elszlovákosodott" or "Kassát elszlovákosították" - that means "Kassa is absolutely Slovakized now." Zello 01:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks! :) —Khoikhoi 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the book is an excellent example of the fascist way the Hungarians used to think and in many cases still think nowadays without even trying to hide it. So, just read it (unless you are a sockpuppet, in which case I am talking to myself here :) ). Juro 01:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppets can't read? —Khoikhoi 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 :))). Those I mean do not want to understand or read such things. Juro 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read Beksics but I guess it is only the common 19th century nationalism. Zello 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) The text is quite short. (2) The interesting fact about the text is how "natural" and "scientific" he consideres that all the non-Magyars have to be Magyarised as soon as possible - and this even though he is one of the moderate guys for that time in the sense that he does not propose forced means to achieve that (as far as I rememember). Juro 02:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I read similar texts and that way of thinking wasn't exceptional that time. Not better but it wasn't exceptional in France or Britain also. Zello 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you are saying is an offense towards French and British authors. There is a difference between nationalism and chauvinism. Can you name the books you mean? Juro 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

What dou you think about British attitudes towards the Irish, the German minority policy against the Polish, the ongoing oppression of the Bretons by the French, not mentioning a lot of colonial genocides that time. Yes, the end of the 19th century was the heyday of chauvinism and jingoism in Europe. Zello 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Some nationalities hate some other nationalities even today, that is not special. The special thing about books like the above one is that they "officially" justify, organize and plan (in this case) Magyarisation, I do not know any such French or British books or authors from the 19th century, maybe I would find some German ones on Poles, but colonies are a different thing. And the Bretons have been oppressed since time immemorial, so that is also something different (no "Frenchization"). That's why I have asked you about the names, because I would like to know them. Juro 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovakization

(to Zello) Just because the article looks like szar right now, doesn't mean it can't be fixed. I'm sure we'll be able to write an NPOV version of that page, it just takes time. At least we have the {{totallydisputed}} tag... —Khoikhoi 09:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally fed up with this absurd article. When I opened this morning the Népszabadság, the bigest Hungarian daily newspaper, I found an article describing not least than three atrocities commited against Hungarians in Slovakia only in a few days. One man was beaten because he spoke Hungarian on the street in Komárom, old women were harassed in a hospital by the staff because of the same reason, threatening graffities appeared on a Magyar familiy home in Érsekújvár written by the followers of Slota. Then see this article about this glorious country where everbody living together peacefully, only Hungarians have almost too much rights. Zello 17:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are right Zello...Let's drink sg.:)) I missed the party again as I don't have too much time for Wikipedia.... Don't give up anyway!! (I think Juro knows the truth somewhere in his heart...(egyébként is letiltották, ha jól láttam a tókpéjdzsét...vagy nem?))Üdv. -- kelenbp 17:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedig szükség lett volna minden segítségre :) Juro was only blocked for 24 hours because of personal attacks, accidentally against me, but against other users also. Doesn't matter, it had already expired.Zello 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ps: It's not over yet. The article is still in a horrible state, and the contributions of Alphysikist will be certainly deleted by Juro very soon. Zello 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC) - And yes, it already happened. Zello 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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 on 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 on 19:31 was a revert and the fourth one in 24 hours time. Zello 22:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

... for this one. I just didn't have enough time to scroll down. :) KissL 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sakmer

Hi Zello,

The several sources I read which mentioned the folk etymology usually specifically associated it with the name Satu Mare. If it goes back farther than that, we should note it in the section, but also make it clear that the newer name is associated with as well (at least partially because "Satu Mare" sounds somewhat similar to "Saint Mary" to English-speaking ears). Best, ShalomShlomo 08:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I presumed the tradition older then 1925 only because Sakmer and Satmar is more similar in pronounciation than Satu Mare and Sakmer. But without written sources this is only a guess. Zello 15:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baci

Hi. Baci is not really used as a personal name in Romanian (in the same way that Martin or Mihai or Daniel is), but it is often used as a "title", as in "Baciul Mihai", and for that reason there are quite a lot of people who have the last name "Baciu" in Romania (derived from "Baciul", the articulated version of "Baci", since in Romanian the article is at the end of the word). This is in the same way that many Hungarians have the last name "Molnár". In fact, talking of place names, there is a commune in Cluj County known as Baciu, which in Hungarian is known as "Kisbács" (the commune has a large Hungarian minority). Ronline ✉ 01:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So it is a surname, not a personal name (surnames didn't existed in the early Middle Ages). For me it's seems unrealistic that the town was named after a Vlach man who used that title in itself similarly like a real name ("the shepherd" - ???). In Hungarian it was clearly a personal name that time (and it exists even now) and Panonian claims that the same is true for Serbian language (I hope he reads his sources correctly, and he didn't confuse a name with a title). In this case I think the town - not the word - etymology can be only Hung. or Slavic. Zello 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not confused name with a title. My source list all names founded in several Serbian documents from the 14th century, and name Bač is among them. Although, I do not have data is it used in other time periods as well. PANONIAN (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bunjevci

One Hungarian user recently added this note to Bunjevci article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunjevci#Notes It is in bad English and I really do not understand what he wanted to say with second sentence. Can you correct it if you know something about this? PANONIAN (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I improved this a little: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bunjevci&diff=73490357&oldid=73053704 However, I have no idea what "to allot the topic" means in this case. PANONIAN (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitkovics

Szia! Felraktam a commonsba azonos címen (Image:Vitkovicsmihaly.jpg). üdv, – Alensha  talk 20:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

közben megtaláltam a kérdéses oldalt, ki is cseréltem a képet. ügyesen meggyőzted P.-t, hogy beleegyezzen :) – Alensha  talk 20:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Köszi, szuper :) Zello 21:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counties

You have recently moved Tekov to Bars county. Well, I think it would be better to reach consensus in the discussion about what names we should use in the articles about the counties of the former Kingdom of Hungary. Since the regions still exist (you can say that you are from "Tekov" in Slovakia), it would not be completely meaningless to stick with the present custom to use Hungarian names for regions in Hungary and Slovak names for regions in Slovakia. On the other hand, I would probably support the idea to move all article names to their official Latin versions if it is initiated by any of Hungarian editors. I have no problem accepting a consistent and well justified policy, which can in fact prevent unnecessary edit wars. However, I am a bit uneasy about inconsistent changes (such as your last one). It would be nice if you can clarify your intentions. Do you want to move all names (including the names of the counties with a territory in present-day Hungary) to their Latin version? If not, do you have any particular reason why you renamed Tekov? Thanks in advance. Tankred 23:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the counties two names were official in the course of their history: the Latin (until 1844/1867) and the Magyar (1867-1918). The later is many times forgotten in these debates but after 1844 Magyar was the only official language in the Kingdom of Hungary. Most counties didn't have real Latin names but only a Latinized version of the Magyar names were used. This is clearly the case with Comitatus Barsiensis (Abaujvarensis, Sarosiensis, Borsodiensis etc). The counties of the Koh are all placed under their Hung. names except the Slovak ones (see Krassó-Szörény or Nagy-Küküllő). My change wasn't inconsistent with the general policy at all, in fact it was a step to reach consistency with other county articles. The present-day Slovak region is another case. Geographical entities, informal regions, touristical regions need their own articles, like Tekov. This is not without precedent because Abov as a Slovak region now has its own article (not mixed with Abaúj as a historical county). In the later case there is territorial difference also (only half of the former county is in Slovakia) but I think the former Bars county as an abolished administrative unit and a present-day living region are not the same. Zello 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I think that Latin names would be more appropriate since they were officially used for most of the history. But as to this particular case, I created a new Tekov article about the traditional region of Slovakia. Although Tekov and Bars are just two names of the same territory, I want to avoid an edit war. Tankred 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Latin names that they are basically the same as the Hungarian ones. See this example: Comitatus Barsensis - that can be translated as "County of Bars" where the -ensis endig means "of". To get the real name in nominative you should drop the ending and then you got Bars. Let's see another example: Colonia Lugdunensis, the official Roman name of Lyon. To get the nominative form of the name you sould drop the -ensis and - in this case - restore the original -um version ->Lugdunum. So Bars is not only the Magyar name of the county but also the Latin one similarly to other cases (in the Hungarian county names there were no us/um endings like "Barsus"). Probably there are a few exceptions, like Szepes, Comitatus Scepusiensis -> nominative Latin form Scepus but this is not typical. Zello 14:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can argue that Latin names are derived from older, native names. But I doubt that all of them are originally Hungarian. Some names (such as Turiec, Zemplín, Nitra) have Slavic etymology (the name of Nitra is probably of pre-Slavic origin). In addition, there are many examples with unclear etymology. The Latin names do not always follow the Hungarian version (Liptovium is obviously derived from the Slavic name Liptov/Liptow). Furthermore, the Latin versions were used for centuries in official documents and the Hungarian versions became important in the regions without a Hungarian majority only in the second hlaf of the 19th century.
On the other hand, I will not oppose you if you want to create articles about counties of the Kingdom of Hungary with Hungarian names (though I think that Latin names are more appropriate). I would like just to ask you not to create a redirect from the article with a name of Slovakia's traditional region. Perhaps it is not a bad idea to have separate articles about former counties and present (unofficial) regions - linked to each other, of course. There are now two examples, Abov and Abaúj, Tekov and Bars county. So, if you decide to create a new article with a Hungarian name of a county instead of a present article with a Slovak name, please drop me line. I will rewrite the original article, so it covers a traditional region of Slovakia and not a county.
Finally, thank you very much for sustaining the compromise in the Hungarian people article.Tankred 16:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the articles about the present-day regions should contain more up to date information about Economy, Tourism, Population etc. It would be also interesting to collect what organisations (for example NGOs, museums) are based today on the traditional regions. I'm sure there are big differences in the sense of regionalism between traditional regions. I think at least two of the counties absolutely ceased to exist as a living region (Pozsony and Nyitra) but others like Orava, Spiš, Gemer survived. So I would put the emphasis on the present in these articles (of course with a short history section). Zello 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Szia!

The discussion below is about perceived anti-Hungarian sentiment in wikipedia and inter-ethnic problems. If anynody not speaking Hungarian would like to know the meaning of the comments I will likely translate them for him/her. Zello 22:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 Viszonylag új vagyok errefelé...viszont rengeteg Magyarokkal kapcsolatos
félreértéssel/zagyvasággal találkoztam. Ilyen pl. a Magyarization, Romanians, Transylvania lapokon.
Gyakran a mi saját oldalainkat is átírjág (eg. Hungarians). A probléma itt az, hogy sokszor
propaganda jellegű irodalmat adnak meg. Az az ötletem támadt, hogy kéne egy olyan lapot csinálni,
hogy Hungarophobia és félreértések a Magyar történelemmel kapcsolatban oldalat csinálni (elég az
egyiket megírni és a másikból átlinkelni). Semmiképpen nem arra gondolok, hogy mi is elkezdjünk
történelmet hamisítani...csak leírni, hogy tényleg voltak a dolgok. Valahogy úgy érzem mi jobban
szembe tudtunk nézni az egész Trianonnal.....Szerintem az sem nagy titok, hogy nem volt a leg
igazabb békeszerződés (bár az okai valósak és régebbi gyökerei vannak). Azonban egyedül egy kicsit
kevés vagyok...Üdv: Csaba!

Csabap 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Jó ötlet, én benne vagyok. A Német Wikipédián sajnos nem vagyunk elegen, ezért nem tudjuk eggyes userek zagyvaságait kitörölni, mert rögtön visszarakják a saját írásukat. User:Öcsi

szia, a helyzet tényleg elég nehéz, én régóta küszködök hasonló ügyekkel, mérsékelt sikerrel. bármilyen új szócikket hozol létre azonnal átíródik és csatatérré válik, jó példa erre a Slovakization szócikk története. tény h a wikin nincs olyan h a "mi oldalaink", minden mindenkié, bárki szabadon szerkeszthet. az egyetlen megoldás h az ember forrásokat keres, türelmesen vitatkozik és néha segít azoknak, akik hozzá hasonlóan próbálkoznak egy-egy szócikk jobbá tételével és szerkesztési háborúba bonyolódnak. nem könnyű de azért el lehet érni részsikereket. ha bármilyen konkrét gondod van, nyugodtan hagyj üzenetet a talk page-emen, megpróbálok segíteni amennyire rőlem telik. üdv.- Zello 14:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Semmiképp se tűnik rossz ötletnek egy "Hungarophobia" oldal, mert a jelenség tipikusnak tűnik, és erősen érzelmi alapúnak. Ami Trianon kezelését illeti meg a szembenézést, szerintem inkább arról van szó, hogy sokkal kevesebb a magyar részről tapasztalható lelkesedés egy ilyen vitában, és az indulat is mintha kevesebb lenne (ami éppenséggel nem jelenti mindjárt azt, hogy jobban szembe tudnánk nézni vele), mindenesetre kevésbé létkérdés ez nekünk, mint a szlovákoknak (és a szlovákiai magyaroknak); bár lehetnénk némi megértéssel, hiszen szegények jóformán nem tudnak úgy a történelmükhöz nyúlni, hogy az ne rólunk szóljon, és ez bőven elég ok az irritációra, más kérdés, hogy nem nagyon szimpatikusan viselik :o) V79benno 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Örülök!!Akkor elkezdek foglalkozni a dologgal.......majd szólok ha feltettem a dolgokat. Aszt hiszem néhány dolgot megírok és a többt fokozatosan. Üdv!! Csabap 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's switch to English please...

There is an Anti-Hungarian sentiment article so I don't see any reason to create a new article about the same topic. Until now this article only contains the chronology of the present Sloval-Magyar tensions but it can be enlarged with sourced information. Zello 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Treaty of Trianon:

The number of bilingual people was much higher, for example 1,398,729 people spoke German (17%), 399,176 people spoke Slovak (5%), 179,928 people spoke Serbo-Croatian (2,2%) and 88,828 people spoke Romanian (1,1%). Magyar was spoken by 96% of the total population and was the mother language of 89%.

Utánakérdeztem a KSHban ezek a számok után, és senkinek sem voltak ismerösek. Utánanézhetnél te is, és kitörölhetnéd öket, ha nem stimmolnak. Szerintem a J... nevü felhasználó írta, de nem vagyok benne biztos. Öcsi 18:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Én ástam elő a számokat mert Juro nem fogadta el a hivatalos népszámlálás nemzetiségi adatait, és erre a másik adatsorra hivatkozott forrásként. Maguk a számok biztos h stimmelnek, az már más kérdés, mennyire releváns ez az adat. Ha átolvasod a talk page vonatkozó részeit, ott megpróbáltam Jurónak elmagyarázni, miért nem lehet egy az egyben nemzetiséginek tekinteni az adott nyelven IS beszélő államolgárokat. Zello 22:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's up?

You seem not to be around very much these days... hope there's no problem. There's more and more to do with Hungarian history related pages, see e.g. Dahn's request on the noticeboard. I cannot jump on that myself, it needs more of an expert than I am, and it seems nobody else is really taking this on themselves. Could you take a look at that when you're back? Thanks, KissL 10:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very busy these days with my work and to tell the truth I lost my faith in wikipedia so I decided to leave. Probably only temporaly, I don't know yet. Best wishes, Zello 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of János Pásztor (?)

Ah sorry. I believed it was him. In that case I will delete him or if the other man has an article put it on his. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, I think he hasn't got any importance. Zello 18:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Hungary

Unless you have not already noticed, I have copied texts on the history of Hungary from the US Congress Library, you are encouraged to provide them with links, improvements etc. Juro 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some months ago I gave up contributing to wikipedia because I felt that it's a waste of time and because I was fed up with the inevitable, constant fighting. Now I'm working again on articles but I would like to make strictly non-controversial contributions. So - at least for a while - I will avoid everything related to Hungarian history and write about only some of my personal interests, for example Roman history, architecture, Budapest etc. Best wishes Zello 17:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

For exactly those reasons I thought it was a good idea to copy a scientific, third-party text, which I have done. You could restrict yourself to technical fixes...(And I have also given up for the same reasons, and the wikipedia is definitely a waste of time [and actually a disease in strictly medical terms], but the problem is that the wikipedia exists and people use it, so I try to correct the most evident errors at least). Juro 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Báthory Erzsébet

Rá tudnál nézni a Báthory Erzsébetről szóló cikkre. Gyakorlatilag a neten keringő rémtörténetekből vadászták össze az anyagot. Kezd ugyan tisztulni, de jó lenne ismertetni az újabb magyar cikkeket. Pl.: Szádeczky-Kardos. Sajnos az én angol tudásom nem elég hozzá.--82.131.189.30 17:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bocs, de nem nagyon van időm kutatni mostanában. Csak pár szócikken szoktam dolgozni, amihez itthon is van anyagom. A felvidéki tárgyú szócikkekkel meg különösen óvatos vagyok, talán nem kell mondanom miért... Zello 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

hú, azt hiszem, ott futottam össze először Juróval, amikor még nem tudtam, ki az :D – Alensha talk 19:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seton-Watson

Zello, I explained my opinion on the article's talk page and I do not see any reason to repeat myself. I think the best solution would be to ask someone emotionally uninvolved and knowledgeable enough for a third opinion. As far as I know, Seton-Watson is a respected and cited scientist in the Anglo-American world and I provided enough evidence on the talk page.[3] I would like also to encourage you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources because your edit was clearly against the policy. And, by the way, you have also deleted another source, which you did not even challenged in the discussion. I hope it was just a coincidence. Tankred 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked for comments in the case. If Seton-Watson will be included by consensus than OK, I will look up similar contemporary Hungarian sources like Apponyi, Teleki etc. Zello 10:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bauhaus exhibition street

In 1931, some representatives of the modern architecture style made a proposal to the Budapest Public Works Council to have a whole street designed by the best architects, based on an example in Stuttgart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamas Szabo (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The given link is not about Napraforgó Street but the Bauhaus style in general in Budapest. Buda Castle or the Hungarian Parliament are landmarks while the [Neo-Renessaince in Budapest] isn't. And nobody calls Napraforgó Street today "Bauhaus exhibition street" or anything like that. Zello 06:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kedves Zello, most már 60 éve ismerem Budapestet, mégis csak nagyon késön, itt fedeztem fel valamit ami értékes lehet egy látogatonak de még egy budapesti lakosnak is (thematical_sightseeing_tours): http://www.budapestinfo.hu/en/things_to_see/architectural_variety_es_thematical_sightseeing_tours/architectural_variety/walk_in_bauhaus_budapest Ezért kezdetem el a Bauhaus cikket. Ez az utca erdedetileg is 1930-ban "kiállitásnak" készült a Stuttgarti mintára (There are altogether 22 villas !). "nobody calls Napraforgó Street today "Bauhaus exhibition street" or anything like that." ez egy merész állitás "nobody" - pontosan igy jelölik meg a Budapesten járt túristák ezt az utcát a Flickr-ben is. Azt hiszem, hogy a "Villas in Napraforgó utca" nem segit megtalálni, hogy miröl is van szó, akkor a régi szöveg jobb volt ebböl a szempontból. Lehet, hogy ez is jobb lenne: "Walk in Bauhaus Budapest" - mindenesetre a gyors törlésed meggondolatlan volt. Igy jóindulatú szerkesztöknek elmegy a kedve valamit a közösségnek értékes információt beirni. A Wikipedianak nagyon káros, ha az ilyen sorokat gondolkodás nélkül, gyorsan kitörlik. Nincsen kedvem állandóan figyelni. Ezért hagytam abba a magyar Wikipedia szerkesztést is, a magyar járörök ott törölnek ahol csak lehet, nem is ismerik, hogy miröl van szó (Vita hu.Naphegy). Tamas Szabo 08:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Erre a törlésre gondolok, mivel egy jó példa arra ami a Magyar Wikipedianak is betegsége: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Budapest&diff=113975225&oldid=113810710 Hogyan lehet ezt lefékezni? Azt hiszem minden "nem SPAM" törlés elött valami alkalmas fék hiányzik a Wikipediaban, igy hasznos információk kárbavesznek. Senki nem fogja a "history"-ban megkeresni. Tamas Szabo 08:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Továbbra is problémásnak érzem, hogy a nevezetességek között fel van tüntetve egy tematikus séta. Ilyeneket korlátlan számban lehetne kitalálni pl. szecessziós Budapest, híres vendéglők, törökfürdők stb - csakhogy ezek nem önálló nevezetességek abban az értelemben mint a Parlament vagy a vár. Bauhaus Budapest mint egyetlen jól körülhatárolható objektum nem létezik. Zello 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi. Would you mind checking out this, this, and this—and let me know what you think? Thanks, Khoikhoi 20:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be able to live with Icar's version. Before the Habsburg annexation Bukovina was indeed part of Moldavia. Zello 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] komarom

volt vitam a petofi es a priskin cikkel, mind a ketton sikerult egy olyan valtozatot talalni, ami senkit sem zavar, megkerdeznem, hajlando vagy-e keresni egy esszeru megoldast komaromnal is. --Mt7 20:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Felőlem töröld a nevet vagy akár az egész szócikket, ha ettől boldogabb vagy. Zello 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi Zello, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/l/User_talk%7EZello_5351.html"