User talk:Wladthemlat

Viktor Orbán and the Polish border

Well I dont remember that Orbán said this (of course this doesn't mean that he didnt say this, but the left oriented media would be full of this... :). Anyway I think this Pland border is confused with his famous Felvidék statement. Cheers--B@xter⁹ 20:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK it's a completely different occasion. This was mentioned by Spidla in 2002, the Felvidek was a bit later, wasn't it? Wladthemlat (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be. I dont know.--B@xter⁹ 07:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungary-Slovakia r.

Please explain to me why do you think that the assertions of Mr. Slota are "irrelevant" (i. e. which induced the biggest tension between Slovakia and Hungary) while in the manner of NPOV (?), sections like Claims of Hungarian irredentism in Viktor Orbán speech and Attack on the Slovak Embassy are still presented as "relevant" informations.--B@xter⁹ 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I claim, that lengthy quoting is unnecessary. AFAIK, slota's quotes are mentioned in the same way the attack is, the most appalling quote is qouted directly. Please start a page 'List of offensive quotes of Jan Slota' or sth in that sense, but do not put it in the article. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vysvetlis mi, prosim ta, preco si sa nahle rozhodol pre vymazanie resp. pre podporenie vymazania viac ako polovice clanku? CoolKoon (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

trimming

Hi, imo you need to allow some comments and a degree of time a few days, a week and other editors to comment, perhaps start a RFC, you would be better adding weight to your case by reverting your recent edit, allow a consensus to arise, that is the way to get the change you desire. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Say hello to a complete ban

I advise you to consider every next month my personal gift that you spend on wikipedia yet. Your contribution is entirely wikihounding, accompanying with slanderous personal attacks as has been going on since you registered yourself on this project. I will most certainly file a request for enforcement.--Nmate (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. Rest assured I will use your message above as a proof of your personal attacks. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. You are free to use my message what you just want to use it for. You keep watching out for what Baxter, Hobartimus and I are doing and your interesting field is shaped solely by the result of this reconnaissance. It is very quaint, isn't it?--Nmate (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That our fields of interest overlapping bothers you, is your problem, and your problem only. Wladthemlat (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

?

Please tell me, what is "Completely inaccurate, therefore redundant" on this image?--B@xter⁹ 10:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not slovak dresses, that's all. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure abouth that? Do you have evidences? The image is from a Hungarian digital library, book A felső-magyarországi tótok (Upper Hungarian Slovaks) and it talks abouth Slovak dresses from nyitra, Pozsony and etc.: " Nyáron letnicak (kytla, gecela) nevű szoknyában járnak, a mely színes mosókelméből készűl. A szoknyának elválhatatlan társa a mellény (živőtok, brucel, bruclá), mely a szoknyához van varrva, s Nyitra-, Trencsén-, Pozsonymegyében selyemmel kihímezve. Szintén mellényféle a derekas (lajblík), mely külön áll a szoknyától. A szoknyára elűl kötőt (fertucha, šurec) kötnek, a mely ünnepi ruhadarab; dologidőben a fertuchát egy egyszerűbb zásterka, zápona helyettesíti. Trencsén- és Nyitramegyében két ilyen kötőt kötnek, egyet elűl, másikat hátúl (kasanica, odolok). A kötő színe többnyire kék, ritkán fehér. A hol a kötényeket nem hímezik, ott virágos kelméből (farbenica) varrják, s teveszőr, gyapjú vagy pamut madzaggal kötik a derekukra, néha szalaggal, mint Nyitramegyében, a hol ki is hímezik. Ünnepnapokon és lakodalomkor az asszonyok fejükre nagy kendőt, lepedőt (pőlka, uteráè, šatka, ruèník) kötnek. Ez a kendő, lepedő 3 méter hosszú, fehér vászonból készűlt, melyet hátúl úgy kötnek meg, hogy két vége derékon alúlig lecsüngjön. Munkaidőben négyszögletű kis kendőt kötnek a fejükre; ha pedig templomba mennek, egy nagy kendőt. Ezek a kendők Pozsony, Nyitra, Zólyom megyékben fehérek s minden sarkuk gazdagon van hímezve. Nyakukat sok helyen szintén kendővel kötik be (šatky na hrdlo), vagy pedig keresztbe vetik mellükön a végeit s hátúl kötik meg (kosák, kosièek). A könyökök megvédésére régebben az odevaèkát (odedza, oknicaèka, plachőtka) viselték, mely ma már csak ünnepies alkalmakkor látható. Eső ellen lepedővel, abroszszal (obrus, plachta, presteradlo) védekeznek."--B@xter⁹ 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The image has no labels, which means you have no evidence and I really do not think these are Slovak dresses. The book is moreover very old I reckon, I wouldn't count on its reliability too much. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

i) The label is under that image: "A polgári és iparos osztály viselete egészen a legújabb időkig egyforma volt a népével, de ezek ma már el-elhagyogatják őseik hagyományos viseletét." ii)As I said the book describes the dresses of Upper Hungarian Slovaks, and not Beduins, so I would like to ask you again, show us evidences not just I really do not think these are Slovak dresses.Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 11:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's no label and it does not specify what is being depicted. If there were labels within the image, you would have a rock-solid position, but now the image is simply not verifiable. Upper Hungarian is not a strictly defined term, them could very well be dresses from norther hungary. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm...Ok, as you wish. It is possible that the disputed image may show Slovaks not only from the territory of present-day Slovakia (i.e. from Nógrád) but I think that these Slovaks are still "Slovaks". I will add a better one.--B@xter⁹ 14:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Pomoc s clankom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_Slovak_nationality_in_Hungarian_Kingdom Cau, jeden moj clanok sa zvazuje na vymazanie, Horbatimus podal ziadost. Som si vedomy toho, ze nemusi splnat formalne nalezitosti ale tema je podla mna dolezita na chapanie historickeho kontextu narodnosti v uhorsku. Mas lepsiu anglictinu ako ja a zaujimas sa o podobne temy, tak keby si vedel nejako zmenit nazov, dat tomu encyklopedicku formu a zlepsit citatelnost budem ti vdacny. Tak sa na to pozri a uvaz ci je vhodne sa tou temou zaoberat. --Samofi (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ten clanok fakt posobi viac ako esej, ergo POV, tie zavery su imho na hranici WP:OR. Podla mna ho nema cenu zachranovat, ale vseobecna sekcia do clanku o Kingdom of Hungary by sa vymysliet dala. Vseobecna v zmysle poukazat na rozdiel medzi pojmom Hungarian a Magyar a zahrnut tam vsetkych, od chorvatov po rumunov.Wladthemlat (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, ja by som sa do toho za par dni pustil. Organizujem zrusenie clanku o Slovakizacii: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovakization_(2nd_nomination) A zalozil som clanok Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange, kde som presunul vsetko o vymene. Ostatne podla mna patri do Slovak-Hungarian relations a Hungarians is Slovakia. Podla mna by mal byt novy clanok re-Slovakization alebo len ta cast by mala zostat v starom. Madari to tam stale vracaju a obvinuju z vandalizmu, ved to je totalna synteza. Kukni diskusiu. --Samofi (talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Suhlasim, ze clanok moze byt tak maximalne o reslovakizacii, na ostatok jednoducho nemaju zdroje. Ale ked budes vystupovat ako hystericky pubertak, nikto ta vazne brat nebude a dosiahnes makovy trt, tak sa skus krotit a editovat s rozvahou. Velakrat aj ty tlacis kontroverzne pointy, naco je to dobre? Furt na nich hystericky stekas a vrhas sa do edit warov. Ja chapem, ze Hobartimus a spol. vedia vytocit, ale takto dosiahnes tak maximalne ban. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Uz mam ten ban, pozrel by si prosimta clanok Kingdom of Hungary a Ottoman Hungary? Dal som tam dišputu ohladom 2 veci. Ottoman Hungary nebol oficialny nazov, to je novy termin pre časti Uhorska okupovane Osmanmi. Oficialne sa to uzemie volalo Budin Province, Ottoman Empire a ten clanok sa uz na Wikipedii nachadza. To je neologizmus pouzity v historickom kontexte, proti pravidlam pisania historie. Dal som to ako dišputu a Baxter to vratil. Na stranku Kingdom of Hungary som to dal tiez ako disputu. Tam som dal este aj spochybnenie, ze Royal Hungary bola kontinuita Kingdom of Hungary (Vo vacsine zdrojov sa vola Habsburg Hungary). Mam zdroje podla ktorych je povazovane za integralnu sucast Habsburgskej rise, resp. Rakuska http://countrystudies.us/hungary/12.htm. Tiez to Baxter vratil. Mam ban, nechcem robit problemy, pozries sa na to? http://books.google.com/books?q=habsburg+hungary&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&hl=sk Proste Kingdom of Hungary bolo dobite, sever Habsburgovcami, juh Turkami a na vychode za pomoci Turkov vzniklo Sedmohradsko. Royal Hungary bola Habsburgaska korunna zem ako napriklad Morava alebo Cechy. Dik. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war with Nmate and Hobartimus

[1] unsourced claim about ethnicity, other vandalism for Nmate (no of caps etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.192.138 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please no score settling

Hi, just because I voted against your iniciative at Cernova Tragedy, you need not come and settle the score at Odorheiu Secuiesc. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is no score setting, you are removing referenced information and appropriate refimprove box without a single word of explanation in the edit summaries. Please reconsider your approach to editing. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is Hobartimus?

Hello. Who is Hobartimus, admin or smth like that? Iam a new one here.. He all the time sabotages my edits - in Cernova tragedy (massacre), in Royal Hungary. He interrogated me after my first edit. I feel harassed from him, is it possible to stop it (to write to the admins)? I know about a lot of his disruptions and manipulations with the facts from his side. I see you had a edit wars with him... Is it possible that he can do here what he wants? He translates uncorectly Hungarian texts, he adds citations with non-scholar sources. Is it possible to do something with this? I have asked him and he did not answer. Thanx for help. (Iam able to write in Slovak) --CsabaBabba (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dakujem za odpoved... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CsabaBabba (talk • contribs) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at John Hunyadi?

Could we please have some discussion of the tags, rather than just reverting? Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD Anti-Hungarian sentiment

Maybe is this interesting for you [2]--Yopie (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Great Moravia =

Gyula Kristo's book is an unverifiable source? He was one of the biggest Hungarian historians! I think it was a joke you from youFakirbakir (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

........... (uvidis)

Takze zase si sa nadobro vratil a rozhodol si sa zaoberat otravovanim mna a (zrejme) aj inych madarskych editorov svojimi tendecioznymi upravami. Vidim, ze obcas "vypomahas" aj pri sporoch tykajucich sa Sedmohradska. Pri vyhadzovani zdrojov z mojho "doplnku" v clanku "Hungary-Slovakia relations" si si ale ukazal svoju pravu tvar a fakt, ze diskusia je ti ukradnuta, lebo aj tak robis vsetko po svojom. Mozem ta ale ukludnit, ze pozbieral som dalsie zdroje a ked bude treba, tak si ich najdem este viac a to aj z "jedinych madarskych novin, ktore sa pisu po slovensky". Je jasne citit z tvojich prispevkov a pristupu, ze objektivne (a pravdive) dejiny ta nejak nenadchnu a davas prednost mytom z dielni MS a obrovskej hromady dalsich nacionalistov. Musim ta ale sklamat, lebo tu argumenty typu "Slovaci tu boli skor", "Madari nas utlacovali 1000 rokov", "Su to celomadarske sovinisticke zdroje" sa tu (chvalabohu alebo bohuzial, je to vec pohladu, ze) neberu. Mozes teda povymazavat obsah clankov, kde sa detailne popisuje, co za svinstvo spravili Slovaci (ale aj Madari, o tom niet pochyb) v priebehu 20. storocia, ale dlho ti to nevydrzi. Mozes sa dohodnut s blokovanymi editormi o uzamknutie clankov, ale tvoja nadmerna ochota o skreslovanie faktov ta moze dostat aj na osud dotycneho rumunskeho editora. CoolKoon (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wladthemlat, nenechaj sa znechutit - Slovensko Ti fandi. Zurivy boj madarskych redaktorov proti Tebe pokracuje, CoolKoon je toho dokazom. Nech zije Slovensko, nech ziju Slovaci, nech zije slovanska vzajomnost. --195.28.75.114 (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ze Slovensko.......skor Slovenska Narodna Sranda a spol. Ale to by som bol strasne zvedavy, ktoryze si editor zo SK WP. Alebo si rovno MarkBA? Vlastje je to aj uplne jedno, totiz slovanska vzajomnost je prosty mytus (kludne sa spytaj Poliakov, pokial mi neveris). No a len aby si bol v obraze: Madari nevedu ziaden zurivy boj proti Wladthemlatovi a ani inym. Jedine, o co sa snazia, je zlepsovanie kvality clankov na EN WP hlavne z oblasti spolocnych dejin Slovakov a Madarov. Jasne, tebe sa to tak nezda, ale kazdy dejepisar, ktory sa stretol s Wikipediou jej nadava prave preto, lebo clanky smrdia zaujatostou. No a slovenska wiki sa za encyklopediu povazovat ani neda. CoolKoon (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Je to mozne, ze tvojim cielom nie je presadzovanie slovenskych mytov, ale napriek tomu sa ocividne branis silou-mocou, aby do clanku neboli zahrnute casti, ktore su podla Slovakov dehonestujuce. A to som len na zaciatku dejin o Madaroch v CS v medzivojnovom obdobi. Kedze si mi povyberal vsetky zdroje, mam pochybnosti o tom, ci to neurobis aj vtedy, ked tam hodim nieco o slovenskych koloniach, alebo vymene obyvatelstva. Preto aj ta snaha ("posadnutost") dat tam co najviac zdrojov, lebo viem, ze v opacnom pripade by si to odtial okamzite dal prec.

Ja viem, ze Angyal nie je historik, ale to este neznamena, ze ta kniha je bezcenna. Cituje tam dostatocny pocet zdrojov a o teme pise velmi objektivne (tusim som tam cital aj o tom, ze madarska vlada potichucky podporovala autonomicke snahy Slovakov az do viedenskej arbitraze). K tvojej poznamke o Forum insitute naozaj nemam co dodat. Pokial si skutocne presvedceny o tom, ze knihy podporene Forum institutom su menejcenne/bezcenne za samotny fakt, ze Forum institut podporila ich vydanie, tak niet o com. Videl som, ze si si nasiel jeden nahradny zdroj, ale co ten zvysok? Zase mi tam povyhadzujes vsetky zdroje, ktore mam preto, lebo to neni "established vedecka ani vzdelavacia institucia"? Mimochodom vacsina tych knih vyslo aj s podporou madarskeho ministerstva kultury. Znamena to teda, ze madarska vlada podporuje len nevedecke knihy? Uz mi len povedz, ze knihy vo vydani MS su "ine" (=lepsie).

Tiez je velmi lahke povedat, co by v tom clanku nemal byt (napr. Slotove vypadky, o ktorych ale kazdy zadebneny hejslovak povie, ze "triafaju klinec po hlave", alebo Ficove coraz castejsie vypadky proti vsetkemu, co je madarske), ale co takto si tam nieco aj pridat? V poslednej dobe som bol azda jediny, kto do clanku "HU-SK relations" pridaval dalsi obsah. Nemadarski editori (hlavne Iaaasi a ty) nerobili nic ine, len mazali. Pokial mas ovela lepsie zdroje ako tie s podporou Forum institutu (a nie su to platky ako napr. beo.sk a extra plus), preco si tam o temach, ktore spominas, nic nepridal?

Dalej mi tvrdis, ze zhorsenie SK-HU vztahov nie su dosledkom len slovenskych nacionalistov. Ja to beriem, resp. by som to bral, keby sa zhorsenie vztahov bolo zacalo za prvej vlady Orbana. Jasne, vztah bol aj vtedy trosku napaty (kvoli tomu zakonu, co daval Madarom zo zahranicia znacne vyhody v Madarsku), ale ani zdaleka to nebolo take zle, ako po nastupe arogantnych komunistov v 2006. A to aj napriek tomu, ze v Madarsku vladla vtedy asi najmenej nacionalisticka garnitura, co mala daleko viac problemov doma, nez aby mal potrebu vytvorit si dalsiu v zahranici. Ale predalen musela reagovat na nehoraznosti ako obtazovanie madarskych turistov v Bratislave, "samozbitie" Malinovej a samozrejme vykazanie "Solamyla" zo Slovenska. Proste to boli veci, ktore sa NIKDE inde v civilizovanej Europe nerobia. A potom ten hranaty komunista sa vyblakoval, ze Madari su taki drzi a nevrazivi, ze si dovolia stazovat sa na SK v Bruseli, miesat sa do "vnutornych zalezitosti Slovenska" a robit mu naproti. A to som ani nespomenul jeho dalsie perlicky ako nahubok na tlac alebo bic na mensiny. Mimochodom nasiel som zdroj, kde sa popisuju jeho "finty" celkom detailne a to dokonca aj v anglictine, takze mozes si byt isty, ze postupom casu to hodim aj do clanku. A tie budu daleko relevantnejsie ako "styri kapitoly o sochah". Samozrejme netvrdim, ze madarski nacionalisti nie su, lenze ti sa doteraz vacsinou sustredili na Ciganov a dvojite obcianstvo. CoolKoon (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dobre, tak pozrime sa na to z ineho uhla. Povedzme, ze nejaky vyskumnik vyda vysledky svojho vyskumy s pomocou Forum institutu. Znamena to, ze vyskumnik (resp. jeho dielo) sa stalo tym nedoveryhodnym? Chces mi nahovorit, ze samotny fakt, ze vo vydani vedeckeho diela vyskumnikov sa zucastnil Forum institut, ich automaticky vylucuje zo zoznamu doveryhodnych zdrojov? A je mnoho vyskumnikov, ktori su naozaj renomovani a ich knihy vysli v zastite Forum institutu. Osobne poznam napr. Arpada Popelya, ktoreho vedie aj MTA ako uznavaneho vyskumnika. Alebo Attilu Simona, ktory je veducim katedry historie na Univerzite Janosa Selyeho v Komarne. Totiz povedat o podobnych odbornikoch, ze nie su odbornici len preto, lebo cast svojich diel vydali s pomocou Forum institutu si vyzaduje naozaj velku davku zaujatosti.

UPRAVA: Este ma napadlo, ze bol by som vdacny, keby si v pripade, ze nenajdes lepsie zdroje ako tie, ktore vydavali autori s pomocou Forum institutu, nemazal tie existujuce zdroje a nenahradzoval ich sablonami "citation needed".

Jasne ze zvazujem, co tam pridam. Ked uz pre nic ine, tak aspon preto, lebo vidim, ze si sa vratil a spravis vsetko preto, aby si ten clanok skratil. Lenze faktom je, ze tiez napriek svojmu nedostatku casu som to este stale ja, kto v poslednej dobe tam pridaval a nie vymazaval. Vymazavat je vzdy lahsie ako pridat kvalitny obsah podporeny zdrojmi. Ale ked uz tak strasne trvas na odstraneni tych "styroch paragrafov o sochach", preco aspon nenavrhnes nejaky podclanok/iny clanok, kam by sa vacsina tych veci o medzivojnovom obdobi mohla prelozit? Lebo ja si stale nemyslim, ze by sa to malo jednoducho len odstranit. CoolKoon (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Černová tragedy

Though I am not a native speaker, I am more than willing to assist in any Slovak-related article issues! I'm glad you asked me for help and never be afraid to ask my help in the future! Demokratickid (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Digwuren notice

In accordance with WP:DIGWUREN, I'm giving you the following notification. Essentially, it means that you should be aware that, if your conduct doesn't meet the standards of decorum expected of editors, you may face discretioanry sanctions, at the discretion of any administrator evaluating your conduct. You should be particualrly mindful to make a conscious effot to avoid getting into edit wars, such as the one at Győr, which is the reason for this notice. Note that I'm not making a judgement on who is right or wrong, but repeatedly reverting others' edits, especially with a script intended to combat vandalism, is not in keeping with the expected standards fo decorum. If you require clarification on anything in the notice, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)