User talk:KIENGIR

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KIENGIR! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

=

ANI Board

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

Telling everyone in a thread on ANI that you would respond to a block by creating a new account is basically asking to be indefinitely blocked, repeatedly. This is a very unwise choice of words, especially on a noticeboard which is heavily patrolled by administrators. --Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Blackmane, I have nothing to be afraid of! I have made a reaction to this post as well in the ANI board. There you will understand why I made this kind of ironical statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC))

Mihai Viteazul

KIENGIR, I've been following the Mihai Viteazul discussion with close attention and have noticed that while some progress has been made, agreement on certain matters still seems distant. I think some of the problems might stem from a simple misunderstanding; it's perfectly possible to talk of a "union" in the sense of a "personal union," that is to say distinct territories, with their own political systems and particularities, all falling under the personal rule of a single person. Obviously, Mihai's control over Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania didn't result in all three principalities literally becoming one state. Even the most enthusiastic Romanian nationalist historians find themselves compelled to admit that, and I don't think anyone here is suggesting otherwise. Would you be more comfortable with the article if we specified that Mihai's control over the three principalities was a "personal" union that did not imply all three principalities "uniting" into one unitary state? Hubacelgrand (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, will answer on your talk page(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Hello - I've left a response on my talk page. Cheers. Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian language

Hello,

I have started a discussion on the talk page about recent edits. If you wish, please participate in the discussion and in the meanwhile don`t change the established and referenced part of the article. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Please continue this discussion at the talk page of the article. I have not caused a conflict last time[1] neither it is in my interest to do this now. You must understand that wikipedia works according to some policies which every wikipedian should respect. I have seen your message on my talk page and I think that this reasoning is wrong. Let`s talk as (for an example) Chilean people (me) and Scottish people (you). Please try to talk outside of who is who and focus on the data. I am not here to "help" my nation nor do I believe you are too. I think that is the best way to achieve neutrality. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am always ready to talk about any article. For Eric Bicfalvi article there is a respectable source ( Gazeta Sporturilor ) that writes a section about his origin where they state he is of Swedish origin. On the other hand we have a source claiming to be of Hungarian origin. Please check other similar articles, you will notice that this is a standard usage in cases like this. If you wish, please check this case with other users to get their opinion too. When there is a dispute among sources, to preserve neutrality wikipedians usually use the "According to xxx, according to yyy" phrase. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made a change at the Eric Bicfalvi article, I made the information about the Hungarian origin as primary. You must understand that if you have a source that the Lima is located in Scotland we will add that data to the article, it doesn`t matter if it is true or not. Unless it is some unknown source mambo-jumbo. Newspapers are taken as a pretty serious source. I don`t know what is your experience regarding wikipedia but you must understand that verifiability is everything. WP:SOURCE - Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Please read this policy. If you have any doubt in this, please fell free to contact any other user to consult. For an example, if you have a reliable source that Victor Ponta is Zimbabwean this info would be included in the article. In what form that remains to be seen, but in would be included surely in the form "According to Criss Rain, Victor Ponta is of Zimbabwean origin". This is how wikipedia works when it comes to adding data. I hope I managed to explain this. Adrian (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

G'day

G'day KIENGIR. I suggest you self-revert per Talk:Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. I will not revert you, but you are sailing too close to the wind and will end up getting done yourself for editwarring. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have answered on the page. My argumentation is professional and can be understood by any historical expert or English speaker, or just even ordinary people. I have demonstrated all points a will make no further edits after any discussion. It is long, some things cannot be explained very shortly, because the trollers then try to find 1000 ways of arguments and false premises, that's why it is better to see almost all colletaral things leading to the conclusion. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC))

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thehoboclown. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am surprised and hurt, I asnwered, no evidence was presented by FromOradea, unfortunately only a manifestation of a frustrated and fantastic mind, but see the deatils there, I also will answer on your and his personal page also. It is so pity some people instead of being interested in a professional encylopedia, they make weird accusations. Yours (KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

I just noticed the accuser (FromOradea) was banned for sock-puppetry :) What a change of screenplay...well, Thank You for all for the objective arbitration (KIENGIR (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC))

Tesla's citizenship discussion

I invite you to participate in the discussion. I opened a RfC and presented some sources. I also have one request, since, you and me agreed upon your edit on 10th of May that Tesla's citizenship from 1867 until 1892 should be stated as Austrian. Since then I investigated some sources and I find that to be false (you can see the sources on talk page). I tried to revert your edit and start a discussion so a consensus can be established, but people keep reverting me with the explanation that I haven't established a consensus to revert you, where in fact I participated in the consensus that introduced that edit. That is completely unreasonable since in that logic I can make an ridiculous edit (for instance that the Earth is flat) and revert everyone with the explanation that no consensus is established to revert my edit. The motive to revert your edit is to force a consensus be established on the presented sources. I'm afraid that a lot of people will oppose and that the conclusion will be that there is no consensus to change the present formulation. I found myself in the similar situation when I tried to edit Tesla's birthplace. I presented several dozen sources of which a great majority supported my side, however a lot of people "voted" for no change, so the present formulation remained although the majority of the sources are against it. There is a chance that this happens now, and that would be irrational since the present formulation is not sourced. In my opinion the best thing is to revert your edit and establish the consensus upon presented sources. I hope to hear from you soon on that matter. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- MrX 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Disruptive editor

Hello KIENGIR ,I'm responding to this comment of yours. That user has been disruptive for a long time now. He made a report against me, and I would appreciate if you could share this opinion here. You can see that I had done some investigation and it turns out that this user is a puppet of another user that demonstrated the very same behavior. Detoner (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, it's interesting how users that find the Croatia in the union with Hungary article or similar ones contentious are never from Hungary. Tzowu (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, you are overreacting it. Since these persons are well-known experts about Hungary and very old an experienced Wikipedians, it is a natural action if you just ad hoc plan to rewrite history!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

You left a message on my talk page. I'm not sure what you want? I have skim read the wall of text that contains a debate. I do not know this history. I can only flip a coin as to who is right. You guys seem to be arguing quite well about a point but you need to agree exactly what this point is. If it is "Did country A legally exist in 18??" then that can be checked and argued over. As it is you seem to be wondering around. I will not watch this page so you need to leave message (if any) on my talk page. Victuallers (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hungary 1526-1857

User:KIENGIR. Please wait what Fakirbakir has to say. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Alig van idom, probalok az unnepek alatt idot szanni a temara. Boldog Bekes Karacsonyt! Fakirbakir (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Austro Hungarian Compromise

User:KIENGIR, the text you reinstate here was, as you've repeatedly been told, removed by consensus AND is denied reinstatement by WP:DENY because it was introduced by a sock of a blocked user. In case you don't understand, agreement between me + User: 82.119.98.162 vesus sock of blocked user = consensus. Do not involve this article in our dispute or I will make a new ANI report. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As I told you, I did not see any consensus, and if I am understanding good you want to say the majority decides about consensus or what? (2:1) Then also I could say regarding the two other articles that User: Fakirbakir + Me vs. Hebel is 2-1...how could one editor and an ip address decide on such a "consensus"? Then better take it to the ANI since the consensus that I do not find is also unacceptable, since it is hindering the true content of the sources and removing very important pharapraphs, clear vandalism look like! Moreover the history does not start with sockpuppets, since before it was originally put by non-sockpuppets, so be careful with the explanation! And the most inmportant is, I did not reinstated anything former, since I added the pharapraph with modified content! (KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

Empire of Austria related articles

User:KIENGIR. Perhaps we should get away from some of the language we're now stuck in. Just a thought. Nothing chiseled in stone and not final yet but just an attempt to make text that can work:

"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also the ruler of the dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty within and outside the Holy Roman Empire founded the Empire of Austria in which all his dynastic lands were included. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s Imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. Apart from now being included in a new “Kaiserthum”, the workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which they had always been considered a separate Realm. In the new situation there were therefore no Imperial institutions involved in it’s internal government." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think first the Kingdom of Hungary (1526-1867) article should be resolved, since it is the most easier as having the less debated content. I will answer on your page.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC))

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello KIENGIR. I too wrote something on the above report. You may want to read that. Frankly, your modus operandum confuses me. We have an agreement on the Hungary article, that could be a good basis for agreement on the Austrian Empire article as well, for which I already made a proposal. Which I also commend to your attention. Why this (frankly rather problematic) stuff on the other article specially now at this point? A 1RR violation? What were you thinking? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It was not a willfull 1RR violation, a I checked the time two times before, but it seems because of the time zone confusion it could happen, not any Administrators answered my question about this, even after the edit the time did not have less then 24 hours, but after I saw it was recorded 10 minutes before. I told you earlier my point that at least if we did not touch two articles this one should be left as it is until new consensus, the pages may have similar content but they are not identical and I don't see any problematic content. You should not have intervened and leave the case - this 1RR - to resolve with only 123Steller and the Administrators. I am sure because of your text I was blocked that was again not as accurate as it should have been!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

Edit warring at Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at this edit warring complaint (permalink). I'm also alerting you of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE (see below). EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles about Austria-Hungary are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KIENGIR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi everybody, this is the warning in the talk page of the corresponding article: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. -> I thought I did not make more than one revert in 24 hours, since I carefully checked the time, but I see my last action was made 7:56 January 3. that is 10 minutes earlier than 24 hours according to the last edit...although I checked the clock and I remember 08:47 CET....just for curiosity, in the English Wikipedia always the editor's current time is recorded, or GMT? Thanks for the asnwer!KIENGIR (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. Watching the clock so as to continue to edit war without violating a revert restriction is still edit warring, and that's what you are blocked for. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello KIENGIR. It appears you have been steadily warring to add this material between December 22 and January 3. At one point, User:KrakatoaKatie placed the article under full protection to stop the war. When protection expired, you were right back at it. In your edit summaries, you have been telling other people to follow dispute resolution, while you continue to restore your material over and over. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you're quickly becoming the definition of a tendentious editor. Katie^talk 15:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KIENGIR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

--jpgordon,Katie,EdJohnston, I do not intend to appeal for more unblock request's until expiration, but please all of you explain to me carefully why the other users who continously reverted my edit were not sanctioned, although on this page I added a new, modified content, a did not reverted primarily anyone's edit, and if a user does not agree with something he should discuss until resolution as I and other's followed on the other disputed pages in which one has been already resolved. Yes, according to the official clock I broke a rule without wanting, I am very much sorry for that, but you all have to see my good faith some other editors did not proof and they do not seem to keep fair play. They continously speaking about a consensus that I still did not see and anyway the three articles's content are not identical, so that untruthful argument that "I would reinstate something that I already agreed to remove" is not true and a slight slip...If you carefully check the talk pages you'll clearly see who was provocating who and who is professional in the topic. I see heavy double measure of some other editor's who are even disturbed of my existence, I was accused of many things that were never proved to be true, but they have the right to revert or remove anything unsanctioned and they put non-valid/distorted information for Administrators sparing the important details, and they identify me as a problem! Katie, I just read what means in Wikipedia terms "tendentious user", I do not agree with it's details would represent me, since I have always a neutral point of view and the struggle to have valid, factual and flawless content of Wikipedia can be really called as "tendentious" as the word is meaning. The fact I touch sensitive topics is not willful, but it is hard to bear if non-valid content is present and some groups does not seek the professional resolution but eager to make accusations. So I have to pinpoint again, the rule is to keep the page unharmed until resolution, and I wanted to see and have the right if the other parties are respecting this as we did on the two other articles, but they still under resolution added new materials to the article. Not I was the one who started the reverts in the corresponding page, thus those should be trialed who reverted continously my addition, before seeking resolution consensus first! The fact by mistake the 1RR was broken, is now an unfortunate casus belli to put me in the front but meanwhile the root cause is forgotten. I am very much sorry, though I checked two times the clock! When Katie first protected the page, she said the actual state freezed has no connection to which version should be left until dispute resolution, that's why my intention was to have that version that should be valid, as it is always in Wikipedia. Only this was my goal, and not to continue edit war, this was continued by some IP addresses, Hebel and 123Steller users. Please check more carefully in the future, Thank You! KIENGIR (talk) 11:47 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

There is no reason for unblocking given in this request. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• KIENGIR, your block will expire soon, but if you continue the behavior that led to this block, you may easily be blocked again. So, I strongly advice you to follow the WP:BRD process and not to edit war. You are repeatedly speaking about the clock, but you have to understand that clock is irrelevant. WP:EW policy is clear about this: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time (or second time in this case) just outside the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR, you posted an additional comment on the closed report at WP:AN3. It is hardly useful for you to continue your complaints about the conduct of others. Not only did you break the edit warring policy, you appear to be pushing a WP:POV. This gives you little credibility if you are still appealing for help from administrators. It is best for you to engage in negotiations on the article talk page. If you can't persuade the others, you should let it go. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston,

If an other user involved himself without any invitation to accuse me and present the things in a very one-sided way and he stated not factual things I think I have the right to react and to defend myself. Regarding the edit policy I acknowledged my mistake, however other's brake was not even taken into consideration. I do not push any WP:POV and those who take the time and carefully check the chronological happenings on he three pages, moreover read the content of the talk pages will notice what I have referred to. If someone has a credibility here, it is me, since I support factuality against those who are tending to hide some things finding any reason to distract the reader or administrators. There is not a more important support for this as the history of the pages and the content of the talk pages. Try me any time, some more experienced editors can very easily compromise any good-faith editors with less-experience, the devil is always in the deatils. However I pinpointed clearly and sharply how some other editors are acting in an improper way, still I am presented/treated as a bad boy. This is my only problem, a kind of double measure. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

Clarification

Regarding your text about me: "you do not want me to repeat things", I want to make it clear that I did not accuse you for repeating anything. I was referring to the proposed text, where Hungary was described as a kingdom, a country, and a (separate) realm in the same phrase, which looked a little redundant to me. If Hebel's new version is unchanged on this portion, I will not insist of it. Let it be as you want (with "country" untouched) if it is important for you.

I did not read all the long discussions on this subject, and I don't consider a specialist as much as Hebel. If you reach a consensus with him, I will not raise any objection.

Thanks for the patience in finding a compromise. Peace! 123Steller (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Transylvania

I apologize for the incidents at the articles about the Principality of Transylvania, I should not have engaged in the edit war.

Btw, I found this old map Transylvania [2] where, besides Saxon and Hungarian counties, there are also Wallachian and Moldavian regions. What do you know about them, which was their status? 123Steller (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I accept the peace offer! I checked the map carefully. Old, medieval age created maps have many times distortions regarding today's maps or fair geographical locations. After a longer check - as well knowing the exact borders and territorial extent of Principality of Transylvania - I verified all that is shown in the map is part of the Carpathian Basin, it does not surpass the historical borders neither the classic Kingdom of Hungary or Principality of Transylvania. Thus it does not contain historical Wallachian or Moldavian regions (= and territory or region from the Principality of Wallachia or Principality of Moldavia). I think the author wrote and attested about the population of the current time, as it is exactly written in the South-Transylvanian border, near Hátszeg area that is a well-known place were Vlachs were settled in early times thus there their population grow in centuries. The same I consider about the "Moldavia" designation, since in those areas the Hungarian Kings earlier granted feudal rights in exchange for allegiance of Wallachian/Moldavian landlords, and more of them - with their settled Vlach people were later expanding to the territory of Principality of Moldavia also. So I think - similar to the Saxon and Hungarian, Szekler latin deisgnations - above the official borders and counties, we get a picture about the near ethnic-composition of regions & historical, traditional regions extension whether they are official or unofficial - i. e. traditional Saxon cities or areas, although this does not exclude other ethnics were also present.

Short conclusion: the "Wallachian" and "Moldavian" regions did not have any (official) status, they are just an unofficial designation by the author of the map about ethnical presence (I now do not intervene in the Moldavian ethnicity debate - the author - as contemporary times - is referring to the state of origin this way).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

Subotica

Subotica is a city in Serbia, the only official language being Serbian. Hence, Szabadka is not an official city name. Which part of this simple logic do you not understand? Sideshow Bob 07:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems you did not understood well. CONTEMPORARY OFFICIAL NAME OF THE CITY IS SZABADKA. Which part of this simple logic do you not understand? Cheers! (KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

Subotica is in Serbia, where Serbian language is official. Problem? Also, caps lock don't make your argument less stupid. Sideshow Bob 07:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I see, your problem is with the English language. You do not understand what means CONTEMPORARY. Check a vocabulary or talk with an English teacher,maybe the third time you won't make yourself again ridicoulus!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC))

Hello non-ridiculous intelligent super-editor. Try learning the difference between the word "contemporary" used as a noun and as an adjective, if you know what those are, and try understanding the difference. Also, please do not contact me anymore, since I couldn't care less about your passive-aggressive tantrums and this issue as well. Goodbye. Sideshow Bob 07:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your grammar lesson is what you had to learn, since then you would not make the edit that you made, where it is OBVIOUS what means contemporary, next to the CURRENT official name :) The rest is a useless trash talk. If you do not answer anymore, I do not intend to continue this discussion. So long!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

(Talk-page spalker, yes I admit) Hey KIENGIR, there has been a missunderstanding here between the two of you. You are right, and Sideshow Bob is wrong for the tone he used, but his missjudgment there is not uncommon at all. When I first saw that table I had the same first thought as he did cause in many languages the term contemporary would refer to present day. FkpCascais (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, peace.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

Italy, Hungary and Trianon

Hello User:KIENGIR. sorry that I havn't been able to find much about your earlier question to me, I'll be looking into that in the next weeks. But a question about this edit you made. What territories did the Kingdom of Italy get from Hungary at the Treatry of Trianon? It couldn't have been Fiume (Rijeka) because that was allocated to Yugoslavia at the time (although eventually annexed by Italy). And what about Poland? I seem to remember they annexed some territories on the North of the Carpathian, but I think that was only in 1939? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gerard von Hebel,

I hope you will find out the truth abouth my last question, I am looking forward to it. Let's start with Poland. You are wrong Poland never annexed any territory from Hungary after, maybe you confuse it with the annexation of Teschen in 1939 from Czechoslovakia? Poland gained a 589 km² territory from Szepes and Árva counties. Regarding Fiume - as you see it also in the attached map -, it is also indicated in the traditional or commonly used maps where the losses of Hungary is demonstrated. Since from the beginning the status quo was disputed between Italy, Kingdom of SHS and some other's this is referring better the end, since it was divided between them thus Italy got a part of it. If you think, you may add "finally" since the section is meant to the losses of the territories and their final (interwar period) status quo, not necessarily when the pen was left from the documents signed on 4 June 1920....also consider, the legistlation and enactment and codification of the treaty was internationally finished only in 26. July 1921....similarly as the WWI closing treaties were enacted in 1947....so all of this meant as the final, legal, internationally recognized status quo, as the final result of the dissolution of the territory of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

OK Thanks, where Poland is concerned I was indeed thinking about the Szepes and Árva counties. But I somehow thought that played a role in the Munich agreement as well. I seem to remember that there was an occupation of Fiume by Italians who took it from Yugoslavia and based some kind of "Free state" there before Mussolini annexed it. No problem about referring to the end situation as such, but I was wondering if there may have been some territory there added to Italy in 1920/21 already. Oh and you should change "littlier" into smaller. Littlier is not really an English word. Although even the Dutch would transcribe it as such..Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok(KIENGIR (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited László Bárdossy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Károly Bartha. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very sorry instead of a collaborative discussion you introduced a propagandisctic personal attack against me. That is against good faith and collaborative efforts to improve articles. We don't live anymore in Ceaucescu's regime, wake-up! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

Issues regarding edits on the Hungary-Romania football rivalry article

I think it's a bit ironic that you are the one who is schooling me about being impartial. For example, i took a look on that Dailymail article you cited and noticed that a large portion of the Incidents section that you edited on the Wiki article was simply copy pasted from there. But one thing i noticed regarding that Dailymail article is that the only incident that you didn't bother to copy and paste into the Incidents section on the Wiki article was about Hungarian fans setting several seats on fire. I, of course put it in the Incidents section with a citation, but i must ask why didn't you bother to put it up there in the first place? It's because you don't really want people reading to know the truth about hungarian fans, that's why. Hungarian fans are notorious in the football world for their extremely violent and overally nasty behavior, yet when i discovered that Wiki article there was virtually no information on the incidents caused by them in the Incidents section. You only put the incidents regarding the matches at the Arena Nationala (Romania) there, and even so you didn't bother to report the incidents done there by the hungarians specifically. You even said the Romanian anthem is never booed in Hungary yet whenever i watched my team play there i could only hear booing by the Hungarian fans. You continuosly deleted that info from the article until i added some citations to confirm that what i was saying was true. Are you ashamed by your peers behaviour, that's why you so desperately try to deny and hide it? Also, i didnt delelte that section about Romanian fans beating each other necesarilly because i wanted to hide it, but because it was badly written. After you re-added it and added one more citation to it i fixed the phrasing and kept it there. Also, you are saying you're working with the Wikipedia Staff, yet when i took a look on your talk page i saw that you were banned multiple times by them regarding your edits on articles concerning Hungary, and that you have made a habit of editing a lot of articles concerning both Romania and Hungary giving them a more positive stance on Hungary than Romania. I say you should just stop letting your national pride get in the way of Wikipedia editing because these are articles are made for the rest of the world to read and your hungarian bias is very unfair in this matter. If this is how the articles about Hungary-Romania look on the English Wikipedia due to the edits made by hungarians then i can only imagine what kind of lies about romanians are on the Hungarian Wikipedia. I won't bother editing any of those articles such as the Hungarian-Romanian War because it's just too much effort. All i can do is encourage foreign users to use other more credible sources about Hungarian-Romanian history because the articles here are written in hungarian points of view. I will also encourage you to take a look on this 30 minute short movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DauT5r34Gl4 Anyway, i rest my case. The Incidents section now looks alright and fair after my edits so my mission is complete, but this whole debacle we had will just show the world how hungarians deny their nasty behavior to the world by trying to delete it from Wikipedia, and how desperate hungarians are about having a positive image in the world even if that means hiding truth here. It's very laughable, i must say. --Scheianu (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Scheianu,

- I did not make any extensive edit in the correspondent article less than you did

- I had to warn you because you harmed those rules that I cited, moreover you were not netral but heavily biassed, as you proved also your heavy dislike for Hungarians

- In this article that what is put "on the first place" has no real relevance, chronological order better

- B****s..t, if I would have wanted to hide anything from the Hungarian fans I would have make disappear half of he content that is heavily citing everything about Hungarians, but less the incidents about the other side

- In Arena Nationala the first major incident was in the Romanian sector where Romanians beated Romanians, after the Romanian security started to beat these Romanian groups, including children, journalists, etc., it had no connection ot the Hungarian fans

- Then you have a big problem about objectivity, since in the broadcasts you clearly hear the Romanian national anthem and only very little time your hear anything disturbing that not the majority of the Hungarian fans, but very rarely some little groups. In Bucharest, everybody is horribly whistling and booing, so you continus modus-operandum about disrupting the article to maintain that lie that Hungarians generally "boo" the anthem and meanwhile silencing about the continous and persistent horrible behavior in Bucharest is one the greatest shame of all time of yours, and it is ridicoulus you try to wash yourself out from this!

- I let that one sentence citated because if we check all the matches, the behavior of the Hungarian fans there was the most apparent, although still the anthem is clearly to be heared, my objectivity and good heart was the reason although you did not deserve it. It my citations was badly written, why did not you rewrite it immediately? :) Maybe you were concentraing of the your Hungararian-hatred...

- I am not ashamed of anything, you have to ashamed about your behavior

- I was NOT banned "multiple times", once it happened by mistake because I did not check the clock and my action violated a time limit. I never gave "any positive stance" in the favor of Hungary, my edits were increasing obejctivity, moreover I corrected heavy and childish mistakes, inaccuracies, etc. thus I raised the trustability and credibility of the pages. Any yes, I work together with the Wikipedia Staff if any issue is emerging

- You again mixed your person with me, in Wikipedia there are Wikipedians, no natinalities, not any national pride is influencing me, but you showed in from of the Wikipedia community that you are heavily disliking Hungarians moreover you wanted to bias the article about the national anthems, than can be VERIFIED by every people since ALL THE MATCHES ARE RECORDED. Point.

- You have again a bad faith, because Hungarian Wikipedians mostly struggle to put on an objective manner the heavy imbalance in some articles, recently mostly Romanian Wikipedians are fair most of the times and they are also interested in good articles, not proaganda articles.

- The youtube video I know, it has heavy propaganda and bias towards the events, it is silencing of many-many other distractions that any objective, professional documentary should contain

- We don't hide any truth, the laughable is now you want to act in the manner of being objective, but also with your continous Hungarian-accuser, prejudicate statements you just prove the opposite that you'd like to appear.

- As you proved it also with your last edit, you again posted information of the Hungarians, but not anything that would be negative about Romanians. This is your way of the "truth", "obejectivity", etc. We know your type, generally we meet this regarding some beginners (the youtube video you wanted to use as stress pattern of your views, claims, opinion about the Hungarians and with this you wanted to justify your negative approach on the Hungarians today, moreover regarding a sport event that has not connection to the video. Amateur.)

That's all for now.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC))

I see you have a history on your attitude against Romanians.Skyhighway (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It is natural that if I meet with inaccuracies, or improper claims or anything than I stand up for precisity and objectivity, but I don't have any attitude on Romanians or anyone else, it is not based on nationality or whatsoever. Before making any sudden claims, you should enirely study the subject since you have anyway very sudden groundless edits.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Revolt of Horea, Cloșca and Crișan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deva. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ip massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ip. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 00:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dschslava:, the edit war was rendered by Biruitorul as during consensus building he reverted and edit the second time and thus he fulfilled the frame repeadtedly. I did not revert his additions instead of one case when I proposed a new consensus and the I also reverted my formed edits, despite he reverted my edits more time. I initiated a discussion with him with more attempts on his talk page, he refused to communicate and continued his activity. I totally followed the WP:BRD princpiple, however I am aware your warning is an automated message.

@Helmut von Moltke:, please show me a proof where I attacked any editor, because I do not know about such a case, meanwhile I suffered continous personal attacks and I just responded to defamations and false accusations and I raised a question of an improper behavior. You should have warned those who attacked me. I feel a serious imbalance here, don't let yourself to be coined by any user who already tried to coin other editors or Administrators.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC))

This edit summary constitutes a violation of WP:NPA. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Helmut von Moltke:, well if you regard as a violation of WP:NPA that I ask a question of a possible behavior of the future meanwhile I am threated and I meet continous personal attacks, I ask you again, you do not find a little bit a double measure that for similar reasons you don't warn the other user who attacked me with "obsession" and "revisonist agenda" although these have also no connection to the content of the edit? (KIENGIR (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

Biruitorul has also been warned for personal attacks due to the incidents you mention. However, perception of being attacked by another editor is no justification for you to engage in personal attacks on anyone. If you want to debate the neutrality of Biruitorul's edits, you can do so at AN/I under the relevant subsection. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, when I checked first I did not see, I know my rights, however I am not that type that is eager to generate incidents. Finally, I did not mean to justify anything, I just reacted to the possible double measure.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC))

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 05:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will check it soon.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC))

"false information"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#/media/File:Magyarorszag_1920.png

So does that look like false information to you? Once again i'm telling you, stop trying to hide the truth from articles, people need to see it. That info was actually very important for the article because history is the key source of this rivalry, btw. I'll add it back, this time you better not delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheianu (talk • contribs) 23:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scheianu:, You are very near to be reported for personal attack, I warn you again and this is my final warning! You put false information, since the number of Hungarians were not 1 million, moreover you put a misunderstandable emotion on the subject - that anyway does not belong here, but to the relevant history articles - since Romanians not always had a clear majority in Transylvania, moreover the word "clear" is arguable if it's about a little bit over 50% percent - anyway it is funny you have linked a map that does not support your statements fully. People can gather these information where it belongs, but not to this article. It seems you are working hard to collect all the negative informations on Hungarians and you do not concentrate on objectivity or NPOV. Don't add it back until consensus!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

I'm not trying to focus on negativity i'm just trying to add the truth. You shouldn't be the one talking about obiectivity, as prior to me discovering and starting editing this article, the incidents section was only filled with bad stuff done by the romanians, despite the hungarians causing more incidents. Why wasn't there anything about incidents caused by hungarians? If i leave out that info then it will make the romanians look likes big evil thieves which is not true, that map that i linked and many other articles here show that. The number from what i know was around 1.000.000-1.600.000, but not any more than that. Yes romanians had a majority a little over 50% but hungarians weren't anywhere close to that, as there were plenty of germans as well. History is the key cause of the rivalry between the two teams so i think it should be fitting that it is included in this article. Why can't you accept it? I don't have to agree with any consensus with you, as there are plenty of articles here on Wikipedia that favor what i wrote. And if you keep deleting it, I shall be the one reporting you. Scheianu (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scheianu:,

Sorry, your edit history clearly shows that primarily you add one-sided content mostly and you speak about "truth", on the other hand you don't want ot objective but provocative. Prior to your appearance, I did not edit highly relevant content on the article - that anyway contained much littlier and not one-sided information - I have no responsibility on the former content, however now the article is filled mostly by your additions that is tolerated also mostly in a very liberal way.

"If i leave out that info then it will make the romanians look likes big evil thieves which is not true, that map that i linked and many other articles here show that." -> This is just you personal opinion, frustrated POV, if we make a reference on the Treaty than the reader can pull information from there, and the map is also there.

The number was exactly around 1 600 000, not 1 million! The rest you mentioned does not change anything on what I have said. The key cause of the rivalry is already mentioned and it is the Treaty of Trianon and it's consequences. Your wordage was anyway incorrect in a way because Hungarians could have been unsatisfied not necessarily loosing territories, but about the injust borders, i.e. it could have been arranged that less Hungarians remain outside the borders, and anyway, I repeat it does not belong this article, any explanation would be too long and out of scope.

Be careful, because you have to have consensus with me, you don't know the rules of WP:CONSENSUS? However, I did not delete you addition but modified it, and you would be ridicoulus if you'd make a report since I did not harm any Wikipedia rule, and don't forget, my report on your personal attack just depends on my well-known good heart (WP:NPA), so better collaborate not to be surprised in a negative way. You should behave like a Wikipedian, without any personal emotions or patriotic feelings!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

Natasa Dusev-Janics

I don't know, I never heard of her. Tzowu (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Megyék

Itt válaszolok, hogy ne Borsoka vitalapját írjuk tele. Rendben, legyen úgy, de lehet, hogy ebből nagy vita lesz. Szerintem sokkal inkább probléma, hogy az összes egykori vármegyéről szóló cikk elég katasztrofális állapotban van. Sajnos alig van itt magyar szerkesztő, pedig nagyon sok a teendő, én sem vagyok már annyira aktív, mint korábban. Most Budapest polgármestereit írom meg, aztán remélhetőleg visszatérek a középkorra. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Norden1990:,

ok, bármikor írhatsz. A vitákhoz hozzászoktam, öt éve folyamatosan támadtak, támadnak, már vagy ötször mószeroltak be vagy jelentettek fel, de mindig elbuktak és végül az a módosítás, illetve szükséges objektivitás amit forszíroztam ma már permamens és az összes szócikkben gond nélkül ki lehet javítani őket, és olyan horderejű dolgokról van szó, ami szomszédaink tudatlanságát illetően hatalmas felháborodást kelt, de a történelmi tények azok tények (és senki nem merte feszegetni őket). Borsoka nagyon elegáns és kimért, nem megy bele feltétlenül folyton vitákba, de ha hasonló dolgokról van szó, nagyon kitartóan és kulturáltan képviseli a megfelelő álláspontot, Fakirbakir Hál'Istennek ha kell keményebben is belemegy a dolgokba, sokat segít nekem. Körtefával keveset tudtam beszélni, kár hogy talán nem annyira aktív mostanában. Én igyekszem folyamatosan a vadhajtásaimat lenyesegetni, ehhez azonban a Ti támogatásotok is kell, nem maradhatok mindig egyedül, hiába van igazam, sajnos ezen a helyen a lobbi is számít és sajnos sokszor nem azért használják fel amire kéne, de én is egyre jobban fejlődöm. Azért kérlek ne add fel és próbálj aktív maradni, nekem sem volt időm az elmúlt négy évben de ezen a nyáron változtattam és felturbóztam magam, viccesen fogalmazva én vagyok az elővéd ütközőzóna, Nektek már csak remélhetőleg higgadtan söprögetni kell :) Azért a Wikiproject Hungary-t jobban össze lehetne fogni, bár nem tudom most hogy áll a dolog vagy ki irányítja, illetve mennyi inaktív user van, tényleg csak titeket látlak szinte történelmi témában, habár Enginerfactories-el mostanában sokat találkozom, azt mondja egy csomó cikket ő írt, de mindig elfelejti az accountját és újat csinál, elvileg az egész Austria-Hungary cikket ő írta. Egy szó mint száz, nagyon sok torténelmi ügyet kiharcoltam és ezzel lehet hogy tisztelnek - és tartanak is tőlem - de az adminok is egyre jobban megismernek és sokszor segítenek is. Úgyhogy innen már nem léphetünk vissza, ki kell állnunk az objektív és hiteles történelemszemléletért.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Edit warring at János Bihari

You've been warned for edit warring and personal attacks per this closure at WP:AN3. This seems to be a dispute on whether to use the Slovak name or the Hungarian name for the county where Bihari was born. If so, it certainly falls under the WP:ARBEE arbitration case, which seeks to prevent edits which are motivated by nationalism. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, you must be joking since I opened the complaint because of edit warring that was NOT initiated by me, so I don't understand why I am warned...I am sorry that you did not understood that ("now Bratislava") was never the Slovak name of that county, the CITY of present-day BRATISLAVA was confused with a non-existent historic COUNTY and not even the Hungarian name (Pozsony Vármegye), but the English refernce name of it's mother article Pozsony County was put. I and hope you are aware that fom my side it is not any "nationalism", simply a mistake was corrected. I did not make any personal attack, the description of a long-term behavior over months of this provocative user is described.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

You should have taken EdJohnston's warning more seriously. Instead, you again attacked the other editor you're having a dispute with here. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours for the attack. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:,

did you notice, that Edjohnston did not read carefully the details of the incident and he made more mistakes by judging the details? Just check the incidents or the article's talk page. The diff you're showing does not contain any attack, but a fair description and answer on an issue where the other party is provocating and fooling editors, administrators continously. In Wikipedia, not any disruptive behavior or pattern can be named or described? If I describe what happened, how could be an attack? And please answer also, how it that possible by an ANI Incident to take any action without hearing also the other party? You think this is a proper Administrator behavior or objective? There is not even a hearing or trial, just an ad hoc sentence?(KIENGIR (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

Place names in Eastern Europe fall under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@Bbb23:, this must be a joke, how to judge and arbitrate without reading or hearing the other side? Did you read the corresponding talk pages, or just the scarcely shown diffs bythe manipulative user? No personal attacks has been carried out, I am harassed since 3 months by this user as he countinously provocating and fulfilling WP:NOTHERE and WP:I just don't like it. Administrators has a great responsibility, by their judgements, now you supported - even without knowing - a tendentious provocator. Please check "User:Ditinili reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Protection, Both warned)" and the János Bihari talk page and also the mistakes of EdJohnston's who was also coined and were careless. The most important imformation is the last last comment by me in the János Bihari talk page - of course the report spared it -, don't let yourself to be coined. Soon I have to raise a WP:ANI incident regarding the misjudgement of careless Administrators also who without really investigating the case just try to quickly get rid of the problem. Describing a situation is not a personal attack! You think seriously you warn me of a ANI discussion where I am unable to involve?? Are we in the Communism?? Seriously?(KIENGIR (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, you have conducted a high-pitched angry argument over a matter of four or five words. These words could surely be bargained out to a compromise without much fuss, but when it takes you 500 words of barely-grammatical angry prose just to say anything, it does not seem worth the effort to reason with you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:, really, but why don't you understand the cause/phenomenon? You did not even read properly the case, you did not now about supporting other opinions or links, you did not check the other user's background, you even did not interpret properly a diff, you did not recognize that correcting a mistake is not an edit warring, you did not want to talk, and you say it does not seem worth the effort to reason with you??? It means in the future if a disruptive editor with malicious aim is continously provocating/misleading users, administrators in talk pages, generating incidents, pretending personal attacks and uncivility if there is a clear description of their disruptive activity, and by generating useless ANI issues persisting to eliminate other editors with real correct arguments and evidences will have an advantage? What the other user will learn from this? How his behavior will be stopped? Is there any WIKI rule regarding persecution or provocation or defamations or wilful misleading an editor or administrator? Or the problem is it does not exist and that's why it is enough to claim a personal attack by selected and truncated diffs without any connection ot any personal abuse? How to treat a user who by his first entrance is checking an other users contribuiton and starting to persecute and follow him over months in all pages? Such aims are malicious! how to fight against them Edjohnston, honestly? I should raise incidents? What I achieved? The thief says catch the thief? And joke is all about a and edit that's validity can be verified in two seconds? You have to sense that this not allright!

EdJohnston, everything was in your hand! You should have punished the disruptive aim of 3RR gaming attempts and you should have verified the state of the article as correct after 2 seconds of checking and you should have warned the other party for wait answer for his mediation question and until after to discuss or persist further modification. Now, you see, what you caused and the other user lived with the opportunity and laughing on you and me! Not my person is important here, first of all, but the correct quality articles, and for you the reputation and fair arbitration should be to prevent such escalations!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

"CONSENSUS"

@Bbb23:,

ok, would you please also answer my questions above towards you?

@Norden1990:,

for a consensus all participants agreement is needed, see WP:CONSENSUS especially sections "Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change." and "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated."

-> I have participated many consensus building, usually you wait after the proposal and only if all participants epxressed their opinions and agree may be the change only executed, you even have to wait one or two days in case...

The best solution appears to be to retreat the page to it's earlier content until really a consensus is built I've expressed my concerns earlier but you did not even wait to react on the proposal, that is not fair and correct and are against the rules (however I am confident it happenned by negligence), but I just cannot believe how @EdJohnston: could remove the protection without checking that if the necessary requierements for WP:CONSENSUS met....(and my questions towards him were still unanswered)

I ask all participants to be fair and keep the rules of Wikipedia, this is the third time that is something not ok, this is definetly not acceptable...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC))

Note about canvassing and seeking outside help

Hi @KIENGIR:, I am posting here because of your request at AN/I. Contrary to your statement, these edits [3][4][5] would be construed as WP:CANVASSING to win support in an editing dispute over content. The reason is that you specifically notified editors who were likely to share your viewpoint.

There are acceptable, constructive ways to appeal for help. Often in discussions on a page, editors will ping others like this (@KIENGIR:) who have previously contributed to relevant discussion on the page in an important way, and will specifically ping ALL editors, including those who have disagreed with them. An even better solution is to launch an RfC (WP:RFC), where a greater number of editors, most likely having no predetermined position, can come and weigh in. You can also seek a third opinion (WP:3O), or make a post at the neutral point of view noticeboard (WP:POVN).

If you find yourself wanting to notify only certain editors in a disagreement, stop, and use the resources linked above. They are designed to help you in situations like this. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet:,

Contrary your POV-pushing, your statements does not hold since "The reason is that you specifically notified editors who were likely to share your viewpoint." does not hold, I did not know their viewpoint, I just known they have expertise also in the subject and they edit such articles, as you were told already in the ANI. It is useless to teach me about the rules, I know them and I also certainly know when RFC or POVN needed, etc. Please leave me be, I did not made any trouble to you, so you have no reason to harass me!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Why are you saying I harassed you? You specifically asked me to come post here, like two or three times. -Darouet (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Darouet:, because you still continued in the ANI also, if our discussion just and only remains here in the future, then I will not consider it as a harassment. Let's see this time how you will behave.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

This is an incredibly condescending and aggressive comment. If you believe I'm harassing you, you are free to report me at ANI. Otherwise, stop it. You are the one after all who demanded repeatedly that I come here. -Darouet (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

,:Darouet, I disagree, zero agressivity, I am sorry the user still did not get the point, although he had enough. As I told not you are considered mainly guilty abput WP:HA, but an other user. You don't even care about my "demand", since you are still mentioning and posting in an other place, big shame on you again! You started everything, I had no conflict or buisness with you, everything is your fault, so better choose to leave me in peace and ingnore me everywhere!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

Anyway, don't worry about it. I am sorry one editor used the occasion of the ANI to pursue old grudges against you - obviously not my intention. -Darouet (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Darouet, I am not worrying, but you have to understand I wish to spend my precius time for quality editing. I & some Hungarian editor's are used to that we are many times the target of some IP adresses, users generally because of their hatred and dislike for Hungarians, even if they try to hide it, we'll see what's going on after a while. I don't think that you are one of these, sometimes other's misunderstand us. However, I don't know the details of your reported case, I hope you'll solve with them your problem. Bye(KIENGIR (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KIENGIR. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Lajos Kossuth

Hi there, your deletion of the last two parts of my edit was unnecessary. Perhaps you didn't understand them? There is no word in the English language to differentiate between the adjectives Hungarian denoting the nation/language and Hungarian as a citizen of the Kingdom of Hungary. It is a VERY important distinction that my edit hinted at. For your second deletion, can you explain why you found the explanation superfluous?

@Leiduowen:, hi, referring Ugrian is a totally unnecessary approach, Hungarian is fair enough and clear. the second was not unnecessary, it was very much POV edit and not even may be the main cause.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

I wonder if you see my point. In order to explain the difference in English, you need to use a different adjective. If not Ugrian, Magyar vs. Hungarian should be used. The historical Latin term Natio Hungarica has no equivalent in the modern English language so your argument does not stand. (Please, check the relevant Wikipedia entry if you are not sure.) As for your second reversion, are you ignoring the elephant in the room? A random Google search produces many articles to substantiate my addition, e.g., http://www.karol-duck.estranky.sk/clanky/zoznam-madarskych-umeleckych-pamiatok.html. If you refuse to have a serious talk here, I will request a review of this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 17:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Leiduowen:, I see your point that is mistaken, I don't have to check the relevant Wiki article or whatsoever, I am expert in the topic. The fact he was "considering himself Hungarian" is totally enough and understandable in English and also Magyar is not vs. Hungarian is all the cases, Ugrian is totally false and uneeded assertion here, it is language family. Moreove I did not "ignore any elephant in the room", you try to make an elephant about things that are not necessarily connected, your random google search does not "substantiate" any such addition. I never refused any (serious) talk, feel free to write to me.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, I do not quite understand what you mean by "[...] and also Magyar is not vs. Hungarian is all the cases". You obviously aren't a native English speaker. Care to rephrase? Your claim to expertise on the subject is unverifiable unless you produce a list of papers you published on this topic. Also, did you check the link I sent you? The reasons why all Magyar memorials outside Hungary got demolished after 1918 are explained there. So what do you with an editor that refuses to acknowledge facts? I am currently studying ways to challenge your reverts. One more thing you should explain: The text in the header claims that "The native form of this personal name is Kossuth Lajos. This article uses the Western name order." I challenge this unless someone produces his birth certificate. Why should a person of Slovak-German origin use Hungarian way of writing their name? Here, again, it smacks of false assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 02:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Leiduowen:,

sorry you seem an unexperienced user in Wikipedia yet, the one who is an expert has the necessary knowledge. I.e. Hungarian may be Magyar or any Hungarian citizen, the are not exclusive terms. I checked the link and did not found such that you pushed here, anyway it is a weasel, emotional POV pushing. I do not refuse acknowledge any fact. About the native form "challenge", the usage of name order is connected to the persons nationality, and Kossuth was Hungarian, so it does not smacks of false assumption.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for clarifying Antun Vrančić :) Bojovnik (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

As you persist in believing you were reverting vandalism, you can take this time to read WP:NOTVAND and hopefully stop with the disruptive accusations in the future. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KIENGIR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, I read WP:NOTVAND. I am confused, since experiencing over hundred's of other user's edits in similar issues - let's say it like so - malicius aim edits may be easily noticed and we are meeting very often regarding Hungary related artciles, and noone ever was punished by such wordage. I consider @NeilN:'s decision utterly harsh just because I iniate and lead a discussion to properly undertood wikipedia rules [6], my last question was not even answered. Well I will avoid better the word "vandalism" in the future, but I feel totally injust just because I've made a constructive edit that was thanked, accepted by experienced users, and restored the page the proper content after the IP edits from an obviously false version (even not initiating a discussion or forgot to warn the IP about the 3RR) to have such punishment. I am shocked. Checking that in 1904 what was Hungary and Romania, and checking that the infobox should contain the contemporary official name, etc. would immediately show not my edits were NOT disruptive. NeilN's remark in the discussion that I would not have the first block, I don't think any history would have any connection to the current case, and if we read through the discussion on the ANI, everyone have to see that I have a good aim, I feel like NeilN would get angry of my questions...all in all, I learned from the case I have to be very careful about what words I use, but the tag "disruptive edits" especially the content I restored does not hold, since it is accurate and proper, as other approved and acknowledged (and anyone can verify it). The IP will laugh on us. KIENGIR (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request demonstrates that you still do not understand what vandalism is. On the one hand, you say you will avoid the label in the future, but at the same time, you clearly do not accept that what you called vandalism was not vandalism (you said you were "confused" by the policy and called the IP's edits malicious). Avoiding using the word in the future is a step in the right direction, but an actual understanding of when it applies and when it doesn't would be significantly better. Otherwise, you will be inclined to forget and use it when you shouldn't or you will use other words that mean the same thing but omit the word itself. Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KIENGIR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Bbb23:, well after I read WP:NOTVAND I think you have to agree I'll able to decide what is NOT a vandalism, at least, considering that the "inclined to forget" is not an option. As you and other's may see, I try to get common WP and it's rules more and more, noone could say I do not make an effort to be more and more professional, and I have always learned from the earlier cases, as you see once if I've made a mistake I've never commited it again. Like I've learned from this case. I feel very much hurt of such a sudden and harsh sanction although my aim was good regarding the factuality and accuracy of the article. I think at least this @NeilN: should have taken into consideration, and should have warned me to read WP:NOTVAND first and if after he would not see any improvement I'd understand such a harsh step. Thus I'd consider fair if at least my block would be reduced for 24 hours, if the general unblock was denied. This is my last unblock request in this issue, I don't wish to use more the template, but this issue really turned me upside down... KIENGIR (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

IP may have been incorrect, but it wasn't vandalism. You seem to be having difficulties distinguishing the two. Please tell me you understand the difference between bad and good faith edits. Because that is key here. That said, I see no harm in reducing the bock to 24 hours if the blocking admin doesn't object. El_C 01:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C:, I don't know if my answer is proper here or it should be out of this template, I UNDERSTAND what is the difference, maybe I was influenced that recently in many Hungary related articles sockpuppet's are doing similar edits almost in every three days. I see I had to initiate a discussion on the talk page and make a warning of edit warring, and after the second revert of the IP a 3RR warning template. I had no idea that the Cluebot revert does not count. In practice, not necessarily we initiate discussions on the talk page of such kind of IP edits, however, it is advised regardless of the editor's being after any second revert. I know regardless of the type and aim of the edit, I have to follow WP:AGF and WP:AAGF and I should have explained the obvious reason to restore the article in the edit log. Thanks for your understanding!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

Maybe you were influenced by that. But every edit needs to be approached with good faith in mind. That said, AGF is not a suicide pact—you have to use common sense when an edit is malicious or not. The bot is just a bot, it can't know anything. It's not sentient and it suffers from false positives. You have to imagine that the IP thought they were being accurate, even if they weren't. Wikipedia is run by editors assuming the good intention of other editors. El_C 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Background for reviewing admin: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User_talk:80.116.134.46_reported_by_User:KIENGIR_.28Result:_Both_users_warned.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Per your first unblock request you still consider the edits vandalism even after you read WP:NOTVAND. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, as far as I know, being blocked I am allowed to use my userpage (better I write disclaimer in advance, before I'd run any further unexpected problem), so shortly my answer is:

I read carefully again my first unblock request, and I did not found such allegation or sentence that would confirm that "I would still consider the edits vandalism even after I read WP:NOTVAND"(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

You called the IP's edits "an obviously false version" which is vandalism. I'm going try to explain what is vandalism again. Look at El C's comment in your report: "The city today is Romanian, it was Austro-Hungarian at the time of his birth. Full stop." Is it conceivable and understandable that the subject could be called Romanian? Yes, as it's also conceivable and understandable that the subject be called Hungarian, Astro-Hungarian, and American (all of these have been used in the article over the years). They are not "false" and changing to those is not a malicious attempt to obstruct or defeat our purpose here. They may be "less correct" from your point of view, but changes to those terms are not vandalism (as say, a change to "Peruvian" would be). Wikipedia has these controversies over nationalities all the time. See Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars#Ethnic_and_national_feuds for more notorious examples. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was having difficulties understanding you, actually. Why did you think going on at such length would be be helpful in any way? Your broken grammar already makes you difficult to comprehend. And all admins care about anyway is that you learned your lesson, but you go on and on (about 1904, etc.). IP edits may have been incorrect but they weren't vandalism. Full stop. Please organize your thoughts in shorter staccatoes. El_C 01:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, @El C:, I've just noticed you answers here, meanwhile I have answered already to El_C above....please give me a little time to read what you have written here, so I can react.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

Dear @NeilN:,

I really don't understand the term "obviously false version" why would be considered as "vandalism". Even if someone has a good faith edit, can commit mistakes. I have to tell you in advance I am a heavyweight professional regarding historical accuracy, especially regarding Europe, contemporary naming, status quo, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, history and location, especially Hungary affairs. What @El C: has written is obvious, and "my version" is fully complies with it, and the wikipedia practice, the IP did not understood it for a reason. If you check carefully, the subject was not about that he is treated as Hungarian/Austro-Hungarian/American/Romanian, but multiple issues:

- 1. Infobox: the current status quo and naming at the time of birth

- 2. Lead: XXX-born (refers to the country where he was born, especially if he has a different ethnicity or later different nationality/citizenship

- 3. Core: the contemporary place of birth, by the indication of the present-day status quo (as per common WP practice)

What you listed above and treated as "conceivable and understandable: YES":

- "Romanian" is obviously false, since the subject does not have any connection to that country and have no Romanian ancestry or citzenship in his lifetime (similar case was the famous Hermann Oberth issue, that is solved a long time ago)

- "Austro-Hungarian" would refer better to a state of belonging or origin, but such nationality or citizenship never existed, since Austria-Hungary was a joint monarchy of two separate countries, that had separate citizenships and nationality (Austrian and Hungarian)

- "Hungarian" would be only proper until he held Hungarian citizenship, but with a remark he was ethnically a Danube Swabian, but as per WP practice his latest citizenship/nationality is decisive

- "American" is PROPER, as per the earlier mentioned.

Please notice that you may have confused nationality with the country of birth, since "Hungarian-born" - this is set much more longer I'd intervene the article - is proper, since he was born in Hungary, setting this to "Romanian-born" is obviously false.

Please notice also that I have a very-very long experince regarding nationality issues, I met with them every day, but this was not about this! The IP systemitcally eliminated the fact he was born in Hungary and eliminated anything that would refer to Hungary or Austria-Hungary, that was improper. El_C, sorry that I am long, but you have to see, I am fully precise and careful of my edits, I would not have been so long if i.e. NeilN right now would not have confused a nationality issue with a simple "country of birth" issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

We two also have "very-very long experience regarding nationality issues"—but that's not at issue. At issue is you calling vandalism edits that may have been made in good faith. The IP edits may not have been perfect, but they are not defacement, either. Next time, use the article talk page to challenge those edits. That's what you should learn from this. You go to the talk page and say 'dear IP, I disagree with your edits because of this and this and that.' That's what you should have done, not potentially scaring away a newbie by calling their edits vandalism. That was the wrong move. El_C 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you could probably shorten this discussion if you would just concede that your use of 'vandalism' in this April 3 edit summary was not correct. Your extreme confidence that you are correct about the factual matter is neither here nor there. We would like to hear that you will use the term 'vandalism' correctly in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact you need to point out "you may have confused nationality with the country of birth" shows exactly why the edit was not vandalism. The IP, in good faith, could have easily not made this distinction. Look, someone can write "George Washington was an American-born...". It'd technically be incorrect, but no one would treat that as vandalism. As for "obviously false version" - you really do need to read WP:VANDALISM in its entirety. "Deliberately adding falsities to articles" is treated as vandalism. That is, writing "George Washington was a Jamaican-born..." would be treated as vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to convince us you understand what the three of us wrote to you directly above. I won't reduce your block without NealN's consent, and he is unlikely to consent, until you concede our collective point. To summarise, two things you should learn from this: 1. Using the article talk page is always a good idea for disputes. 2. Vandalism is about defacement and not editing in good faith, which you may have conflated for an innocent mistake. El_C 04:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:,@NeilN:,@El C:, I will use the term 'vandalism" correctly in the future. I checked WP:VANDALISM, I think the stress pattern is on the word deliberately, and so long regarding an edit it is not obvious, because it maybe was commited by a good faith mistake, or negligence or ignorance, etc. that cannot be judged as vandalism. Well, then I will use all the time the talk page after the second revert. I have also one more question, if I tell that i.e. "an edit set an obviously false version" why it would mean necessarily that I would have accused an editor of vandalism? Since I just made an observation, an outcome of an activity and I've defined the current state of the article, not the possible good/bad intention of the user. I.e. if a good faith edit by negligence would set that "Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Swiss-born actor" I cannot qualify the outcome with such words? Thank you all(KIENGIR (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

I've unblocked you. I suspect English not being your native language is a hindrance here. If you say something is obviously false you are heavily implying or outright stating the editor is deliberately adding false info to the article. Example: "David Bowie was the first man to walk on the moon" is obviously false -> vandalism. If an editor changes to something that's incorrect, but plausible, better to say "that was wrong". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, Thank you very much! Yes, English is not my native language. So, especially "we" are aware of the scientific or computer language and what the words weight or count possibly in such environment, but not really sure what it would imply in a native Anglo-Saxon environment then. If I understood properly your argumentation, "heavily implying" or "outright stating" is likely to near over 90% percent that practically I would consider a deliberate background. Well, I learned then how to be careful with the words and their meaning not have even a suspect of misunderstanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC))

Warning about canvassing

You will post messages like these in English, or not at all. You are also very close to being blocked for canvassing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear@NeilN:, I know WP:CANVAS policy, I did not harm any rule regarding this, since from one user I asked to check on the happenings and the discussion, and possibly tell his opinion, since I felt others may behave too rude with me. By the other user I draw the attention also to check on, similarly, but I did not made any adequate influence that they should edit the article in a certain way. "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.". Could you tell me why I am possibly near to block, is there any rule I don't know properly, or non-English messages are prohibited on user talk pages? Please clarify, I wish to fully comply with the rules. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC))

WP:SPEAKENGLISH. "please look at it in the Laszlo Castle article and the recent edits and definitely the talk page. I do not want you to drag nowhere, an editor earlier grievances are very badly attacked for all sorts of reasons, real and imagined in the past, it is really just the precision and accuracy-controlled, which unfortunately is still a lot of historical issues" is not a neutral message for editors who have not previously edited the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, well the possible google-translation is not totally accurate (it's usual regarding Hungarian, as well subjects and passive sentences), but I understood your concern. I will use English and in case I will work on much more intense on neutrality. I did not know that neutrality counts regarding earlier history, if it is not related to the current article's factual/debated/recent content.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC))

Thanks. This is why you need to use English. So other editors including admins can make sure appropriate language is being used. And it's much better to place a neutral notification on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject than to notify handpicked editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Geographic Names

Kiengir, please (PLEASE), try to avoid conflicts. I have avoided unnecessary changes in geographic names, I expect the same from your side. E.g. if the article is about the Battle of Trnava then I expect the consistent naming thought the article. The same applies for the Battle of Ilava, where there is a well established English name, the Hungarian form 'Illava' did not exist in the 15th century and there is not any reason to use contemporary variation (also in other articles we do not inspect in detail the contemporary variation of the name and we use e.g. Pressburg instead of Presburch. --Ditinili (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, I always try to avoid conflicts, now you were the one who initiated again one, from the middle of nowheere, partially unnecessary. The article could be easily renamed to Battle of Nagyszombat, it is a gesture if we like like as it is now, and the title of the article has not any conenction on naming, where basic standards are used. About the other article, I don't know why your repeat an already outdated thing, since I acknowledged the validity of Lewa, etc. You apparently use this thing the with the variations to claim any modern version, so that would be not Hungarian (in the first place). So please, have that flexibility and gestures that I also applied towards you recently. We also do no claim from 1920 in any Czechoslovakia, Slovakia articles Hungarian names on the fisrt place, but we respect Slovak names.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

Ibolya Korodi

Help me out here, perhaps? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Biruitorul:, done, I hope...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC))

Jolie Gabor

Did you refer to the Talk Page debate on the relevant categories? I feel it would have been more wiki-like to add your comments there, before reverting after an appropriate interval, as I did. Valetude (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Valetude:,

as you see I did not revert everything, especially I left your modifications regarding the elimination of the "memoirist" matters. But to remove the rest is inappropriate a I did not see any reason for the in the talk page. About being "wiki-like", as you now the new changes should be argued and consensed for any modification in case, not the already existing version, especially if they are a long time stable. So as you see, I was totally objective, and in the end the relevant part of your consideration - having indicated in the talk page - was accepted also by me. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC))

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, KIENGIR. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2018

Happy New Year! Fakirbakir (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Behaviour at Talk:Battle of Szina

Please be advise that I have raised the matter of the interaction of yourself and User:Ditinili at WP:ANI. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Kiengedni es kiengesztelni

Az mas mint ez. Clean Copy^talk 05:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the word "kiengeszni" I don't understand, it is not a regular Hungarian word and has no meaning...without I am afraid I'll unable to intrepret your message properly...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC))

Es most jobb? Clean Copy^talk 10:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You have to know as per agreement I have to speak English here. Of course the best is to understand each other...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC))

I see, "kiengesztelni"....yes, now I understand.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC))

The best way to ignore

You fell into his trap. This is his main purpose: a never ending debate about nothing. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka:,

well, from a longer time these activities in the corresponding page are suspicious...(KIENGIR (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC))

You are obviously in his trap. He provocates lengthy boring debates to prevent other editors from intervening or providing third opinion. I kindly ask you (=Könyörgöm) not to feed him. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Max Hell

If you'd know the History of Hungary better you would know there was many etnics in Hungary. Thats mean nothing he was born in Hungary, there was many people in Hungary that time, who even didnt speak the Hungarian!! So i dont know Hell had Hungarian writings, i know his works only in Latin and German.

Ha ismernéd jobban Mo. történetét, akkor tudnád hogy ott rengeteg nemzetiség élt együtt. Légyszíves ne legyél okosabb nálam Mo. történetéről és egykori körülményeiről.

--Milei.vencel (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Milei.vencel:, I am sorry, you are wrong, I know there were many ethnics in Hungary, etc. Maybe you are not aware what "nationality" means, it is not necessarily equal with ethnicity. Nationality means "belonging to a nation", "self-declared nationality" and/or "citizenship" in modern terms. Hell was undoubtedly belonging to Hungary, declared himself Hungarian and he translated the Hungarian mining laws to German, so he had to know Hungarian. Btw., that time mainly everything was written in Latin or German.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC))

Tesla

Hi Kiengir. Here you are wrong when saying Tesla didn't have Hungarian citizenship. From 1867 Hungarian citizenship was given to all people living under Hungarian part of the empire. Here's something about it [7]. dab (𒁳) wrote it pretty correct. Tesla ,also living in Croatian part of the empire was given Croatian "local citizenship" (citizenship maybe not the right word, but I saw it was used in some sources). There's no evidence he had Austrian citizenship. What is written wrong in the article and repeated by many people is that Tesla gave out Austrian citizenship when taking American one. Austro-Hungary, a multiethnic and complex empire, to outside world had only "Austrian" citizenship for its people. This question is a bit too complex to what people want to do on this article. 89.164.227.237 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi @89.164.227.237:, I don't think I'd be wrong and if you checked carefully I discussed with Dbachmann then then the issue. Tesla had Austrian citizenship, as the official papers proved he resigned on that before aquiring U.S. citizenship and it is totally false that Austria-Hungary "to outside world had only "Austrian" citizenship for its people". Hungary had her own Hungarian citizenship, as always and never had anything common regarding this with the Austrians, as well dual citizenship was banned. There are blurry circumstances that cannot be decided right now, but what is sure the time Tesla had Austrian citizenship, he could not have Hungarian. It is also not evident that in 1867 Hungarian citizenship would be automatically granted outside Hungary proper (= w/o Croatia), since Law L in 1879 declared citizenship (állampolgárság) to be one and the same in all the Lands of the Hungarian Crown’ (§1). But even if so, Tesla had to resign or loose this to be an Austrian citizen, as he was before his immigration into the U.S.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC))

I'll try to find the source where I read all this what I said. 89.164.116.229 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the source. Sorry it's on Croatian. It has a lot of references to the Austro-Hungarian laws so I can point to the reference if you would like to investigate yourself. [8] . On page 798 it says: "After 1867 there existed a distinct relation to the Empire...but also a separate relation to Austria or Hungary...Argumentation about distinct relation to Austro-Hungary, which was supported by Croatian authors, pointed to the Austro-Hungarian unique representation in foreign affairs and to the fact that the people of the Empire to the foreign states have appeared as a single political subject.". Sorry, but the paper slip where Tesla is resigning Austrian citizenship is a primary source. One has to be very careful when interpreting primary sources and I think that you got to the wrong conclusion. You are right that dual citizenships were banned, but that was only for "separate" citizenship. All people of the empire had "unique" citizenship that related them to the Empire as whole and that citizenship was used in foreign affairs. The question of citizenship in Austro-Hungary is a lot more complex that this. The source is dealing with this on 35 pages. It's very interesting. What's evident is that everyone here on Wikipedia is simplifying that question and relating the connotations the word citizenship has today with what it had in Austro-Hungary in 19th century. 89.164.132.7 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@89.164.227.237:,

Since I even cannot copy-paste to google translator this source and unfortunately I don't know Croatian, on my own a I won't reach much about that. What you cite does not contradict me. Outside, Austria-Hungary was regarded in whole, regradless it was only a joint monarchy, there was Austro-Hungarian foreign embassy, etc. However, when you entered the embassy, you immediately had to choose that you deal with Austrian or Hungarian affairs, and after that everything was separate. Regardless of the acceptance of the primary source, my conclusion is not wrong that way that in foreign affairs Austrian or Hungarian citizenship was used, respectively never a joint citizenship, a Hungarian citizen was alien to Austria, and vica versa, in all legal terms, but not even in the times of Austria-Hungary. but also before. It would be interesting to know more about the possible "local citizenship" regarding Croatia, or to know i.e. before 1879 how Croatians would appear (Austrian or Hungarian). What is sure, a Hungarian citizen never ever appeared as Austrian, inside or outside, and if Tesla would have an aquiration of Hungarian citizenship anytime, I am convinced Hungarians would know that. If he in any means got it by law, then generally it would apply to all citizens of Croatia-Slavonia. However a primary source sometimes are more valid than a secondary, i.e. if it is an official paper where Austria is written, then by no means it can related to Hungary, since the term Austria-Hungary was well known and used in the U.S. also, if it would not be the blatant fallacy of the U.S. administration by mistake, writing "Austria" instead of "Hungary" because they don't know i.e. which state is in Africa or in the Pacific Ocean and anyway it does not matter what they write just having the paper to be filled....(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC))

I'll try to find an English source. From what I'm reading in this source the deal with citizenship in Austro-Hungary is a lot more complex. I don't think that Wikipedia can explain it fully within info-box and one or few words. The term "citizenship" as we know it today is a lot different than it was in 19th century Austro-Hungary. That's why I'm convinced that someone reading info-box is being mislead , but I don't know how to fix it...for now it seems the best to leave it as it is. If I find an English source I'll forward it to you. Cheers. 89.164.132.7 (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

[9] Here's something, although it doesn't rely to the point I made earlier. If you find it helpful...89.164.132.7 (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I read the source, it does not change or would disprove my argumentation or that fact that many outcomes are possible, however regardless where you came from, between the period also before 1867 any person could obtain citizernship in many ways. To clear this, individual information is needed about especially Tesla. So long, we only can prove he had Austrian national citizenship...(KIENGIR (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Kraitsir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

are you from Jobbik party?

Do you belong to other Hungarians that are irredentist and chauvinists? Skyhighway (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway:,

I am not from any party or belong "to other Hungarians that are irredentist and chauvinists", the real question would be where you came from since you are pushing in many cases misleading information tendentiously into several articles and you are ignoring many rules of Wikipedia, now your activity can be described unambigously as edit-warring. You will receive a warning for that.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

Reality is you present only a strong POV against Romanians. Why you hate Romania so much? Or your neighboring countries? Why can't you live in peace with others? With Slovaks you have the same attitudes, then Serbians as well. Why you hate them so much? Skyhighway (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

This is very true, you have to admit it: Hungarians hate basically every nation they share a border with.Skyhighway (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway:,

Excuse me, I have to refuse what you say because it is not true, you were the one who made such changes that could also be described as a POV against Székelys/Hungarians. I don't hate Romanians or any neighboring countries, and please watch your words and don't state things that are not true! The rest of your questions have the same style, I living totally peacefully with others, and again, I don't hate anybody, better stop with your defamating accusations! I had attitudes? Excuse me what do you refer?

Furthermore, I have to refuse again you bad faith and negative aimed defamation a generalization of Hungarians, regarding your statement "Hungarians hate basically every nation they share a border with", and it is not even true, better you should investigate and check i.e. the relation of Romania with it's neighboring countries, and then i.e. you could make a comparison with Hungary regarding the level of relations and maybe you could gain some objectivity instead of overexaggerated accusations. Anyway, should you stop this negative behavior.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

You should read this:

Hungarians are very much like hobbits. A hard-working people with little knowledge about the outside world. We like to eat and drink, tend our little gardens, hang around in the pub and bitch about the shortcomings of each other, and especially the deadly sins of foreigners. Our foreign policy is traditionally awkward/nonexistent, and usually consists of elaborate historical arguments about how we are a very special nation and how much the outside world owes us for our heroic deeds in the distant past. We do have a spectacularly colorful and tragic history, full of grand visions, inner strife and failures, no wonder we feel a kinship towards Scots, Irish and Poles. Romanians are especially suspicious for us: after some centuries when we treated them like shit based on our greater strength and some very clearly false historical claims, we are genuinely shocked that for a century they treat us like shit based on their greater strength and some very clearly false historical claims. Ordinary people are easily misled to channel their general frustrations towards their neighbours instead of their corrupt and immoral leaders, and these two nations are true champions of this carefully generated and fueled ignorant hatred. And that is what you see from Poland to the Balkans: good-natured, warm-hearted people with a unique gift to enjoy life, full of natural hospitality - exploited, misled and forced to hate each other by their leaders. How similar we all are in Eastern Europe! It is a remarkable feat of politics and ignorance that we fought so many wars against each other. Will we ever realize that we are all brothers and sisters? Prehistoric man made a giant leap forward when he found that a community can include more than 15 people. We, Hungarians, Romanians and everyone else are still in the dark ages until we make the next cognitive leap and understand that this planet is one nation, one family, one organism. United we stand; divided we fall.

Skyhighway (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway:,

I read it, and it contains many thing that are strong POV, or totally not true and even I don't know why you posted this to me or what connection it has to WP. It is not true i.e. that Hungarians would have "very little knowledge of the world", ot the foreign policy would be nonexistent. the statements like "we treated them like shit based on our greater strength and some very clearly false historical claims" are again false and contains havy exaggerations with an obscene language, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

If you read it and that's your conclusion no wonder your posts, you're too indoctrinated. Skyhighway (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You read this? Magyarization? Skyhighway (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway:,

I warn you the last time to watch your words and style and stop bad faith accusations, I am NOT indoctrinated, and I know the Magyarization article as I am very experienced with Hungary-Romania related topics among many others. Anyway, your panels are quite familiar to me, usually such behavior is done of some "enthusiasts" who accuse the other side about what he/she is doing in reality and not properly are aware or informed/learned in these topics, excuse me.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

I only noticed your double standards. Why you try to hide the real number of Romani people in Hungary? You treat very bad your minorities even in 2018. Haven't learned the lessons. When Romani people living in Hungary will surpass 30% you will learn. Are you very experienced with Hungary-Romania related topics? You and your family could be a Romanian magyarised family at origin. Skyhighway (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway:,

I don't have any double standards, and I "did not try to hide" anything, you may read in the edit logs and on the talk page what was the problem, it seems you still did not understand it, initially I did not even removed your edit I just corrected it's format, but you did not accept it so I had to bring it to the talk since this in accordance with the rules. What lessons I have not learned, or who? Sorry, such thing is not known if any minority would be treated unwell...I don't even know your reference in what connection could be with the demographic rate of the Romani people, that I certainly know? My family is not known to be a "Romanian magyarised family at origin". You should maintain some civility.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

The fact is that Matei Corvin was half Romanian and is considered and really was the greatest Hungarian king. An example. If you can admit this. Skyhighway (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Considering all these warnings I would be careful about throwing stones. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Skyhighway:,

I don't understand again what's the catch or you really don't understand some things, or have a problem of the interpretation of the language. Matthias Corvinus is considered to be the greatest King of Hungary, about the origin majority of the sources claim an ancestry for his father from Wallachia, thus Vlach ancestry, while some other source claim it more complex with possible Cuman or Petcheneg origins, still from Wallachia. Some claim from Transylvania.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

No. How easy you reject reality. He was Romanian. How easy for you to say he might be that or that but no, he was Romanian and that's it. Full stop. You lack arguments. Even if he was Romanian what do you have against this fact? You can't stand the truth? Who wrote that message above about Hu-Ro to stop warring was true. But you can't see the future, together. That's why that is a 19th century past mentality. You can't stand Romanians to be in EU and in NATO. You have to admit it. Skyhighway (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Budapest GDP

Szia Kienger, hagy vagy te? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Budapest&type=revision&diff=861354182&oldid=861341991 this is not good, please explain how much is GDP NOMINAL of Budapest and Hungary and how 141 billion came out from fantastic Jobbik world of lies you support?? Why you keep living in past Kienger? The specialist? Skyhighway (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately as I see with intelligent communication I am not able to reach much, I refuse your abusive and bad faith style and I see I have to ignore your abusive "questions" as well. Also, prejudicatiing and lying is a serious civility issue! I don't support any "fantastic Jobbik world of lies", this sourced content was not introduced by me, but at least I know and try to do my best regarding WP rules, that seems you don't understand still. You have to prove or demonstrate anything regarding a content you object, btw. there is already a discussion of the relevant talk page, so there is no need to write here.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

How much is GDP of Budapest? Don't avoid. Skyhighway (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ukrainians in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rusyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Rewriting Magyarization topic

It is an official warning not to remove sourced content from articles. If you do not stop there would be request for admin intervention.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@PsichoPuzo:, excuse me, you are the one who is initiating a massive rewrite without consensus, however I try to intergrate in the articles those valuable additions you have, but you use as well inappropriate sources. As well, be aware that with threats you don't achieve anything good, keep yourself to good faith and stick to the rules of our community, as administrators will do the same.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carpathian Ruthenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruthenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carpathian Ruthenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ad personam

Thank you for your remarks. I kindly ask you to avoid making ad personam remarks, both positive and negative in the future. We should concentrate on the subject. We again lost the possibility to persuade third parties to get involved in the discussion, because nobody wants to read lengthy boring sentences praising or criticizing other editors. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka:,

I see, however becuause you personally proposed something, it could be hardly avoided not to mention you. If this is your wish, I would try to avoid to mention your name, in any means, but you have to agree in some cases it cannot be avoided (regarding other editors I cannot guarentee this). I don't think my comment would have been the longest, though I see the core of the subject proposed was limitated to the last pharagraph, but you have to see also on that NPOV noticeboard - where I did not participate with any comment - how lengthy, boring, eye-hurting, timpe-pulling, bldugeoning was with not any adequate result, even involved by third parties.

That's why I had to pinpoint to the editor - continously confronting you and "killing" your (and others) time from happy editing - that he is responsible for fundemantal issues because he does not wish to see/understand/comply how Wikipedia is working. He did not notice your kindness, wikietiquette, generosity and completely ignores, does not even know what consensus building is, etc.

Also it would be better for you/us to deal with someone who knows and respect the rules, this is also the subject inherently, I think with or without me also you cannot concentrate on the subject if an other editor is not aware of how the things working here. However, I'll promise I'll be more short as possible in the future, and you know that I appreciate your work on Wikipedia.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC))

I fully understand your motives. I only wanted to remark you that they (?) are playing this game on purpose. They take advantage of every possibility to make the discussion longer and longer.... Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, KIENGIR. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Template:Z33

Thanks for your help on Randolph L. Braham article

Kindest regards, Robert Braham Shlishke (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Shlishke, Thanks, sure!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

NEO-HUNS Kurultaj and proletarians

There is no turanist and Hun-believers among educated people. Just watch the Kurultáj event, 99% of the visitors are craftsmen. In old Hungarian (pre-1945) term was "aljanép", alsóbb néprétegek. ("lower classes" & "lower folks" Here is my opinion about prolee of Eastern Europe, I wrote it many years ago: http://prolivilag.blogspot.com/ But there is a good article about them here: http://demokrata.hu/velemeny/proli --Dwirm (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

I already answered you in the talk page of he Huns.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC))

Javaslom Ablonczy Balázs (aki a téma kutatója az ELTÉ-n) Keletre magyar! c. könyvét. Kutatásaiból kiderült hogy a II.VH utáni turanizmus nagyon mássá alakult mint ami előtte volt. A modernebb napjainkban élő turanizmus (pláne a rendszerváltás után) összefoglalja (az egyébbként egymásnak ellenmondó) Hun-Sumér-Szkíta-Pártus-Türk-Etruszk áltudományos meséket. A turáni fogalom a rendszerváltás után tiszta gyűjtőnévvé vált. A lényege a finnugor ellenesség, annak ellenére hogy 1945 előtt a finnugor elmélet teljesen része volt a turanizmusnak. Minden ami áltudományosság a magyarok eredetével kapcsolatban összesűrűsödött benne. Szerencsére már az ELTE-n (is) oktatják a hagymázas fantasy alternatív elméletekről a hallgatókat: http://finnugor.elte.hu/?q=alterism --Dwirm (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

you already posted this message at the Huns talk page, I read, why you repeat?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC))

No, you did not answer to this message, because it refutes your opinion. According to all researchers Hunnic origin theory merged with modern version of turanism in Hungary after 1945.--Dwirm (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

nope, it is just your speculation, since you did not raised any question just sent an additional information, so I don't need necessarily to answer (and anyway I don't see any refute to my opinion). You demonstrated a viewpoint that is held by some circles, that's all. Anyway, it is marginal if one origin theory is merged later with other theories or if it has a history, when specifically not this is the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC))

I showed you a scholarly opinion of experts, what you don't like to accept, you do not respect the scholars and their opinion, because you only respect your layman opinion. Than why do you want to edit encyclopedia? Why don't you write a blog, which can be the center of your layman opinion?--Dwirm (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

I suggest you to quickly change tone and avoid groundless accusations like:

- "what you don't like to accept", "you do not respect the scholars and their opinion", "because you only respect your layman opinion" -> these are not true

Consequently, your following questions cannot be taken serious (though you care with blogs isn't it?). You are generating heavy prejudices, even accusing others what was not said, not willing to understand properly what I've written. It it's not clear read back, etc. (on the other hand, possibly you have a problem of interpretation of English, because I did not said after 1945 some theories did not change or similar, etc. I just said it is marginal if it is not the specific subject. The same way you propably misunderstood when I was writing "it is just your speculation", I referred to your ridiculous and fallacious thought "of not answering questions becase it would refute my opinion")(KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC))

I stated, that Hunnic theory belong to the turanism garbage in the post ww2, I provided references. What was your answer? "I don't like it, so I won't accept it". (Despite you don't have any proofs/references for your private opinion. How can we call this behavior?--Dwirm (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

I did not answer such that you put into quotation marks. "Private opinion" was what you stated about "proletarians", a real fringe one. Better you should care about your behavior, since as we can see, it is a bit problematic, I don't see the reason to continue this discussion until you prefer defamations.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

I know your behavior since you appeared in English wiki. You had a notorious problem: You have never care about proofs and references, youst only about your private opinion, no wonder I mentioned the low -calss proletarian and proletarian descendant people, because it is their typical mentality.--Dwirm (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

How could you know me, as a newbie user who as I see just registered here this year October? Anyway, I ask you the last time to stop lying and make such ridiculous allegations like "You have never care about proofs and references, youst only about your private opinion" it is totally false and untrue. Anyway, for your misfortune, I have no connection by any means to "proletarians" or they supposed mentality. Time to stop, you're getting by far! (KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

Huns and Turkic turanism is the same category. See Kurultáj event and the pseudo-historic teachings of Zsolt András Bíró (president of Hungarian Turan Foundation) Kurultáj is an event for people of "Hunnic Turkic identity" which is organized by Hungarian Turan Foundation.. Read about it: https://index.hu/tudomany/tortenelem/2014/06/19/a_turani_nyitas_politikaja/

Sándor Klára: Nyelvrokonság és hunhagyomány (részletek) https://olvassbele.com/2012/11/26/sandor-klara-nyelvrokonsag-es-hunhagyomany-reszletek/

"A turániság gondolata persze gyorsan elérte a magyar közgondolkodást, már csak azért is, mert a hun rokonságot komolyan már senki nem képviselte, az azt helyettesítő törököt sem lehetett már olyan lelkesedéssel hirdetni, mint akár egy-két évtizeddel korábban, a turáni dobozába viszont lényegében mindent be lehetett tuszkolni a finnugor mellé, törököt, japánt, hunt és szkítát. (…)"--Dwirm (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dwirm:,

you did not answer my question. The fact some circles mix the two things together it does not necessarily mean they would be equal, and don't mix it with my personal acceptance or misuse it! I understand there are those who treat it that way as you say. Though I am heavily against any "Hunnic-Turkic" identity, since it is similar to that madness that pan-Turkists claim even inventing the fake "Hunntürkei" term and try to corrupt not just Atilla, the Hunnic Empire and almost all major ancient cultures to be Turkic! Let's close the issue finally!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC))

Comment of Scf1985

The user by mistake put his message in my user page, copied here:

"Hi, Kiengir. Not sure if this is how to talk to people on here, but regarding the issue on Monica Seles nationality, she did indeed play for Yugoslavia. However, Yugoslavia is a defunct country as you should know. Therefore, she is Serbian, not Yugoslav."

My answer:

@Scf1985:,

unfortunately your argumentation does not hold in a way, that she is a retired tennis player and his records are always historically assigned to the country she played for and existed that time, it cannot be projected to modern conditions, as it is never done as well here in Wikipedia.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

@Scf1985:

The user again replied in my userpage, instead of the talk page, copied again here:

"My argumentation holds 100%, because Yugoslavia is no longer a country. Why not refer to her as a 'Yugoslav-born retired tennis player' or 'a retired tennis player with American/Hungarian citizenship who represented the USA and FR Yugoslavia during her career. By referring to her as a Yugoslav, you are misleading people to believe 'Yugoslav' is still a nationality, which is factually incorrect."

My answer:

No your argumentation is problematic, since she represented Yugoslavia, she was a Yugoslavian tennis player. Yugoslav would be today also a nationality? I doubt it. Regarding other possible other rephrasing, seek consensus on the article's talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

Hopefully, I've finally mastered how to talk to you properly on here, not that it's clear cut.

Why is my argument problematic? Yugoslavia is factually defunct, therefore no-one can be refered to as Yugoslav. Yes, she represented Yugoslavia, and if you feel the need to note this, this is fine, but you are referring to her as 'Yugoslav' in the present tense, which is misleading and incorrect. Her stats representing the former FR Yugoslavia are stated elsewhere on her Wiki page and I have tried to meet you halfway by changing her edit to 'American and Yugoslav-born', which is more clarifying, yet you seem absolutely determined to have her referred to as an 'American and Yugoslav' as if it's in the present tense. I don't know whether you're bitter that your former country has dissolved into tiny little pieces, and this is your way of hanging onto any Yugoslav nostalgia, but your wording is wrong. I'm going to make one final edit in some hope we can finally agree to wording that we both agree on, but I'm not going to make any more modifications after this as I have a life. RIP Yugoslavia.

@Scf1985:,

please sign your comment also.

1. I have zero personal involvement of feeling towards this edit, as I have do not have neither bitter, nor nostaligia feeling or whatsoever

2. My wording is not wrong - and anyway was not my wording, it was before there -, on the other hand in Wikipedia we identify the sport nationality on the top first, and that was Yugoslav and American.

3. I'd suggest you do not make any further changes to the article without reaching consensus on the article's talk page

Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

Still insisting that Monica Seles is Yugoslav in the present tense? And obviously insisting so? Either you are a 24-carat prat or you have mental difficulties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scf1985 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about, please avoid personal attacks in the future. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC))

Romania

Right, I do agree with Michael the Brave. Just hoping your edits are objective and neutral for both Hungarians and Romanians. This is the difference between a simple user and a historian. Even if you don't agree with some things, you should not remove the universal point of views.

@Cristina neagu:,

sure, I struggle for maximum accuracy & maximum neutrality, as always, just feel free to check it anytime. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC))

Boldog Karácsonyt!

		Merry Christmas! Boldog Karácsonyt!
		Many thanks for your kind words, Merry Christmas/Boldog Karácsonyt! Mentatus (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Army Flag of Austria-Hungary

Hi, the navy used the red-white-red war ensign, but the army used this flag --->
So I dont know what becomes of that situation... But wouldn't then the "national flag" be used instead of the civil ensign? I mean, we use the national flag for all other countries. The German Empire uses its flag and not the Reichskriegsflagge (outside of Naval context, like how the naval ensign is used for AH now), for example?
Btw, I updated my sandbox example to use both Coats, opinions?--Havsjö (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö:,

1, is any further approval that the army used this flag ("Imperial Standard (?)" would mean that? I tried to click on the source presented inthe details of the image, but the url was blank....)

2, Infobox in your sandbox looks nice :) (regarding the so-called "national flag" I react on the talk page of the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC))

https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ah%5E.html here is some info about it, it also said on the flag section on the AH page that "the regiments of the k.u.k. Army carried the double-eagle flags they had used before 1867, as they had a long history in many cases." The Red-White-Red flag is a Naval/War Ensign, not a full blown "war flag" such as that for the Italian Social Republic--Havsjö (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö:,

I see though the linked article does not explicitly say it was also used by Austro-Hungarian War times, though regarding the description you cited from the article it could be also true...I tend to accept this but then we should as well in any military context use consistently next to it the "Naval ensign 1786–1918" and "Royal Hungarian maritime ensign", I mean if in the corresponding article it is specified in any place or the article itself are denoted for strictly naval battles or Hungarian battles, the latter two should be used instead of the new one you presented.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC))

The thing is, countries (and especially european countries) in these times did often have a naval ensign, which was almost treated on the same level as the "national flag" (a concept that was not as common at this time either, with flags not always being as "defined" as today) A good example of this is the Russian Empire, with its many messy flags (red-white-blue, white-yellow-black, the imperial yellow with black bird) and very common usage of its Naval Flag (white with a blue X) (a mess further expanded on on the Russian version of that page and http://www.vexillographia.ru/russia/index.htm (the russian version of it, anyway)). Anyway, the Naval flag of AH (like the Reichkriegsflagge of Germany) were quite defined as the flags of their Navies, while the army did not have such an "definitive" war flag equivalent but used more heraldic banners such as the one to the right. (i.e. its not like the Flag of Italian Social Republic, which had a clear regular and war variant. So I do not think it the army flags should be included among the civil/naval ensigns on the AH page, perhaps on a separate section under the Austrian/Hungarian/Croatian flags would be fitting? Anyway, you can also see on the AH talk page my words about the national/civil flag regarding military topics.--Havsjö (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Havsjö:,

I thought you want to use the flag you introduced here instead of the civil ensign used on war pages involving AH, isnt it?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC))

Not really, the flag of the armies of 1800's europe is very complicated usually and there is not "single flag" for the military/army. I explained a bit more on the AH talk page. and we should probably keep talking there to avoid a big mess of 2 conversations, my bad!)--Havsjö (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Please see this AE request. Cealicuca (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you should've spent your time more in a more precious way. You brought up old cases that were already discussed and settled, should they have good or bad result towards me, I've always taken the responsibility and learned from them, as my goals are benevolent to build a better, more precise encyclopedia with the best valid information possible. But the way you do things smell from a clear malevolent aim, as it is clearly apparent recurrently in your request. Although I never did to you anything bad, on the contrary, i.e. when you contested me once more times about the mistaken sentence about the rivers names and the etymologies, even the original nominator agreed and acknowledged the mistake and the fact I had sharply and precisely right, the same time I never abused any edit of yours that was in order. Great disappointment! (KIENGIR (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC))

Copyright problem on Hungarian Americans

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://immigrationtounitedstates.org/560-hungarian-immigrants.html. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Regardless of the copyright issue, that webpage doesn't appear to be a reliable scholarly source. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Answer

I have reverted! --T*U (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks on Braham edits and watching

Thanks on Braham edit, and watching, as always---Shlishke

Ps i added this by accident as an edit, now making more work for you to remove . :( *sigh* Shlishke (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Svatopluk's original name or identity

I am just curious what is not clear on Svatopluk's original name or his identity. The name, recorded by numerous Latin and Old Slavic sources is a standard contemporary type of name and it is easily comprehensible.--Ditinili (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, once I met an interesting work that claimed a bit alternatively as it is believed or mainly accepted, similarly other things I referred in this period. It did not mean a complete questioning, better an alternative explanation and causation of the events.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

Could you tell me the name of the work? The name is absolutely transparent - the composed Slavic name (typical for Slavic elites) Svętě-pъlkъ, both parts are common Slavic lexemes, denasalized and vocalized to Svatopluk, Svätopluk, Sviatopluk by well known changes in Slavic languages.--Ditinili (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:,

Not right now. Once if I'll take care and check the issue again (I have to search for a book), will let you know.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC))

Kiengir, if you read some book of unknown quality and you do not remember the name and/or the author then you should not make mysterious references to such "research".--Ditinili (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, there are too many conjunctive "if" and prejudicative assumptions in your sentence. Hopefully once we may make the issue clear.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

OK. If you are unable to clarify your comment and you also don´t rember the source, we can close the issue.--Ditinili (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, it is just a temporary "unability", practically from more thousand pages of material read I cannot recall just on demand everything instantly. When I'll have the chance, will let you know.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

Maybe, you can summarize the main idea... The theory that the original name of Svatopluk was not Svatopluk sounds interesting.--Ditinili (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, unfortunately that main idea I cannot recall now, I read it more years ago...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

No comment. --Ditinili (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. If I'd be a machine with a gigantic memory, I could recall it quickly. Until I'll have just human capabilities.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC))

You don't have to be a machine, On the other hand, it is not reasonable to refer to a theory for which you do not know the source, the author, or what it is about,--Ditinili (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ditinili:, I understand your motive, it is the best when all the information is present at once, though lacking such details it does not necessarily mean there would not be an issue, as in a general way we know controversies in some fields or timelines. Sorry for any inconvenience, I would be eager on the details similarly.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

TURANISM ARTICLE

Why did you restore the non-related Habsburg oppression parts of the text? It has nothing to do with turanism, since these harsh Germanization and neo-absolutist centralization attempts were equally forced in non-Hungarian (Polish, Italian Czech etc..) territories too. So it has nothing to do with linguistic theories like turanism. It would be better to move it to the Germanization article, maybe as "Germanization in Kingdom of Hungary" section.--Draguler (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Draguler:,

so more detailed, I just restored a little part of the original content, that emphasized that Hasburgs had an influence on that period - that cannot be ignored or denied -, not going into the details or the debate on what degree and how much would it affect necessarily any theory. Completely we should not ignore, it may be part of any article that discusses any similar or relevant topic in the context.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

There are no scholars in Hungary, who take seriously the Habsburg conspiracy theory against turkic linguistic kinship, there are no proof for that, even the deleted text couldn't prove it, despite the writer tried to support his conspiracy theory, which was invented only in the 1970s. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, There is metapedia org for fantasies and conspiracy theories. Every modern pseudo-scientific theory (let it be related to science & technology or history) contains also a conspiracy theory for less educated gullible people. They must address the the question, why do the real scholars (university teachers and researcher scholars/scientists) reject their fantastic theories, their usual answer can have two types. First type (A): The scholars/scientists are all stupid globally, they don't know what they do. (very few people believe that answer.) Second type (B): The scientists and scholars globally conspired against the "truth", because of various reasons (they are evil...anti-Hungarian anti - XXXX , or they were bribed (globally) by the Jews, the Freemasons etc...

The deleted parts belong to the Type B reasoning.--Draguler (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Draguler:,

what remained is good sourced (including academic and quality sources as well) and having mostly solid and general satements), so for any further claim please turn to Wikiproject Hungary, involving more people may result in more broad feedback.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

Wrong. In such case, it does not matter if it is sourced or not, it is a clear off-topic theme, and he try to use off-topic references to make a feeling that the Habsburg conspiracy is true. None of his own sources support the Habsburg conspiracy. I can write countless well sourced (And off-topic thees) sentences in any article. As I said, it belongs to the Germanization article or the 19th century Hungarian history. --Draguler (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Draguler:,

as I asked earlier, please take this to Wikiproject Hungary and gain consensus there. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palatine of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hey, i saw your reverts at Khazars, have you considered to use Twinkle ? It should be useful. If you need any help in order to use it, please let me know. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani:, hi, well since a time I considered about the subject, instead of one click to undo not appropriate/useful edits, but I ended up to apply once rollback rights, instead of having a supplementary tool. Already having a watchlist with more thousand pages, but I had a little time to care about the application. If you have any further recommendation just tell me, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for taking the time to read and reply me. It seems that you're already aware of many stuffs on Wiki. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

AustrianFreedom

Hi Kiengir, would you mind going through R.Saringer's edit history and undoing the damage hes caused? I notice you must be a to undo multiple edits and he made a lot. There's also an IP that was also blocked. Thanks--Ermenrich (talk)

@Ermenrich:, done. regarding the Sonja Veselinović article I did not do anything, I was unable to decide at once what I should restore to, since from the beginning it was mainly edited and created by the correspondent user. Thus this one please check yourself, the rest I did. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC))

The revert

It was mistake sorry about that --Shrike (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC))

Reverted change

Hello KIENGIR!

I saw you undid my modification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans#Andronovo

The paper seems to state clearly that the majority were light-eyed and that 25 not 26 specimens were tested: "...the typing of a SNP associated to eye color (rs12913832) shows that at least 60% (15/25) of the Siberian specimens had blue (or green) eyes...".

Link to the paper: https://www.podgorski.com/main/assets/documents/Keyser_2009.pdf

Thanks for your attention! Ferdinand Karl (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank You as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC))

Edits in Art Nouveau article

Hello,

you were involved in reverting the changes of Art Nouveau article. To publicly discuss the reasons why I created, you reverted and another users dismisses the changes I created the section of the talk page: Talk:Art_Nouveau#Links_to_pages_of_Wikis_in_other_language

Please add your opinion if you have anything to add to the already described position of mine. Improver 03 04 (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I opened the debate about the structure of Secession subsections and invite you to take part at Talk:Art_Nouveau(as you were involved in editing these subsections). Improver 03 04 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Hello, I'm Mr. Guye. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Turul have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye:,

I did not add any link to the article, I just reverted a bold edit. I did not know that information you presented in the edit log. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC))

Bias on Central Europe

You seem to post in a matter that appears biased rather than that of a neutral point of view. On the page Central Europe, you removed my edits made regarding the updated Human Globalization Index, Legatum Prosperity Index, and Corruption Perceptions Index. Futhermore, you removed the Baltic states, which are part of Mitteleuropa, yet deliberately leave Balkan states like Croatia and Serbia. You then tell me a consensus must be reached, yet no consensus was reached at all regarding incorporating Croatia and Serbia in the definition in the first place. Either the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and the two Balkan states - Serbia and Croatia stay in the definition, or by default all must get removed. You cannot cherry-pick your own definitions based on your own personal view. That is not how Wikipedia works and operates. Please take your concerns, questions, etc. to the talk page rather than reverting my edits of good faith and engaging in a one-sided bias. Thank you. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop with groundless accusations, there is no "one sided-bias/cherrypick/personal view", there are WP policies (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS) that you systematically ignore (thus you should not make such statements you would know how WP works), discuss those details with that user who as well reverted you twice. As well warning me of entering to the talk page cannot be taken serious, since I was the one who asked you to do this, and I immediately entered there. My revert was legal, per BRD. Mentioning WP:AGF means that should at least follow the policies you offer two others, since you as well harmed this principle by many prejudicative, improper accusations against me.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC))

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -185.41.130.3 (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KIENGIR reported by 185.41.130.3 (Result: ). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

G. Kubatov

You undid my edition (about his Azerbaijani background). I found it's here: https://prabook.com/web/gabor.kubatov/2325420. If this is reliable source, I'll add it to the article. Also it seemed for me obviously, that "Kubatov" not a Hungarian surname (in Azerbaijani wiki also indicated, that he is from their origins. Unfortunately, without any link). But if this source not counted as reliable, I'll leave it as you done. With the best regards,--Noel baran (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S. Also here, but maybe also not too serious: https://hvg.hu/velemeny.nyuzsog/20151110_Legyen_itt_is_Kanada

AustrianFreedom

I've started a [investigation]. I would still suggest you contact an admin, as that usually speeds things up.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The IP's been blocked for a week. Apparently they don't do checkusers on IPs, but it does get a faster response than when you don't ask for one. We'll see if he comes back.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a question

Greetings. I've noticed that you're my main collaborator in working on the Battle of Transylvania article. Thankyou for your help. However, given that you seem to be closely monitoring my progress, I do have a question. Who should I put first in the infobox: Germany or Austria-Hungary? Two of the three Romanian armies were fought off by Germany, but the Austro-Hungarians apparently had the larger numbers among the two Central Powers. So, who's first in the infobox: the one who did the most or the one who had the most numbers? I personally incline to the former, hence why I put Germany first. Transylvania1916 (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Transylvania1916:,

sure, gladly. Well to your question, you listed two aspects how it may be seen...now I list a subjective one - as the two of yours - that Kingdom of Romania attacked Hungary at first glance, thus Austria-Hungary (of course, with this move, as well the Central Powers), so it may be put as well on the first place...however, if we wish to ignore all possible subjective viewpoint, then the most neutral is - and this resolved as well many other issues - to apply the alphabetical order, thus noone can charge any of us we favor any part because of any reason. Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC))

Alright then, I put Austria-Hungary first in the infobox, but at the commanders section I left the German one first. Because, as I wrote and cited in the "Aftermath" section, it was the Germans who had overall command. In any case, I am pretty much done with the article. If I do find more interesting related stuff, I will add next week. Unfortunately I won't be able to edit over the week-end. Thus I request from you: please show this article to peer reviewers, spell checkers and the like, because I want it to be as good as possible, and I don't think I can achieve that by myself, especially given my lack of experience on the Wiki. Even though Google Books offers only a preview of the main book I used, I found means to largely amend that. By using different browsers and different devices, I've managed to ultimately get all about the Battle of Transylvania, apart from a few pages relating to the Battle of Brasov and the last page, page 126. If there are any overall casualties mentioned, or any official date for the end of the battle, it should be there, beyond my reach. Yet another reason to contact other users, so maybe they can complete the article besides reviewing it. I made my account after making sure I could get 90% of the information. I'm done overall with the article, please spread about it to other users so we may get additional help. Regards. Transylvania1916 (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916:,

Ok, will do, best regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC))

Since there is no such thing as an "Aryan Race" I think the lead should make that clear

Hello, I am very concerned that the entry on Aryan Race supports (perhaps unintentionally) the false claim that there is such a thing as an "Aryan Race."

Here is what another Wiki page has to say on the subject of Race.

"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.[1] The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations. By the 17th century the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits. Modern scholarship regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.[1][2]

"Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[3] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[4] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[5][6][7][8][9]

As it stand now the page could have been written by a White Supremacist. I am sure we all want to avoid that impression. Since there is no such thing as an "Aryan Race" I think the lead should make that clear.

Chip.berlet (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chip.berlet:,

Hi, you shouldn't have worried, I checked other articles about races (shall it be considered outdated or not), and I did not see such you introduced.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC))

Using Nazis as source of history for Poland

Please do not reintroduce work based on well known Nazis publications. This is simply not acceptable on Wikipedia,you are free to use other sources but Kuhn was well known Nazi activist who advocated genocide of Poles, his works are not reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount, please review Talk:Middle High German#The dtv-Atlas is now a contentious Nazi publication?. It is not a Nazi publication, it is BASED on a respected postwar publication.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Read on Walter Kuhn, Nazi advocating genocide of Poles and involved in propaganda. Unacceptable and unreliable source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

It is the de:dtv-Atlas. Acceptable and reliable.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, it a well known Nazi Walter Kuhn who advocated German supremacy and genocide of other nations.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear @MyMoloboaccount:,

Your argumentation is not profesionnal, based on a repetitive flaw, because again, in WP the judge respected works reliability, not the author's other charachetristic (thus, repeating n times of Kuhn's stance of Nazism and other ideologies is useless). Do you think i.e. Philipp Lenard and his scientific work is void because he was sympathizing with the Nazis? Are you serious? @Ermenrich: has right, you are talking about potato, he is talking about apple.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC))

@Ermenrich:, to your attention ([10]).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC))

August 2019

Hello, you may stop doing unconstructive and disruptive contributions on Treaty of Campo Formio. The treaty in itself obeys strict conventions rules: the depositary is the French Republic, the text in French making authority over any other versions. The document is formally registered as "Treaty between the French Republic and Austria". As such the Monarch of the HRE and the Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary was depositary of the authority on the Austrian territories and its monarchy. This treaty is based on facts and not historical interpretations.

So, again : stop introducing false and subjective information on a subject you don't seem to understand.

Regards. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien:,

I am not doing any unconstructive and disruptive contributions excuse me, but professional contributions. The fact how the documents is "formally registered" does not override between which parties the treaty has been made, in written (of course we may mention it how it is registered, etc.). What you said for Bohemia is true, fro Hungary not, as it has been a separate kingdom and country, having only a Habsburg King. This treaty is based on facts and not historical interpretations -> that's why it is obvious that the treaty and the whole conflict was not just beetween Austria proper, but the whole Habsburg Monarchy, and you've got enough clue in the edit log as well, that you unfortunately did not take into account entirely.

Thus, please in the future ignore such inappropriate comments like "So, again : stop introducing false and subjective information on a subject you don't seem to understand."

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

"professional contributions": if that were true, you would have conserved the original title. "Professionals" do not under any circumstance alter historic information. You response definitely confirmed you don't understand the subject. The Monarch that reigned over the Austrian territories was titled Emperor of the Romans and King of Bohemia and Hungary, don't know what the fact Hungary was a separate kingdom comes there. "that's why it is obvious": that isn't and it not up to you to make such claim. You need proof that do not contradict the treaty to claim that. Last thing : the territories concerned by the treaty are all qualified of Austrian in the treaty. The armies involved are qualified of French and Austrian. The treaty directly referred to the Archduke and the Archduchess. Those are facts. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien:,

I kindly ask to drop inappropriate accusations and better seek some information before you dare to say again I would not understand the subject or anything else:

- do not under any circumstance alter historic information -> I altered to amore accurate information (and as I told, that is different how the treaty may referred by some parties or what is in the treaty in fact)

- you response definitely confirmed you don't understand the subject -> Nope, boomerang....

- The Monarch that reigned over the Austrian territories was titled Emperor of the Romans and King of Bohemia and Hungary -> This we agree, having that Hungary was not an "Austrian territory", but ruled by the Austrian Branch of the Habsburgs

- Last thing : the territories concerned by the treaty are all qualified of Austrian in the treaty. -> It does not mean the party was not the Habsburg Monarchy as Austria was the nucleus of it.

- The armies involved are qualified of French and Austrian. ->It was the Habsburg Army, including those 10 000 Hungarians the French captured.

- The facts are the signing party was the representant of the Habsburg Monarchy, that you also did not deny by your edits.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

You altered, full stop, this shouldn't happen on Wikipedia: this an encyclopedia referenced with reliable sources. "ruled by the Austrian Branch of the Habsburgs": which is the Austrian Monarchy. "does not mean the party was not the Habsburg Monarchy": where in the document does it mean that this is indeed the whole Habsburg monarchy ? Nowhere unfortunately. "It was the Habsburg Army": they are not referred to as such, you are interpreting, once again. "was the representant of the Habsburg Monarchy": It isn't written that at all. The signatory represent the Monarch reigning over the Austrian territories. Golden rule: do not interprete historical documents, especially if you do not know the whole context in which it was written.

So, given your comments, I higly doubt you read the document, and if so, understood it.

Regards - CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien:,

it seems you are newbie editor with less experience, again please drop such inapropriate statements like "full stop" or similar that does even fit to the context or the framework of the events and the discussion, at the same timpe please do not teach me about WP's core content policies after near 9 years of experience.

- Read back again it if was not clear; noone said there was not an alteration, the question was to what

- "ruled by the Austrian Branch of the Habsburgs": which is the Austrian Monarchy. -> which the Hasburg Monarchy, also called sometimes as Austrian Monarchy

- where in the document does it mean that this is indeed the whole Habsburg monarchy -> where it is mentioned in the document that it is a peace treaty between the French Republic and Austria? Then why you don't change the Habsburg Monarchy wikilink to something less?

- "It was the Habsburg Army": they are not referred to as such, you are interpreting, once again. -> as you should know, it is a general knowledge of the subject, what we speak of is the (Habsburg) Imperial Army, it is not my interpretation but a basic fact. Never heard about it?

- "was the representant of the Habsburg Monarchy": It isn't written that at all. -> Is Austrian Monarchy written?

- The signatory represent the Monarch reigning over the Austrian territories. -> Then why don't you change the linking to Archduchy of Austria then?

- Golden rule: do not interprete historical documents, especially if you do not know the whole context in which it was written. -> if you knew the whole context, why you are recurrently contradicting yourself?

Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

"it seems you are newbie editor with less experience, again please drop such inapropriate statements like "full stop" or similar that does even fit to the context or the framework of the events and the discussion, at the same timpe please do not teach me about WP's core content policies after near 9 years of experience." Maybe now will be the right moment to read again those policies you didn't fully understood. Given your past history that can be seen on this talk page, I think I'm helping you. However, if you continue making such statement, I will be forced to formaly report you.

Please also refrain from posting unfounded notices on other users talk pages. It will be interpreted as a personnal grudge. You are not qualified enough nor sufficiently objective to do so.

All the question where already adressed previously.

The case is closed. Regards - CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien:,

Maybe now will be the right moment to read again those policies you didn't fully understood -> This is an improper statement, simply your opinion, please stop such kind of accusasions, a t least the third time I ask you for this.

If you think you are helping me, why you do not follow WP:AGF?

However, if you continue making such statement, I will be forced to formaly report you. -> Could you tell me what statement do you refer?

Please also refrain from posting unfounded notices on other users talk pages." -> sorry it was not unfolded ([11]), read please WP:Civility.

It will be interpreted as a personnal grudge. -> No, on the other hand personal grudge may be considered that you started this discussion and further accusations on my talk page, although the issue would belong to the article's talk page.

You are not qualified enough nor sufficiently objective to do so. -> Excuse me, I don't understand, what you refer exactly??

All the question where already adressed previously. -> No, these are new questions...

The case is closed. -> what do you it mean exactly by this? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

Kuhn

Do you have an opinion about MyMoloboaccount's edits at Walter Kuhn? I'm rather reluctant to get into a fight about them, but I can't help but feel that there are some serious WP:WEIGHT and POV issues. If other editors think I'm wrong I'll feel better about just letting the article go.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:,

I think you made useful contributions to the article, I was assessing the development continously, but per your request, I'll review his edits, since you did not object him much, I was considering everything is on the right path. Generally - I have to say - don't let anything ever go, if you do believe you are on the right path, especially because you are a valuable contributor that likes to really investigate all issues, shall it be controversial, "dangerous" or considered to opening a can of worms...."letting go" never would be good a solution, because sooner or later if not you, other's will intervene (the question is how, pretty unpredictable), but the guarantee of the most NPOV approach cannot miss even you. As you may see, I've been as well many times running into hot issues, but regardless of the sensitivity or any pressure or possible accusations, if you serve the most neutral content possible with good faith and the maximum accuracy, it will be noticed by others as well. Just see what I've been through in the Responsibility for the Holocaust article, check the events and the talk, people may be easily misunderstood or accused at first glance, similarly to the Kuhn isssue, but this should not keep us back to drop the possibility to develop this encyclopedia the most accurate as possible. Regards and keep on your good work on the project! (disclaimer for any third party: this is not a canvassing, I do not wish Ermenrich to take sides or intervene in the mentioned article, I just responded on a similar issue - WWII topic - demonstrating that the solution is not to give up a hard issue just because you might have been instantly labeled in a negative manner, similarly as it happened by the Kuhn map issue, NPOV should be really NPOV, shall anyone/any topic to be the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

Thank you. I've explained some of my issues on the talk page there so that MyMoloboaccount might address them. My main concern is that he seems to be doing a search for any time Walter Kuhn name appears in the vicinity of any type of criticism, whether it's specific to Kuhn or not. The WW2 section also seems to rely heavily on sources that are simply summarizing (often inaccurately) scholarship by Burleigh that's already in the article.

I'm honestly getting very tired of these battles. Maybe I need to take a break from Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:, I reviewed the article, and I noticed your concern. I the talk page you indicated the problem, however in Wikiproject Germany you added more details regarding a misleading citation that I did not find in the article's talk, maybe you should also copy there this concern (and as well leave a notice on Wikiproject Poland, to recruit Polish readers). Regarding the phenomenon I just indicated in my discussion on the other page referred earlier, when I started discussions on Polish-WWII related articles, soon I was confronted if I would be a Polish-accuser that amazed me, beucase I was told there are many and as I see those articles, nearly five-six editors on daily basis rendering issues with discussions that would be a real duty to entirely follow or analyze, but it seems circling on how Poles are responsible or not responsibe on the events related Jews and Nazis, rendering everyday NPOV issues. I informed them I am NOT a Polish-accuser (neither I did anything that would appear like so, despite this was the initial step in order to "decide" my possible evaluation), just accuracy and neutrality leads me, it seems after a few "pinches" I'v found the common voice with them, however also in other articles (shall it be Huns, Turkic-related articles, or WWII/Holocaust/Nazism) I see a tendency that fresh editors/contributors are very likely to be labeled or considered taking one side by others that blinds the real neutrality issues; in other word to remain at the real point. I consider this harmful and too prejudicative, however it should not make any editor to be afraid of frankly straight discussions of the problem, since that is the professional way, discussion and argumentation may be not any means condemned (I mean you would be immediately labeled that you are just arguing to prove your point, thus you are surely biased and not neutral, and if you'd argue further, that would mean you would not accept you are commited to that side, etc.). Returning back to the Polish-WW2 issues, if often looks to a third party editor if would be a competition that who was a bigger and more horrible Nazi, shall it be Polish-collaborator/Jewish collaborator, etc. and sometimes some particular points are missing where not this qualifier would be the most relevant at some issues, or similar with other subjects. Hence, it is not easy with sensitive issues filled with possible prejudications, unnecessary "battles" are time consuming and taking away precious happy editing time, I agree but even you take some Wikibreak, return soon :), the project needs you.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victor Capesius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Szerdahely (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Sumer

I've left a note concerning the Phenotype subsection on the talk page. LetsEditConstructively (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

1 September 2019

Hello, I'm Jeff6045. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fidesz without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

(talk • contribs) Jeff6045 00:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff6045:,

sure, but this was an issue a long time and have been discussed many times, that's why such trials are reverted immediately.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC))

:Mainstream media such as new york times, time or al jazeera is placing Fidesz on the far-right. For example National Rally (France) has far-right position in Wikipedia because french mainstream media or international media is placing the party on the far-right. Also portugal Left Bloc has far left position due to same reason. Fidesz couldn't be an exception. In addition if there is argumentative issues on Fidesz it should be Semi-protected or at least there should be an explanation such as Brexit party.

@Jeff6045:,

The so-called "mainstream" view is not uniform, we have to be neutral here. New York Times is the traditional criticist of not just Orbán since almost twenty years, but as well Trump and anybody who have a different opinion of solving the migration crisis of Europe, etc. That's why we put criticism and other desciptions on the sections I referred but, we don't alter party positions because of the political ideology and agenda of some opposition media that are just accusing with some yeasty labelings, however the reality is totally different. Your possible generalization of other parties are not counting here, because we have to judge every case individually, especially in the Hungarian political paletta, where there are in fact really two far-right parties in opposition against Fidesz.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC))

:I respect your opinion. But you should know that your action is damaging fairness in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to open your own political opinion but to edit article due to rational sources. It is your own choice whther you place Fidesz's political position to right-wing or far-right. But I want to notice you that people who support national rally do not think their party is far-right but they think mainstream medias or majority of critics are against their party. I will not revert my revision to the article, however if you want to protect fairness in Wikipedia you should add far-right position to Fidesz party. Thank you. (Jeff6045 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jeff6045:,

I respect also yours, but please understand - I have a relevant experience on WP - that especially the opposite is happening, I prevent damaging fairness of Wikipedia (and it cannot be interpreted as "my action", it is based on a consensus made a long time ago where to put such other accusative descriptions). You were also told it is not my opinion, it is a fact that the party is not far-right, and as well our edits should support accuracy, because there are famous cases in WP where more reliable sources are contradicting each other, or are just simply inaccurate, there the editors common sense and good faith is needed to carefully chose in order to provide to the reader an accurate information!

people who support national rally do not think their party is far-right -> maybe this would be true for some people, also the same way it could be said people who support left-wing policy accused the opposition's every move to be far-right, as this has been the way of communication unfortunately, that both sides are making accusations for political purposes. Especially, the opposition parties in Hungary openly dislike Fidesz and criticize it, but none of them considers/treats or even accuses the part being far-right, because people would laugh and it would be the joke of the century (Hungary has a relevant history with real far-right parties, so every knows what is what, etc.), etc. Such accusations came from those media groups that are opposing any conservative-right wing policy that does not share the same views of the left-liberal parties, mostly how to handle migration crisis and the future of the European Union, hence our duty is to remain netural (WP:NPOV), and not let WP to be the battleground of political interest groups. That's why per consensus, exaggerated criticism goes to the "Ideology and policies" section. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC))

Hello

Look, I wouldn't have removed anything but the pages are conflictually written. We should have avoided to discuss censuses, Trianons, plus we should have also included unofficial history where there is. Otherwise the towns in Transylvania are Hungarised. Is it fair? This is concensus and universal history? I will personally write to any page the official census of Transylvania, written by Hungarian authors. Because it's confusing like the Romanians were only 10-20% or so in Transylvania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikastul (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ikastul:,

hello, I don't really understand what do you mean by conflictually written and why we should avoid any discussion or any census, official happenings, or what you'd mean regarding unofficial history...moreover, I don't know what you you mean by this sentence: Otherwise the towns in Transylvania are Hungarised. ?? Thus your further questions at this point should be clarified. On you lart sentence, I don't know what is your problem, since anyway official censuses were there, i.e. from 1910, i.e. that did not reflect what you suggest.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC))

Deletion of Nazi affiliation of Nazi activist and historian Walter Kuhn

Please do not delete information that Walter Kuhn was a Nazi, this is sourced to numerous sources and his involvement in ethnic cleansing by Nazis is well researched. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount:,

are you kidding? I did not delete that he was Nazi, it is mentioned in the lead an as well in the entire article. You pretend if there would not be a discussion about this in the talk or in the NPOV board, but it was, and you did not gain consensus for any change, even your first bold edit regarding this was made under a false claim that it would be a restoration, although your addition was never part of the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC))

Re: Congrats

The final fixtures in November will be very interesting, a drama in the making. :) Tzowu (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look here?

You've offered your opinion before. I opened up an RFC on wording because one other editor keeps reverting, would you mind adding your opinion? [12]? Faustian (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Will do.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC))

Researching the statement: ...." In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the family owned many castles and large residences. It's said that they owned up to 99 castles but never 100 as this would have required their personal contribution to fund the imperial army."....

Hi, I came across this statement : ..."In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the family owned many castles and large residences. It's said that they owned up to 99 castles but never 100 as this would have required their personal contribution to fund the imperial army."... on the wiki page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pálffy_ab_Erdöd&oldid=910976523

I have no idea "how" wiki works, and was trying to email the creator of this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pálffy_ab_Erdöd&oldid=910976523, where he would have found this claim/statement. what historic book it might come from, etc., etc..

Sadly, after 20 minutes of surfing wiki, I still have no clue why there are no email addresses of writers here to be found.

Could you possibly help me find the right track and the right way of communication so that I could find out who wrote this page with this specific statement?

any help guiding me into the right direction would be much appreciated,

Regards,

Akos Simon email: akosimon@me.com

I am a direct descendent of the Pálffy-Daun of Erdöd family, and hence am very curious where this claim of 99 castles came from. I am not doubting it, but I never heard of it before. It would be fun to be able to see the source of this statement.

Hi,

@2A05:DCC0:13:6600:94F4:B4FD:4287:73EA:, I either did find information to support the statement. An anynimous IP Address added the content ([13]), on the user's talkpage ([14]) - that is currently empty - you mask from where he took the information, however since IP addresses may vary, it is not sure the recipient will be now like then...though I'll help you to ping the user here to read our discussion, and may respond to you.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC))

Merry Christmas/ Boldog Karácsonyt!

Hi! Things I dislike on Wikipedia: 1. We need to be careful with the ethnicity of the players, there are names in Romania that sound Hungarian but are not. It might have been Hungarisation or not, I am not an expert. 2. If you want to add (not you of course, but the nationalists) to the introduction that he is Hungarian (might be "also" Hungarian) then at least write "Hungarian descent" and not "Hungarian ethnicity". If you can't add a source showing the player has two Hungarian parents, although this is probably also wrong. It is allowed but normally it should be written like that only if both parents are Hungarian. Otherwise find if the parents are of different ethnicities, then write that at Personal Life/ Early Years. 3. Some nationalists are degrading the articles of some Romanian players just because they are of Hungarian descent/ even ethnicity. If they are born in Romania, and they also didn't switch for Hungary, just add Romanian sources (links). PS. Maybe I should have not removed that at Szekely Land NT. If I wanted to manipulate, I could have easily add them a Romanian flag instead of the Szekely one. Jakab trained Romania Futsal and Ilyes is Romanian. PSS. Some nationalists are so stupid to believe some Hungarian descent was not called up by Romania because of his origin. No, if a player was not convoked, he was not good enough. Many players have been called up by youth national teams not to lose them because they have potential. The nationalists are still brainwashed with lies everywhere in the world. I am not talking about history but about how are the things happening (they think they live in WW1/ WW2). Cheers, mate! End-of-season-updates (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@End-of-season-updates:,

Merry Christams also to you!

1. Sure.

2. I have to diagree you judge people adding true content to the article would be "nationalists", there is not much difference between "descent" and "ethnicity" in that context, i.e. where you replaced this wordage, anyway they are clear cases, descent would be more eligible if the Hungarian origin is distant by any means (like Keserü), but not where it is direct or present. Your deduction as per defining is nationality is fallacious, someone is not Hungarian whether both of the parents are Hungarian or proved to be Hungarian, anyway even enough one parent would be enough this anyway, ethnicity may be a more complex thing influenced by also other parameters. Moreover if the parents are mixed, it is not necessarily excluded to identify in the lead the origin, it anyway does not deminuate the other parents nationality that probably in such case you refer is on the first place.

3.I don't see what degradion you refer. WP has it sourcing policy, and does not favor Romanian sources over Hungarian or vica versa, thus you don't need to remove Hungarian sources and replace them with Romanian.

PS: The flags you removed has also not very clear to me, maybe it indicated the citizenship, i.e. holding both Hungarian and Romanian, but it is less likely, so none should be re-added unless FIFA nationality is proved to be Hungarian (active players are identified by their FIFA nationality on the first place). Also we should not confuse nationality with ethnicity, because Ilyés is Romanian citizen, thus he is "Romanian" coach, but his ethnicity is Hungarian.

PSS: I don't know from where you have these experiences, since as well recently playesr of Hungarian descent are called in the Romanian national team, but yes, brainwashed liars are everywhere in the world. Cheers, as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC))

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sebi Buduroi '99 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious? Happy New Year :) (KIENGIR (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC))

The borders of Southeastern Europe

KIENGIR, it has come to my concern about the status of Hungary and whether it should be considered a Southeastern European country or not. Hungary's shared Carpathian/Pannonian heritage and centuries of cultural diffusion with Romania and Moldova should deserve it a place in the greater Southeastern European community (including South Slavs, Greeks, Albanians, and Turks). Moreover, Hungary was located at the furthest frontier of the Ottomans, which much of Southeastern European culture derives from, and I don't know where you got the information that Hungary was considered Southeastern European until after WWII. So, I'd like to know why Hungary is not considered Southeastern European. Blacklister3000 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blacklister3000:,

Hi, let's make then more clear the topic.

Hungary historically have been considered much of it existence a Central-European country, that is correct. As well nowadays it is a central-European country (with it's reduced borders), however it has been often considered or treated as an Eastern European country, mostly becuase of the Iron gate and the post WWII Communist barrier of the non-Communist Western side of Europe, and the intrepretations narrowed to West and East. After the fall of Communism, people used and often confused the terms Eastern-Central Europe or Central-Eastern Europe, (the earlier is correct for Hungary, if we see detailed). If you check the relevant articles, interpretations vary over time, however looking on wider tendencies we may easily determine what designation would be correct - despite there a few cases where it is harder.

The Carpathian/Pannonian heritage historically belongs along with Hungary the Western Christian heritage, as historically the cultural and religious barrier was between the Roman Catholic and Byzantine influence, following Hungary to the East or South the Orthodox influence was present. Because of this, no way it may be classified to the South Slavs, Greeks, Albanians, and Turks, that were part not just culturally, but geographically a significantly different sphere, practically the Balkan peninsula with some extents. With Romania Hungary did not share centuries of cultural diffusion (with Wallachia yes, similarly with Moldova, as former neighbors and regarding other feudal relations of course some interference happened, but they undoubtedly with their Orthodox customs and heritage belong to the East, as the Carpathian mountains had been the classic delimiter or the Western cultural sphere, and better they adopted more western influence, than vica versa). As you said, Hungary had been the barrier of the Ottoman Empire, but just the barrier, not itself belonging to it (even some part had been occpied and annexed temporarily).

If you check interwar or WWII terminologies on cultural, racial aspects, works, discussions, shall they be German or Hungarian or ther, the concept of Southeastern Europe appears, as Hungary being on the barrier or crossroads of it, borderd by the Orthodox eastern culture on the East, the Balkan on the south with similar and Ottoman influence, etc. Especially, if you read the ideologies on Hungarism an related works, the phrase you'll find, however as demonstrated above, it is obsolete and outdated, never really had been permanent.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

Repeated edit warring

Your recent editing history at Hungarian language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeppiz (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: ,

Are you kidding? The frame of edit warring may depend on specific context, but more likely only after the second revert (and better only if the talk page have not been used), this notification is too early, to say nothing of I acted per policy, without harming any rule, you also did not take into consideration that the other user seem have a little experince here, may not know properly our policies.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

• You have reverted three times in just a few hours. That very much falls under WP:3RR and any further revert is likely to lead a to a block.
• You do not act per policy. WP:BRD applies to all users. Only if there is vandalism can you ignore WP:3RR, not in a content dispute like this.
• The level of experience of another user is no excuse for edit warring.
• With all due respect: I'd caution you against claiming others don't know policies, especially given the misunderstanding you make above. Jeppiz (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do not get me wrong. I do not doubt your good intentions. On the contrary, I'm sure your motives are good. I just want to point out the above. The only time one can ignore 3RR is in vandalism or sock-puppets. Being right, or being in line with consensus, is not an excuse for edit warring. And edit warring does not have to be the exact same edit; if you restore the same thing three times, as with the 'traditional classication', it counts as 3RR. Again, I'm sure your intentions are good so these pointers just meant to help you. Jeppiz (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:,

• you know very well you did not take again into consideration, that is per editor? (thus, your first point is not really accurate, since the other user made 4 edits, if we would really strictly see any change wholly or partially, at least you should have warn as well him/her in case, if you have chosen to do with me, btw.)

• Yes, I acted - see previous as well -, I reverted to the previous version, while the other user did not (thus, i.e. the other user did not apply BRD, since then he/she would at least revert to an identical version before Kwami, but it did not happen, check the diffs!).

• I did not made any "excuse", I repeat I do not agree that what happened went over the frame of edit-warring (and not even my behalf, so I have to protest again the name of this section, since not by any means repeated edit warring occured)

• Becuase of the previous, I did not make any misunderstandings, you may be sure I am strictly precise. I kindly ask you to be so in the future, and less sudden before judging the events.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC))

Clarification regarding birthplace of Leo Szilard

@KIENGIR:
others see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_Szilard&diff=937393587&oldid=937221126

Being on your talk page and noticing all those warnings and possible blockings I can totally see where you are coming from and what your point of view is. That being said I still want to explain this topic to you.
You are arguing about citizenship, but this is not what I was referring to. There is no denying that Leo was Hungarian and always has been. Also regarding the dual citizenship, there was no dual citizenship as you stated correctly. I didn't say otherwise. CumbererStone said that it wasn't allowed and that was just incorrect. Now back to the main topic with a little bit of citizenship along the line. Before 1867 and the compromise with the Kingdom of Hungary there was the Austrian Empire with its crownlands, which the kingdom of hungary was part of and it was one of the crownlands. Everyone had their Landtag and they were basically administrative units, de facto they where subjects. The austrian empire had a few constitutions which technically said that everyone was "Austrian" or at least a citizen of the austrian empire. There where like four constitutions in a short period of some decades and one of them even disputed, not fully acknowledged and not applied. This is quite a difficult topic because from my understanding the whole "citizenship" was just under development in the beginning of the 19th century, especially in the multinational states. Again citizenship is not the topic here.
Then there was the compromise with the hungarian kingdom and now we have two equal states, the austrian empire and the kingdom of hungary, each with their crownlands (yes the kingdom of croatia was one of them albeit in a personal union under hungarian rule, and no they where no standalone (independent) kingdom) under the rule of the austrian emperor, as emperor of austria and apostolic king of hungary, in the dual monarchy of the austro-hungarian empire. So hungary was not a standalone kingdom as it was part of said austro-hungarian empire. Yes of course he was born in the Kingdom of Hungary, this is not wrong but only valid to some degree and they are definitely not interchangable as you stated and as explained above the correct and more precise term is Austria-Hungary.
Goalgetter9 (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Goalgetter9:,

Excuse me, I do not understand what you are refferring in your first two sentences, anyway you are inaccurate, since many warnings were useless and made by mistake - even explained - and the warner's point has been lost later and I was justified. Hence your statement I can totally see where you are coming from and what your point of view is is a superficial prejudication without any real content and knowledge.

You explanation is as well here false. Yes, the topic is the citizenship, and Hungary was a crownland, but different from all, since it was Regnum Independens, a separate country only having a common monarch with Austrian Empire's (and never ever any subject of Hungary was Austrian or had Austrian citizenship). Equality after 1867 meant only there was an alleged equality on introducing some joint institutions in the Monarchy. Croatia has always been separate never being part Hungary proper as well. Hungary has been a standalone kingdom (being part of a monarchy is not exclusive and different, Habsburg Monarchy was as well never a country), then and after, contrary to your argumentation, which shows the lack of expertise knowledge in the topic, that has been already discussed in the several years entirely (in Europe's history, btw, many countries had same monarchs without uniting them, remaining completely separate, it is a real problem you still do not understand not the King or common King descide on this question). So yes, they are interchangeable and redundant, it is only a courtesy if Austria-Hungary is shown, because it was not even a country, just a Monarchy.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC))

Clarification.

What was your reason for erasing my edit regarding The Kingdom of Poland?

-thanks!

Mogue 051914 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mogue 051914:,

as written in the edit log "technical revert, the infobox get damaged by the coat of arms oversized...fix it please somehow..."...you may check the page after your revision, an see it by your eyes...you may try again and work until it's ok...if still no success, ask help from Wikiproject Poland! Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC))

Alright, thank you! Will sort it out. Apologizes for the bother (also I could've just checked the edit log, which I didn't do, whatever). Thank you again and bye! Mogue 051914 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Kovács Gyula

Erre mi a forrás? Ha valóban 125 évet élt, az világrekord, így elég szkeptikus vagyok. Igazából, ha nem te szerkesztetted volna, nyomban visszaállítottam volna a lap tartalmát, de így tényleg kíváncsi vagyok. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Norden1990:,

thanks for your trust and message :), but honestly, I did not realize such honorable lifespan...I was disturbed having no info, but the Arabic WP somehow contained this information along with the death place data...in case you consider the death date is fringe, then feel free to delete it or add a cn tag, but I think the death place should remain.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

Hungarian version provides the year 1963 with the source: Unfortunately, I have no Family Search access to check the validity of the source, put by an anon into the article in July 2019. Anyway, here, in English wiki, there was an user eight years ago, who claimed he is the great-grandson of Gyula Kovács. Unfortunately, he did not respond my request thereafter and never edited Wikipedia again. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Norden1990:,

recently I edited Lawrence Gellert, where also many details are obscorous, I tried as well FamSearch, but there would be more László Grünbaum with different birth dates - the one would consider it is really a rare name -, I have no access either...well, you and I did everything we could...maybe other Hungarian editors may search what they could having access where we don't have, or should we raise it to Wikiproject Hungary or Wikiproject United States?(KIENGIR (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

WP Hungary is completely inactive. Maybe, we should sought assistance from one of the members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy.--Norden1990 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Micharel the Brave

Apparently and unfortunately, you are supposed to be warned before you are reported. Hereby I warn you. Simply stop misleading people by editing historical articles with text that fits your script. Nobody cares about hungarian revisionism. Especially on a wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.150.8 (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Anon, you apparently do not understand the meaning of the word "Hungarian". Moldavian chroniclers and Romanian historians can hardly be described as Hungarians. Would you refer to reliable sources verifying that Miron Costin was a Hungarian revisionist historian? Borsoka (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@188.27.150.8:,

Sorry, I do not mislead anybody, etc., you are on a total wrong path, any other is well said by the one before me.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC))

meaning check "scholars generally define"

Hi. Concerning this edit, my interpretation of this in English is that you can basically understand that "generally" means "almost unanimous". Is this also how you read it? So this sentence disagrees with the rest of the article, and as far as I can see no editor on Wikipedia has taken such a strong position on talk pages either.

A second problem: to say that a field has come to an almost unanimous position needs a strong source. What we have here are just some examples, none of which are making a statement as strong as this sentence in Wikipedia. Did you look at those sources?

More complex. We are saying now (1) there were Germani who did not speak Germanic and (2) BECAUSE of this basically ALL scholars now ONLY mean Germanic speaking when they say Germanic peoples. None of the sources write anything like this, but in fact most of them are assuming that all Germani simply spoke Germanic. The implied "because" is in conflict with these sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster:,

I don't basically understand on generally = almost unanimous, rather usually/mostly. Probably you'd guess/know I am not a native English speaker, however. In case, present our discussion in the talk page of the article, if you think more feedback would be necessary on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC))

Yes, I posted there about the question also, but on this point I was wondering if there might be a different understanding about that word.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

racking

In answer to your question, I would say both words would be unusual choices, though technically the two spellings could be just variants. See: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrack "Alternative form of rack (“to cause to suffer pain, etc.”)". The two words are uncommon and sometimes get confused it seems. It says: "Frequently confused with rack (“torture; suffer pain”), though traditionally means “wreck”." I would probably choose a word that is more common, less poetic, such as "afflicted"? My concern would be that even many English speakers will not quite get it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no strong preference but perhaps I would choose wracked. But I am not so sure why we'd need to use one of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to follow up on this, after some copy editing the word wracked/racked was removed and the sentence was rewritten. Thank you both for your input, and I agree that if I had to choose then "afflicted" probably would have been the safest bet. Best, SamCordes^talk 04:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Urartu

You're correct. It's fringe. Some sources.

Levon Abrahamian, 1998 [[15]]:

“ This path to national identity transforms traces of distinctions between aliens and the imagined ethnic community in the deep past into a story of how such aliens actually formed a root of the primary reference-community. Thus, aliens present at

the ethnic origin time are symbolically transformed into ancestors. The aliens in the case of the Armenians are the Urartians, a Hurrian-speaking people who formed the state Urartu on the historical and present-day territory of Armenia in the period running roughly from 900 to 600 BC. Thus, one can say that the Armenian model of national-identity "fights" for the Armenian identity of the Urartians in order to stake a claim for the essential "Armenianness" of regions once dominated by the Urartians. The symbolic construction of ancient Urartians as Armenians in contemporary Armenian national discourse can itself be explained in relation to gaps in the linguistic theories and empirical evidence used by the linguists and historians who, as I argued above, have played such a prominent role in formulating this discourse in the last decade. Though the already mentioned hypothesis of the Near Eastern motherland of the Indo- Europeans "confirmed" the ancient roots of the Armenians in their territory, the Hurrian speaking Urartians and their high culture formed a gap in the continuity of Armenian "deep" history. Thus, by identifying Urartu with Armenia, Armenian nationalists could trace the Armenian genealogical tree back to the most ancient times without any breaks in continuity. Little wonder, then, that Souren Aivazian, a champion of the idea of the Urartians Armenian origin, "reads" Urartian cuneiforms as written in proto-Armenian (Ai- vazian 1986: 30-31).

”

George Anchabadze : Urartu was an ancient state in the Caucasus... The native tongue of the ethnic kernel of this state apparently was close to the Vainakh-Daghestani linguistic group... Later, after the fall of Urartu, the ancient Armenian tribes gradually began to spread on the territory of Southern Transcaucasia, though the process of formation of the independent Armenian State protracted for the reason that the country was subject to the rule of the Persian, as well as Greek and Macedonian conquerors. It was only in 189 B.C. when the kingdom of Great Armenia came into being. The state reached the peak of its power in the first half of the 1st century B.C., when the Armenian Kingdom comprised a vast territory from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.

Here is Diakonoff on Hurro-Urartian influences on Armenian -- note, influences. Not descent. [[16]]. Urartian forms a substratum that influenced Armenian in the sort of way that Coptic would influence Egyptian Arabic [[https://www.jstor.org/stable/602722?casa_token=kZBOhZfkyncAAAAA:jUHr3b79cPhw67xn4sPIMaAW13SWJM_w5tJNJKrqvuEIyJH7CxQpTa_h5Tk9JdodG9FiLIfKpsJibcMQM-Fol7k8xOtgiNhEgKMjG45f4ak4uHLe&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents ]]. Copied from my earlier post on the matter about a year ago I think--Calthinus (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:,

Thank you, I think you should as well start editing the Urartu page and remove fringe additions and make an overall check and roboration of the article. I'd suggest you as well to revert yourself at Ermenrich's page, I think it is good if he knows as well that my suspicion is reinforced.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC))

Yup I removed it before I moved it here. Apologies for any double pings. --Calthinus (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

German exonyms in Transylvania

I understand keeping the Hungarian names as well, but why are they organized by German exonym? The Romanian name/ endonym is the source of the English names and thus should be listed first. In the English Wikipedia at least. Starbeam2 (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Starbeam2:,

Well since the article is about German exnonyms, I don't see devilish to list anything according to them, and Romanian follows, etc. In other places, where the place is referred at regular, non-historic conditions, of course Romanian is in the first place...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC))

Jabuka

Good evening! User:R.Saringer a former sock puppet of AustrianFreedom is back again. User: 84.114.224.212 starting 14th of February. pls see [[17]] Gruss--Špajdelj (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Špajdelj:,

if you are condfident on this, please report it to an administaror as well. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC))

Re: Croatia proper

I think it is fine to include "Central Croatia", similarly to Serbia proper which is Central Serbia. For historical entities there are articles such as Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg). Tzowu (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

wp:or at Slavic honorifics

Hi Kiengir, could you please undo the recent series of or edits made by Klemczak at Slavic honorifics? I saw you undid his edits at Austria and you have rollback tolls so you don't have to undo each edit individually. I reversed one, but I've been warned twice above wp:3rr recently so I don't want to test my luck.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Ermenrich:,

I don't have rollback rights yet, but it does not matter I can solve the problem anyway. Just tell me first if 37.30.51.236 & Urgentresearch edits are ok, or those should be as well reverted...and please also open a section in the talk there that you contest Klemczak 's edis because of OR, thus inititating a discussion (so later nobody may accuse you of any misconduct). Afterwards, will act accrodingly. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

The IP edit is also OR, but there's nothing wrong with Urgentresearch's edit. I'll post something on the talk page.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

No surprises, please

In Hedy Lamarr, you did a pipe, [ [Cisleithania|Austria] ]. I reverted that as per WP:SURPRISE. Cisleithania is not the same as Austria. Peaceray (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:,

only now I noticed your message...read the edit log on the page, you are wrong, no surprise. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

Any time you send someone to a link that you have identified as another entity altogether, it is absolutely a surprise. Cisleithania is in almost certainly unknown to most English speakers. It is decidedly not a nationality. Masquerading it as Austria is simply unacceptable.

If you wanted to change "[ [Austria-Hungary|Austria] ]n-born American actress" to Austro-Hungarian-born American actress" that might be more accurate, but [ [Cisleithania|Austria] ] will simply get you reverted, as another editor already has done.

Peaceray (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Peaceray:,

Sorry, please follow up the discussion on the talk page, it is only a suprise for you or those who are not familiar in details or an expertise matter of the subject. Facts or accuracy of national citizenship and belonging does not depened on the knowlegde of English speakers (funny, majority if Eglish speakers does not have even idea or special historical citizenship status much of Europe, btw.). The other important aspect is, that your aproach is failed in the beginning, since Austrian is a nationality, nobody said Cisleithania would be, be that article belong to the Austrian Empire between 1867-1918, hence it is not any means a masquerade, but the accurate linking of the country which citizen the subject was.

"[ [Austria-Hungary|Austria] ]n-born American actress", surely I did not want, since it would be less accurate, since as I indicated more places, Austria-Hungary was a monarchy of two separate states, and she was born in the Austrian Empire, being the citizen of that consituent part, that was Cisleithania.

Finally [ [Cisleithania|Austria] ] will simply get you reverted, as another editor already has done." is not the best approach you may do, since the other editor made the similar mistake like you, intervened on something where does not have the proper knowledge in details, and in the talk he failed to explain or support what he did as well. I recommend you to analyze the subject on the ground the information I gave you, instead of making tendentious plans of reverting, this is not the best appraoch in WP, considering I am a long time professional in the subject with many years of experience on the affairs of Austria and Hungary in an advanced matter (among many other related topics, btw.). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC))

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hedy Lamarr, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This is under discussion & you do not have consensus to remove the link. Lack of consensus does not automatically allow an individual editor to overrule WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you participate in arriving at consensus on the talk page, I will remove this warning. If you continue to arbitrarily enforce your own point of view in your edits in this matter, I will add disruptive editing warnings of greater severity. Get consensus & all will be good, even if this is contrary to my own opinions in this matter. Peaceray (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray,

are you kidding? Please read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS again. user General Iroh, the Dragon of the West made a bold edit ([18]), that I contested afterwards, and then you contested my edit. Hence none of his version, none of my version gained consensus, so I legally unlink that part according to the rules, since I opened a discussion in the talk, and we concluded we don't have consensus (as as well that the original linking was no ok). So with your misinterpration of the rules you've made this warning as a mistake, since I did not do any uncronstructive edit, on the contrary!

As result your statement of arbitrarily enforce your own point of view in your edits is false, you did this by reverting my unlinking, since than you support a version that a same way does not have consensus, so worst case the article should have been rolled before any of teh subjects mentioned edited.

I kindly ask you please very carefully analyze WP:RULES, because since a while you continously misinterpreting it, or not using properly. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC))

You are right

I did look and you are right thanks for pointing that out.Clock Spider78 (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Fidesz

Hi there,

I was just wondering what your reasonings are for removing “Turanism” from fidesz’s ideologies

I added Turanism for a number of reasons:

•Hungary joined the Turkic council •Orban/Fidesz talks about their relation to stills the Hun •They say they are Turkic •They want closer cooperation with Turkic nations •Consistent positive speaking about the Turkic council and Turkic nations/people

TurkishSportsandLife (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@TurkishSportsandLife:,

Hi,

First of all, please read WP:NOR, and

- Hungary did not join really, but having observer status

- Orbán talked about what the Hungarian generally consider, not about him or Fidesz

- no they did not say such

- (last two entires) yes, but it does not neccesarily have any connection to any ideology(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

Hi, thank you for you response :) Firstly, to where you stated that they didn’t say this. Orban said that they are Hun Turkic and a relative. He said to be proud of their national identity. - Also a bill has been introduced by the government (Fidesz) to gain diplomatic status in the Turkic council TurkishSportsandLife (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@TurkishSportsandLife:,

Sure :)

They say they are Turkic -> for this I stated. Orbán said we are a Christian nation living in the West, that is based on the Hunnic-Turkic origin, the Hungarians treat themselves as the late descendants of Attila, etc., not what you said

Again, any relation to the Turkic Council does not have neccesarily have any connection to any ideology.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

He said: Hungary has always focused on the cooperation of Turkic speaking states which nurture their language, culture and traditions even in the modern world, he said.”Hungarians consider themselves late descendants of Attila, of Hun-Turkic origin, and Hungarian is a relative of Turkic languages,” Orbán said. “Only those people can be strong who are proud of their national identity,” he added. Orbán said that in light of the “fantastic” economic and political development of Turkic countries “it is to be taken as an expression of praise if Hungarians are called an Eastern people”. I got this from ‘Hungary today’

I think it does to an extent, because the Turkic in itself is a form of unity between Turkic nations and people. If they have an interest in making closer ties and close cooperation and unity together in a council that shows Turanism TurkishSportsandLife (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@TurkishSportsandLife:,

not exactly this he said, what you cite is a summarization of an author of Hungarytoday, I qouted directly Orbán's words from the official page of the prime ministry. Anyway he, Fidesz, and/or the government is also in a close co-operatuion with many non-Turkic nations and organizations, so this assertion cannot be presented as a unique support of an ideology.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC))

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi:,

one revert is NOT edit warring, please analyze our policies thorougly. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC))

I can put two and two together and see where it is going. Also, "our" policies? What chutzpah! Last time I checked, Wikipedians could write in English.--Adûnâi (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi:,

please study WP:AAGF also and again, avoid personal attacks. Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC))

Pan-Asianism

Hi KIENGIR! I have seen you have reverted this IP edit[19]. When I saw it yesterday, I was about to do the same, but then noticed that the deleted content was added by another IP without explanation last year[20]. Since nothing about Islam and Middle East is the main text, it shouldn't appear in the lede as well, unless well-sourced. So the last IP edit looks valid IMHO. –Austronesier (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier:,

Thank you for your notice, made the self-revert!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

Talk page

Just a side remark. I think my Talk page is not the proper place to discuss a movement of a page - no other editors can join us. As you initiated the discussion on my Talk page, we have no choice but finish it on it, but the outcome will be shaky. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka:,

Yes, thank you that you moved it to the proper place!(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Expansionist nationalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Csanád County Editing

Dear KIENGIR,

You removed again and copied my 'Renaming Csongrád County' section to the History of Csongrád County article. You did so without replying to the talk page of the original article. I believe your edit is unreasonable for two reasons:

1) Csanád county ceased to exist under Communism. Now that Csongrád will be renamed, it will come into existence in some form again. Therefore it is related to Csanád's history as well.

2) Right now, Csongrád's only history is my verbatim text about the renaming process. This mentions things like 'János Lázár' and '2017.' I don't think it is relevant to that section; in fact, I don't think it is a historical overview at all.

I am considering undoing your change again. Please share with me your thoughts about the issue!

Ignotvs (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Ignotvs:,

you did not submit until now anything on the talk page, and in case new consensus would be needed for any new additions.

1, The article's scope is ending in 1920, thus in case only a short reference I may support regarding the recent renaming, not an entire section

2, feel free to edit the Csongrád article and we'll see.

Please do not revert more, until the end of the talk page discussion per WP:BRD, will answer also there. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC))

The comment to the Csanád County Talk page was added right after I reversed your change. You did your second revert without responding to it when it had already existed.

Csanád County, as the article says, existed between 11th century until 1920 (1950 actually). The county was dissolved in 1950. As I mentioned before, if this county's name will be restored then Csanád County will come into being once again and thus it will be relevant to an article dealing with the history of Csanád County.

I believe my edit was indeed a "short reference;" two sentences in fact.

P.S.: are you sure you use 'in case' correctly? it makes the understanding of your text difficult

Ignotvs (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ignotvs:, Yes, you are right, I misread the date...anyway, one short sentence is enough (you made a new subsection, etc.). Normally, if any bold edit is not contested, after a time it will be considered mostly accepted...if not, then consensus has to be built in a traditional way.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR

I would just like to warn you that as of now you've had more than 120 issues with your editing history on Wikipedia. This is not a flattering record to have. It may be all those people who are unreasonable, or you might have editing policies that are abrupt, illogical and un-constructive; in short, they are not suitable for editing Encyclopedias. Also, your English evidently needs polishing, which, in turn, brings into question the legitimacy of your editing English Wikipedia.

Ignotvs (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ignotvs:,

I don't know which issues you refer of 120 (?), however since I have completely the opposite editing policies you might have adressed to me, your approach is quite interesting. Yes, I'll try to always improve myself, though I am not single being not native here. Finally, it is quite interesting as well a fresh user have such a thorough view on WP and a special personalization approach, however I'd advice to you to comment on content, not on editors; as our policies point out. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC))

Rus and Russia

@KIENGIER

You are correct. Thank you for pointing out the timeline. I did a little research and learned more about the "land of Rus," which is appropriate to the timeline referenced on the Teutonic Order page. Again--thanks for helping in my learning process! Crandall (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crandall:,

At your service!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC))

so basically

you are THE MAN! :D --Havsjö (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Havsjö:,

:), in connection with what you referred? :) (KIENGIR (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC))

nothing special lol --Havsjö (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Duchy of Carniola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Vasas

The Vasas SC article is solely about the men's football team. If you want to propose a move to Vasas FC using WP:RM then be my guest. GiantSnowman 16:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Well as it's about the football club Vasas FC should be the correct location IMHO. GiantSnowman 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There should only be one player category for a club, using the club's current name. GiantSnowman 18:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Following me all over Wikipedia?

Hello.

So I've noticed you've been very concerned about my activity on this site, for some reason. First you start undoing my edits on the Sibiu article, then you suddenly pop up on the Art Nouveau talk page, as if you knew I was there as well. It is obvious to me that you are, for some reason, checking on my activity using the "User contributions" button on my user page. Otherwise you wouldn't have known about every place I've been on Wikipedia, right?

So tell me, is something disturbing you about my edits? Normally, one doesn't simply start checking up on another user's edits. I'm not accusing you of anything, just asking. Lupishor (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lupishor:,

no, I don't have any serious concern as you might speculate, both of the articles are in my watchlist among many-many others and edited as well long time before, and any user contributions may be seen by any article's history, if you check. If I have a problem with any edits, I always indicate it, it has no connection to the user, but the edit itself, like it has always been.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC))

Okay then, sorry for my wrong speculation. :) Lupishor (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask what you do in the case a user is following you all over Wikipedia maliciously? DxRxXxZx (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Lady Grimelda

Thank you! — Mychele Miha (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing while logged out?

Do you think 84.209.61.213 and Posp68 are one and the same? See e.g. [21].--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:,

The IP simultaneously edited together with Posp68, sometimes a bit differently. Do you now how to geolocate a registered user, with details? (I only now it somehow regarding IP addresses) If you succeed, you may compare the address listed...if not, then an admin should be asked.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

The IP is located in Norway. I would have assumed that Posp68 was Czech, but he could be living abroad (often the biggest nationalists on WP don't actually live in the country they're nationalist for). I'll bring it up with the admin who blocked him before. If he thinks it's warranted I'll go to SPI.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The admin doesn't see a problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:,

yes, but I would have been curious where Posp68 would geolocate, it is as well Norway? Well, as you mentioned a I recalled something (Talk:Munich_Agreement):

Posp68 posted this: I'm from Norway and speak Norwegian. Hungarians are from Asia.

That would conclude they are one and the same and Ymblanter's supposition is correct. If so, the question would be reduced concerning the regulations of off-line editing, which policies should be investigated. Otherwise the IP's alterations on other user's comments should be reverted...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

Do you have a diff for that? Is there any other racialist thing he said?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:,

([22]), ([23]), ([24]).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

Ymblanter suggests ANI, but I’m not sure it’s risen to that level yet.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:, certainly, as besides the last one the others been made before being blocked for the remarks against you...we'll see..(KIENGIR (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

Hello, KIENGIR. You have new messages at Talk:Dej#Known as Deés in Hungary.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

vandalism

Please rewiew it. Persons who are not impartial should not be on Wikipedia.

[[25]] 178.247.75.185 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Only I noticed this message when the corresponding thread have been already closed...what concern's me as, you are a sock account..?(KIENGIR (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC))

Jobbik's new ideology, and new colors

Hello. I've seen, you reverted my edits on the Jobbik's page. Well, the Jobbik is not far-right party anymore. Why not ? Because Péter Jakab changed the Jobbik's ideology to centre-left and centre-right, and the Jobbik's color is turquoise, not white, red and green. Did you see the Jobbik's Facebook ? Well, they changed the party's color to turquoise, not black. I have proof, but not english, only hungarian language, if you speak hungarian. :) If you speak hungarian a little, you will see, Péter Jakab the Jobbik's new leader will join the hungarian left party coalition, like in the 2019 local elections in Hungary, and the 2020 Dunaújváros election, which Gergely Kálló is a Jobbik member, but the left parties supported him, and winned the election in Dunaújváros. Did you see the Our Homeland Movement (Mi Hazánk Mozgalom) party ? Well, the party is split form Jobbik, because the Mi Hazánk is radical right wing party, but in this Wikipedia is Far-right wing party, and in Hungarian Wikipedia is Radical right. :) So, let me show the proof, as you want it.

https://www.magyarhirlap.hu/belfold/20200520-ujabb-jobbik-lepes-a-baloldal-fele https://www.facebook.com/FideszHU/videos/baloldali-p%C3%A1rt-lett-a-jobbik/161627148563161/ https://mozgasterblog.hu/blog/a_jobbik_evek_ota_egyuttmukodik_a_baloldallal

There you go, 3 proofs, but not english, only hungarian. :) Have nice day! :) --TomFZ67 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @TomFZ67:,

I speak Hungarian and I perfectly know the situation. The first source did not tell about party position, just the possible collaboration with the left. The facebook video is not a source, since a rival political party's allegations are as well about the collaboration of the left. Thirdly, blog sites are not reliable sources. Don't worry as soon as there will be - English or Hungarian - sources that would describe the change of party position and ideology, the change will be made. Until then, you may insert in the article's core the newest political events - i.e. collaboration with the left side. Have a nice day also!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC))

Posp68

I've started an enforcement case against Posp68 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Posp68 if you have anything to add.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:,

I'd likely to wait how he would defend him/herself in front of the Arbitration Committe by first instance (if he would, considering being not much active), so could not argue being a victim a collectively evil German-Hungarian action...apart from my sarcasm, check the recent edits in the Munich Agreement...again comes an Noway IP, and after the registered user on the same material..although you've already warned in case the two users are one and the same, logging in should be carried out...this concerns me...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Fair enough. So far it doesn't look like they intend to defend themselves, but we'll see.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

He's been topic banned. I suspect he'll break it though, so keep an eye out for the various IPs and probably Posp68 himself though.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:, yes, I noticed, exactly the same I was thinking of...anyway now he/she can neither say the section is not accurate nor what he/she wanted is not represented...but of course we will not repeat or link the same to the power of n...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC))

Question of Kingdom of Croatia Status

Hi Kiengir. Being you are fairly familiar with Hungarian-Croaian history and relations, was the Kingdom of Croatia inside the Kingdom of Hungary? Looking at the map it seems Croatia was a separate kingdom ruled under Hungarian crown but not part of mainland Hungary as both kingdoms entered a union under Hungarian crown with Croatia maintaining Kingdom autonomy. So as the Leopold Ružička shows, one born in Kingdom of Croatia is also born in Kingdom of Hungary? Or would it be Hungarian Empire? I’m not to well educated on the governing order on the kingdoms. I assume anyone under the Hungarian crown would be deemed a Hungarian citizen despite Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia having their own parliamentary government? Also those born in Austria-Hungary, would they vary as Austrian or Hungarian? Though being Austria-Hungary was under the House of Habsburg would all be Austrian citizens? It’s really confusing to me how it works exactly. Haha. Perhaps you can help me understand? OyMosby (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @OyMosby:,

Sure,

- Yes Croatia have never been part of Hungary proper, it has been a separate country in personal union with Hungary.

- Will correct the Ružička page to Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, that is the correct answer to your question

- if you check the archives in the Nikola Tesla discussion page, check my entries with the discussion with DBbachmann, there it is sourced when this alleged common citizensip may have been introduced (between 1867-1900, exact date mentioned there), before only it would comply just to Kingdom of Hungary

- Yes, there were Austrian citizenship or Hungarian citizenship, never both, even dual citizenship was banned (House of Habsburg just held the Hungarian crown since a long time, but it has no connection to citizenship affairs, similarly to sovereignty or constitutional issues, which is regulated by the Diet or later Parliament of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Leopold Ružička.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

I recognize you as a "good faith" and knowledgeable editor, but I think we need outside help to resolve the dispute. Notrium (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Your recent editing history at Operation Barbarossa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D:,

This notification was too early, since the state of edit warring would be only clear in case I'd done further reverts, that obviously I would not without having discussion and resolution.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

You know this isn’t true, you can’t lie your way out of this, you have been doing the same to me and I have proof. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F:,

It is, and you should stop your disruption in this talk page and groundless accusations as well. Regarding your edits, I entered to the talk page, but instead of discussing, you continued the reverts, so the two case are not even identical but a in fact boomerang towards you.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC))

Cheile Bicazului

Your reason for undoing the recent edit on Bicaz Gorge (Cheile Bicazului) was "Apparently Cheile Bicazului in Harghita County, along with many related etc.".

My questions are:

• What proof/evidence you have that Bicaz Gorge belongs in Harghita county given the recent developments regarding the border between Harghita and Neamț counties?
• Why did you revert my edit if you're not sure about the subject?

LaZ0r (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @LaZ0r:,

• the current decision regaulates the most famous Cheile Bicazului narrow pass and 700 hectares of surrounding territory. The article encompasses Cheile Bicazului in broad term, that is along the border between the two counties, touching it both sides in fact (Cheile Bicazului-Hășmaș National Park, and other sites along the Bicaz river etc.).
• I was sure.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC))

References

Thanks

Thank you for your work regarding the recent spate of edits from IP address 192.252.233.162. I reverted him on John von Neumann, but I didn't really have the heart or the knowledge to deal with his other edits. You seem to have dealt with this well. Eleuther (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eleuther:

at your service! Despite what you say, I congratulate you since you precisely tried to decipher the subject and you suceeded to solve the equation in the article! Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC))

Disruptive Edits about Croatia

Please don’t remove Croatia again, the two pretenders are valid as can be seen in the source provided. The Habsburgs were independently Kings of Croatia, thus Karl von Habsburg being a pretender. Aimone, Duke of Aosta was briefly King of an independent Croatia and thus his son Amedeo is a pretender.

The source states this and thus no discussion is needed. I request that you look at the definition of pretend on the talk page as it proves you to be wrong, so don’t go accusing me of trying to start an edit war when it is you who keeps undoing helpful and constructive edits to the page. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F:

Sorry, discussion is needed per policy, and you started edit warring.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

Explain how a discussion is needed, the source provided states in exact words that those two people are pretenders to the Croatian throne. Per policy they should stay in the list. You started an edit war by removing valid information. A quick look through your talk pages shows a history of disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, block evasion, edit warring and general rudeness to admins and fellow editors. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F:,

I already explained to you in the article's talk page, and you apparently don't know our policies, hence your statement is false. No, I did not start any edit war, I legally reverted a bold edit. You are totally on the wrong path, regarding my talk page I suffered from other user's disruptive edits and general rudeness sometimes, as sockpuppetry/block evasion has nothing to do with me, if not others who engaged in this talk page. Care on the content.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:,

You never explained how a discussion is needed, if you still claim you did then link it here or repeat your exact words. The source I provided says in exact words that they are both pretenders to the throne, I fail to understand why you are unable to comprehend fact and simple English.

Also on 25 June 2020 you received a message in this very talk page telling you “Your recent editing history at Operation Barbarossa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war“, so please don’t try to lie, we all know exactly what you are and that you can’t be trusted to edit. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F:,

Sorry, just because you are careless does not mean i.e. I would not understand simpe English. So read back again, I already explained to you in the article's talk page, and there it is linked, so it is ridiculous you mention lying, which I did not. On the other hand, it totally irrelevant to mix this issue with others (i.e., you just copy-paste or read content as well, again?), and I suggest you to avoid such unprofessional and frivolous statements like we all know exactly what you are and that you can’t be trusted to edit, this has nothing to with the reality.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

You never replied to me in the talk page, everyone can see you are lying, you are pathetic, you have already been in trouble with the admins for quite some time. You have stopped undoing my edit because you know you will only get in further trouble that will result in you getting permanently banned from editing anything on Wikipedia ever again, you are totally untrustworthy and incapable of being an editor. Everyone can see you are lying, everyone knows you didn’t reply on the talk page and that’s because you have no answer, you can’t give a valid reason why correct information shouldn’t appear in the page, because you are wrong. The more you argue with me the more trouble you get in and the longer your block will be if you get lucky and the block isn’t permanent which is unlikely. If you ever start an edit war or undo any constructive edits from any editor in any page you will instantly be permabanned, do you understand me?

I already know what you will try and lie about, this is not a “personal attack” this is a warning to improve your behaviour, a chance for you to be allowed to retain editing rights. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F:,

let's see the facts:

"You never replied to me in the talk page, everyone can see you are lying, you are pathetic" & " Everyone can see you are lying, everyone knows you didn’t reply on the talk page and that’s because you have no answer, you can’t give a valid reason why correct information shouldn’t appear in the page, because you are wrong." -> Contrary what you say, here is the evidence: ([26])

"You have stopped undoing my edit because you know you will only get in further trouble that will result in you getting permanently banned from editing anything on Wikipedia ever again," & "If you ever start an edit war or undo any constructive edits from any editor in any page you will instantly be permabanned, do you understand me?" -> I know and follow our policies, contrary to you, who continously prove it's ignorance about them

"The more you argue with me the more trouble you get in and the longer your block will be if you get lucky and the block isn’t permanent which is unlikely." -> I am not in any trouble

"I already know what you will try and lie about, this is not a “personal attack” this is a warning to improve your behaviour, a chance for you to be allowed to retain editing rights. -" -> But, yes, you did a serious personal attacks and accusations, you should maintain some civility instead of talking nonsense.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC))

All your responses here are lies, all you have to do I scroll up and you are instantly proven wrong and a liar. Disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. From scrolling back it is obvious as others have pointed out that you are part of a far-right neo-nazi political party in Hungary who hates every country that borders them, which includes Croatia. This explains why you are going out if you way to erase Croatia’s history as being in personal union with, but fully independent from Hungary. Multiple users have pointed this out so stop lying about it or I will permanently ban you from editing any page ever again. You already have multiple warnings from admins about Sock-puppetry and edit warring, which you have tried to lie your way out of, all you have to do is scroll back through this talk page and you will see it.

My source proves you wrong, I am right, you are wrong. Accept it and move in or I will personally permaban you, this is your final warning. Stop being rude, threatening me, personally attacking me, sockpuppeting, block evading, edit warring, historical revisioning and all you other crimes. I will only say this one last time, you clearly can’t be trusted to edit in Wikipedia, you show repeated misconduct and either lack of regard or lack of comprehension for the rules, you don’t seem to understand or care that you are doing anything wrong. If you don’t not clean up you behaviour I will permanently ban you. I will personally permanently ban you.

You have one last chance, one more wrong step and you will never be allowed to edit again, so start taking this seriously and start admitting when you are wrong. - 2A02:C7F:1484:5500:CCC4:5D8B:ED1D:C45F (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion is over. I've never lied, you should apologize also for your statement regarding the talk page, etc. Nobody said disagreeing would be a personal attack, diversive arguments will not save you of the consequences what you commited. It is obvious you superficially assume things you did not check, I am not a member of any party, I don't hate any country, on the contrary I imroved many articles regarding Croatia and I collaborate with Croatian editors with mutual respect and peace, as usual. Sorry, here only you are rude, I did not threat you with anything, never attacked you, never commited sock-puppetry/block evading, etc. Btw. accusing others of what mainly you are doing is really harmful and disruptive, a huge WP:BOOMERANG.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC))

far-left politics

Hey, have you ever looked at the far-left politics article, I think it's a dogs breakfast, and it's crazy that communism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism etc are not discussed at all. would you be interested in taking a look at the article? Bacondrum (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bacondrum:,

Yes, unfortunately you are totally right, let's make it together! Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC))

Sure thing. Do you have any good books you'd recommend that cover the subject. I have a lot of books on the Soviet Union and such, but none of them really explicitly discuss their political position in a relevant manner. Bacondrum (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:,

well, I don't have modern printed books unfortunately on this subject - though I have a lot on others - we may look for ones or search online works.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC))

There's also the effort involved in re-reading such horrific history! Books like Anne Applebaums Gulag: a History certainly cover the horrors of the Soviet Union (I was mildly traumatized by the end of this book), but not the ideology, same with the Mukhamet Shayakhmetov's The Silent Steppe (another harrowing book) and Lynne Viola's The Unknown Gulag (this offers a timeline of the destruction of the Kulaks, frequently referring to the Bolsheviks - surely we don't need to cite that the Bolsheviks are far-left? or am I wrong about that). I feel like the fact that this all took place under a Marxist-Leninist government should mean it can be written about as such without being deemed original research, they are simply historic facts and any reasonable person can make the connection without it being explicitly stated - surely it is common knowledge that they are on the extreme left? Same with the Shining Path and the Khmer Rouge. What do you think? I feel like a number of editors at far-left politics really struggle with the discrepancy between their own view of Marxism-Leninism and what history books tell us. Bacondrum (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:

You are right there are some left-devoted editors who try to whitewash the crimes of Communism and restrict and narrow interpretations and crimes, but you should not afraid of them just go on with your edits! Yes, Bolsheviks are far-left, WP:SKYBLUE. No worries just go on, Marxism-Leninism is the essence of far-left, etc. Same with examples, Khmer Rouge is famous of horror/terror, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC))

I tried that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Far-left_politics&oldid=948431446 to no avail. Just got in an edit war. Bacondrum (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:,

then you should open a new discussion, or an RFC because I consider fully valid your former additions. A result of an RFC i.e. will be be binding.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of men's footballers with 100 or more international caps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Marín (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Vlachs

Hello, in your exit here I could not find this in the book by Tanner. Where did you cite this from? Thanks OyMosby (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:, hi, it has been part of the page earlier I restored content on that edit. But as I see you went forward without waiting my answer...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

I went forward as I can quite easily see that it is not in the source cited. I wanted to see with you were you may have seen the content you reverted sourced. Also sorry about the PoV comment it wasn’t so much for you really. But seeing two editors return content Rhat was explained to not be sourced properly seemed weird. OyMosby (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing/bad grammar Hungarians in Romania

Really? LordAgincourt (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@LordAgincourt:,

I said bad grammar:

- Such like Koloz do not exist, but Kolozs, Temesvár instead of Temesvar, and as I referred to the edit log, Austria-Hungary came to existence only in 1867.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC))

Talk:Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism

Just to clarify regarding this, that makes no sense. You should have replied me about the fascism addition in the below discussion; the above discussion was about categories. I think I did not understand at first what you meant, but I guess your problem with my addition was that it was not in the main body and so it should not have been in the lead? Either way, I did put it in the main body, so I hope at least this dispute is done. As for the rest, could you please explain me about consensus since you keep writing I do not understand it? Maybe it is because I distinguish between implicit and explicit consensus? Implicit consensus is when an addition remains in the main body for a long time (as no one has changed or removed that, it is assumed there is implicit consensus) while explicit consensus is when a discussion has been held in the talk page and consensus has been reached. What I see was implicit, not explicit consensus; however, I do dispute there was some implicit consensus because on both pages the category was added and removed back and forth, meaning there was a dispute and not all users agreed with this implicit consensus, so a discussion should have been opened as soon as there was this edit warring rather than reverting every time someone removed it. Better late than never though. So now we are having this discussion to establish explicit consensus.

P.S. Why do you keep removing any mention of Marxism–Leninism? That was the official or state ideology of Communist states. Maoism, Titoism et al were simply national variants of Marxism–Leninism (Marxism–Leninism adapted to material conditions). Since the sentence is explicitly referring to that, I do not see anything wrong in clarifying that. Not all communist are Marxist–Leninists and many communist parties have reformed or are democratic. Yes, anti-communism opposes all communist parties, but that sentence was explicitly about states governed by Marxist–Leninist communist parties and Marxism–Leninism was their official ideology, not merely communism; indeed, they considered their to be the only true communism or Marxism. We should not imply they are right about this.--Davide King (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes it makes, since the issue have been already raised and under discussion above. Yes it's done (the rest as well I already explained). Yes, explicit and implicit consensus also exist, but they are equally binding. Given a long time the category was present without debate, your observation about disputing "implicit" consensus is false, since just recently there was one editor disputing it and the discussion has been immediately opened as well in the talk page. Thus explicit consensus is only necessary for removal.

P.S., I don't remove any mention of it. That sentence is a general statement and does not select necessarily between any subtypes, it's naturally meant opposing all types of Communism.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC))

Just because the user or IP who reverted the addition did not also open a discussion at the time, it does not imply the consensus remains. I do not think the implicit consensus is there, for more users are expressing doubt about it. Now it is still there just because you edit warred my proposal to follow BDR. Since users and IP did revert the addition in the first place, it cannot be told there was an implicit consensus, for there was a dispute from the beginning and it remained just because a discussion was not opened. So your claim that Given a long time the category was present without debate is false because it was actually disputed, but it was edit-warred into remaining because no one opened a discussion; maybe the user or IP who did revert that did not know about talk pages or was too new. A discussion has finally been opened, so better late than never, but that should have been opened when the disputed first happened. Is there a guideline that says explicit consensus is only necessary for removal? No, only the first part (Anti-communism is a political movement and ideology opposed to communism) is a general statement. The second part (It has been prominent in resistance movements against communism under socialist states governed by communist parties throughout history) is more specific.--Davide King (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, your first sentence I don't understand, you are inventing a scenario I even did not say or imply or has nothing to do with what I said. But yes, implicit consensus is holding, it has been untouched over a month - in the first place, later "expressing doubts" has nothing to do with this, and just because some users did not open talk does not influence this (anyway the talk has been opened early, over 4 months ago). Please don't twist the happenings, I did not edit war you, you were edit warring despite you were informed quickly. You should just put to an end of such speculations, I repeat a former consensus can be changed by a new consensus, shall it be any kind of edit. Second part: maybe more specific, but not exclusive.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC))

I am just saying that as soon as it was first reverted, a discussion should have been opened by either the two involved users or someone else, so that explicit consensus would have been reached already and all of this could have been avoided. This is all beside the point now; the body does not support communism as a category (for that we would need something like the phrasing I added about fascism on Authoritarianism), only Stalinism and Maoisim. A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. I believe this is pretty clear. I know you are going to disagree, so let us not waste time discussing things again. That is besides the point because at Authoritarianism it is only you supporting communism as a category; and at Totalitarianism is again only you and Rjensen. Oh, and before you tell me, I know Wikipedia:Consensus is not a vote but their arguments have been valid and respect the policy guidelines. And yeah, I am actually willing to change my mind, but so far I was not convinced by your arguments and obviously you were not convinced by mine.

Basically, yours and Rjensen argument boils down to use Raymond Aron's definition, but Aron actually say Soviet communism, not communism; and no one is disputing that the Soviet Union or Hungary were totalitarian, although some say it was authoritarian before Stalin and reverted back to authoritarianism post-Stalin (that is, only the Soviet Union; Stalinist Hungary was still totalitarian), but Aron is not saying communism is totalitarian or that communism is a core characteristic of totalitarianism and vice versa. So you are doing original research and synthesis. You and Rjensen are basically saying communism means communist state and so communism is totalitarian. So we get to the absurd logic where anti-state communists like the Free Territory of Ukraine or the Zapatistas are not communists because [o]nly governments in TOTAL control can be TOTALitarian. Zapaitista movement is not a government and it's probably not "communist".

This is also reflected in how you conflate communist parties and communist states. That was very specific and clearly referring to the Marxist–Leninist regimes, i.e. the Communist states whose party and state ideology was not merely communism but Marxism–Leninism. Communist parties did govern in some coalitions in Western Europe and their countries were not socialist states. That was clearly referring to the states of the Soviet Bloc, i.e. Marxist–Leninist communist parties. Of course, anti-communists oppose all types of communist parties, but in that case it is clearly referring to the Soviet Bloc and their ideology was Marxism–Leninism, so there was nothing wrong with that. It did not imply anti-communists support other communist parties because the context is about the Soviet Bloc. Davide King (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the question when and who what should have done is rather philosophical. You repeated again your opinion, you forget not all persons who participated in the discussions agreed with you or even did not express any opinion right now, so your summarization flaws. You basically grab the argumentation of categorization by denying the subject of the article, which include Communism, meanwhile debating Rjensens sourcing and releated, that you should anyway discuss with him.

Again, you repeat yourself lengthy, despite your observation is a generally meant sentence in not an exclusive way. "so let us not waste time discussing things again" -> I never pushed such, I just answered to you.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

The subject does not include communism, it includes Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism; it also includes capitalist regimes and totalitarian capitalism, but I do not see you arguing we add Capitalism. As things stand, I still see more users arguing for removal from both articles; the discussion is still ongoing and that may well change, but I suggest you not to think you are right by default.--Davide King (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I see discussed and mentioned Communism, as also what you have listed is part of it.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

Again, they are discussing a very specific type of communism, so why not simply list those? Your view that they are related is not enough to justify it; per WP:DEFCAT, it needs to be a defining characteristic. Only fascism, Italian Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism may ✓ that per sources.--Davide King (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you are circling back to your own views and interpretations, that have been already answered, just you ignore it, regarding sources, catdef and other users, etc., may be read above, and all related discussions.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

I disagree and I believe you are doing the exact same thing. I asked you a simple question: where do you get this categories may be added even by partial relation from? Again, I believe WP:DEFCAT is self-explanatory.--Davide King (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think there is no need to repeat your question multiple places and multiple instances. You seem to confusing things. Pages are put into categories. Categories are relating to the pages, even more categories that are not one and the same necessarily. These categories may relate of the article wholly or partially. Catdef is not contradicting this.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC))

Let us agree to disagree. WP:DEFCAT contradicts your claim that mere relation is enough; and even if you were right, that may still be not enough because perhaps Communist state or their actual state ideology would be more appropriate or enough. I hope the other users can reply you back there better than I could. So I will just wait for their replies (maybe some have changed their mind and agree with you, or they still believe it should be removed, etc.) and maybe open a request for comments.--Davide King (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We do have Category:Communist states, so why not use that instead?--Davide King (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Considerable, but let's discuss further in the article's talk page and let this thread to end.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

PIE

The article says that PIE was spoken thousands of years ago. If PIE were only a modern reconstruction, it would be impossible for it to have been spoken thousands of years ago. Of course, the article is primarily about the reconstructed language, not about the reconstruction. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@ExperiencedArticleFixer:,

no, the articles says PIE is estimated to have been spoken.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC))

Yes, all the same: it couldn't be estimated to have been spoken thousands of years ago if it were only a modern reconstruction. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@ExperiencedArticleFixer:,

No, not the same, an unverified hyphothesis obviously may be interpolated by a modern reconstruction (though both are hyphothesis').(KIENGIR (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

I cannot make sense of your last answer, but the conversation continued in the Talk page. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content at Hungarian Revolution of 1956

Hello, I'm 91.127.237.140. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hungarian Revolution of 1956 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The next time you unilaterally revert a different editor's additions, please cite a legitimate and justified reason in the edit summary. Thank you. 91.127.237.140 (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding controversial material to articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC))

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hungarian Revolution of 1956, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Your continued inability to explain the rationale behind your reverts is a absolutely horrible way to conduct yourself as a Wikipedian. Unless you have a legitimate policy-based objection to the sourced content, cease reverting it at once. 78.99.186.113 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You should end this comedy with misleading statements, I followed all poicies and give you legitimate explanations.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC))

András Kovács (sociologist)

I've made Category:Central European University faculty a subcategory of Category:People from Budapest. Wont that do? I dont think there will be enough sociologists from Budapest to justify a category.Rathfelder (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

well, in that case it's fine, made the self-revert. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC))

• Am I right to think most of these academics would live in Budapest?Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, possibly, but we don't know what is their official residence in their papers (cold be communes, cities outside Budapest, but may reside in Budapest as a temporary address, etc.), however it has been never an issue or anyone really cared, surely they are concentrated near Budapest.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC))

André Deutsch

Migrating from Austria does not make a person a British person of Hungarian-Jewish descent. Their children are of Hungarian descent. They are Hungarian. - or possibly naturalised. My father was on the Isle of Man with him. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

it may be arguable, because if he became a Britsh citizen, then it holds (as no difference from other British citizens). But explain me an other, why at Baron Ladislaus Müller von Szentgyörgy Category:Hungarian expatriates in Japan has been removed? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC))

And also why by Loránd Eötvös the Hungarian educators category was removed? Thanks

• All the ambassador categories should be in the expatriate categories, because its in the nature of an ambassador to be an expat. The article doesnt say Deutsch became a British citizen, but even if he did (as is likely), I dont think that makes him a British person of Hungarian-Jewish descent. I think all my immigrant neighbours children are British people of various descents, but I dont think the migrants themselves are properly so described. I certainly wouldnt describe my dad as a British person of German descent, but I would describe myself as such. Rathfelder (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

Well, there are myriads of Hungarian Americans who were not born in the U.S. but they are Americans of H-J descent, since Americans are American citizens, so I would keep. But what about Eötvös and the Hungarian educators?(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC))

• All university faculty categories are subcategories of Academics. "Educator" categories are generally for people not at universities. Rathfelder (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Invitation

You've been invited to this noticeboard here. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverting

No, but reverting without explanation an explained edit can look like that. But never mind now, thanks for getting convinced! 151.177.57.31 (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@151.177.57.31:,

can look like and mean are not the same thing. Ok, cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC))

Category:Nobility from Vienna

Membership of this category does not say anything about whether people are Austrian, Hungarian, or anything else. It just means they are from Vienna. They pretty much all are in some other category such as Category:Kings of Hungary. In the same way people in Category:People from London may not be British - indeed many of them aren't. Locality and nationality overlap as far as categorisation is concerned. Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

if you further go up in the categorization tree, there will be no "place" for non-Austrian subjects/nationals. Similarly, Nobility from Vienna category not any means may infer being part of the Hungarian nobility, thus the category is not replaceble/coverable with the previous one.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

The same is true for, for example, Category:Musicians from London. Categorisation does not work like that. Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

not necessarily, depends on the structure or buildup, but such categories should not be removed which the other added one does not cover it (if not others already define that in that article, etc.). E.g., in our initial conversation you assumed Category:Central European University faculty will be dealing people from Budapest, although it is not sure for everybody. On such ground, similar assumptions should not be a ground for mass category changings and removals, as referred, since the concept is originally mistaken (at one or two instances the estimation may be adequate if some numbers are not eligible for an own category as you reflected, but what we are discussing know is not that case).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

But the case your raised, György Festetics, is in Category:Festetics family, which is in Category:Hungarian noble families. Including him in Category:Nobility from Vienna , rather than Category:People from Vienna does not affect his relationship to Hungary. Clearly he appears to have both been born and died in Vienna. The articles doesnt say anything about where he spent his life. Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

well, in that case the category Hungarian nobility may be removed, as it is covered by another category, but it still does not make him an Austrain noble.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

But that is the point I am making. Nobility from Vienna may not be Austrian nobles. "From Vienna" is about geography, not descent. Rathfelder (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

but if you go upwards, it is a subcategory of another which is linked to the Austrian people category.(21:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

All the "People from .... categories are like that. People from Vienna are not all Austrian. Rathfelder (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

that's what I am talking about, but itis the subcat of Category:People by city in Austria & Category:People by state in Austria, which are in the Austrian people category...you see?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

Exactly. That is the policy. Same is true of all People by city categories. They may not be citizens of the country where the city is, but that does not mean they are not from the city. From is ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

not really, Austrian people is the problematic part on this, since contrary to your argumentation this excludes non-Austrian citizens...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

• It doesnt. In every country there are plenty of people who are properly categorised as "From a city" who are not citizens of the country. There is no point in arguing with me about this. Rathfelder (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, as long it is boundled in a way with the Austrian people category, your argumentation is not necessarily flawless.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

• Categorisation is not an exact science. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, though it should be consistent and follow some logic which is part of science. One of the weakest part of WP is the categorization, their naming and consistency, including with logical relations in all directions. So please do not be surprized I try to improve them time by time, as other parts they will/needs to be better. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

Nomination of Illyrian_(South_Slavic) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Illyrian_(South_Slavic) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyrian_(South_Slavic) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Zixt2010 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Jasz people

Hi Kiengir. I appreciate what you have done with this edit as you have clearly sought to remove what may appear to be verbiage. Before I added it, I had to think about what I wrote. Hungary's borders since the 13th century have been very elastic and this includes a period when the state was altogether off the map as well as a time it was in union with Austria. Even that latter time it held more internal territory than it does today. As there are no Jasz outside of Hungary's contemporary borders I feel it better to reflect this detail, and know of no other way to impart the information. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Coldtrack:,

thank you, however I never thought your addition to be a verbiage, my intention was better not to restrict to present time, since the occurence of the Jász people dates back much earlier, hence due to what you said now, the unlinking was the best option (btw, precisely Hungary neither been altogether off, nor had union with Austria). About the positioning, don't worry since the next sentence already discuss where they mostly have been found. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC))

A Chance for You

I am going to give you a chance to tell the truth and avoid embarrassment. — 2a02:c7f:1484:5500:3076:e0b0:be10:c797 (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I already did more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC))

Apponyi family

I undid your undoing of my recent edits. I acknowledge your strong feelings, but please keep in mind that I created that content in the first place initially with Hungarian first names, so this reflects my own evolving thought process about best practices, not any set-in-stone position on my side. So please continue reading.

My recent changes stem from the realization that until the late 19th century Hungarian aristocrats like the Apponyis did use different versions of their first name depending of context, e.g. go with Lajos in Hungary and Ludwig in Vienna and Louis in France or in diplomatic correspondence. So having their name in English in an English-language article would have been their choice, and we should respect that. Or in Latin, but even they might have found that artificial.

This of course does not apply to names that are uniquely Hungarian, such as Géza or Gyula (which as I learned does not come from Julius). I have not tried to translate these.

I hope we don't keep that a pointless editing war. You must accept that this article is written from an international perspective, not solely a Hungarian one, let alone a nationalistic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boubloub (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Apponyi family

I undid your undoing of my recent edits. I acknowledge your strong feelings, but please keep in mind that I created that content in the first place initially with Hungarian first names, so this reflects my own evolving thought process about best practices, not any set-in-stone position on my side. So please continue reading.

My recent changes stem from the realization that until the late 19th century Hungarian aristocrats like the Apponyis did use different versions of their first name depending of context, e.g. go with Lajos in Hungary and Ludwig in Vienna and Louis in France or in diplomatic correspondence. So having their name in English in an English-language article would have been their choice, and we should respect that. Or in Latin, but even they might have found that artificial.

This of course does not apply to names that are uniquely Hungarian, such as Géza or Gyula (which as I learned does not come from Julius). I have not tried to translate these.

I hope we don't keep that a pointless editing war. You must accept that this article is written from an international perspective, not solely a Hungarian one, let alone a nationalistic one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boubloub (talk • contribs) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boubloub:,

Strong feelings? What are you taling about? The problem is you not just followed your new policy on names that may have been used differently, but also those times you put Anglicized name when it definetly did not exist, could not exist, etc. So, in the article's talk page you should present at every instance in which you may successfully demonstrate the name has been used other form than in Hungarian (not necessarily English, but if German, then German or Latin etc. (to say nothing of from the article's core you systematically removed Hungarian names and changed the same may at many errouneus instances.

It just's depends on you, I follow our policies. This article is written by consensus, from a neutral perspective, there has not been any nationalistic issue here, not even it was solely Hungarian since the other names has been as well indicated, try to concentrate on the details.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:,

For Apponyi family members before the late 19th century I am not aware of any primary contemporaneous source documents in Hungarian. See all the documents referenced in the article's notes. I suspect that Anthonius Georgius Apponyi was almost never referred to in writing as Antal Györgyi during his lifetime. Even at a much later stage, Countess Marguerite Apponyi was named Margit only in very specific contexts if at all (my family owns an autograph letter from her btw - I doubt she would have liked being referred to as Margit in an English-language context). Thus, an contrary to my own choice when first drafting this content, I have come to the conclusion displaying their first names as primarily in Hungarian is ahistorical and misleading. Please tell me what you think.

For the Apponyis before the mid-19th century, most contemporary source materials are in Latin or German. For readability I believe using English is better than either, and conforms to established best practices when referring to nobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boubloub (talk • contribs) 15:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boubloub:,

Again, if you are sure as the two instances mentioned here a form has been used extensively, then at the titles you may put it on the first place and the Hungarian the second, but no need to list all versions. On the other hand, just because we are in cases earlier than the mid-19th century, it does not automatically means Hungarian would be ahistorical, since i.e. Latin was just the form of administraton, but not used in the real life, but also later the same happened, regarding bitth papers and administration up to the end of the 19th century. Readability at this point has nothing to with inventing fake English names, like John Apponyi which have never existed, blind Anglicization is misleading.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:

Thanks - I take that as constructive. We do disagree on policy - this in an article in English, so John Apponyi makes sense because had Janos/Johannes Apponyi gone to the English King's court that's how he would have introduced himself. (These people were deeply multilingual, with few exceptions to the end of the Habsburg Monarchy.) Btw this view of mine is in line with general Wikipedia policy, as countless articles on non-Hungarians demonstrate.

But we can agree to disagree on that and still find a practical way out. I will take a further look at source documents and apportion Hungarian, Latin or German names accordingly. (Not immediately though - I have other things to do now.)

@Boubloub:

In the English WP there are yes many article where Anglicization applied, and many other when not, it depends on the context, reference, widely usage or, it has any specific connection or mention particularly regarding the Anglo-Saxon culture, etc.. I would as well dounbt the subject would introduce himself as John, but would use the most common name he uses.

Ok, but present at every instance in the talk page, so they can be reviewed, thus we may choose the best option if more. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:

I won't do it in talk page, nothing justifies that effort. There should be no presumption either way - Hungarian, German, or Latin - anyway. But you'll be able to check the referenced material in the notes.

Heads of Government who have been jailed

Hi I just went on the jailed government leaders page and saw that all the edits that you, and others, had made recently had been reverted. I noticed that you were on of the last editors to edit there and The article is now without any references and is filled with BLP issues as it accuses people, without sources, of various crimes. I was wondering if you might re-add all the sources information that seems to have been deleted so that it’s not filled with violations. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.245.250 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@82.132.245.25:,

I think you should go on with that. I edited the article before, if you choose any of the stable versions I reset, could be a good beginning, but as well I did not check the article one-by-one to check all the validity, just what arbitrarily came into my attention. Also check the talk page, there I raised my concerns.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC))

Hello there

Can you stop disrespecting the Romanians on Wikipedia, all the time? Who wrote that misery of an article? Are we at the history hour or what? Everytime you shit on the Romanians and mock them. You will only make the whole city and the Romanian ethnics to hate you. It is too much detailing and offensive history. Let's seee what what I edited:

• Nagyvárad (Oradea) in 1910 was a prosperous city in the Kingdom of Hungary, with a 90% Hungarian population. (is this the Hungarian history book? should I also say Transylvania had important majority in Transylvania? tell me, only your sources are good? will you also remove that? I am simply showing you the article is very subjective)
• against the Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) railway workers’ club KVSC (I said just against KVSC)
• Nagyvárad found itself 12 km beyond Hungary’s borders, and was now officially called Oradea, but the club and the city were still dominated by Hungarians. (again... history!? plus it mentioned and against mention a large number of Hungarian players)
• Transylvanian teams joined the Romanian national championship in 1921–22 (I said IT JOINED, too much detailing)
• the vast majority of whom were, incidentally, ethnic Hungarians, Jews and Germans. (mockery and discrimination against Romanians, I said "During the interwar period CAO supplied eighteen Romanian internationals, including ethnic Hungarians, Jews and Germans."
• Thanks to the Bucharest chief of police ’s misuse of funds for his club Venus București, Bodola was transferred to the capital in 1937. (another huge mockery against Romania, I said "Bodola was transferred to Venus București in the Romanian capital in 1937." and it's enough; our newspapers don't agree with yours, and even if you can find something like that, the article is about CAO)
• Romania was in the throes of its own right-wing military dictatorship. (ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Do you support these lies? Antonescu was not a real fascist but a military dictator, I said "under military dictatorship". He needed a party at least to govern, and nobody wanted to do it, the fascists came and they only had 15%. And at war. These are the Russian lies that Romania was fascist. Sure he supported the policies of Hitler, but in fact he had war with the fascists also.).
• About Gyula Lóránt, if you want to say he is from Western Hungary and more about his career, you can do it on his page.
• Again, no need to repeat history (I wrote "headed back to Oradea in the 1940s", instead of "he headed back to Oradea after the annexation of northern Transylvania by Hungary in 1940"; YOU ARE LUCKY I DID NOT DELETE THE WHOLE EXTRA MATERIAL)
• Spielmann was German, not Hungarian, I tried to make connection between cultural ethnicities
• "Nicolae Simatoc, a reserve, was the only ethnic Romanian in the NAC squad; he was kept out of the starting line-up by the all-Timișorean midfield of Petschovschi, Demetrovits and Juhász. Simatoc, known as Miklós Szegedi in Hungary, would go on to spend one season alongside Kubala at FC Barcelona, as well as two years at Inter Milan." (again mockery of a Romanian etchnic, making him inferior, I said "Romanian national team player Nicolae Simatoc would go on to spend one season alongside Kubala at FC Barcelona, as well as two years at Inter Milan.")
• Etc etc

Some users have transformed the page into a Hungarian one, can you still talk about Romanian-Hungarian culture and friendship? I assume my edits are of good faith. I don't understand why you disrespect other users on Wikipedia, when I explained well why. I hope you assume I am on of a good faith and feel free to read my edits entirely.

Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rostadia2012:,

please avoid stating things that are not true, I don't disrespect anyone. The article's history is visible, and I don't know why you address those questions to me. As well you should avoid obscene language and defamating, offensive statement which are false..."offensive history"? What are you talking about?

- the article was not not subjective, just because you don't like some facts

- The club is inevitable part of the Hungarian history, and of course it had a large number of Hungarian players, what's your problem with that?

- no, there is not any mockery or discrimination against anyone, if that was the situation that time

- if there are more sources or conflicting sources, it may be added, but you should not delete others

- Sorry, you address these questions to the wrong person, you deny it has been a right-wing one?

- Gyula Lóránt is part of the club's history, no reason for removal

- I have no problem with small copyedits or simplifications, but you did too many mass changing and once, apperently deleting majority of material in connection with Hungarians

- Spielmann was Hungarian of ethnic German descent, later became a Romanian national, and after again Hungarian, then again Romania.

- again, it's not a mockery, but a fact, why it is bothering you?

Keep in mind just because you don't like some things, it's not a reason for removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC))

Did you at least bother to read my edits? Were all of good faith. No, it's very subjective, but again you don't even bother to read my lines/edits. The club is part of the Hungarian-Romanian culture (of both sides). How not? You call our player "reserve" in comparison to the Hungarians, but he ended playing for Barcelona and Inter Milan. Then you say some police chief of Bucharest was involved in misuse of funds. Spielmann was a German ethnic, you can agree. I called him German ethnic. "the vast majority of whom were, incidentally, ethnic Hungarians, Jews and Germans." Fair is it? You made Spielmann also Hungarian. You call him Hungarian but he played first of Romania, he was Hungarian just by birth. Plus I edited this proposition into "including ethnic Hungarians, Jews and Germans." Should I also add "many"? I will. But it's like the author/creator wants to make comparisons between ethnicities and to promote history.

I would like to see what it also bothers you. Rostadia2012 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rostadia2012:,

yes, I read your edits, (otherwise how could I answer?). You apparently removed materials in connection with Hungarians widely, that did not seemed like that. Just because a player has been a reserve, and others were not, it's the decision of the coach, it does not mean the player was not good (any player starts as a reserve or is a reserve in a team, in other teams a leading star, etc.). Excuse me, not I say, I restored the article to it's previous state. What would we disagree on Spielmann? I modified the sentence you quoted. "You made Spielmann also Hungarian" -> Spielmann was a Hungarian-born, Hungarian national citizen, ethnic origin is another issue, so he can be called Hungarian, as any national of the country. Then he became a Romanian national, after again Hungarian, then again Romanian, so there is not any inaccuracy here (in his personal page he is identified as a Romanian footballer, so what?). Again, the sentence has been modified.

I've told you everything I wanted for now.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC))

Romani in Hungary

Hi, just a quick heads up, I don't know if you've noticed but you are on your second revert in under 24 hours on Romani people in Hungary. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

you are as well at the second revert, and I can still fairly revert you if you don't gain consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC))

That's not how WP:3RR works. Please discuss to reach consensus. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

We are not discussing about WP:3RR, but you act in the opposite way you should, you have to gain consensus, since you altered the content.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC))

We can discuss that elsewhere, this was just a friendly warning about reversion.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

Ok, but quite odd you warn me for something you should have be better concerned, you started the discussion here.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC))

Commentary

Wikipedia should state what sources state. if you don't think the source is pertinent then comment on the talk page why; if you think the phrasing can be improved, try to improve it but strictly following the source, not other ideas; 3) if you do not like what the source states, bad thing.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

I used the source you added, and not my ideas, I even gave a you a direct link.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

No. The content has an accompanying literal citation. "Until the late fifteenth century the idea of Europe was principally a geographical expression and subordinated to Christendom which was the dominant identity system in the West. The idea of Europe as the West began to be consolidated in the foreign conquests of the age of 'discovery" (...) "Europe then begins to shed itself of its association with Christendom and slowly becomes an autonomous discourse." (Delanty 1995, p. 30) Could you tell how your edit adhere best to that quote? How can this change be justified with the cited source: [27]? Because I think you can't. You have magically removed the Age of Discovery from the equation for reasons I am not yet able to ascertain.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

just read your own summarization, you simply cannot describe became detached from Christendom, not even that quotes approves that you present here. Did you check the link I presented from your own source? Your close praphrasing is the problem, while mine is appropriate explaining the situation, as it was just a kind of decline.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

"detach from" is not a good approximation to "shed itself of its association from"? How so? Are you kidding? The point about why did you remove the Age of Discovery from the equation still remains, too. So far I don't think my edit had a "problem" that you may have solved in any way whatsoever. I think you have deviated from Delanty for unjustified reasons.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

I hope you properly understand what means detached, well it was certainly not, it was a slow process in more hundred years and not necessarily became completed. Christendom has been as well in the 19th-20th cenutry a core principle in Europe, even until today many parts. Age of discovery/listing centuries are marginal. However, by most of these discoveries Christendom was even exported to those places as well. Deviated? I ask the third time, did you check the link I provided which is from the source you added?(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

Again. Read the text. you are grasping at straws with the "detach" issue. And explain why it is a bad phrasing of the words of Delanty. I do not care up to this point if you don't agree with it. Age of discovery/listing centuries are marginal. I wonder if it is that a point any source is making or it is you? (no century was mentioned inline, now that you bring that up, btw). Yes, deviating. You are straying away from this: Delanty, Gerard (1995). "The Westernisation of Europe". Inventing Europe Idea, Identity, Reality. p. 30. doi:10.1057/9780230379657. ISBN 978-0-333-62203-2. "Until the late fifteenth century the idea of Europe was principally a geographical expression and subordinated to Christendom which was the dominant identity system in the West. The idea of Europe as the West began to be consolidated in the foreign conquests of the age of 'discovery" (...) "Europe then begins to shed itself of its association with Christendom and slowly becomes an autonomous discourse."--Asqueladd (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

you are circularly repeating the same, and I don't grasp any straws. I read everything you provided, such like detach, I don't see ("begins to shed itself of its association with Christendom and slowly becomes" does not mean what you summarized by "became detached from Christendom"). On the other hand if I click to the source you provided also here, and head to the Europe in the Age of Modernity abstract, I read i.e. this:

The idea of Europe is a creation of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, for it was in these centuries that it entered into its own as a secularised version of Christendom which began to decline as a unifying narrative. The Reformation and the seventeenth century wars of religion shattered the unity of Christendom. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment provided the basis for a new secular identity. The idea of Europe henceforth became the cultural model of the West and served as a unifying theme of modernity. But this did not mean that Europe signified a radical break from the Christian world-view. What happened was that the idea of Europe simply became less subservient to the old nexus of Christendom and its alter ego Islam.

I hope you realized the problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

I may be going in circles because you are going in circles. I have opened a thread in the talk page.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that, since I pinpointed the problem immediately. Ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

I think you feel aggrieved for something the article does not state (that "Europe" abandoned Christendom in the 15th century). I also think you are also inadvertedly reframing the focus of the article from "Western Europe" to "Europe". The article's focus should be the fuzzy concept of "Western Europe" (the novel idea of an European West), not "Europe" . While particularly at the beginning the differences stem from subtle nuances and can be underlapped (the former subsumed within the latter), the perspective is not exactly the same (and by the 19th/20th century, well after the Enlightenment, both concepts were already separated from each other). The idea of undermining the importance of the Age of Discovery (largely a "western european" phenomenon), as you deem it "marginal", and replacing it by the wars of religion (overall an "European" development altogether rather than purely "Western European", or, most acrimoniously in the Thirty Years War, "Central European" to a large extent), or changing the focus from "The westernisation of Europe" to ccould be hints that's the case. I think you should also should reflect on that when approaching the edition (all this without prejudice to the fact that the ideas of "West" and "East" are constantly being redefined and are not set in stone). Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

I think instead of unfounded speculations, you should concentrate on your part. I don't feel aggrieved etc., I did not reframe anything, what I said holds to Western Europe as well (I just gave a broader scope to reflect what you did not wish to see). I did not undermine anything, since they were partly touching, identical centuries. I never said the 19th/20th century was "exactly the same", etc. The situation is crystal-clear, explained more times, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

If you are not going to holistically reflect on the former, at least reflect on this: Your treatment of the content strays away from the idea of the chapter specifically dealing with the the Westernisation of Europe (which you just removed altogether from the lead). You have not adequately justified such divergence, and you have brought issues that are near entirely (all but an "adverbial modifier") a preoccupation of yours, not the source, no matter how "crystal-clear" you think things are.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

Your own close pharaphrasing stayed away more significantly - it seems hard for to see acknowlegde that, but you already updated yourself, a good direction -, anyway, your arbitrary choice from a new source added is not something carved in the stone, if no consensus we simply remove it, or even we may quote other parts from the same source, etc. What I did was not any preoccupation of mine but used your source to reflect your mistake of your summarization, and I adequately demonstrated multiple times the validity of my concerns which anyway was not by any means a relevant divergence, your initial became detached phrasing was that in fact. It is normal if I pinpointed broader scope some issues related what you failed to see, this is natural if somebody does not understand something in the beginning.

P.S.: I suggest you stop recurrently modifying your already posted comments (continous edit conflict), as well to overexplain yourself, it's quite tendentious and overwrought. The initial and slightly modified summarizations are insufficient and not satisfactory, misunderstandable. Deal with it, instead of hunting me of invented/speculative things. Everyone commit mistakes, so what, we'll correct it, don't take it so hard...Holistically? Excuse me, I reacted to everything, more times, read back it you missed something, but to continue this discussion here is useless.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

To begin with, what new source are you speaking about like if there were an old source before? There was no old source before. Unsourced content. I compel you again: Explain in the talk page how the focus of the chapter "Europe in the Age of Modernity" is more pertinent to Western Europe than the chapter "Westernisation of Europe"" (or why they are incompatible, being signed by the same author). Because you have not solved that. Of course sourced content can be refined (I am already proposing changes in the talk page), but you have did not do that. you have removed sourced content, because according to you "Age of Discovery" is "marginal" (sic) vis-a-vis Western Europe (Lol) and because according to you the article suggests Europe abandoned Christianity in the early modern period or something like that (the article does no do that, it states, as per the source (Delanty 1995, pp. 30–31), that he idea of Europe became increasingly and protractedly autonomous from that of Christendom, attaching with that of the West as signifier).--Asqueladd (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Asqueladd:,

Everything is new what was not before there. I will react everything on the talk page if necessary, but now we are not on the article's talk page (btw. I disagree it would not be solved). Yes, I did not make a proposal yet, but I did with my edit trials, and I have considerable time to suggest or react anything anytime there, this is not an online chat platform, etc. Again, I rephrased content based on the same source which did not suffer from such discrepansies like some phrasing would suggest Christendom would be became detached then, that is obviously false.

Furthermore you again try address something to me which I did not say, I never said "Age of Discovery" is "marginal" (sic) , and I even explained, read back and increase your accuracy and precisity adequately, what I referred that if we list touching centuries or use this term is marginal, considering the main problem was the false representation of the dealing with Christendom. The article (= your bold edit precisely), was not stating what you describe here, and not even your first modified version. Only now you started to converge to more appropriate closing paraphrasing. Let's stop this discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC))

Edit warring on Hungarian language

Your recent editing history at Hungarian language shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your threat to continue to edit war does not help your case at all. Jeppiz (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz:,

funny with this warning you tell me to follow WP:BRD, which I have followed all the time, while others did not, moreover I did not harm any policy, moreover two reverts in 5 days, given these to make such a warning is totally unprofessional, out of practice. Just rememeber your earlier warning when you as well did not perform everything properly and your sudden actions was useless, as turned out in the end. Please refrain yourself from unneccesary overreactions and such kind of dubious warnings in the future.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC))

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Funny, you think with mirroring activities and copy-pastes your disruptive activity in several pages are not apparent?(KIENGIR (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Hungarian irredentism is covered by discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Please see the recent AN3 complaint. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

About Belarusian People's Republic

I just received a notification says that you reverted my edits, so I want to know the cause of your objection to my modification, if you don't mind. Mohammed 2976 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mohammed 2976:,

Sure, so as states as well in the edit log, in 1918-1919 such borders of Europe you posted did not exist, some parts are from 1924.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC))

Thank you for the clarification. Mohammed 2976 (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding our behavior towards each other

Hi @KIENGIR: I hope that you don’t hold a grudge against me because of our long drawn out debate months ago on the Tripartite talk pages. I feel as though your replies on the Axis page come across a bit passive aggressive. I don’t know. My replies and their details revolve around an a entirely new topic. I’m not repeating not even 1/12 of the things we spoke of before. And I was agreeing with you that more details in the box would probably be better. Which is why I went on about the original infobox format. The focus isn’t on NDH but a few sentences. A small part of my replies. I brought it up as a small point in a collection of many other points leading to my two option solutions for the infobox. I wasn’t trying to instigate a rerun of the same old topic. That is all said and done. I know we see some things differently and thats fine, that’s what RfCs are for. Other people will chime in. I hope we can maintain friendly relations as editors. Maybe the black and white text makes it hard to read intent and I’m over reading it. But just wanted to reach out to you personally. As I respect your views and the work you do on Wikipedia. Also bare in mind I cannot help myself, I type a lot as I type the same time I think. Maybe annoying to some but it’s unintentional. I get worried I might be missing details for the other person to see. OCD on my part maybe. Hence I re edit many times the same reply. OyMosby (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

no grudges, no aggressivity. I share the mutual respect and friendship. However I find not useful to repetitive open identical discussions which may be lengthy and was once discussed. See talk page of Kyiv. It became an online chatlist, no chance to follow.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

Awesome. Thing is I don’t really see how it was identical. My main argument was about the infobox and to go back to the original infobox. I wasn’t trying to restart an old argument. Your reply focused on the puppet and master equality part of my vote comment. Which wasn’t my main point. As irregardless of that I listed many other points as to why I preferred the original infobox. So I was confused. And felt that you were actually restarting an old arguments funny enough, haha!

I was agreeing with your stance that a more detailed infobox is better. And linked to a version I thought would be best. The original.Also bare in mind my initiation of the NDH subject was to a new audience not targeted towards you as Srnec mentioned Slovakia and NDH in the RfC. As we understand we have locked different views on the matter. Which is fine. I just wanted to make sure as sometimes I myself can come across a bit dismissive or pssive-agressive, even when I don’t mean to. I agree our last back and forth was overdrawn. I guess we both felt we could really convince the other to change their mind. Trust me I know the frustration of rehashed arguments. I deal with Balkan articles. At times I wish Croats just stuck with the Hungarians rather than be left to the Balkans....

Anyway, what DO you think about my proposal of going back to the original 2017 version of the infobox? OyMosby (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

it's not identical, but even 1/20 identical would be time consuming and not necessary. Now you again repeating/explain many things we already discussed. I did not overdraw anything, but I try to be as concise as possible. The 2017 version could be also good, but anyway it contains mistakes. The recent version don't.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

I didn’t say only you overdraw I mean us going on and on. Back and forth. Takes two to tango. As I was also trying to make sure I was being precise and explaining myself best as I can like yourself. What am I now repeating and explain again??? This isn’t even the same conversation.... I think you are taking this the wrong way. I meant it as a friendly banter. Man....

The recent version throws away a lot of information. Otherwise why not continue to simplify the infobox to just the main three axis powers? I’m not sure what mistakes it has. But to throw info out the door because of some mistakes seems like a bad trade off. It seems to break down categories quite specifically. OyMosby (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, friendliness much appreciated. I don't support to show only the main powers. Mistakes has the dates in some places. Well, many tried to re-add, but did not succeed.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

We both wrote screeds in the past so I’ll keep this short. I was being sarcastic about only showing the the powers. Fixing the dates I think is better than throwing all that info out. I think aesthetically 2017 was fine. Perhaps we can all work on the list dates and formatting if enough are agreeing or willing. We can carry on on the talk page. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: I don’t understand, here you were receptive and seemed okay with using the 2017 version while dates would be fixed but were dismissive about it on the other Axis Powers talk page not even entertaining it saying no one would accept it and just that current is flawless. Why not bring up both options? You even liked my last reply. I thought you were on the same page. By the way as for dates, I would vouch for Hungary post 1944 being listed as a Client state as it was occupied by Germany at that point. OyMosby (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

I think I fairly expressed my stance, which may co-exist, even if it shared partly pro- or contra opinions. Hungary has been a client state liekly by signing the Tripartite pact.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC))

I meant that you seemed open to the 2017 version if mistake are fixed but on the Axis Powers Talk page you seemed not for it at all. Saying others kept fighting it in the past? I think it was a select few who were against in the past. I wish it was made an option in the RfC not just current vs further reduced list. Would give more options. I don’t know. Also shouldn’t it be noted for situations like Hungary that became Client States later on after occupation in the infobox? I know some felt it would complicate the box too much. I felt different. What do you think?OyMosby (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I already clarified both places, I consider current version flawless (=support), while the other version (=partial support if corrected, but this does not annihilate my stance on the recent version). Again Hungary became likely a client state by signing the Tripartite Pact. I don't think more details on countries like qualifiers needed.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

No I get that now you views on both versions. But I’m not talking now qualifiers but clarifications should be added for client states, puppet governments and such? Also was there really a big amount of editors against the 2017 version in the past? You had mentioned.OyMosby (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anything such such be added, infobox is meant for concise overview. I did not check exactly the numbers, but was as well a discussion about it, which did not succeed, as I recall.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

By the way I looked at that Kiev talk page you mention. Christ, what mess that page is.OyMosby (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and unfortunately it will become worse, since now they think everywhere they may eliminate the word Kiev, just look the below the latest discussion and happenings.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

Common Slavic

Old Church Slavonic developed from the Proto-Slavic/Common Slavic dialects already spoken by southern Slavs in the lands of the First Bulgarian Empire. It states this in several of the respective articles, with clear sources. 74.12.127.61 (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@74.12.127.61:,

Please read the mother article. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC))

I did: "Authorities differ as to which periods should be included in Proto-Slavic and in Common Slavic. The language described in this article generally reflects the middle period, usually termed Late Proto-Slavic (sometimes Middle Common Slavic[2]) and often dated to around the 7th to 8th centuries. This language remains largely unattested, but a late-period variant, representing the late 9th-century dialect spoken around Thessaloniki in Greek Macedonia, is attested in Old Church Slavonic manuscripts."

Thanks. 74.12.127.61 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Principality of Kiev

Hello KIENGIR, I have reverted your change on the page of "Principality of Kiev". There are no inconsistencies with the referred links, because the link names were changed, names of the pictures were not changed, so pictures are still there. Titles cannot be changed right now, since they are locked because of the undergoing discussion about the best way to change Kiev to Kyiv everywhere in Wikipedia. You can see it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_Kyiv_disruption Concerning the inconsistencies: the page cannot say:

- around its capital city Kiev

- Capital Kiev

- Grand Princes of Kiev.

Because the name of the city is Kyiv (not Kiev), as per the main page. Hence "city Kiev", "Capital Kiev", "Princes of Kiev" - dont make any sense, because Kiev, does not exist. Some links are still directing to the pages using "Kiev". But, it is a Work in Progress. There are thousand of pages, and they cannot be corrected just overnight.

@T0mk0us:,

I suggest you to wait until this issue is closed in the noticeboard. Currently these changes lead to such elemental problems I explained in the edit log (on the other hand you may easily mask any Kiev with Kyiv|, and not all article's title have been changed). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

There are now any red links. As I explained the name of the city is Kyiv. Hence, rather Kyiv will be masked with Kiev. Concerning titles of articles, I have already explained. Since the change of the main page to Kyiv, all the references to this city should be changed to Kyiv. And this is a lot of work. Noticeboard are discussing the best possible way to do the chage for the titles and categories. And it will be done in one way or another. There will not be Kiev in English Wikipedia, only Kyiv. (exception for chicken-Kiev, LOL) Please do not continue edit warring. T0mk0us (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@T0mk0us:,

the report exactly approves my concern and what I said, and just the because the main page name changed, it does not mean in the English WP "Kiev" will never be any, see the respective talk at the main page as well. Edit-warring is something you outline in case you continue, since per policy I may fairly revert you at this point.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

I don't see any approval of your concern. In every page in English WP containing Kiev, Kiev will be changed to Kyiv. It is just the matter of time.

Excluding name of dishes like "Chiken Kiev" of cause. Because it is not even related to the capital of Ukraine Kyiv. I know the policy very well, and if you revert me again - it will be 3rd revert. Which could cost you a block. Like you were alredy blocked many times. Thank you. T0mk0us (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@T0mk0us:,

You should have read at least what you link to me, or for what I've drawn your attention. Repeating the same that I already reacted does not help. No, you don't know the policy well, the 3rd revert won't cost me a block, and have in mind anyone may still revert you fairly by policy.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

Your recent editing history at Principality of Kiev shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. T0mk0us (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@T0mk0us:,

are you kidding? Why are you keep posting to editors such notices, when in fact you made clear edit warring at the article, while other users just acted by policy? Especially now when I did not touch the article after opening the talk page discussion? No surprise you recurrently don't get what others tell you.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC))

I have edited article according to the decision made on Septembre 17th, 2020, concerning the change of the transliteration of the name of the capital of Ukraine from Kiev to Kyiv. You and other editor started the edit warring, because you did not liked my edit. what is the policy you are talking about? (T0mk0us talk) 04:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

@T0mk0us:,

No, you've been explained why that does not authorize the mass changes also on other articles references and names which are not bounded by this change (nothing to do with my preferences). Sorry, you ara again faking and refuse to see the point. Clear edit warring you did when you continued reverting after the discusson started in the talk page, and now you still continued it, reverting the another editor. Policies i.e. WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

Recent edits on some articles

Hi there, I've seen your edits on the National Legionary State, Government of National Unity, and Fascist Italy articles, your rationale for your edits was that they were government articles, not state articles.

Seeing your discussion on the Kingdom of Romania talk page, I came to agree with you when it comes to the Legionary state, but I have to disagree when it comes to the Government of National Unity and Fascist Italy.

The Government of National Unity was not merely a government within the Kingdom of Hungary, but a puppet state established by Nazi Germany, established because Horthy and signed an armistice with the Allies and they wanted to keep Hungary in the war, for this reason, I think the state categories should be kept in this case.

In Fascist Italy's case, there was a large break between the Kingdom before Fascism and during it, it was not as large as, say, that between the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany (which were technically the same entity, the "German Reich"), but still a large one nevertheless, before Fascism, Italy was a democratic country, but when the Fascists took power it became a totalitarian country ruled by one-party, and became so for 21 years, thus, I think the staste categories should be kept for this reason. -- 186.213.6.155 (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@186.213.6.155:,

Hi. You have to understand that unfortunately just because an article has a (former) country-like template, it does not necessarily mean they would be countries, these have also many inappropriate(ly) (working) parameters, which if you would correct, the whole would break.

Regarding Hungary, no new puppet state was installed, Hungary has been an Axis Power, the legal framwork was as well not broken in the succession line. What is a fact the new government's installement were supported by the Germans, and Horthy revoked the armistice earlier.

Regarding the other, the Kingdom of Italy is the country article, while - as well other's noticed and replaced the error in many other pages - the other article is about the Fascist era, similarly to the Romanian article. If you consider anything missing from the Kingdom of Italy article, you may add qualifiers, however I see there already Constitutional monarchy under a fascist one-party totalitarian dictatorship (1922–1943), etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

Horthy did not place the Arrow Cross in power because he wanted to but because he was forced by the Germans, when the Arrow Cross was put in power, Hungary became pretty much a puppet of Germany, saying that it wasn't just because Hungary was a member of the Axis is like saying that the Italian Social Republic wasn't a puppet

With regards to Italy, yes this is true, but again, there is a large break between the Kingdom before Fascism and during it, at least this was the argument used by one of the users in that discussion you mentioned, saying that Nazi Germany should be considered a state because there is a large break between it and the Weimar Republic, despite them being technically the same entity. -- 186.213.58.20 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@186.213.58.20:,

- Well, situations may be similar or quite different at some instances, we could also say the population's or the military leadership's stance was doubtful whether to continue or stop the war, puppet state's are better established or emerging newly, which is not really this case.

- There may be more specific country articles, Nazi Germany is a state article, while Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526) is a state article as well, but it does not mean Kingdom of Hungary would not be also.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

I don't see why that is the case, again, Germany put the Arrow Cross in power because Horthy signed an armistice with the Allies, if a country marched in into another, removed it's government because it did something it didn't like, and established another in it's place, said government would be widely recognized as a puppet, I don't see why it should be different in this case.

The Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were technically the same entities, if Nazi Germany is considered a state article (and I agree it should), I don't see why Fascist Italy shoud be different. -- 186.213.58.20 (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@186.213.58.20:,

- so again, pupper states are established/created and emerging, while Hungary was not like that, just the government changed after a long time. Do not confuse please governments with states

- Again, the article we are discussing is per definiton and Era article, not a state article.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

If a country is ruled by a puppet government, it automatically makes that country a puppet state, even if at first it wasn't one.

Same thing can be said about the Nazi Germany article, plus state articles can also be era articles, those things are not mutually exclusive. -- 186.213.58.20 (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@186.213.58.20:,

- this is not as clear as you suggest, since the new government were put through in a legal framework and sucession, as the parliament operated as well like so, unlike some puppet regimes.

- Possibly, but tan explicit era article cannot be state article.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

It's true that it was put through in a legal framework, but still, Horthy wouldn't do it if the Germans didn't force him to.

I'm curious, why do you consider Nazi Germany to be a state article, but you don't consider Fascist Italy to be one? -- 186.213.58.20 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So what? We summarize what happened, not what would have happened. Read the lead: ".... 1943–45, was the German state between 1933 and 1945, ...., vs. "...is the era of National Fascist Party government from 1922 to 1943.... I think this topic should be closed.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

Just because it put through in a legal framework doesn't mean it wasn't a puppet, and leads can be easily edited, but my point was, that technically, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were the same entity, hence, based on your rationale, Nazi Germany should be a government article, not a state one, but yeah, I don't see much reason to continue this topic. -- 186.213.58.20 (talk) 23:93, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@186.213.58.20:,

sorry I explained you already the situation, read back carefully and don't misinterpret my words. No, based on my rationale Nazi Germany should not be a government article, I've never suggested that. Mind my earlier sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

I didn't misinterpret anything, again what I stated was that technically the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany were the same entity, why then, should Nazi Germany be considered a state article but Fascist Italy not? -- 186.213.58.20 (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You did, and I already answered to you more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

Stein

Stein was baptized as an infant. Why do you think he should be called a convert? Srnec (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Srnec:,

Oh yes, sure, Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC))

Are you new to wp?

I noticed 4 problems with your edits here.

1. Stick with what the ref says, and what the wikipedia article is entitled. Your bastardization of them to state something quite different is not proper editing.

2. To link "United States" is overlinking. Which we should not engage in.

3. The same problem with 1, when you basterdize what the source says - for no good reason to delete the reference to the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. Is that something you wish to hide? This editing is quite odd. The source supports what was stated. Don't delete it.

4. Don't mark your edit "m" for minor in your edit summary, when you are engaging in deletions or significant changes to the edits of other editors. While I am of course certain it was not your intention, editors could think that you are trying to conceal problematic edits. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7472:3DB5:41A0:11EB (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E010:1100:7472:3DB5:41A0:11EB:,

Hi, I am not new to WP.

1 - excuse me, what kind of bastardization are you talking about? Close pharaphrasing is allowed and accuracy is also important.

2 - how could it be overlinking if that is the only link to it in the main text?

3 - I kept references, or even re-added some, if something disappeared, may be by mistake, I don't wish to hide anything, but accurately the Munich Agreement assigned part of Czechoslovakia to Germany, while later the country broke up and the Czech rump state joined as a Protectorate to Germany, there was not any one-time occupation event as your wordage would insist.

4 - Sorry, no significant changes were made in the article, practically two linkings and one sentence-plus paraphrasing.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Oh. I'm sorry - these didn't appear to me to be edits a non-early-user would make.

1. The bastardization should be self-evident. You did not closely paraphrase - you bastardized to substantively delete reference that perhaps you do not like. But the reference is in the source. And in the title of the Wikipedia article. That is not permissible.

2. It is overlinking to link "United States." Even if it is the only link in the text. I again could understand a new editor not knowing this. But an experienced editor should. Let me know if I have to look for the relevant policy for you, and I will provide it.

3. Same as 1.

4. Changes 1 and 3 referred to above were not minor. They were substantive. I will fix them, as you do not seem to see the issue. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7472:3DB5:41A0:11EB (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E010:1100:7472:3DB5:41A0:11EB:.

Sorry, I disagree, my answers are above, I see no reason to repeat them, believe I have relevant experience, you should remain at the talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

• I fail to see how you, exercising good faith, even now, can assert that your deletion of "three days before the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia in 1939" - for example, was not substantive. It is troubling because, as with your other substantive change, it appears to be an effort to downplay the Nazis. I note that the same concern is states as to your edits by other editors, above.

Also, as you did not acknowledge it, and just dismissed my comment and asserted you were correct, I give you wp:overlink. As it states quite clearly - which leaves me puzzled as to why you, as a non-new editor would say you were correct in linking "United States" - "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of ... countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian)." Surely, you as an experienced good faith editor can see how "United States" would fall into that category. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7472:3DB5:41A0:11EB (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E010:1100:7472:3DB5:41A0:11EB:,

here must be a misunderstanding. Earlier the page attested three days, after your edit three months. I have no problem to stick your source, however it could tell us also important whereabouts of the original question. Sorry, what is appear to be and the reality may be different. Which editor(s) you refer? The one above e.g. who does not see or understand some things, or not necessarily is an expert of history? On the other issue, we have plenty articles where countries are even linked in a multiple way, I find it quite odd that one link would be the showcase of overlinking, practically we remove repeated links at the same instance. But you know what, I will accept to unlink United States, if really this satisfies you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rzucewo culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pre-Indo-European.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Hey, I see you reverted some of my maps removing, yes it was on other pages all added by one user, and seems just as original not piblished work. So think. No source, not published and totally original work and I saw on somw pages people.already removed it and the same user put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnAnicolaidis (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @AnAnicolaidis:,

Please at one of the article's talk page open a discussion and tell your concerns, pointing out you wish to discuss thus is issue globally. Gain consensus there for removal. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

Well I dont think to that work for original research and unsurced work, it can be removed. I only dont know why you reverted and put back unsourced work what is original and ignored explained edits. So explain, I can easy revert unsourced works so give some good explanation.AnAnicolaidis (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@AnAnicolaidis:,

Per policy, since they are present more months in the articles.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

Present couple of months and added all in the same time on some pages reverted but put back, example of Serbs page, I was interested when I saw but when checked where I can find a source cuz can be useful it seems just as someone original work not sourced at all and not published at all. You seems as a old user with a lot of experience and to you care about to things are sourced and relevant and true, so please check if looks good than ok if it is just some original thought or work and not quality cuz about maps, lets say colors mean much too, it must go out.AnAnicolaidis (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@AnAnicolaidis:,

I think they are useful and informative, but for your concern I recommended to open a talk page discussion, if you stick to it. Then you concern may be more thoroughly investigated.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

Maurice?

The hell is with this whole “Maurice” nonsense on Axis Powers? A reddit or meme challenge from some video to disrupt the page? EDIT: I think I figured out the source of this childish ongoing game https://www.reddit.com/r/comedyheaven/comments/e3220t/maurice/ . I remember when I was in Middle school messing with Wikipedia. HahaOyMosby (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

I don't know, the users/IPs who are pushing this are serious vandals, report them to admins to block them.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC))

Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II#map 2

please explain and argument for your case in the talkpage, you never provided rationale for your edits other some vague "r- oppose chane, the previous map was much more better, everything is hyphothetic anyway, not carved in a stone" or "Then the last stable map will be restored that was before your edits" that is considered disprutive that you are ready to start an repeatingly reverting (read: edit war) and do so without any rationale, i will atleast not continue edit waring with you but this still means you have to go through WP:BRD Gooduserdude (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gooduserdude:,

I did provide rationale (you even cited them), and following our policies is not "disruptive", and I am fully aware of the guidelines, don't worry. If you say you won't continue, why did you revert? WP:BRD is on you, since you changed recurrently the map, per this rule, I fairly restored the article to it's earlier status.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC))

Discussion about you at ANI by LordRogalDorn

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Posting this notice on behalf of LordRogalDorn. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:,

Thank you, at least the entire community may review this soap opera, I am just sorry for anyone's time lost on this nonsense.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC))

Concerning your edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&diff=next&oldid=983712062

You have recently removed information mentioning Viktor Orban, the Prime Minister of Hungary in the lead section of the Hungary article. I believe that Orban and his policies which have eroded democracy in the country is a significant and notable aspect that warrants being mentioned in the lead section. Why do you believe otherwise? --DeathTrain (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

DeathTrain your edit pattern is getting a bit concerning. How many editors have reverted you on thsee types of edits? So far it appears most belive that the edits are undue additions when these articles cover millennium's worth of information.--Moxy 🍁 00:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain:,

I agree with @Moxy:, your opinion about politics is not necessarily lead worthy, considering it is anyway a controversial issue, and the Government and Politics section anyway discuss such issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Not many. When I add information on current or relatively recent governments to lead sections of countries, they are for ones that I believe to be especially notable, as they are usually longtime leaders who have a significant impact. For example, Putin has dominated Russia's government for around two-thirds of Russia's post-Soviet history, under whom human rights in the country have significantly declined, which is prominently mentioned in the Russia articles "Politics" section. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's rule has been concurrent with a period of democratic backsliding, such that Hungary is no longer considered a democracy. I believe that leaving it out of the lead section and only having it say that Hungary became a democratic parliamentary republic in 1989 is misleading. Even if some consider my additions to be undue weight, I would have no problem creating edits to make them appropriate. Many articles are similar, with the Turkey article mentioning how Erdogan has similarly eroded democratic Kemalist institutions, and with the Belarus article mentioning how Lukashenko has been described as leading "Europe's last dictatorship" and gives specific examples of his authoritarian leadership. Other examples of countries that mention and elaborate on longtime or current governments: Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Syria, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela I do not plan to talk about Donald Trump in the lead section of the United States article as I do not believe he has been too significant to the history of that country yet. These are not my opinions, but objective facts compiled by non-governmental organizations and scholars. I also tend to contextualize and elaborate upon human rights in lead sections, as has been done in many articles of countries with problematic human rights records, such as with the aforementioned countries as well as China, Iran, Cuba and North Korea. More notably, MOS:LEAD mandates that a lead section "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Why do you believe that my additions are not significant enough to be lead-worthy? DeathTrain (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain:,

the other issues listed here and your opinion about them, or their specific notability is another issue, in some cases even if you'd consider similarity, on the other hand as much or even more, incomparable difference may occur. Hungary is considered a democracy, while on the other hand she receives criticism, from some politicians, domestic opposition parties, media outlets, organizations etc. mostly connected to a another political family. Also we could give long explanations about the period of 2002-2010, which has been disastrous and could receive much more critics, anything before it until 1989. The lead is not for shoapboxing political issues, we have to remain neutral.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

I am being neutral. NGOs like Human Rights Watch mention that "the Hungarian government fails to respect the rule of law and human rights", which are important elements of democracy. (https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/hungary) My edits on the Hungary article place the issue in context, with the democratic backsliding beginning under Orban. We could also give a brief mention the period right before Orban, with something like, "Following a period of economic and political turmoil from 2002 until 2010, Hungary has experienced significant democratic backsliding after the election of right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban in 2010." It is understandable that you think that Hungary is still a relatively democratic state. However, what will need to happen for you to believe that the democratic backsliding is significant enough to warrant changing the lead section? DeathTrain (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your wording was not neutral at all, and the NGO's reports are heavily misleading, at many aspects in fact the opposite is true. Such soapboxing was even removed from the Poland article, at Hungary I was the one who did not remove such critic in the section I referred, although I could easily do that, so you cannot say I don't respect criticism, but won't support politically motivated lobbies. Understandable to think? Sorry, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, only the reality matters, that is the "democratic backsliding" is a decription of the criticists.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

If that is the case, then do you have proof that the opposite is true, and that democratic backsliding is not happening or that it is not that significant under Orban? Orban himself even describes the state he plans to build as "illiberal". (https://euobserver.com/political/125128), and that is prominently mentioned in the lead section of his own article. DeathTrain (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please try not to confuse opinions with facts. Critics are already on the page on the relevant section, and Orbán's concept of illiberalism is well explained on the source you have given, but it did not really affect democratic values in Hungary. Orbán is not Hungary, not much counts what is on his page.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Once again, do you have proof from independent entities that Orban's illiberalism is not really affecting democracy in Hungary? Under your interpretation of MOS:LEAD, do you think how Erdogan is mentioned in the Turkey article is inappropriate? What about Lukashenko in Belarus, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or Nazarbayev and Tokayev in Kazakhstan? What would change your mind if anything? Even if Orban is not Hungary, isn't he still significant? If he is not significant enough now, then could he ever be worth mentioning in the lead section like Árpád or Stephen I? What would be required for Orban to be mentioned in the lead section of the article? DeathTrain (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, do not confuse opinions with facts, btw. independent entities could be really hard to find in today's political environment. As well, about other countries or articles any issue should be discussed there. We don't know if ever Orbán could be mentioned along with historic kings or sacred rulers, as I said currently, in the appropriate section anyway the debated/weird freedom house report is already present, which sufficently satisfies criticists point of view (I reiterate the same report was removed from the Poland article, so please do not insist I would not be correct).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

Alright, I propose we settle this with a discussion on the Hungary talk page. Are you okay with that? DeathTrain (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's your choice, but I think you should not endorse this issue, given the aforementioned problems, and btw. we already discussed here extensively, no need to repeat twice.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

So I did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungary#Orban_in_lead_section DeathTrain (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Fidesz

Hello @KIENGIR! I wrote a little paragraph about Fidesz anti-semitic moments, but you deleted it. Could you please tell me how can I make this paragraph more neutral? Why is this information inaccurate for you? Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlagyimir1997 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vlagyimir1997:,

Some parts are either redundant, or blatant overexaggerations, or simply not accurate. E.g The Soros-poster case is already mentioned, the accusations as well, along with that the Israeli government defended the case. We don't need a controversial SOAPBOXING, targeting invidividuals, which barely represent the party, as well we should not make conflation with the Government itself, as every criticism are circling out this. This competition with accusations of anti-Semitism is amateurish, not even the Jobbik page contains as many issues that you tried to compile here. The article is already full with widesperad mainstream criticism, even in a more wide extent as necessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:

1.Soros called the campaign anti-Semitic. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-soros-idUSKBN1DK0M8 2.You can not avoid conflating the behaviour of Fidesz with the government, since it is the governing party! 3. The individuals mention are core figures and do represent the Fidesz : Kövér is a founder of the party and currently speaker of the house with very controversial anti-semitic remarks among others the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Kövér#Nyírő's_reburial Takaró is the main architect of the National Curriculum appointed by the Fidesz government Raffay is also https://hungarianspectrum.org/tag/mihaly-takaro/ Bayer is a well-known racist holds Fidesz party membership book nr 5. and the mastermind behind anti-semitic, anti-roma, anti-gay, anti immigrant propaganda in government and government-affiliated media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsolt_Bayer https://budapestbeacon.com/israel-ambassador-to-hungary-calls-intolerable-fidesz-publicist-zsolt-bayers-anti-semitism/ 4. Döbrentei is a decorated Fidesz inner-circle poet laureate of Fidesz at almost all Fidesz rallies https://www.europeaninterest.eu/article/orban-honors-anti-semitic-poet/ 5. I believe you must allow to inform wikipedia readers about this aspect of Fidesz to get a balanced view. If you dismiss the anti-semitism aspect of Fidesz , who uses it for its own political benefit, you fell into the trap of Fidesz double talk which they employ to distort truth. I am ready to compromise and accept suggestions but just wiping out this issue is unacceptable and I am ready for arbitration. Looking forward for cooperation on this.

@Vlagyimir1997:,

1. The Soros-case is already mentioned in the article

2. The article is about the party, not the government

3. Raffay no, he was a former MDF member and have no membership with parties, Bayer is just accused to be anti-Semitic or racist, don't present opinions as facts

4. This is again a controversial case, again don't confuse stat decorations with party affairs

5. I don't fell into any trap, just neutrality is not equal with propaganda

What I can offer, we may insert one sentence where the Soros-case is mentioned that various people have been accused of anti-Semitism, e.g..(KIENGIR (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

Dear Editor thank you for your respond. I do not want to take issue with you further however. What you have mentioned is the core of the problem: there is NO difference between the Fidesz-party and the Fidesz-government. It is considered by many objective observers as a one-party-state and vica versa Fidesz as state-party. Nevertheless your solution is acceptable, if you insert a sentence where Soros is mentioned that various Fidesz people have been accused of anti-Semitism with wikipedia cross-reference to Kövér and Pócs who are clearly Fidesz prominents. Thank you for your help in the name of those who consider this information as an important and unfortunate development of the once liberal Fidesz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlagyimir1997 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to add, it is a fact that the part is not equal with the government, however the leading party-alliance is composed of two parties. The so-called objective observers claim indeed sometimes very strange things. Btw., I added the content you outlined as an agreement.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

Viribus Unitis

Hey KIENGIR, I removed the links to Viribus Unitis on House of Habsburg and House of Habsburg-Lorraine because there is no Wikipedia article about this motto; instead, Viribus Unitis is a disambiguation page, and there's no use in linking to it (see also Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links). I guess an alternative to not linking would be a red link to Viribus Unitis (motto), but doing this would imply the expectation that this page will ever be created, which seems unlikely to me. In any case, the choice is yours, but leaving it as it was is not an option. I hope that clears it up. Lennart97 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lennart97:,

I was considering, but the third entry is the exact definition, whithout leading to any page, so I think the linking should be retained until specific article created. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

Is it really only the motto of the Lorraine branch, specifically? If that's the case, I guess clicking the link to find that definition is kind of helpful if you start at the general Habsburg page, to find out that it's Lorraine's motto, specifically, but not much else. It's a bit vague to me in the first place, since in both cases the motto isn't even mentioned outside of the infobox. Keeping the links is fine with me, though, although in that case they should link to the disambiguation page explicitly, as in ((Viribus Unitis (disambiguation)|Viribus Unitis)). That way, the DPL report doesn't register them as needing fixing. Thanks! Lennart97 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Lennart97:,

who knows, maybe especially for this reasson the DPL bot is ignoring, but I don't know for sure. You may raise the issue along everything you pinpointed/suggested here in the article's talk, becasue I don't know if it have been the onky motto. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC))

Hungarian emigrants to Cuba

You dont become a Cuban person just by migrating. The is a separate process. Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

we already discussed that we disagree on this. In case the immigrant gaines the country's citizenship (=nationality), the person will be in the same status as any other country's citizen. It does not necessarily just apply to the next generation descendants's as you try to interpret. So please, don't remove anymore such categories in mass regarding Hungarian-related articles without consensus. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

Becoming a citizen is a different process, with its own category. Many migrants never become citizens of the new country. It's misleading to imply that they do. If you think they are the same thing then you can suggest that the categories should be merged. Rathfelder (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:,

I did not re-add to anyone who did not become a citizen (or if yes, tell me). But I've made self-reverts in the categories, and added each person listed who had the citizenship directly.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC))

Russians and Normans

This statement is quite controversial, could you add authoritative sources here, or revert it back please. --AndriiDr (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@AndriiDr:,

I reverted per status quo ante. Take it to the talk page, discuss there with Noraskulk, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC))

I checked the sources and already wrote to him. I think this statement needs to be erased until it is proven. Thanks. --AndriiDr (talk) 05:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Forgot about Keith Hitchins' quote

Hi, when you reverted to the status quo version for Hungarian irredentism [[28]], you accidentally removed Keith Hitchins' quote, who was in the status quo version. You also accidentally removed Keith Hitchins' quote in Hungary in World War II [[29]] when you restored lost intermediary edits.

The historian Keith Hitchins summarised the situation created by the award in his book "Rumania: 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe), Oxford University Press, 1994": Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.

I should also point out, that the restored text is contradictory with Hitchins' quote: "By dividing Transylvania between Romania and Hungary, Hitler was able to ease tensions in both countries" as opposed to "Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary". The former doesn't seem to have a source to back it up, clearly they are in contradictory, as you can't ease tensions and exacerbate relations at the same time. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Adam Liszt

added a link pointing to Raiding

Royal free city

added a link pointing to Kingdom of Croatia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

State of the Teutonic Order

Hi, why do you keep reverting my edits? The State of the Teutonic Order was not disestablished as part of the Holy Roman Empire, but as part of Poland, which it formed since 1466, per the sixth paragraph of the 1466 peace treaty (as already hinted in the article, with references). Even the maps in the article show that the Teutonic State was located outside of the Holy Roman Empire. As a result of your removal, two categories I've created were once deleted as empty. Also, it was Polish Gdańsk that was invaded in 1308, not Danzig, and Russian Pskov in 1367, not Pleskau (just like, for example, in 1939 Germany invaded Kraków, not Krakau). Plus, the administrative provinces of Poland were Pomerania and Warmia, not Pomerelia and Ermeland, the Duchy of Pomerania was a permanent fief of the Holy Roman Empire since 1227, earlier it often switched affiliation, and there is no need to list all in the article, as it is not relevant to the topic, and the Hanseatic League is rather shortened to Hansa in English.

Marcin 303 (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Marcin 303:

Well actually some part of it formed Royal Prussia, which became an autonomous dependency of Poland, while the other parts somehow incorporated, only in 1569 it merged fully into Poland, so that category should be ignored. Considering the naming in the timeline it has been already under the Teutonic states, so the contemporary name usage is justified. Regarding the infobox, ok, per article title shall it be Kraków.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: You've completely missed the point. Could you please answer each of the following questions separately:

1. Do you know that the remaining Prussian part of the Teutonic State (I'm talking about the eastern part, not Royal Prussia) was included within the Kingdom of Poland, as a Teutonic-held fief, per the sixth paragraph of the 1466 peace treaty?
2. Why do you use the names Danzig and Pleskau for Polish Gdańsk and Russian Pskov in reference to the 1308 and 1367 Teutonic invasions? Those cities were not under Teutonic rule during the invasions, obviously, hence the invasions. Would you also say that, let's say, Germany invaded Posen and Krakau in 1939 (instead of Poznań and Kraków) or Germany invaded Straßburg and Mülhausen in 1940 (instead of Strasbourg and Mulhouse)?
3. Do you know that the Duchy of Pomerania was a permanent fief of the Holy Roman Empire since 1227, not 1181? In 1181 it became a fief of the empire for only FOUR years, and both before 1181 and after 1185 the duchy was a fief of other countries, including Poland and Denmark. I think it's fair to either list all countries, or only the Holy Roman Empire permanent dependence since 1227, otherwise it would be misleading.
4. Do you know that in Poland there was no such thing as a Pomerelian Voivodeship, and that Warmia was referred to as Warmia in Poland, not Ermeland?
5. Do you acknowledge the fact that the Hanseatic League is rather shortened to Hansa in English, instead of Hanse, and this is supposed to be a neutral point of view English-language article, not a German-oriented one? Marcin 303 (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marcin 303:,

- yes

- no, however at the time it was spelled/called as Danczk, e.g.

- it could be solved like we address when permanently happened

- yes(KIENGIR (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC))

November 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Viktor Orbán; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Paleontologist99 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Paleontologist99:,

are you kidding? This warning may be valid for you since you don't have consensus and ignore dispute resolution, which I started.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC))

Demographics of Hungary

May I ask why you have deleted ALL my contributions to the Demographics of Hungary? Among this where a different census on the population of Northern Transsylvania wile was under Romanian rule and re-worded a phrase that even it's source showed the first Romanian name registered in Hungarian lands, it said it was "supposed romanian name" which oviously shows bias.

It is very clear that the page, Demographics of Hungary has a problem with bias. And even though in the talk section contributions from a different perspective are ecoraged, that means nothing if people like you just delet them. L'grand Anonim (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@L'grand Anonim:,

Hi,

the following reasons:

-it is noted in the relevant section that the census was based on langauge

-removal of data

-fleeding refugees have also after WW1, since by the revolutions and interventions in Hungary the war continued some places, and/or later by the occupying foreign authorities expelled them, etc.

-ortography, etc.

-you swapped census with estimations

-'Ola' may refer to a supposed Romanian, but not in Romanian

-immigration is not necessarily identical with foreigners living in Hungary, as well not sure what others would refer exactly

I disagree there would be any bias, especially on the issues you outlined here, given the earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC))

-I still not see why there is a problem with adding the results of the Romanian census of 1930, as Norther Trassylvania is the rgion which is discused. Multiple sources are always wellcomed, and it would be nice for the reader to see some of the ambiguity related to related area. -I honestly don't know what to thing of putting estimation of 1400's side by side with actual census data. But after all this is not an important issue for me so I'll let it be. -Even though the source given uses the word 'refugees' it also says this were mostly former administrators of the lost regions. So the word 'refugees' might give the wrong impresion, which I feel that you also got that impresion. -This does demand editing but not erasing. -It is about the Hungarian census of 1941 being language based and not being as in deept region wise as the 1930 one, as some sources suggest. I planed to ad something on that but wile editing I forgot about it. But I do agree that should have been changed. -well either way it is the first recorded Romanian name (as most people of that name live in Romania) but I disagree completly with the usage of the word 'supposed' as this would suggest scepticism to the finding. I still thing I should've been written as "the firs recorded romanian name". -Well the only souce used in that section is title Foreigners in Hungary or something like that, so you might get why I'm not sure if it talks only about Immigration or there are other categories immplied there.

I will readd the 1930 census, which I think there isn't a problem with. And I will expect what you think the best wording for the Ola, Immigration and Refugees situations are, or if you have some other thoughts on anything I said. L'grand Anonim (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@L'grand Anonim:,

- I did no say adding the 1930 Romanian census would be a problem, but you did not add that

- Everything before the modern times are estimations, as regular censuses have been conducted later

- Not really, more hundreds/thousand of people were not just administrators

- and/or necessarily other issues as well

- it is not our call to judge how the census were conducted, there could be many other whereabouts also other censuses, we care that is official.

- given several controversies of the etymologies that time may just safely supposed assertions for that time

- than it's best to leave as it is

Apart from said above, I only want to say whatyou added is again not the 1930 census data, this will be corrected.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC))

OK, I double checked the direct source and yes thouse weren't the numbers of the 1930 census, but estimations based on 1940 imcomplet statistics. I'll leave at the your last edit.

It might be that many weren't, but that's not what the source says. The source says that most were former administrator. And given the curent source for that number, the usage of the word refugee is uncalled for.

I will just remove the word "supposed" as that clearly implies scepticism to the finding, and honestly why even have that in the articale if it's sceptical of it's own source.

L'grand Anonim (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not skepticism, the given work does not address, but suppose (and does not mention literally Romanian).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC))

Taking your edit conflict one by one:

- The version of L'grand Anonim under the File:Hungary1910-1920.png|thumb|right|250px| is NPOV complaint. The other version however, has a fair amount of editorial bias. It mentions the 3,425,000 ethnic Hungarians found themselves separated from their motherland but doesn't put in into context with the 10.000.000 non-ethinic Hungarians who united with their motherland due to Hungary's loss of territory.

- "Population with non-Hungarian mother tongue in the Kingdom of Hungary" is correct, because the census was based on primary used langauge. We don't know whether there were non-Hungarians who used Hungarian as the primary language, and given that Hungary had that territory for almost 1000 years, its likely their number was significant.

- They are not refugees. This is not even semantics, they don't fit the definition of a refugees. "Relocated" is a better term.

- Calling the annexations "improvements" and denying there is a Hungarian bias? Seriously?

- I think those in 1940 were estimations not censues. There is a 1940 official estimation made by the Romanians and a 1940 official estimation made by the Hungarians. So they should be called as such. But other than that, why use the 1941 numbers when you have the 1940 numbers? Again, obvious Hungarian bias. You may possibliy doubt the validity of the estimations, just like L'grand Anonim doubted the validity of the 1941 census, but as you said, it is not our call to judge how the estimations were conducted, we care that they are official estimations.

- It depends on what the source says. But what if you replace "recorded" and "supposed" with "possible", is that a good compromise?

- If the research was made by Hungarians it should be noted hungarian "however according to other hungarian researches the Hungarian ethnic group in Transylvania was in decent majority" as it in L'grand Anonim. Iconian42 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

- There is not any bias, I don't what you refer of this article is about Demographics on Hungary

- that information is already present in the census section, no need to duplicate

- this is your opinion, however your appproach is unclear

- L'grand Anonim simply recurrently modified and added incorrect data, confusing and conflating everything, not the section is accurate, it's so easy

- the original version was also, good, this is as well, I oppose change

- in that section we don't attrinbute rearchees, unless we mention their names.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

- There is plenty of bias, and rather obvious. Context is important regadless of the name of page. It's like saying the Soviet occupation of Karelia reunited 10.000 of Russians with the motherland, nevermind that 400.000 Finns found themselves separated from their motherland.

- The phrase "non-Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary, based on 1910 census data" is incorrect regardless of whether that information is already present in the census section or not.

- It's not my opinion, it is the definition of the word. My appproach is that the Hungarians who left pre-Trianon Hungary for post-Trianon Hungary were not refugees and L'grand Anonim's choice of words was accurate.

- The data she added was correct, it's just that those were official estimations rather than censues, it's easy indeed.

- So it's settled on "possible" I guess.

- Why not? Considering that the research is about the population of Transylvania before the 1730 statistics, it's important to know who made them, for both sides. Would it be okay to you if I mention their names instead? Iconian42 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Our Homeland Movement (Mi Hazánk Mozgalom)

Hello. I've seen in this english Wikipedia, that you reverted my changes. So, the other unnamed user, which have don't created to himself the new user in this Wikipedia, that user writed the Our Homeland Movement's page ideology, the Fascism ideology, and i removed it, and i writed the Neoconservative ideology, which is correct to the party, like the Constitution Party (USA)'s ideology. So, that party has the Neoconservative ideology, like National Conservatism, Social Conservatism, and Conservatism, which is correct to László Toroczkai's political party, which they are hates the communists and the liberals, like the MIÉP and the FKGP, and the Republican Party (USA). I believe the Our Homeland Movement is an Neoconservative party, which is similar to the Constitution Party (USA), they are strongly conservative, like Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin, and also Marine Le Pen, and Matteo Salvini. But the party did not entered the European Union Parliament, because the party is not gained the 5 % limit, only 3 % limit, and the LMP gained the 2 % level limit, but the Jobbik gained the 6 % level limit, like the MSZP, so the two parties are entered, but only 1 members only, the Momentum Movement have 2 members, and the Democratic Coallition has got the 4 members in the EU Parliament, the Fidesz 13 and the KDNP got 1 member in the EU Parliament. So, the Our Homeland Movement is the Conservative party, and Radical Right-Wing party, which that means Far-Right party, in Hungarian language means Radikális Jobboldal and Szélsőjobboldal, while the Munkáspárt is the Far-Left political party, that means Szélsőbaloldali party in Hungarian language, which is the party is the communist party, but it's Eurosceptic, like the Our Homeland Movement, and the Fidesz party. Anyway, i just saying that. I understand you, that it needs some proof, but some media news saying, that Our Homeland Movement is the Conservative and the Eurosceptic ideology party, and also Far-Right party, like the Jobbik, but the Jobbik is not right-wing party anymore, because they changed the political ideology to Pro-European and Liberal Conservative ideology. That's all i know, have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@TomFZ67:,

the party is already addressed with three ideologies containing conservative, so adding/for a Neoconservatism designation would need some confirmation, especially that it was born in the United States. Regarding issues of other parties, they are discussed in the appropriate places. Have a nice day you too!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC))

Polak Weger dwa bratanki

Colleague, you are a wikipedian since I don't know when old. I hate to remind you about WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. You have to use sources that indicate the relevance of the examples to the article cited. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lembit Staan:,

you could have added the sources by your own, instead of putting me extra work to source trivialities, excuse me.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC))

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Invasion of Yugoslavia

I agree with removal of Hungarians for now. Though Croat, Slovene and German is in the sources for sure. So your edit seems finae and the article stable now. Thanks and stay well, OyMosby (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Fidesz

Hey, I saw that you undid my most recent edit on Fidesz. There's an ongoing WP:CITEKILL in the ideology section in the infobox which I fixed by stacking them up with 'Explanatory footnotes' (efn) because most of those references mention Fidesz as a far-right/extreme right party. The ideology section looked fine before someone vandalized it on 14th November, is there an explanation behind this? Vacant0 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

but you changed the lead as well, right-wing populism is an idelogy (present at the ideology section), while right-wing politics is a designation/orientation. Moreover, the 14 November edit was not a vandalism, because the designation the IP removed never gained consensus, but indeed really was pushed by several vandals as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

Do you agree that the text should be changed to "...is a right-wing national-conservative political party in Hungary" because it makes more sense. I agree with you on the second thing but I think that it should be fixed too. Vacant0 (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you wish to change the order of words in the lead, that's fine. Regarding the second thing if you just and only insert efn to collect sources without any modification, then no problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

'Do not disambiguate'

Hi KIENGIR, on two different pages you added an intentional link to a disambiguation page (Kingdom of Croatia), specifying not to disambiguate them using a comment. A better way to do this is to link to the redirect Kingdom of Croatia (disambiguation), as in [[Kingdom of Croatia (disambiguation)|Kingdom of Croatia]]. That way, the links still go to Kingdom of Croatia as intended, but they do not show up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links and no one will try to fix them. Lennart97 (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lennart97:,

thank you, will follow the principle as you said in the future!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC))

Fidesz

I checked the talk page of this article. There is no consensus not to include authoritarianism in the infobox. This is supported by multiple reliable citations. Please do not remove it. I also completely disagree with only placing one of the two cited positions in the infobox in the lead section. Either we include both right-wing and far-right if they are both cited, or neither. To have both positions cited in the infobox but only include one in the lead weights in one particular direction where we should remain as neutral as possible. I would have just as much problem including far-right and not right-wing, as again, both are cited. Helper201 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201:,

that is another issue, which you have no consensus right now, since you misundertand things about it. About the other issue, it is not as you say, there is a long standing appropriate version, while the infobox modification never gained consensus, and it represents only how some sources may describe the party, but Fidesz is not and never been a far-right party, per neutrality especially we have to avoid stating opinions as facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:. Yes, they are separate issues. Which is why I disagree with you reverting all my edits as one. There is no consensus against authoritarianism and it has multiple supporting citations. Without a consensus you should be the one attempting to form one rather than simply reverting me. As for far-right, if you disagree with this description seek consensus to have it removed entirely, not exist in one area of the page but somehow not allow it to be included in another area, that makes no sense. If it is included in one area of the page it has just as much right to be included in another section. Helper201 (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201:,

sorry, if your edits were problematic, I had to do like so. Sorry, there is no consensus even for, that's the point, however the way you wish to it is not applicable, since it is not an ideology, moreover it is already part of the article where it belongs. Sorry, about the other issue I don't have to gain any consensus for removal, since I may remove it any time, as it has been added without consensus, just there are some editors so much crying to also identify such opinions, so they are appeased for now.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: authoritarianism is a political ideology. Please see the page list of political ideologies. This is not an opinion; it is what was founded to be stated by reliable sources. Helper201 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201:,

again you misunderstand, it is not an ideology of Fidesz, ideology is formed by the party itself (anyway "authoritarianism" is a collective umbrella term there, contrary what you say), some other opinions or accusations does not change this, these are present already in the criticism section.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Hungarian language

May I ask what the *** are you doing and why you're doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutal Russian (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should change tone and better present your claims in the talk page. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

It's you who are stealth-reverting my perfectly reasonable and sourced changes without any justification whatsoever. What you're reverting back is unsourced schizophasic word-association in the best style of internet protochronists that doesn't belong on this website. I will change my tone when you stop trying to sneak that drivel onto the website.Brutal Russian (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I oppose this style, there is not any "stealth" anything, etc. I can recommend the same as before.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

I don't understand what you're recommending. What claims do you, who reverts my sourced changes to absolutely schizophasic unsourced gibberish, want me to present?Brutal Russian (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Present in the article's talk page detailed your concerns, point by point what you want to modify and why, as a first step.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Why would I want to do that? I'm free to remove every and all unsourced gibberish, reorder the text in a more readable fashion and clarify it, and change the Latin orthography to display accent in rhythmic verse and/or in accordance with the critical edition which I cite. This is all in line with wikipedia's Be bold guideline and whatever guidelines there are against unsourced pseudoscientific gibberish. This section lacks and and all references altogether and I would be justified in completely purging it. It is you who needs to present your concerns regarding my edits. What you're doing is simple interference with well-meaning edits from a standpoint of ignorance. Being ignorant on the matter does qualify you for asking questions, but it does not qualify you for interfering with informed edits. Brutal Russian (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry our policies are clear about dispute resolution, now you are not in the best place, as told before. You have to explain your edits there detailed to possibly gain consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Stop telling me what I need to do. Did you spot a occasional and inexperienced editor and decided that's your opportunity to bully someone? Cite the precise rule/guideline on which I'm not in the best place. Ditto for why I have to explain removing unsourced gibberish. There is no dispute, you're simply silently revering well-meaning changes out of being sad. In short, you're free to provide your objections to my edits on the talk page; I'm not obliged to provide anything to anyone because my edit removes unscourced gibberish and improves presentation of existing text. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this discussion here is over, in fact you are bullying me with continous messages. WP:TPG, WP:DR, e.g.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

My edits are not in disagreement with anything discussed at the talk page and no aspects of my changes have been discussed. There is no conflict between my edits and any existing consensus - what you're doing is WP:GAME and and I ask you to stop. Please feel free to address your concerns at the talk page. Please refrain from rude unexplained reverts WP:DE WP:ROWN before discussing. If you personally have no opinion, input or suggestions concerning my edits, please move on and leave the matter to those who are truly interested to help. I will restore my edits and I ask that you don't revert them without a proper discussion. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, not understanding our conduct and guidelines is not an excuse, as well should analyze appropriately our policies before you address them, especially here, not appropriately. Talking about rudeness from your behalf is quite amusing, given the style what you performed here, this is something you did, recurrently.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

The reason for the rudeness of my initial style is obvious: you rudely reverted my edits without an explanation. My edits are not in violation of any guidelines or with any previous consensus. There's no such guideline that requires me to discuss any and all edits before making them. The guideline is the opposite - discuss existing edits you disagree with. If anybody disagrees with my edits, this is a matter for discussion. It is you who's violating the guidelines. Your behaviour is even more insulting given that the same unsourced gibberish was removed from the article Name_of_Hungary in 2015 IN THE NEXT EDIT without any indicent, because it's blatant pseudoscientific drivel. You're engaging in WP:GAME, WP:DE and WP:ROWN. Stop. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no, read back your own comments, like "what the *** are", "Being ignorant", "sneak", etc. this is by far and you are still rude, should not be like that by any means, and again, not understanding correctly our basic policies is a problem, similarly inappropriately addressing them to others, especially you still did not understand WP:TPG and still commenting here.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

I'm commenting here because I protest against your rude and unexplained reverts. These violated WP:DE and WP:ROWN and caused my reasonable indignation. I've repeatedly invited you to discuss my changes that you reverted on the talk page - you haven't. I will be there in case you decide to do so. As to not understanding basic policies, you're welcome to explain the policies that I supposedly don't understand. Only when I understand what I'm doing wrong can I start doing it right. Otherwise you're engaging in precisely the same toxic behaviour as before while falsely and repeatedly accusing me as a pretext for that behaviour. If you cannot question my edits, don't revert them. If you cannot explain what I'm doing wrong, keep silent on the matter. Brutal Russian (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is totally unnecesary to repeat and copy-paste your previous posts here, two reverts does not violate WP:DE, such needs a long term analysis, per WP:CIVILITY, the style you perform here would be a violation in fact (like the new one "toxic"). No, I told you first to discuss in the appropriate place, which you rejected, and you were explained everything, and you still reject. Not understanding is not an excuse, as well. So, if you continue from now on here, it may be in fact considered DE, and since the beginning violated WP:TPG, so please just stop here.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Kingdom of Italy

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to Kingdom of Italy. Is there a reason you think the article should not conform to MOS:DASH, or use punctuation consistently? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:,

sorry, that was not the original intent, but the inappropriate flag change, which is not connected to you. It seems now your edit has been reinstated, sorry for the inconvenience, Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

Thanks for clarifying. It hasn't been reinstated though – if it had been I wouldn't have raised it with you. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts:,

Oh sorry, I my mistake, I did it now, please check it, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

That's great, thanks for taking care of it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, regarding East Asian people

Hello Kiengir. Could you please take the East Asian people page on your watch list? The newly created user O'Hara seems to have some ideological motivated views and he includes POV terms such as "East Asian race" and seems to dislike the closer relation between East and Southeast Asians. I have not as much time as I want to contribute to Wikipedia. Kind regards.195.123.241.29 (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@195.123.241.29:,

Hi, don't worry, I am watching the page. The "East Asian race" is still present in the article after your edits in the footnotes. However, I do think genetic researches should be mentioned marginally and only studies comply woith WP:MEDRS should be displayed (more or less many genetic researches may claim anything, etc.). Well, regarding what you said about time, I also share...the best is to use the article's talk page to raise your concerns. Kind Regards as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

Köszönöm!

Én is áldott, békés karácsonyt kívánok neked és a családodnak. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Europe Eurasia

Hey! Terlines? Is discontented with the modifications on Western World. But I started a talk page to have discussion on it. (Luckily he doesn't seem to be some brutish silent revert everything but his own edits kind of guy.) Anyways, as the region described is both Eastern Europe and Northern Asia (In the source material Central Asia ought to be included, there are several discussion threads about fixing that as well apparently), and politically and geographically relevant and connected with both Europe, Asia and such political organizations and economies. I.e. Eurasian Union, CSTO, Shanghai Organization, joint military exercises with Mongolia, Eurovision and Eurocup, etc. I was wondering if you might contribute to the chat on the word choice update, to make it more appropriate, inclusive and respectful, and geographically relevant. Merry Christmas! DxRxXxZx (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@DxRxXxZx:,

don't worry I watch the page, if I have something to say will do it. Merry Christmas to you as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

Thank you!! DxRxXxZx (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism's hatnote about Nazism

Regarding this, it has nothing to do with Soviet historiography. Are all these Soviet propaganda sources?

• Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2010) [1996] Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History New York: Routledge. p. 1 ISBN 978-0131924697 Quote: "Nazism was only one, although the most important, of a number of similar-looking fascist movements in Europe between World War I and World War II."
• Orlow, Dietrick (200) The Lure of Fascism in Western Europe: German Nazis, Dutch and French Fascists, 1933–1939 London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 6–9. ISBN 978-0230608658. Excerpt
• Eley, Geoff (2013) Nazism as Fascism: Violence, Ideology, and the Ground of Consent in Germany 1930–1945 New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415812634
• Kailitz, Steffen and Umland, Andreas (2017). "Why Fascists Took Over the Reichstag but Have Not captured the Kremlin: A Comparison of Weimar Germany and Post-Soviet Russia". Nationalities Papers. 45 (2): 206–21.

Yes, there were some difference between Italian Fascism and Nazism, or between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, but both are considered forms of fascism by scholars of fascism. Unless you can get that part removed from the lead of Nazism, the hatnote should reflect that article. Davide King (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:,

The Soviet historiography the same way pushed and conflated the term as some non-Soviets, I just said they started it enormously. Just because it is considered a form, it does not mean we are allowed/have to to replace it everywhere and identify National Socialism/Nazism as Fascism, and it has nothing to with lead of that article's statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

This makes no sense. I showed you that Western historiography supports the notion of Nazism being a form of fascism, irrelevant of whatever the Soviets thought. We should use Nazism because that is the common name and because National Socialism is itself lending to Nazi propaganda, who never used, apart from a brief period, the term "Nazi" or "Nazism." So your argument about Soviet propaganda, which is nonetheless irrelevant, equally applies to Nazi propaganda which uses National Socialism to imply they are really socialists. Either way, all of this is irrelevant. Unless you can get to change it from the lead of Nazism, we should be consistent across articles and refer to it as far-right fascism. Davide King (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:,

don't overthink and overcomplicate, or simply understand appropriately what I have written. What you showed was not denied, thus your assertion, even the premise is irrelevant. Also this particular issue - as indicated - is not about the usage of Nazi/National Socialist, which has been countless times discussed (we refer it like so by the article's context, to give reason of possible confusion). There is not such "consistency" like referring Nazism as "far-right fascism". Nope. They have several relations and considerations, but the two is not the same.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

I just showed you that Nazism is indeed referred to as a form of fascism and as far-right. "They have several relations and considerations, but the two is not the same." Then what are they, if not fascism? You seem to be confusing fascism (Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain) with Italian Fascism (Fascist Italy). All these three states had some differences but their commonalities were stronger, hence why they are usually grouped together, especially the first two. Davide King (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, so what? I don't confuse anything. An ocelot and a puma is also cosidered or referred similar, but they are still not the same. "Usual groupings" are made because of certain circumstances, however it does not should make us superficial, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

Experts and scholars of fascism group them together, so we follow reliable sources. If you disagree, go get references to fascism removed from Nazism and try making Fascism only about Italian Fascism. We discuss Nazi Germany at Fascism, so I am just being consistent between each article. If you disagree with the grouping, the onus is on you to try getting changed, not on me, who is merely trying to be consistent across articles. Davide King (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:,

Again do not confuse groupings some things by some criteria to be identical (and again the issue has nothing to with "removing references" of the mentioned article). What you try to outline has nothing to with "consistency". And in the future, please, carefully read and interpret what I have written, to save time , since how try to insist the issue on my behalf is erroneus.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

Where am I saying they are identical? I even stated there are differences, just like there are differences between democratic socialism and authoritarian socialism, or social liberalism and economic liberalism; this does not mean Nazism is not a form of fascism. As things stands, it is reliable sources (presented above) against your personal views. "And in the future, please, carefully read and interpret what I have written, to save time , since how try to insist the issue on my behalf is erroneus." I try, but I do not always comprehend your writing, which is not always clear. Davide King (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davide King:, sorry I don't have to time to deal with editor's comprehension issues at this level (it's clear anyway), so this discussion ends here, the last time I reply, after please avoid posting to my talk page regarding this issue. I did not say it is not considered as a form by some scholars, etc., hence your repetition is useless, I said something else, which may be read above (hence your remark about "personal views" are ignored and considered null and void.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

Notice

Please do not attack other editors. You accused me of making up and falsifying information and I caught you right in the act. You have repeatedly called me problematic despite my sourcing and citing.Fenetrejones (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Really good joke, unfortunately copy-pasting the warning I fairly gave you because of your personal attacks against me is the worst you could do. Sad boomerang.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

I did not attack. I said one thing that was a scenario and I said that would make him a liar, You lied. People can lie and make mistakes. You have also been very disrespectful too .Fenetrejones (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, evidence is clear, and I was not disrespectful with you, but very patient, even more than usual. Please avoid my talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

I will leave you alone, but you claim to be respectful, then why did you say "Besides that, you as well address/insist allegations to me I never said." and "Look, you continously put words, examples to my mouth which I did not say, and since the beginning did not grab exacly what I said, but pushing your own considerations all around and presenting that it would be mine, with unnecessary repetitions and flooding the talk page disruptively. I won't explain it the nth time, may be read above. WP:NOTFORUM." You said that I was making stuff up and accused me of spreading false information and I caught you red handed on that. Your accusation are anything but polite.Fenetrejones (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I won't epxlain what I have already explained more times, evidence is clear, competence issues are not my duty to remedy, and I warn you the last time to avoid my talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

You are now a Pending Changes Reviewer!

Hi KIENGIR! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

• A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
• A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
• Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
• You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
• Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Some random advice

You may want to consider archiving this page. It's getting quite long, and it'll be helpful to readers if they don't have to scroll past the old stuff. Just figured I'd let you know about it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah:,

Thank you very much for the additional rights, it's a honor, I'll do my best as well in the future to prove your trust is well set! Archiving I deliberately do not chose so nothing is hidden in my history, everything is transparent. My only concern is lately many time is consumed to dealing with abusive accounts who find me and tire me, but I try to be extremely patient with them, however I'll keep in mind what you told me on your talk page, as an advice. I wish Happy Editing and a Happy New Year for both of us, if I'll face any trouble I could not handle, will let you know, Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

No problem! Remember that nothing is ever hidden. Everything can be found by looking at the page's edit history. Nearly all experienced editors will archive their user talk pages (including myself!), and there's no problem with doing so. If you do things correctly, people will be able to easily find anything they are looking for. I manually archive my user talk page, and if you look there, I organize my archives by month where you can easily click and find what you're looking for. It's up to you; eventually, you'll find that it's necessary due to how long your user talk page will grow. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverts on Artúr Görgei

I already started a section on the article's talk page to discuss this. No sections were removed, I merged two paragraphs together. Please tell me exactly your problem with my edit is, because I can't see anything objectionable.TGWZoldorf (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Niczuly

Hello, I see you reverted my edit on Roland Niczuly. There are two thing you don't understand: 1. The nationality is not linked, you don't need to put a link to Romania, when you say he is Romanian 2. His ethnicity is not relevant, he is a Romanian citizen and a Romanian footballer, unless he ever plays for Hungary. If you want to write about his heritage you can create a "Personal life" paragraph. Thank you8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 23:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@8Dodo8:,

I just partially reverted the edit, I don't think there would be anything I would not understand:

1. It's an option, however I find here linking better

2. It's again an option, and such is not only identified or necessary if he would ever play for Hungary.

I wish you a Happy New Year!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

Please take a look at WP:Ethnicity. It explains this situation pretty well. Thanks for the wishes and habe a happy New Year too!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 23:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@8Dodo8:,

I know that guideline, but this article is little and short, later it may be improved, at least such is a standard practise mostly of Romanian players of Hungarian background. La Multi Ani, Best wishes for the next year!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

BÚÉK

Boldog új évet és sok sikeres szerkesztést kívánok a következő esztendőre! --Norden1990 (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Norden1990:,

Thanks, I wish the same for you! Don't know how you are exactly with time, but I see you less around...Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

Why are you doing this?

Dear KIENGIR, you reverted my edits on Hungarian exonyms without any communication, still you are saying "to change the article's scope needs consensus" implying that you are a person for whom communication is important. First, the article's scope was not changed, it was made matching its title. Exonymy according to the Wikipedia article Endonym and exonym: "is a common, external name for a geographical place, group of people, individual person, or a language/dialect, that is used only outside that particular place, group, or linguistic community." That means, a Hungarian exonym is not identical to a Hungarian place name outside the borders of Hungary. Secondly, changing the tables and extending them takes time, that is why only part of them were changed and extended, not because I had an intention of creating a mixed layout for the tables within the same article. Unfortunately, after your reversion of the article, which I think was a rather harsh action normally reserved for vandalism, I could not continue this work. KR, Timur lenk (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Timur lenk:,

believe I did it for good reasons, once I tried to do partially what you did and as well was reverted, so my work has been lost and the working hour, from this I wanted to prevent you in time. Well practically any user could have done what I did. Moreover I akcnowledged your useful moves and intro updates in the other articles so, your argumentation about the content issue I accept, despite, for technical reasons, in this article we should make the improvement slowly, step-by-step.

I preserved most of your new additions. I think this article should contain either exonyms, and either Hungarian place names outside the borders of Hungary, We should prior agree in a new table structure, if it has to be contructed due to the planned changes, etc. As well, I suggest, upon agreed, we should apply it only one country, and review if we did not miss something, and if it'll be fine, then apply it to others. Make your proposals in the article's talk, and I will catch up.

Thank you for your understanding, and I Wish You A Happy New Year!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

So if I understand your response correctly, you wanted to do the same as me, but some superpower has reverted your edits and you yielded to this power instead of countering it, and in order to protect me you reverted my edits so this superpower won't get infuriated. If so, we indeed should discuss it on the talk page :) Timur lenk (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Timur lenk:,

your summarization I'll take as one after a New Year party :) Btw., no "superpowers" involved, but we have to follow the formal procedure likely - such as consensus - so later the work could not be lost. Yes, in the article's talk page you should start the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

Please, the work was not simply 'lost' but you reverted it. (My edit is still in the editing history, so not lost.) And your reason is that anyone could revert it. But it was you who reverted so that is why I am asking you (not 'anyone') why you did it. So I would still like to know why you reverted my edits? And also, which edit on this article of yours was reverted? Could you find out, why that happened? Timur lenk (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Timur lenk:,

I already explained to you in my first answer. It was at the Royal Free City article (present at the history, as you referred) when I tried to put Hungarian names first. The official reasoning was some kind of naming conventions and ease for English readers, but the motivation behind could be something else as well...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

Happy New Year

Happy New Year 2021 I hope your New Year holiday is enjoyable and the coming year is much better than the one we are leaving behind. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

@TimothyBlue:,

Thank You, I wish you also a Better Happy New Year! Best Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

Szőcsvásár

You have reverted my change in headword Suceava where I deleted the coinage Szőcsvásár as a Hungarian name of this city. Probably you have sources and written data that support the historical and factual existence of Szőcsvásár, in spite of the fact that even Pál Péter Domonkos did not found this kind of sources and data, and therefore he did not include this coinage in his work “A moldvai magyarság” [30]. If you cannot present evidence of the historical and factual existence of Szőcsvásár, please undo your reversion. LvT (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@LvT:,

the section did not say the word had a historical and factual existence, just listed as a Hungarian variant, shall anywhere it come from. I see you as well removed it from another article as not notable, but here, in the mother article should be kept, you may add a note explaining is background if you wish. I wish you a Happy New Year!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: If a place name has neither historical nor factual existence in the Hungarian language, it cannot be a Hungarian variant. You have to prove its existence in the text corpus. In fact, Szőcsvásár is missing from the Hungarian corpus except borrowings from Wikipedia headwords, cf. "do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources." Wikipedia:Verifiability LvT (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@LvT:,

The word has a factual existence, just google it, even used by modern sources, so I think the best is to give a note as an explanation.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

Happy New Year!

Hello! Happy New Year! --TomFZ67 (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@TomFZ67:,

I wish you a Happy New Year too! Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC))

Southern Europe

Hello KIENGIR, I don't want to conflict with you but can you stop putting subjective maps on the page and leave the official maps ? Why cut France in two? And why are you putting France in Southern Europe ??? France has neither the climate nor the southern European culture. Nobody puts France in southern Europe. Otherwise we make a chapter at the end of the article "the French vision of southern Europe" why not, but we cannot cut countries in two and put personal ideas.

Regions of Europe based on CIA World Factbook:

  Northern Europe

  Western Europe

  Central Europe

  Southwest Europe

  Southern Europe

  Southeast Europe

  Eastern Europe

European sub-regions according to EuroVoc:

  Northern Europe

  Western Europe

  Southern Europe

  Central and Eastern Europe

European climate. The Köppen-Geiger climates map is presented by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Global Precipitation Climatology Center of the Deutscher Wetterdienst. We can see the natural borders of the mountain ranges of the Alps, Pyrenees, and Balkans.

--81.67.153.44 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@81.67.153.44:,

Hello, there are various maps, so-called official and non-official, if you have any specific problem address is exactly. I did not cut France in two, neither put it into Southern Europe. In the article's talk page you have to gain consensus for further changes, until the current version remains, propose there what you want first, and we will review it.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

Alas no southern europe is not an idea, many maps are official. So even the historical maps or the Spanish-Italian-Portuguese alliances against the Ottomans and the Germanic populations of the Franks during the Holy League (1571).--81.67.153.44 (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I may just reiterate what I said before.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

Delete official maps and install maps made by a wikipedia user. It's called disinformation. I think you can understand that here it is better to leave the official cards--81.67.153.44 (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the things are not as you try to present, please try to understand our policies. Some of your edits were accepted, some not, the page preserves until an earlier stage, etc. As well, mind the rest I already told you.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

Article about Ukraine

Hi.

Make changes to the article about Ukraine. First, the name is given in Russian. There is currently only one official language in Ukraine, Ukrainian. As for the Russian language, it does not have such a status. I understand that objectively the name in Russian could be. But in this case, in articles about other countries, including the United States, the name of the country is not given in Spanish, similarly in articles about other countries such as Moldova (where you could also add the name in Russian, because the prevalence of this language in the country), Slovakia 10% are Hungarians and accordingly it would be logical to add the name in Hungarian), and so on. I suggest removing the name of Ukraine in Russian, doing it as in articles about other countries with multilingual populations. Instead, in the introduction to the article, make a paragraph adding about the culture and prevalence of languages ​​in Ukraine.

Secondly, the infobox contains a list of regional languages. This list is based on a law that was declared unconstitutional in 2018. Therefore, it would be correct to provide a list of languages ​​that are most common in Ukraine, namely Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Romanian, Crimean Tatar, and possibly some others.

Third, the infobox does not contain a complete list of Ukrainian historical states. The option that was in the infobox until August 2, 2020 is correct and objective. If you are for the objectivity of which you wrote, then you should know that historically Ukraine is inextricably linked with such states as Kievan Rus, Galicia-Volyn principality, Zaporozhian Army (in correspondence and documents this state was called Ukraine). Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski:,

The first issue should be discussed along with the regional languages issue, despite of the constitutional debates, those langauges are still used officially an recognized by some level. The infobox issue has been already discussed, especially I agreed to include the last one, but not else, especially because of objectivity and factuality.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

In May 2019, a law was passed to ensure the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language, this law confirmed Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which defines the state language as Ukrainian. Currently, due to the recognition of the previous law on regional languages ​​as unconstitutional and the enactment of a new law on the state language, state and local authorities use only the Ukrainian language.

As for the infobox, namely the list of historical states, you are right when you say that the first state that was officially called Ukraine is the Ukrainian People's Republic. And I understand the logic of presenting the same material in other articles about countries, in particular Bulgaria, as if there was a country, the first Bulgarian kingdom, which was already called Bulgaria, Bulgarian. But in the case of Ukraine, this is not appropriate. Because the same Hetmanate was officially called the Zaporozhian Army, but in the documents it was written, including Ukraine, Little Russia. In particular, in Article 4 of the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk, or in the correspondence of Hetmans Doroshenko, Bryukhovetsky and Mazepa. Therefore, in my opinion, Kievan Rus and the Galicia-Volyn principality were certainly not Ukrainian, they formed the basis for the formation and development of Ukrainian identity. The paragraph above in the infobox is correct and objective. But as for the Hetmanate, it is Ukraine in its more modern sense. Therefore, I ask you to add to the infobox in the section of historical states Hetmanate, the year of foundation 1649.

As for the section of regional languages ​​in the infobox, it is not correct. Because a regional language is a status that is assigned to a certain language by local or state authorities. Currently, these languages ​​do not have a regional status, so their list is incorrect, moreover, the use of a regional language in this article is incorrect, because it is a legal term that is not provided by the legislation of Ukraine. The following should be provided in the infobox, a list of the most common languages ​​of Ukraine, a list: Russian, Hungarian, Polish, Romanian, Crimean Tatar, Greek, Bulgarian, etc. Add also languages ​​that are autochthonous languages ​​of Ukraine, namely Crimean, Karaite, Gagauz, Ukrainian dialects of Greek (Rumeika, languages mariupolitan greek, and Urum). Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski:,

about the language issue you already opened a case in the talk, let's wait for other inputs as well. About the other issue if my understanding is correct, you wish me to add the Cossack Hetmanate to the infobox?(KIENGIR (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC))

As for the Hetmanate, yes. It should be added. As for the language. I ask you to remove the name of the country in Russian. As for the list of regional languages ​​in the infobox, we can wait for the opinion of other participants. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski:,

I did it. Regarding the Russian name, better raise it where you did it with the regional languages and wait for other opinions.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC))

Ok. Thanks. Severo Joy Krzyżaniwski (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Alfréd Haar

Hi, I noticed that you changed Alfréd Haar's birthplace from Austria-Hungary to the Kingdom of Hungary. I'll confess that I do not know much about Hungarian history, but as Haar was born in 1885 and Austria-Hungary existed from 1867-1918, wouldn't putting Austria-Hungary as his birthplace be correct? LeBron4 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @LeBron4:,

both versions are ok, however, the one I put is more accurate, since Austria-Hungary was a monarchy of two separate states, the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary, and any subject born was Austrian subject, or Hungarian subject, but never both, dual citizenship was even banned (on the other hand a Hungarian territory has never been Austrian and vica-versa).(KIENGIR (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC))

Do not Edit war to enforce optional style

In this edit of yours at Germania Superior, you changed from one valid style ("short description") to another ("Short description"), which caused no change on the rendered page or other improvement. This is prohibited by MOS:VAR, which says:

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or—if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself—at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

When reverted with a friendly, AGF edit summary, you re-reverted to enforce your preferred version. The guideline goes on to say:

Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.

Please don't make changes to articles which have no benefit to the rendered page, but are merely your personal preference for capitalisation, white space, one valid param name for another, or any other optional value covered by MOS:VAR (or WP:CITEVAR). In cases like this, the Arbcom specifies sanctions up to and including blocks for repeated activity of this nature, so please don't. Consider it an extension of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The Germania Superior page was fine before you got there; your change did nothing to improve it, and every edit should improve the article in some way, however minor. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:,

I am amazed, if I would not read your name, would not believe it's you. (do you think your precious time worth in such a little nothing? Do you think I did not read the guideline and this formal warning is necessary?)

I don't know of there are more acceptable styles, but what I know what I did is not an "alternative"/"optional" style. Per Wikipedia:Short_description, ...If you need to do a manual fix, please use the correct template name {{Short description}}.

Btw., you're interpretation of edit-warring in your AGF edit summary fails, since beyond many circumstances and frame what is to be considered edit-warring, it was not, first of all it needs to be repeatedly, which was not the case since a user made a bold edit, and I did another one, secondly there have been no dispute among us. This issue you heavily overreacted I think. (my analysis was focused on the events until your first edit)

Consequently, in case in an article from nil or after one bold edit correcting to the correct template description should be a legal move. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC))

@Mathglot:,

per this ([31]), did my ping reach you? I answered to you, so in spite of this I have to object your edit log remark, per the answer I gave you, so please explain yourself.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC))

I've already explained this to you. As I've said, this is about as small an infraction as one is likely to find on Wikipedia, because it does not make the article worse in any way, it just doesn't make it any better. In fact, it's so trivial, that the guideline recommends against fixing it, as that would also be a trivial change that doesn't improve the article, so with one exception, I've not corrected any of your other pointless changes in violation of MOS:VAR made after the date of the original notice above, and I won't correct any further violations of yours in this area for the same reason, other than the very occasional reminder from time to time, if you decide to keep this up.

More important, in my view, is the fact that someone who engages in trivial stuff like this which gets left in place may often end up either making a habit of it, or engage in other violations, such as of WP:BRD by reverting a second time, instead of discussing it. If an editor interprets failure of other editors to fix the violations as a green light, or edit consensus, and starts to engage in automated edits of this type, or just performs a lot of them, it can start to become disruptive; but we're far from that at this point.

I realize your native language is not English, and I'm willing to make allowances for the fact that you may be using automatic translation. So, let me restate some principles, that I hope will be intelligible through an automatic translator:

• Do not add or subtract white space (blanks, tabs,   etc.) to the wikicode that have no effect on the article when you view it, as you did here, and here.
• Do not change wikicode (such as template names, parameter names, or parameter values) that is already correct, merely for your own preference. This includes:
  • capitalisation of a template name, when it was already correct, such as you did here, and here.
  • changing one valid parameter alias to another, by adding or subtracting a hyphen from the parameter name. (You haven't done this, as far as I know; I'm just advising you of a like situation.)

Your reasoning above about your change is incorrect. You said:

what I know what I did is not an "alternative"/"optional" style.

That is exactly what it was, and the section I quoted above about MOS:VAR explains it. Your quotation, "please use the correct template name" was from the section of the template doc explaining the use of the gadget. *All* templates start with a capital letter in the filename, and all of them are optional; {{citation needed}} is the same thing as {{Citation needed}}, and there is no preference for one over the other; editors who persist in changing them around merely to suit their own preference are in violation of MOS:VAR. Same thing for {{short description}}; if that's the way you found it, and it is working, then please just leave it that way.

With respect to edit warring, you have not exceeded the bright line threshold of WP:3RR, so you are right to the extent that it is not a sanctionable case of edit warring, but it's quite clear what your intent was, and in any case the guideline defines edit warring as "a series of back-and-forth reverts". It stopped, because I refused to engage in it, and you had the last word.

Since the warning above, I notice you have made further edits of this exact same type, altering the capitalisation of {{short description}} on at least a couple more articles (Litovoi, Bărbat) one of which I reverted. You should stop this behavior now and comply with the guideline I quoted to you above, regardless whether anyone reverts you or not. There is no benefit to the article from doing so, and it is against the guideline. As I already stated, if you don't stop, I generally won't undo them anymore, but for ones on my watchlist I'll either make a dummy edit to remind you, or maybe better, I'll just list them here. That way, if you decide that WP:IDHT works for you, and guidelines like MOS:VAR or WP:BRD don't apply to you, someone else can deal with it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:,

- I've already explained this to you -> this is your point, if I would consider it satisfying, would not answer and present of my doubts about your allegations.

- you don't have to repeat what you already said, you should concentrate on what I asked or wanted be clarified, since I disagreed it would be a violation, per my arguments and analysis.

- regarding what you written third pharagraph, I have to reject anything would endorse me to breach rules

- I don't use any automatic translator

- I am able to read the linked guidelines, so listing general details are not necessary

- the presented MOS:VAR section does not tell that the correct form {{Short description}} would be alternate/optional, it tells a guideline in general, but WP:SHORTDESCRIPTION and related guidelines reinforce this the correct version (they does not say optional/alternate). I understand though what you say and what is the intent, but if it is not unambigously written and clatified in our rules and guidelines implicitly and/or explicity, I fairly may dispute, which may result that I have right, or the current guideline would need to be updated/amended in case the original intent would as you say, etc.

- Please avoid such implications like "IDHT or BRD would work for me", on the contrary, I am just professionally and detaild analyzed what you have told me but I have found some inconsistencies, hence my answer to you and discussion about this.

- Consequently, you should demonstrate to me if you claim the correct form for would be alternate/optional, since this I could not read out from the guidelines and policies. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

@Mathglot:,

please give a feedback, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

This is isn't worth the words we've spent already, and I really thought you'd be aware of first-letter capitalization issues at Wikipedia, which are no different for Templates, than they are for articles, but I'll try one more time. All alphabetic filenames begin with an upper case character in Wikipedia. Even when an article looks like it begins with a lower case letter (e.g., eBay) the filename *still* begins with uppercase (look at the url in your browser address bar: it's EBay). But even though articles are case-sensitive (Shape is not the same as SHAPE), the first letter is not case-sensitive, and I'm sure you know this, at least subconsciously, if not as a specific rule. As a newbie, I'm sure I unnecessarily piped wikilinks because I wanted it to be lower case in the middle of a sentence, something like:

• ...and became captain of the first [[Nuclear submarine|nuclear submarine]].

which is of course completely pointless, as you can just say [[nuclear submarine]] and get the exact same result. We all learned that, probably fairly early on in our wiki-career.

It's exactly the same with templates. Whether you type {{short description}} or {{Short description}} makes absolutely no difference, and goes to the same place. Changing from one to the other (in either direction) is pointless, as the Arbcom pointed out, in a rather strongly-worded statement in 2006.

As far as your comment, "since this I could not read out from the guidelines and policies", I took this to mean you wanted a link or quotation to something specific, that describes what I just spelled out. I know it's mentioned numerous times in many places, but frankly, I don't keep track of where they all are. But I did find this one for you, and I hope it is sufficient:

"To transclude a template into an article or page, type {{Template name}} in the wikitext at the place where the template is to appear. The first letter may be indifferently lower- or upper-case."

I really hope this answers your question, because I've said all I'm going to say on this topic, and am going to bow out now. It could be that I'm not being clear, and I'm sorry if that's the case; maybe someone else can explain it better. You could also try posing the question at the WP:Tea house, or at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:,

I am experienced enough not to need make inquries at the Teahouse, and certainly there was no problem understanding you or what you wish to say, I just really precisely wanted to investigate the issue - may be you'd consider far more detailed than necessary - don't take this as negative, I am a highly precise, consistent type. All of this you said has been as well clear, now you've shown me a template help description which describes these name may be styled as well with or without capitals, which I already knew subconsciously, however thank you the time and effort!

I still not see reinforced explicity that "Short description" would be treated as an alternate/optional style, rather implicity, but not per definiton

So I go forward, and kindly ask @Vanjagenije: to settle this once and for all;

Vanja, if you don't have time to read it through, I summarize shortly my question (arguments of both of us you may see above):

- In case I change at any article "short description" -> "Short description" solely as a bold edit (sometimes after a new insertion by another user to the article), does it mean I would violate anything? (i.e. MOS:VAR, though the exact template description does not qualify the one I change to as alternate/optional, does not even refer to any different option, and one bold edit is not edit warring...I see what Mathglot is telling and by general approach the things he say may be concluded as he presents, but given my argumentation is not eplicitly restrictive on what I would do...please clarify in a consistent, uneqivocal matter and I will follow that - I can understand as well if a guideline/rule is written in a manner what exactly was intended, though the wordage may be not exactly synchronized everywhere and may be loopholes of consistency, etc. Thank you for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC))

Why do you need me to interpret MOS:VAR for you? It's pretty clear. In Wikipedia, we follow the spirit of the guideline, not word-for-word text (see WP:GAME). The MOS:VAR guideline is clear that you shouldn't make unilateral changes that do not make the article better. Mathglot tried to explain that to you patiently, yet you immediately resorted to ad hominem attacks, thus also violating the WP:AGF policy. I notice that you are trying to WP:wikilawyer by citing the WP:SHORTDES guideline (If you need to do a manual fix, please use the correct template name...). Can you, please, explain me, what was that fix that was needed to be made here? I don't see any fix. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije:,

I asked your assistance as an admin, and it was worthy, thank you for that! I hope you see my intent was not Game/wikilawyering, but now you pinpointed that I should follow the spirit of this guideline (however sometimes is useful to clarify things, which may be not so evident). I don't see how would I attack anyhow Mathglot (an editor which I utterly respect indeed), I never assumed he would not be lead by good faith, I wanted to understand him, I just expressed I considered a bit harsh his reaction at the beginning. Regarding your question, I considered fixing exactly what I did. However, I understood, won't do in the future unless I don't improve the article in an other way - as Mathglot noted - which I interpret my edit cannot be solely a capitalization of the template. Please reinforce me if this one I interpreted correctly, I wish to follow rules and I asked your assistance because you are an admin who very precisely see through rules and guidelines, which made me learn much as well in the past. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, Minor point on a different topic, for future reference:

I never assumed he would...

Try this: "I never assumed {{they|Mathglot}} would..." ⇨ ⇨ "I never assumed they would..."

But notice the difference: "I see that {{they|Vanjagenije}} said..." ⇨ ⇨ "I see that he said..."

Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it may be useful some unknown cases. Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC))

A question

Would you please be so kind to explain to me this edit [32] Why was one out of two theories chosen to be in Wiki voice? cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Sadko:,

sure, I think the exact details extracted carefully from the sources should not be deleted, and this issue should not be elevated to a Serbian-Albanian/Balkan conflict of heritage or origin. I will a bit rephrase per your request.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC))

Southern Europe

Hi KIENGIR! Belated Happy New Year, and how's it going? FYI – The same guy has a history of POV pushing, with multiple blocks, check 81.67.166.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 193.252.173.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I won't be surprised if all these are socks of an indef'ed registered editor. It might be Julio189red (talk · contribs) who left a trail of disruption last year in Ligures (where @193.252.173.168 also shows up), but I still need to get some conclusive diffs. –Austronesier (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:,

Hi, I wish you a Happy New Year too! Well, hope there will be less issues, though it seems not really :/. And you?

On the subject, please forward your evidence here ([33]). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

Well, according to Leibnitz, we live in the best of all possible worlds, but then, lack of positive possibilies has always been the fate of individuals that inhabit the world, so why should the world itself fare better. I see it rather :/-ish from my side too.

I will add the solid evidence to El_C's talk page. And later also diff's once I have hard evidence for socking. –Austronesier (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They've been here for quite some time with the same old song... And here's their POV[34] fully spelled out. @TU-nor: this might be interesting for you as well. –Austronesier (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello users, I wanted to tell you that at no time did I want to offend you or come into conflict with you. However I would just like to understand why you want to erase official maps and integrate a fake map in the Southern Europe page. If you erase without putting this subjective card it will not pose any problem. I just want to participate in spreading the truth without offending anyone. And I think discussing and explaining the reason for deletion helps to avoid conflicts of users who have no interest. That's all I ask. You have to understand the work of others, even those you don't know.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You've been explained by many of us, and you refuse to listen.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

If certain sentences bother you and you erase the content and at the same time official cards. I am simply noticing that you are erasing official cards when it is a bit of text that is causing the problem. This is why erasing everything without explanation and, in addition, adding a fake card is incomprehensible for a user who does not know you. You have to understand that by your actions you are blocking people who have no interest in harming the internet but who resist thinking that it is you who are the problem. I think it is important to say exactly what is wrong when there is a problem because my goal is not to force through but to share my knowledge on wikipedia.--81.67.153.44 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop messaging here, the article's talk page is the appropriate place, I just follow policies, which you don't.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

Finally, I could overcome my lazy me:[35]. Enough is engough. –Austronesier (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:,

Oh, never mind, time is really a shortage over will, I am quite eager of the result, thank you (and I am happy you borrowed my slogan "enough is enough" :-) ).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

IA

Very well; you paid attention. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Proper (or, unproper) Croatia?

Hello Kiengir, I hope you had a nice hollydays, and I wish you all the best for you and your loved ones. Regarding wiki content, I have an issue. Croats got to push trough a controversial term Croatia proper. The term is just a Croatian nationalistic term trough which they suggest there were "other" Croatia´s independent of Hungary and with their own sttatehood, when in fact we lack evidence of any of such entities from 10c. to 1918. They have a tremendous will to forcefully take Slavonia and Dalmatia as their own and present them as the "other" Croatia´s, when there is no evidence of such. I hope you understand my opposition towards making fairytales such as those real history. FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @FkpCascais:,

well I would say not really so good, however maybe such may conclude majority of the people in the world recently, at least I hope you had better than me, I wish as well all best for you and your loved ones and a better year!

Regarding the content issue, you probably know my opinion/stance about these, since both of us encountered in such discussions in the past, especially about this Croatia proper I think you should not be concerned, since it refers to a historical region, which is per definition outside of such issues you mention, so linking it won't take sides in that (indeed you perfectly know I share you regarding the principle about fairy tales vs real history). Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC))

I can´t say at all that I had better hollydays lol. It was the worst hollydays ever! Me and my family did nothing. Drinks ended by late afternoon, and everything was closed so there was no way to buy nothing. Regarding chldren, they were evidently sad. They appreciated their presents, but found out and spread ammong them how they suspect there is no Santa. A friend of mine had the idea of telling them that Santa got Covid, which only made things worst.

Regarding editing content, I have been quite fed up with the way events have been going specially in Croatia. Local historians have been dedicated to revisionism in full swing, and history schoolbooks slowly, but progressivelly, add more and more of their reinterpratations. Reading the articles from their own Wikipedia seems like entering in a twilight zone. Same occurs with majority of allegedly "historical documentaries" one can see on different platforms. Feels like entering into parallel universe where seems more as if Hungary became part of Croatia. Often Croatia is presented as independent kingdom which elected, on their own will, to recognise Hungarian suvereignity, and could denounce it at any moment (clearly not the case). My issue with the term Croatia (proper) has to do with the fact that I noteced how in their documentaries, the term was introduced to suggest how there were other Croatia´s existing beside that one. I even saw cases going as far as saying that Croatia (proper) was independent (despite being part of Hungary) while the other Croatia´s were occupied, like Dalmatia by Venice, Bosnia and Herzegovina by Ottomans or Red Croatia (Montenegro) by... Montenegrins (???) or Ottomans, who knows. Many are made to believe that Croatia never lost independence at all, as in second paragraph of History of Croatia. Even 1867 was just some bad dream. Triune Kingdom continues being pushed into the articles despite never having existed. Military Frontier is treated as their territory ignoring the other sections. Recently, I found in a book a sentence that shocked me and made me see how much of a Croatian-centered our articles are. The book says that the creation of the Military Frontier made Austria take an entire portion of territory from Hungary. The overwelming focus on Croatia makes our articles continuously repeat the relation of MF and Croatia with usually some mention, if any, made much later, often in a form of how the region changed from Transleithania to Cisleithania. This for an average reader is not even nearly clear as "MF was taken from Hungary", so, I hope not, but am affraid this little things indicate that a terrain is being prepared to challenge the level of authority Hungary had over Croatia. Anyway, we´ll see how iit will all go from here, best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@FkpCascais:,

believe me, you had better holidays then me, but let's look forward the next year!

I can't say anything about recent Croatian internal happenings, since I don't know about them. The multilateral views of the relation are presented in the relevant article, however we regard generally as a personal union, but not integral part of Hungary, neither part of Hungary proper, but part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown. After 1867, we already investigated in the Tesla discussion about the controversy of Dalmatia, the Triune Kingdom issue have been already balanced after the ominous editor and his sock have been banned (I think it was awesome poor Havsjö had to do over twenty reverts and as an epic ending he reported himself, but was left free as "self-reporting is always refreshing" :D). The MF issues has always been reemerging in the Tesla discussions, it's really a complex issue, though recently I don't see mass "updates" in Croatia related articles. I wish both of us a less stressful year, and less mess in WP, would be good a longer period of happy editing, instead of facing POV-pushers and trolls, which seems sometimes never seem to be depleted :/ . Best Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC))

I apologise KIENGIR, I feel embaraced about the way I talked, I really hope nothing very bad happened and that you and all your loved ones are all fine. We know eachother as editors for so long and I appreciate you so much, please feel free to ping me anytime. FkpCascais (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@FkpCascais:, oh, you don't need to apologize, you did nothing wrong, I would just say if you had more family members around with children healthy, it's already something good. The appreciation is mutual, I recall when you probably said a marriage issue was harsh in your life...maybe we should talk about girls :) (KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

I can´t remember at all what did I said and when, I guess it must have been some outburst of the kind "one has already so much problems in life, Wikipedia should not be another one, but rather a pleasent hobbie one could find some peace." Talking of which, I allways felt sorry that the proportion of male editors is so bigger. I remember a lot of discussions were made at some point over how to attract more female editors, but all proposals were major fails. I witnessed first-hand when I tried to convince my loved one to become an editor, and, after only 5 minutes, it became so obvious she was making the effort just to please me. I didn´t insisted anymore, and she seemed pleased to see there were very few woman here and no flirting or anything of that kind was going on here, so she feeled safe and free to go and do her own stuff she likes. I can´t get it what is with woman and Wikipedia? It´s not like if we miss woman´s topics, but for some reason they don´t feel the apeal to edit. I also think that woman, as brain beings, would be great for dispute resolutions. FkpCascais (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@FkpCascais:, well, as I recall I noticed more woman editors, nevertheless they are not the majority, but at first glance you would not even assume they are woman, just after checking their userpage, e.g. I just recall imeediately three-four admins being women, so they appear at least more numerous vs. ordinary editors (oh well, I know it's just my personal encounter statistics :) )(KIENGIR (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Novi Zrin (1664), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Croatian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Spanish Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Donald Albury 00:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury:,

this warning was not necessary, if you check the edit history, I was just restoring the status quo ante version for the unconsensused parts, already the talk page discussed about this, and others were as well undoing vandalism before, as indicated, and the IP totally disregarded this. Of course I will reinforce it in the talk, but usually this comes after the second revert, but I did not have time to care the issue yet.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

The Wikipedia definition of vandalism is pretty narrow. You and the IP had reverted each other 3 times today in what can be interpreted as a content dispute. Once a consensus is established on the talk page, it can be enforced. - Donald Albury 01:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury:,

no, the IP reverted 3 times, I just two times, and stopped (my other revert explained above was a day before, after a massive edit warring of other parties). Btw. I already reinforced the issue in the talk, if the the IP does not establish consensus, the page has to be restored, let's see if it will engage.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Romani in Hungary

Just a quick message off the talk page: when you have deleted a statement you need to provide evidence of why you think it is biased, this needs to refer to the actual text. So, for example, if you feel a statement is not neutral you need to say something like "The edit says Jim Jones was much beloved, I do not feel this is a neutral statement. It should be changed or removed." or "As regards Jim Jones made a racist comment in 1963, the source does not specifically identify this comment as 'racist' so we must change the language or find a different source."

You can't simply blank several hundred words of sourced comment without providing detailed justifications. Please simply state on the talk page the things you object to, or state that you object to nothing, in the two paragraphs you deleted.

I really hope we can sort this out, but you really need to be more specific for this to happen. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,.

I asked you not to conduct parallell discussions, and please don't steal from editors precious editing time! Here you just again reiterated the same problem, that you still refuse to understand the point, meanwhile by mistake you think the issue is something else. I gave you justification for everything - even preliminary - and by not any means you may coin the situation by ignoring/misinterpreting the issue. I will now catch up on the article's talk, and again, carefully listen there. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

I am writing to formally invite you to take our discussions on this topic to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This requires you to agree to participate, or the discussion can not be taken there. Please reply on the relevant talk page within 14 days. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Replied.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

It's only fair to advise you that the links of my offers to you to discuss the content you mass deleted were broken, this was my error. They are now fixed. I doubt it will change your position, and there is no need to answer unless it does. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The link changes you did still verify the content and validity of my reply, even reinforce it. I will always answer if it is needed, anyway this discussion is rendered by you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

Greek Junta

Hello I saw some edit war about the Greek Junta. Some users put that as a example of fascist state, put it in that category etc. But I haven't seen enough of reliable sources and wide recognition to whole regime and state described as fascist. That is serious thing, declaring the whole country in that way and that need to be taken serious and measured totally neutral. Far right military dictatorship yes, that I saw as description, but fascist no as whole nop, at least not in neutral academic researches and publications. And not as wide accepted in academic community. So if you can to check.178.220.244.242 (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @178.220.244.242:,

that page is not on my watchlist and I am not an expert yet on that special era of Greece, but I assume probably you are right since similar phenomenon suffered as well other articles. My suggestion if this continues, after the second time you'd be reverted open a discussion in the article's talk a present your argumentation there. If you'd won't get along, involve Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece to the discussion. Kind Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Thank you very much about your answer, and thank you for your time to answer me and sorry for me disturbing you. I posted on the talk page of that article and wrote about my concerns. For me labeling whole countries, governments, political parties, movements etc as something need wide recognition in relevant sources, otherwise it does not work, so that made me concerned about. 178.220.244.242 (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@178.220.244.242:,

you did the right thing! Take care, happy I could help you somehow!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

I think it would be better to have Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece involved, maybe they are in a better place to solve this dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.122.83.241 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@178.220.244.242:,

I think for now you should wait, if somebody still continue, or would anybody join the discussion, but as you feel. Cheers!.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Big lie

[36] I already read the talk page and responded. How about you read it please. Einsof (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I did.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

History of Croatia

Hello KIENGIR,

I added Ottoman period in Croatia between 1492 and 1791 alongside Croatia in the Habsburg Monarchy (1527–1918). However, you reverted it, as if Ottoman rule in Croatia wasn't happen. This move was wrong. Before Ottomans entering Croatia, she was divided between Republic of Venice, Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Naples (for Palagruža) and Archyduchy of Austria (for inland part of Istria). Also, she was divided between 5 states during 1492-1527 period. When, Austria inherited Hungarian part of her, she was divided between Austria, Ottoman Empire, Venice and Kingdom of Naples. This division lasted until 1791, Austrians taking last Ottoman strongholds in Croatia after Treaty of Sistova. Austria finally completed conquest of her after taking Palagruža from Italy in 1873.

Note: If you want, I can give reliable sources about Ottoman period in Croatia in langauges of Turkish, Croatian and Hungarian. Yours sincerely,Cemsentin1 (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cemsentin1:,

you misunderstood something, since the timelines are successive and clear cut, the time period includes this, and not full of Croatia has been necessarily conquered all the time (any way present-day status quo should not be reflected back in time).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

Jobbik page issue

Hi @KIENGIR,

You want to discuss, let's discuss. Just for clarification, I'm tottaly a newcomer here. I've just looked up at the editing history of the Jobbik's Wikipedia page and according to it you broke the 3-revert rule before I did the same. I don't like edit warring, but why did you need to revert to a version of the page that was partially true. Yes, there was a time when Jobbik was described as a far-right party, I would never bet against this fact, but since 2016 the party's communication and political view have been changed by a lot, which culminated into a new manifesto, which describes themselves as a center-right party. As of right now there a 2 political parties in Hungary, that are way more far-right, then Jobbik is. Those are: the Our Homeland Movement (which founded as a result of the seperation of the far-right from Jobbik) and the current rulling party Fidesz (which became far-right more gradually since 2015). I don't know what is your problem with these facts, but I can tell you right now, that those edits were made in good faith and not the opposite.

Best regards, Andor127 (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Andor127:,

no, I did not brake 3RR. Per policy and earlier discussion. The party has been also described as far-right, and the infobox presents how to party is described, not necessarily how they position themselves. I disagree about Fidesz, it has never been far-right, for the Our Homeland Movement it is true. Edits are not judged by good faith (neither the lack of it), which is a principle that is anyway essential.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:,

Maybe I was a little bit harsh with Fidesz, because they are more a right-wing party, but seriously your argument is that Jobbik is far-right, because the infobox describes it as being one. With all do respect, let tell you right now, I think that's a weak argument. I'm gonna make a counter argument. Have you seen the ideology section in the infobox? If you do, then you could clearly see that those ideologies that could definately describe Jobbik as a far-right party are all listed after the following subtitle: Historical (now minorities). Which means that there is a minority of people describe themselves as far-right. So given that, do you still think, that because of that minority you can describe this or any (if there is a similar situation mostly on the right-wing) political party far-right? Because quite frankly, I don't think so. Just because there is a far-right minority in the party, doesn't mean that the majority is far-right, because they lean towards the center-right.

Best regards, Andor127 (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Andor127:,

I did not argue like as you said. I said, the policital position in the infobox summarize what sources say, shall we like or not (regardless of my personal opinion, here in WP things are a bit different). Many parties have as well ideologies that are not far-right per se, even given the fact in English far-right does not necessarily coincide what we would consider domestically about it. Moreover the political position is a range, and you just acknowledged as well there are members who touch this range.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:,

Yes, it's one thing that political position is a range, but it's quite another thing if a party's current political position (which could become the main one) is not listed in the infobox, even if most of the main sources are in Hungarian. I've seen a ton of Wikipedias in different languages with this same article and some of them for example the Spanish Wikipedia does contain the current position of Jobbik which is center-right to right-wing, and the one that the English version has (which is of course right-wing to far-right) is presented as a historical political position, which means that the party's political position that is listed on this Wikipedia is not true anymore. Maybe it should be labelled as a historical one and not a current one. You said that the term far-right in English is not necessarily coincide with the one that we know domestically. When I said that Jobbik is not a far-right party anymore, I said it not just domestically, but rather universally, because even if someone looks up at the pages infobox, you could see that their current ideologies can be placed between center-right to right-wing. It should be a no-brainer. BTW do you remember what I said about Fidesz of being far-right? Well, I would say they are a right-wing to far-right party as according to their Wikipedia page and there is a big reason for that: populism and authoritarianism.

Best regards, Andor127 (talk) 12:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The current political position is dscribed in the lead. Other WP's are not decisive in this matter. I doubt and you agreed the even softer non-deomestic interpretation the party contain such factions. See Fidesz, which has nothing to with far-right (populism does not qualify that, authoritarianism is better a dubious accusation), but sources don't care much, shall I like or not or considered to be true (especially in a politically heated environment when all parties, factions, movements, political sides blaming each other with various epiphets to gain some result against the opponent, the news, media may one-one sold out to each sides. WP by policy tend to the sources, of we may struggle in the scope of this, an that are already present in the respective pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Géza Grünwald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

aspersions

on the closing of the Big Lie DRN topic, you took another swipe at me by characterizing my behavior as “quite odd.” There is nothing odd about my behavior. You appear to be personalizing a content dispute about a topic in which you appear to have a strong POV. I again ask you to pause and reconsider your approach. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla:,

please avoid mischarechterizing the issue, again, there is nothing connected with any aspersions/personalizing, indeed I prefectly know these issues per policy, (anyaway I have been a recurrent victim of those). I have to reject your accusation of POV, on the contrary, the opposite is true, struggle for NPOV, evidence is there. Moreover, do you think it is a normal procedure in which you don't actively participate something you opened and even one participant among those who invited did not took part? Two editors, including me coped with your request, without being even formally invited. Don't worry, I am experienced enough to only enter in an issue, in which everything is thorougly considered, otherwise I would not enter in it. Please have these in mind, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC))

Official State Names

Hey,

Just figured I should explain that all I've been doing on the "Sovereign States in decades" pages is simply correcting official state names so they are consistent throughout wikipedia, that's all. (ex: Often Iceland is listed as "Republic of Iceland", when its official name as stated on its wikipedia page is simply "Iceland".) I don't mean to inflame an edit war or anything. Cheers :)

You remove as well instances, discuss at talk better.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

I need your expertise on correct wording of sources

I'll try to make it very simple. I saw you posting on Uyghur article before and you seem to be a experienced user who sorted out the dispute with ease. The problem I have is basically the source and wording on a article between me and a user. I currently have a problem with Genetic section of Uyghurs [1] , which to lead to a long wall discussion in the Uyghur talk page [2]. I want you to tell me who correct and who is wrong because our dispute have lasted for weeks and getting nowhere.

The roots of the problem is here

I edited the genetic section by using the 2009 Li's paper " Genetic Landscape of Eurasia and “Admixture” in Uyghurs " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790568/

And this is what it says

"STRUCTURE cannot distinguish recent admixture from a cline of other origin, and these analyses cannot prove admixture in the Uyghurs; however, historical records indicate that the present Uyghurs were formed by admixture between Tocharians from the west and Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu, according to present Chinese pronunciation) from the east in the 8th century CE.14 The Uyghur Empire was originally located in Mongolia and conquered the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang. Tocharians such as Kroran have been shown by archaeological findings to appear phenotypically similar to northern Europeans,15 whereas the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. The two groups of people subsequently mixed in Xinjiang to become one population, the present Uyghurs. We do not know the genetic constitution of the Tocharians, but if they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations. "

I originally added the source with quotation [3], that was later removed by the user Hzn [4]

Weeks later I tried another attempt in editing it Here is how I later edited it.

According to the paper by Li et al. Historical records indicates Uyghurs were formed through admixture between the conquered Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the invading Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, the two population eventually mixed and became one population that formed present Uyghurs. Archaeological findings shows Tocharians such as Kroran phenotypically similar to northern Europeans while the Orkhon Uyghur people were clearly Mongolians. Overall, genetic study shows western East Asians are more closely related to Uyghurs than to eastern East Asians, but it is unsure what constituted the exact original genetics of the Tocharians. The study also indicates that the analysis cannot distinguish the original ancient component of Tocharians originated from the West from the more recent Orkhon Uyghurs (Wugusi-Huihu) of the East. It was speculated they were similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty, admixture would already be biased toward similarity with East Asian populations.

But the user Hzn decided to reword the entire paragraph like this [5]. I mean we dicussed on talk page, I asked him to refute the study made by Li, but he doesn't provide any sources and insist on rewording the genetic study of Li how he likes it. For several weeks there were no replies until now but still he doesn't show me any source to refute Li's 2009 study but just kept rewording the source.

"A different study by Li et al. (2009) used a larger sample of individuals from a wider area and found a higher East Asian component of about 70%, with much more similarity to "Western East" Eurasians than East Asian populations, while the European/West Asian component was about 30%. The paper by Li et al. noted that historical records suggest that Uyghurs may be formed through admixture between the Tocharian tribes in Xinjiang and the Orkhon Uyghur people from Mongolia, but the study cannot distinguish the original ancient component of the Tocharians. It speculated that the Tocharians may be genetically similar to western Siberians, such as the Khanty people, and admixture would already be biased toward the East Asian populations.[113] "

The problem here is Hzn basically just removed the entire archeological information of Tocharians, or information of Tocharians being conquered by Xinjiang ( when such information is also provided in full history in wikipedia article of the Uyghur Qocho kingdom, which shows they conquered territories of Xinjiang and assimilated the Tocharians). Also his interpretation of Khanty people seems a bit off aswell. Can you tell us who's correct and who is wrong.Vamlos (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Vamlos:,

without entering to content issues, if the user removed something from the article that was present before the dispute without any valid reason, you can restore it per policy. If you came up with a new addition, the other user may contest it. In case in the talk page you cannot build consensus, you may try the appropriate dispute resolution processes. In case you think the user acts agains any policy, even afterwards you explained what the user would be doing wrong, you may report the user the in the relevant noticeboard based on the type of activity. Keep in mind that in genetic questions everything should comply with WP:MEDRS. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC))

Invitation to DRN

Hi. As per our previous discussions, I have started a DRN mediation regarding Romani people in Hungary. You are under no obligation to participate and the mediation is non-binding.

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Baltic Finnic peoples

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

please avoid posting to my talkpage unnecessary templates and warnings, as you did the same again like last time, this not edit warring, by the frame and time, otherwise you should have sent a warning to yourself as well (I won't explain it again). Just follow our policies, and remain in the talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

Alternative meaning of Magyar

Please revert (Alternative meaning of Magyar added.) You removed it as being fringe; however, the source is a peer reviewed article. Interestingly you left speculation about Magyar originating as a Hunnic word. If you are going to present Magyar as possibly originating in other languages then you should include all valid theories. You also have the Old Hungarian for of Magyar as "mogyër" with no source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7CC3:A100:95C4:84C6:E1E6:7049 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@2001:569:7CC3:A100:95C4:84C6:E1E6:7049 and 2001:569:7CC3:A100:95C4:84C6:E1E6:7049:,

please open in the talk page section of one of the articles and explain your concerns there, so more users may review the material you wish to add. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC))

Why Szekelys are not Hungarians by DNA studies

Findings of the Hungarian experts: ‘Today’s Hungarian genes’, by B. Csányi, E. Bogácsi-Szabó, Gy. Tömöry, Á. Czibula, K. Priskin, A. Csősz, B. Mende, P. Langó, K. Csete, A. Zsolnai, E. K. Conant, C. S. Downes, and I. Raskó. "Y-Chromosome Analysis of Ancient Hungarian and Two Modern Hungarian-Speaking Populations from the Carpathian Basin.": "The Hungarian population belongs linguistically to the Finno-Ugric branch of the Uralic family. The Tat C allele is an interesting marker in the Finno-Ugric context, distributed in all the Finno-Ugric-speaking populations, except for Hungarians. This question arises whether the ancestral Hungarians, who settled in the Carpathian Basin, harbored this polymorphism or not. 100 men from modern Hungary, 97 Szekely (a Hungarian-speaking population from Transylvania), and 4 archaeologically Hungarian bone samples from the 10th century were studied for this polymorphism. Among the modern individuals, only one Szekely carries the Tat C allele, whereas out of the four skeletal remains, two possess the allele. The latter finding, even allowing for the low sample number, appears to indicate a Siberian lineage of the invading Hungarians, which later has largely disappeared. The two modern Hungarian-speaking populations, based on 22 Y-chromosomal binary markers, share similar components described for other Europeans, except for the presence of the haplogroup P*(xM173) in Szekely samples, which may reflect a Central Asian connection, and high frequency of haplogroup J in both Szekelys and Hungarians. MDS analysis based on haplogroup frequency values, confirms that modern Hungarian and Szekely populations are genetically closely related, and similar to populations from Central Europe and the Balkans." Then: "The R1a1-M17 frequency in Hungarians (30%) and Szekelys (18.6%) is comparable to that in their neighbours (e.g. Czechs and Slovaks, mainland Croatians, Bosnians, Romanians, Serbians) and some other Uralic-speaking populations (e.g. Estonian, Komis, Mordvin)... Similar frequencies of R1b as in the Hungarian speakers are found in some Slavic populations (mainland Croatians, Slovenians, Poles, Bulgarians); and in some Uralic-speakers (Komis, Khanties, Mordvin) as well as in Romanian and Turkish populations... The presence of central-Asian haplogroup P*(xM173) in Szekelys is unusual for a European population, since it is almost absent in continental Europe... and presumably reflects some Asian contribution, before or after reaching Transylvania. Hg I-M170 is the only Y-chromosome haplogroup that is confined almost exclusively to the European continent... Haplogroup I was detected with almost equal frequency in the two modern populations: 24% in Hungarians and 21.7% in Szekelys. However, two of its major subclades- I1a-M253 and I1b*(xM26) - show an opposite occurrence in the two ethnic groups, 8% and 13%, respectively, in Hungarians, and 16.5% and 5.2% in Szekelys. These are within the range of normal central and eastern European values... The elevated frequency of Hg I1a together with higher frequency of R1b-M269 in Szekelypopulation might be the consequence, at least in part, of the genetic impact of people of German origin, who settled in Transylvania from the 12th century onwards (Transylvanian Saxons)... In the present study haplogroup J was unexpectedly common in the Hungarian-speaking populations (Hungarians: 16%, Szekelys: 21.6%). Haplogroup J... is considered to have originated in the Middle East... The J1-M267 Y-chromosomal lineage is notably frequent in Szekelys (10.3%; a value far above the range for other central and eastern European populations..., while its frequency in Hungarians (3.0%) is unremarkable. ... Among these J2-M172 subclades, J2e1-M102 is more frequent in Szekelys (7.2%) than in Hungarians (4.0%), while the undifferentiated J2-M172* Y chromosomes are slightly more common in Hungarian population (8% vs. 3.1%). Both J2f*-M67 and J2f1-M92 lineages were detected in our study in one single individual, in each population. ... Haplogroup E3b-M35 occurs at 10% frequency in Hungarians and 9.2% in Szekelys with E3b1-M78 chromosomes accounting for almost all representatives (∼90%). Hg E is mainly African, but its clade E3b-M35 has also been observed in Europe... Both E3b-M35 and its derivative (E3b1-M78) probably originated in eastern Africa..."Magysze (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Magysze:,

please only use the relevant article's talk page.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brașov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Soviet offensive plans controversy

I only undid the edit because Mark Solonin is already listed 2 times in the support section and it was posted from a Blog. Also Hoffman is already mentioned from another source the main source about his book was haphazardly, copied and pasted from a Holocaust denial website The Institute for Historical Review http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html Suvorov, Icebreaker, and the 1980s part was moved to the book page pre talk from that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icebreaker_(Suvorov)#Self-citations that is why I put the Background to the Soviet offensive plans controversy in place of it.Thelostone41 (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Thelostone41:,

that does not mean you should have fully reverted, since I've made other improvements. A discussion in an other page does not necessarily binding in this article.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

Germany–Poland relations

Hi, why are you deleting more accurate, precise and neutral information, as well as information that provides valuable context, especially without reasonable justification? There are several inaccuracies in your edits, for example:

1. All territories regained by Poland from Germany after 1918 were in the past part of Poland, not just some of them were part of historical polish states or Much of this territory had been part of Poland in earlier centuries as you claim in your edits.
2. Your phrasing that Germany was deprived of its territories in West Prussia, East Upper Silesia and Danzig ignores the fact that all of those territories were part of Poland in the past and that those territories were simply restored to Poland, as the country regained independence. It also ignores other territories regained by Poland from Germany, mainly the bulk of Greater Poland and Kuyavia. Therefore, a statement that the Treaty of Versailles restored large portions of the formerly Polish territories of Greater Poland, Kuyavia, Gdańsk Pomerania and East Upper Silesia from Germany to the reborn Polish state is way more precise and neutral, plus it provides context that these territories were in fact restored to Poland. It's no different from restoring other territories, which Poland lost to Russia or Austria. It's also no different from Georgia or Armenia regaining their old territories after declaring independence from Russia in 1918, or Greece and Bulgaria from Turkey, or Ireland from the UK, or Mongolia from China, or Vietnam from France, etc. It's that simple.
3. Why do you erase mentions of the Tehran and Potsdam Conferences, which provide more precise info and internal links for anyone who's further interested in the subject?
4. The mention that the pre-war eastern territories of Germany were previously lost by Poland in the Partitions of Poland or even earlier is crucial to the understanding of the complexity and depth of the subject. Omitting the fact that these lands were in fact part of Poland in the past may look like an attempt to appropriate the entire pre-1945 centuries-long history of those areas to solely Germany, which is inaccurate and misleading.
5. Prior to the Ostsiedlung, the territories in Central Europe east of Elbe and Saale rivers were inhabited by Slavic and Baltic people, including Poles (specifically in Polish territories), and that information provides important context, since the article is about relations between Poland and Germany. Are you aware of this?
6. Wording such as Polish and German nationalists fought over the right to the disputed land is unjustified, erroneous and misleading. There is no reason whatsoever to make such generalizations about the political views of all people who fought on either side. Especially instead of a neutral, simple and concise statement that the Polish Greater Poland uprising of 1918–19 and Silesian Uprisings against Germany broke out in the disputed regions. In addition, you even remove the names of the uprisings and purposely avoid the term uprising, which is the most commonly used term in regards to these events. Doing so, you also remove internal links to the articles about the uprisings, which is both disruptive and completely unreasonable.

Could you please respond, and could you stop making such confusing edits? No hard feelings. Hope you're having a great day. Marcin 303 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marcin 303:,

no, I am not doing such as you say.

- this is not such clear-cut as you try to show it, and they are not my edits necessary, but I restored the previous version - sorry, the situation is that before the even it was part of Germany, and we don't have to insist in eevry sentence what you do, since it is far from neutrality - these conferencies were negotiations about future plans, and the happenings were not necessary direct consequence of them - it's already mentioned that Much of this territory had been part of Poland in earlier centuries., etc. we don't have to repeat everything twice - yes, and much prior also Germanic tribes were spread there, it's irrelevant to 20th century happenings - no I did not remove anything on such cause, I just reset the previous version.

Sorry, you should conduct more neutral editing, and rather discuss them before and gain consensus for them.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: You completely ignored several points. Could you please answer each and every of the following questions separately:

1. Much of this territory had been part of Poland in earlier centuries is wrong and misleading, because all of those territories were in the past part of Poland, not just much. Do you disagree? Are you trying to suggest that some of the territories regained by Poland from Germany after restoring independence in 1918 were never part of Poland? This is clear-cut, just yes or no?
2. Why do you erase the mentions of the uprisings and instead insist on the usage of vague and confusing phrasing such as Polish and German nationalists fought over the right to the disputed land?
3. Why do you insist that all people who fought on either side during those uprisings had nationalist political views? Why make such generalizations? Such assumptions and generalizations are unjustified and pointless.
4. The total number of Germans that either fled or were expelled from Central and Eastern Europe is estimated at 12 to 15 million, with the West German government putting the total number at 14.6 million, so 16 million in regards to Poland alone is clearly incorrect. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
5. Fleeings and expulsions is a more chronologically correct description than expulsions and fleeings. How can anyone flee after being expelled? Do you agree?
6. You've erased the mention of war destruction of Poland despite the reference. Why?
7. Germanic tribes are indeed irrelevant to 20th century happenings, as well as to medieval happenings, but Slavs and Balts incl. Poles are clearly not irrelevant to medieval happenings, cause they inhabited Central Europe when Poland already existed and the Ostsiedlung started. Will you try to dismiss this argument?
8. Even if you don't consider those your edits, you still restored to the earlier version. This would suggest you agree more with those prior statements, in spite of several inaccuracies which I've pointed out. Do you still agree with the earlier statements after I have given the above arguments? If you do, what are your counterarguments? If you don't, could you please not restore the previous inaccuracies?

Marcin 303 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marcin 303:,

I will then answer your questions where you reposted, be patient.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Question

What Hungarian state ruled Michael? You wanted to say Szekely state, maybe? Magysze (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you should duplicate your questions, unnecessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

I don't think Michael entitled himself as a ruler of 'all' over Hungarians from Buda as well. From that age. Magysze (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to conduct parrallel discussions, will return to the article's talk.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Edit war 3RR

Your recent editing history at Hungarian dialects shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_dialects&curid=39427010&action=history You should always better keep the official census data which is sourced rather then your belly estimations which of course are not sourced...Magysze (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding? One revert is not edit war, and you are consistently trolling other articles and talk pages. Just stop at once!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Are you kidding?? Census data is trolling for you??? Not to mention you started. Every aspect or Szekler identity which differentiate from Hungarian is then subjected to reverts or deletion from your side. You stop that first.. Magysze (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not start anything, you started to abuse many articles. I strongly suggest to avoid my talk page, I don't have time for provocateurs.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

You don't even recognize Szekely moustache... perhaps you want to call it Hungarian mustache but it's Szekely one... Magysze (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nazi Germany; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You are warring against three other editors. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:,

Are you kidding? Edit warring you did, I restored the previous version, you should have remained in the talk page per policy. No, you are the only one who is repeatedly contesting, not three editors. Btw, if this is WP:BOOMERANG, you should have given this warning to yourself - if to me you did -, anyway the time and frame does not justify your warnings and actions (even both directions). Quite unfriendy from you, I have known you much better editor than this.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Nope, you are entirely wrong. An edit was made, you reverted it, Dianna restored it, you reverted her, then I restored it, and then you reverted me. You have now reverted that change to the article three times, and you never started the required discussion until after my edit. You are edit warring, period.

I know that generally you do good work, and I don't want to report you for edit warring, but I will if you give me no choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:,

No, I am not. Diannna understood me as, we communicated, if she would not, would revert again. Your restoration was against status quo. I entered in the talk page after the second revert, which is a the usual recommended conduct (administrator approved), my third revert came after that (if it would come but not engaging to the talk, that would have been a problem). Per policy, if you say I am edit warring per period, then you did the same, the difference is I did it in a legitimate way to status quo, and be sure I am not afraid of threatening with reports, because I don't give reasons for that, and in that case you would be in danger. I recommend you again to revert yourself, as a friendly fellow editor.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC))

Pančevački Rit

Hello, why you remove category Palilula from article Pančevački Rit? Pančevački Rit is a small geographical area and Borča, Ovča and Krnjača (Palilula) are part of him. --MareBG (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@MareBG:,

Hi, Palilula is a much more littler geographical unit, which obviouly cannot contain a more bigger geographical area...like the parent-child category approach would have been turned upside down...or I may be wrong?(KIENGIR (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

Also, if you email me to get around this ban, I will assume that you are agreeing in advance that the entire contents of the e-mail can be released to anyone I wish to.

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand you, I sent you a message in a good faith manner, an I even apologized to respond, so I disagree I would be highly impolite. Currently your tone is harsh, strained and very unfriendly ("will be deleted without being read" (!)), however I don't even understand fully, an editor may impose ban on it's talk page or to be pinged? (e.g. I could also tell any editor such based on my decision? So I could not be sure even here my answer/questions reach you...) I don't even know why you think I would wish you to send emails, however I only once posted anything to your talkpage, and even rarely pinged, and I don't even intend to do such. You are heavily overreacting the issue, I still think you'd need to be much more WP:COOL, especially we know each other as editors from a longer while.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Beyond My Ken,

since you ignored my request to explain/clarify (at least I did not ignore your ask also now, and it is disappointing you do by several issues), I had to investigate it. WP:NOBAN should be this policy, this this does not say you may "ban" anyone, just "ask", and "...such requests should, within reason, be respected". Pinging is not even mentioned in this policy.

Thus I have to evaluate your request as overly exaggerated (once in my life posted on your talk, and even politely apologized that was about a retracted comment, but I felt important to communicate with you), and extremely harsh by tone and manner, not in line with WP:AGF (considering you made several entries to my talk, I never even considered on insisted such in an opposite direction). Hence your reasons I do not find sufficient, despite I will respect your ask (however regarding pinging I would like to see a policy, unless I may have to ignore that, especially if you so many times try to explain policies which I know and follow, but this time I've got no response when it would be really important).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

Nazi Germany article

You can edit the lead of the Nazi Germany article. "The nazi political philosophy looked down on the fascist ideology since the very beginnings, thinking that fascism is inferior in every aspect with a comparison with their national socialist ideas."

Title The Origins of Totalitarianism Volume 244. / Harvest book Author Hannah Arendt Edition reprint Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1973 ISBN 0547543158, 9780547543154

PAGE: 309

Link: [37]

@Creator Edition:,

I should not make edits about this until the talk page discussion is ongoing, however it is good you provided some material on the subject (btw. the yt link did not work for me, but indeed, the best are reliable sources). However, it's too concerning some people try to judge things by superficial emotion, instead of the professional approach. Let's hope others will understand, but who knows...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Sorry, Here is the correct Youtube link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdY_IMZH2Ko

--Creator Edition (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Do not forget, this video is a heavy stuff, it uses more references than the disputed article ifself.--Creator Edition (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Feb 2021

I think you may need to read wp:tenditious and wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:,

Please be sure I know our policies, if you read all- and related - discussions, especially I was the one who totally followed and referred them appropriately. The first policy you cited is out of question, I did not do any disruptive editing, this talk page section was opened by me, and the talk is is the place for consensus- and contructive discussions. Just because you e.g. disagree at ones opinion, it does not mean you should with alternate methods try to eliminate your debate partner, this is against wikietiquette, even would be unfair. The second policy you cited is valid for such cases, when an issue have been already closed and not any new arguments arose, and someone still continues (this is not the case here, and I even highlighted the weak/erroneus points of the argumentations of others).

On the contraty, I openly say I welcome any of your comments in the talk page, with respect.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Former Countries of Afghanistan

Hello KIENGIR, I have noticed you removing said category from some countries and I can understand why you would remove it from Sasanian Empire but I believe you misinterpret the purpose of the category as it is to hold all countries that the Modern Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sits on meaning tht the other three would still fall under that category. Bvcitizen (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bvcitizen:,

Hello, the Sasanian Empire was a Persian Empire, it was not any means connected to modern Afghanistan, neither to the Afghan statehood and was NOT a country of Aughanistan by any means. The name of category is failed, even the purpose, and even what is considered rename to (in modern-day Aghanistan did not exist former countries, anachronism). Moreover still other articles are erroenously in the category, like Maurya Empire, Sikh Empire, Safavid Iran and Hindu Shahi.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

I understand where you’re at, but I don’t believe the category has failed. Even if some aren’t considered a part of the evolution of Afghanistan they still lay beneath Afghanistan making them Afghan States. Bvcitizen (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bvcitizen:,

Nope, they not have been Afghan states, fringe POV.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Now I do understand your reasoning for your belief that they are not Afghan States, but they are they’ve layed on Afghan territory. Bvcitizen (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bvcitizen:,

this is what I am saying, laying on a present-day territory does not make them Afghan. Also the Roman Empire was not Hungarian state. Just stop this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

In your eyes they don’t and also I never said The Roman Empire was a Hungarian State, and you can remove the categories on what you feel like I’ll eventually add them back and now that I’ve said that I bid you farewell and good luck with editing as I’m done with this conversation. Bvcitizen (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bvcitizen:,

I did not say you said it, I gave an example to demonstrate your erroneus assertion. Don't add them back without consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

Help

Sir, could you please tell me why the Austro-Hugarian flag was removed for the Austria Hungary article. I read the talk page and it seems to have just been have abruptly stopped.

Hi @Kanto7:,

there have been a much more longer and wider discussion which have been already archived. Well we have seen many points, the current phase is a solid interpolation.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

Hittites & Mittani

You're right; I mixed-up the two. Augh... I'm getting old... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikocado Avocado

Hey! This is a request for outside comments on an article I created which may be of interest to you, Nikocado Avocado. If you have any feedback or edits you could give the article, these would be greatly appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bangalamania:,

Hi, thank you for your notification. I overviewed the article, it seems fine! Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC))

Thank you! 😊 --Bangalamania (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brașov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

version A/B/C

Given the difficulty the moderator is having with understanding your proposals despite having access to drafts, perhaps you should reflect on my comments on the way you communicate on talk pages. This is particularly important given the fact you were throwing around WP:COMPETENT when I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Maybe in future, you could approach the situation in a different way if you come up against a user who says they don't understand you. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

here you must have again a misunderstading, the since moderator did not parse the mods, which has nothing to do with competence issues or understanding, but simply intentions and time.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

Ok, whatever you want to believe. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:,

Sorry, it has nothing to do my belief, the moderator expressis verbis described that. Please try to adhere to the reality.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

Hungary–Ukraine relations

Hello! I published the Hungary–Ukraine relations article yesterday, and I have some questions about your recent edit. This is my first time doing significant work on any sort of international relations article, so I'm not super familiar with standards; specifically:

1. How would I go about including events that inherently paint one party in a negative light but are also necessary and relevant to the article? The 27,000 deaths of civilians in Carpatho-Ukraine are important to the context of Hungarian-Ukrainian relations at that time, the 2018 passport scandal can't really be understood without they key factor of Hungarian diplomats' instructions to conceal new passports, and the details of 2019 election interference/mentioning violation of Ukrainian law are necessary because otherwise the section doesn't really sound like a controversy at all and fails to convey the geopolitical implications of the situation. Even though they're inherently biased against Hungary, shouldn't these events still be included? Or if their nature should bar them from being mentioned, should events that paint a negative picture of Ukraine (like the 2017 language law) be removed from the page as well?

2. More of an article organization question - the context of the two nations' relationship between the establishment of relations in the 90s and the deterioration of relations in 2017 was removed, and I'm just wondering if there's a specific formatting reason or whatever.

The context I'm referring to:

 Despite Hungary's political alignment with the Russian Federation, which has been involved in armed conflict with Ukraine since 2014 in the Russo-Ukrainian War, relations between the two countries remained positive as recently as 2016.

Thanks!! Cran32 (talk | contributions) 02:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cran32:,

Hi,

1. the added sentence is a POV, especially the exerted a reign of terror, as well the number of deaths are dubious, there is no consensus on it. We should ignore disputed parts, and give an concise overview, in the scope of this article. On the other issue, the accusations of Klimkin cannot be represented as facts (everybody knows significant number of members of the Ukrainian parliament have had double or even triple citizenships, over a decade since such issues emerged, etc.), along with many spurious allegations, which was just the element of the political shoapbox and clash. As well, there has not been any interference or violation of the Ukrainian laws regarding the election, on the contrary local Hungarians and organizations were abused, permanently threatened and intimidated, and even a homeless "clone" named "Vasyl Brenzovich" was put as an electee the same pleace where the "true" one participated, so an inclusion that was put is completely failing WP:NPOV, and ardently attesting a one-sided and even spurious representation of the events, however, these are just accusations, so like these they have no place in the article. We cannot present opinions as facts, the language law is a fact, not an opinion, e.g.

2. This is again a POV statement. Hungary does not have any political alignment with Russia, or if it has, then Germany, France or other countries have three or five times more significant political alingments with her, but I could mention Serbia or several other countries which have much more extent and closer ties. Considering, Hungary gave many humanitarian support for Ukraine, even outside of Transcarpathia, etc.

Kind Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR:

Carpatho-Ukraine invasion: The phrasing was my bad; however, while there isn't a complete consensus regarding the specific number of deaths, there does seem to be a consensus that the number is in the tens of thousands. Moreover, the estimate of 27,000 is the number used across Wikipedia (Carpatho-Ukraine, ru:Оккупация Венгрией Закарпатской Украины (1939), etc.). I'd still argue for inclusion of the 27,000 figure, but if not would a reworded (again, my bad) sentence using tens of thousands or thousands instead work?

Passport distrubtion: The claim that Hungarian diplomats instructed passport recipients to hide their citizenship from authorities isn't exactly an accusation - here's the video.

Electoral interference: I believe independent media has reported this as violating specific Ukrainian laws (including sources cited in the article); I'm also realizing that the raiding, threatning, and abuse of local Hungarian organizations is very relevant to the content of the section. Considering that both of these are facts, would including both in the article solve the NPOV issue?

Political alignment Would a less vague claim + source describing Hungary's specific reaction to the annexation of Crimea work instead? If not, considering that this is just a POV problem, the part confirming positive relations in 2016 could still be included, right?

I'm aware I probably have some bias on this topic, so any help in editing it out while maintaining content would be deeply appreciated! Thanks - Cran32 (talk | contributions) 03:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cran32:,

CUI: well, it is true the phrase is also present in that article (though the source is not satisfying, quite one sided), however it has been phrased and placed neutrally (it is not clear on who's side would be terror, since even this could be a subject of debate or certain point of view, given the fact that the Sich mostly suffered losses by the clash with the Polish border guards, meanwhile leaving the area, etc. so I would be in favor a complete rephrasing, then I would see viable insertion.

PD: I watched the video, the translation fails, it is said It is practial not to make it public..., which is not the same what is stated by the anyway too one-sided source.

EI: yes, we have to give a complete overwiev of the events, not to be commited at one side, and being careful with accusations/opinions vs. facts, especially when there are contradictive events or even sources, we may use such attributions like claimed, according to, etc. The most important factor of the neutral apprach not to represent opinions as facts, since the events took place in huge political tensions and gaming, not necessarily because of the disagreements with Hungary per se, but the Poroshenko-Zelensky rivalry or the clashes with Russia have been also implicit/explicit factors.

PA: Well, I would completely avoid claiming any alingment, which would be again part of the political shoapboxing. Hungary (together with the EU) openly declared they don't recognize the annexation of Crimea and are pro-Ukraine, being interested in an independent, sovereign Ukrainian state.

Sure you cant count me, most of the article you have written very well, I never considered any bad intention from your behalf, if there are problems, we may discuss any time and settle them! Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: my proposals:

CUI: "In the chaos that followed, 27,000 civilians were killed"

PD: Fair enough; I'll leave that out.

EI: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the major abuses of rights/raids/etc. occurred in 2020? If so, reintroduce illegality into 2019 election section and make a separate section following that about the oppression of Hungarian orgs.?

PA: Also fair; I agree that this doesn't belong in the article.

Best, Cran32 (talk | contributions) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cran32:,

CUI: ok!

EI: these abuses were continous, however cumulated as the elections were approaching or meanhile (explosion in Uzhhorod, Mirotrovec death-listing, SBU "investigations" - accusations with separatism, "attack of the clones" regarding Brenzovics, abusing activitst, etc., sure we have to do some work to have a proper chronology and narrow the scope near to the elections, if both sides/claims/accusations are presented, of course you may reintroduce what you added, with appropriate attribution. I think you first you should fix the article's talk page should not redirect to the Foreign relations of Hungary TP. If made, you may present there the proposals of the added material, and we may together imrove, verify it before adding it to the article! Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC))

Ukrainians in Kuban

Hey,

I reverted your revert Ukrainians in Kuban based on MOS:IDENTITY sorry for not including it in the summery of my original edit—blindlynx (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Optional style redux

Happened to bump into this edit of yours from a couple weeks ago at Master race, where all you did was capitalize the initial 'S' on {{short description}}. I'm disappointed. Didn't we just go through this optional-style thing in agonizing detail above at #Do not Edit war to enforce optional style? After I failed to persuade you, you called on Vanjagenije who did a better job of it, as you really seemed to get it after that, and I thought that was the end of it. Again, this is one of the smallest infractions around and one not worth fixing, but then, you just said you wouldn't go there anymore, and yet, here we are. I'm mystified why you're at it again. Is it like a itch you just can't help scratching, even though the doctor just told you not to scratch it? Please tell me something that helps me make sense of this. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot:,

I cite your own words: "...and every edit should improve the article in some way, however minor. Thanks". If you check the edit you cited, it was not solely changing one charachter (what we discussed I kept and never commited again), but as well made other improvement in it (and after our discussion, I even outlined this in my first akin edit in the edit log, and got no objection).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

Notes on claims you’ve made about your english proficiency

Hi KIENGIR, just FYI your english skills are not as strong as you think they are and despite your strident claims otherwise do appear to have caused much of the confusion at Talk:Romani people in Hungary. When someone tells you they can’t understand you the answer should be to check a dictionary or with a native speaker or something like that and make sure you said what you meant to say, the answer should not be screaming ""you seem to have clarified a little" I have to take as your personal stance, since my argumentations understandability is far beyond any English skills, it's for a time an issue of semantical and logical understandability. I won't repeat - and again wasting time - the discussions about the person you mention, those may be read above wht what was said there holds." into the void. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:

I see your point, but please have in mind the user recurrently denied evidence, which have been proved with diffs, explained (independent of English proficiency), and what I tried to the say the logic is flawless even if my English is not native (I suggested the opposite you consider, I did not praise language proficiency), and not understandong something the tenth time e.g. has nothing to do with language, given the fact the other user seems native English to me.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

I can see why you both ended that conversation feeling frustrated and unheard, I’m not saying that the other party is entirely blameless in the matter but slowing down and explaining your points slowly and in detail is immensely helpful to editors (like me) who stumble upon the discussion and have great difficulty understanding what is going on due to a wall of what appears to mostly be tangents and personal squabbles. You may have made the most convincing and perfectly proven argument, but I couldn’t find it in the wall of text on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:,

well, I did these slow-points-down explanations, and when repeatedly made, even used timestamps and diffs (on that you are right because of the other user's non-understanding a huge wall-of-text was "provocated", which would be in fact totally useless, if the main thing would have been caught earlier. I think in the beginning of the discussion (not just the last sections, which were opened by the user unwantedly and with that he/she was cloning and duplicating/escalating discussions) everything may easily grasped (violence section is the starting point).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

@Horse Eye's Back:,

Addendum, I suggest you to retract your comments/questions in the article's talk, because the issue as at DRN ongoing, there you may find summarized expanations and I don't want to endorse further cloning. Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

Oh, thanks for letting me know, I saw mentions of potentially going to DRN on the page but I didn’t realize you guys had. Can you please link the DRN case? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:,

WP:DRN, first case (sorry not giving direct one, my time is limited and was even pinged there, but did not engage yet). Please revert your questions from the article's talk, since for prodecural reasons as I mentioned I won't answer them under these circumstances. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Laszlo Lorand

(I thought I'd bring this to your user talk page, rather than continue it at the Teahouse). I absolutely did not intend to imply that you intended to be unkind; but the result of both your and SenatorLevi's actions was that a new user (only five edits) had seen his edit unaccountably not appear, and when he asked on the supposedly friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia, somebody replied with more jargon that didn't explain what he'd done wrong, what he would need to do, or where to find out more information. As I suggested, putting more information in the edit summary is desirable, but not enough when you're talking to a new user who may not know about the history. --ColinFine (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine,

again, I did not know anything about the user's background.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

Ganz Works Reverted Edits

https://cghr4u.cgglobal.com/careers/ourcomp.html I've noticed you've reverted the categorization of Ganz Works even though it is an Associate of Avantha Group. Please let me know if i'm mistaken. Thanks. Tharun S Yadla (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

ColinFTharun S Yadlaine,

thank you, I self-reverted.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

Your English

I'm amazed that you haven't taken the opportunities afforded to you to correct the defect in your draft that makes Lakatos's first comment meaningless, so I doubt you will do anything about this either, but I suppose it is worth mentioning for fairness' sake. You have factually misrepresented my argument in your summary due to a good faith misunderstanding of the grammar of the English language. Perhaps you could have a look at this? You have factually misrepresented it in other places too, but I can't find a specific grammar point that relates to that. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Just stop this,

I was amazed how you dared to repeat (despite refuted) or even render more spurious allegations just to eliminate what you don't like, especially you're newly invented fake notion about the aim of legitimizing "racist" anything, that is all by far. Don't steal anymore my precious time, you did already too much! I don't what what "defect" or "grammar" you refer, and please, don't preach about any "misrepresentation", because this is all you do since months, everywhere, repetitevely in an extensive amount. Enough!(KIENGIR (talk) 08:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

I am referring to your assertion that I accepted that the first Lakatos source was valid. I will make no further comments on your talk page, per your request. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Boynamedsue,

I did not make such request, I requested not to steal my time, however, especially in this subject really not further manifestation is necessary n+1 places, the n+1 times. Now I understood what you refer, yes, I just misread the restence (don't worry, I don't need grammar lessons). As well, I disagree in the DRN any imprecise/unclear things would happen, at least from my behalf it did not, but the opposite.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC))

Domagoj Vida

Hey Kiengir, just wanted to ask you about your edit here. There is no mention in the article or citation saying he is of Hungarian decent. I mean it’s very much possible as he is from Slavonia. Do you have a source you can add to his personal life section? Cheers OyMosby (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

sorry that I am short, but very busy, will react in timely manner. About this: .(KIENGIR (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC))

No worries, no rush! OyMosby (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Just read the article. Never knew his father was of Hungarian heritage. Or is it mix of Hungarian and Croatian, his father. Either way Vida sounds like a Hungarian surname. Pretty cool never knew this. Then again never really looked into Vida’s personal life bio. OyMosby (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@OyMosby:,

Yes, because of the name even without knowing the details, were curious, since this name occurs in Hungary, not foreign to our ears, however despite, may be of Slavic origin but I did not investigate this.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

Military Frontier

I'm not sure if I understood this well, but I never read that this part of the Militay Frontier (Petrovaradin) belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary? [38] Tezwoo (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Tezwoo:,

"Magyarország közigazgatási rendszerében a 19. század elején a határőrvidék kerületeit: Német bánsági ezred, Oláh-illír bánsági ezred, Bródi ezred, Gradiskai ezred,[3] Péterváradi ezred, Sajkások (Csajkások) kerülete, Likai ezred, Ogulini ezred, Otocsáci ezred,[4] Szluini ezred, Kőrösi ezred, Szentgyörgyi ezred, I. báni ezred, II. báni ezred néven tartották nyilván"

It was part of Hungary, however, the military and civil administration was imposed by the Habsburgs, which has been a common conflict point. In 1848 on paper deputies and voting rights with entrance to the parliamnet was achieved, but remained only formal. Since 1850 it was declared as a separate crownland, only the in 1868, the Croatian-Hungarian settlement reverted the things back and assigned accordingly them to Croatia-Slavonia, and Hungary respectively.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC))

Edit warring on Romanian politicians categories (et al.) - link to centralized discussion

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Category:Politicians from Subotica; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:CATP § Prior affiliations, relative to recent edit-warring at Category:Politicians from Bratislava, Category:Politicians from Cluj-Napoca, Category:Politicians from Košice, Category:Politicians from Subotica and Category:Politicians from Timișoara. Place Clichy (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Place Clichy:,

Thank you. I just restored to status quo, btw. at one instances I opened a discussion, which the next reverter did not even join (now you did), so I consider this warning a bit too early given the circumstances. Of course I will join the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC))

Your email

Hi KIENGIR,

I saw your email. I'm not really sure why you'd ask me, but (1) on the substance of the categorization dispute, your change is just clearly wrong for the reasons described by those that reverted you, and (2) ignoring the substance, the strongly negative feedback suggested you shouldn't have continued to edit in your preferred change as a matter of Wikipedia procedure.

I am happy to go into more detail but since you seem to have a habit of wasting other editor's time and ignoring what they're saying in order to tell them how they're wrong, I recommend you read this story first:

https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/1acupoftea.html

If you are willing to accept feedback, I can give you some. If your cup of tea is full already, then there's no point. SnowFire (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)