Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:52, 19 April 2012

General Misplaced Pages

Google Searches

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Bálint Balassi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Samofi (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not make false accusations (with blind copied messages), since I gave a valid and detailed reason for the removal. You gave an url of a google search as a source, which is clearly not good enough, since it is absolutely not guaranteed that in the future the result of the search will be the same for the same query. Thus, it cannot be accepted as a source. You undid my removal, but I will not undo yours (since we are not in kindergarten any more). This time I will correct it for you, but, please, in the future do not add urls pointing to search results as references, add only valid sources. Thank you. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a reliable publication by Slovak academy of Science. It was not google search result, it was search results in the google books. It can be use as a reliable source and you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Google_searches_and_numbers (" Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar provide results that are more likely to be reliable sources. While you may not be able to view all of them on the Google site itself, and many of them are previews, these can at least show that the sources exist.") Google books search is a tool that helps us find reliable sources. It was found a reliable source from the Slovak Academy of Science. You should read the rules of Misplaced Pages before you make some edits. You broken at least the 3 rules of the wikipedia. 1. You created your own rule, that a google books search results (btw one of them pointed to the reliable source) are banned - its original research, such rule does not exist. 2. So than you made a removing of the content without a proper reason. 3. Your reactions did not assume a good faith. So you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith ("Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (like personal attacks) and content-based (like adding original research). Most of the time, we can correct such mistakes with simple reminders.") You said that I "make false accusations". You are probably a new editor so ask to someone more skilled before you removing a content without a valid reason. I hope in the future it will the better cooperation. --Samofi (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samofi; first of all, (1) please, do not make personal attacks like this. (2) Read carefully the article that you have cited, since it states that Google searches are not references. (3) I assumed good faith, since, for example, I have corrected the url in your reference and I never claimed that the book itself was not reliable. It was you who did not assume good faith and attacked me (as this conversation demonstrates). Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 07:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was google book search result and it was pointed to one concrete source. The link was just a proof that source exists. And I hope that your warning about personal attack was a joke :) You sould read what the personal attack is (WP:NPA) or contact skilled user or admin. Bye --Samofi (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly not pointed to a concrete source, it was exactly this: . And the warning was not a joke. -- Koertefa (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Users are allowed to remove warnings - this shows that they have read them. See WP:User pages. I'll add a note to his talk page about citations. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

OK and thanks. -- Koertefa (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard by User Samofi

Dear Koertefa, you were mentioned here by User Samofi.Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fakirbakir - personal attack, disruptive editing, not assuming a good fight Fakirbakir (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Koertefa (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It should be "of user Samofi" --Samofi (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation Board

Hello I have noticed your interest in Slovak and Hungarian wikipedians cooperation board. You can sign as participant and start discussion. Regards --Samofi (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Biographies

Sándor Petőfi

Sorry to contact you like this, I was hoping if you can take a look at this? It is regarding your last edit at Sándor Petőfi article. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Issue has been discussed and resolved: Talk:Sándor_Petőfi#Given_name -- Koertefa (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Janus Pannonius

Hi Koertefa,
I have a problem with Makkai' source at the page of Janus Pannonius. I was the one who added that source to the page, however later I removed it because it is maybe original research. I know Makkai is a Professor of Linguistics in Chicago but his statement is problematic in my opinion. Borbála was the sister of Archbishop Vitéz. Archbishop Vitéz alias János Vitéz was a Croatian from Sredna, Croatia. Of course... his origin is obscure. Hungarian researches state that Vitéz family is originated from Garázda genus (on his mother's side). Garázda genus derives from Bosnia. They were Hungarian nobles, but their ethnicities are more than dubious in the 15th century. I am sure they became thoroughly ethnic Hungarians because of the intermarriages with the Hungarian nobility but I am not convinced of Borbála's ethnic Hungarian ancestors in the 15th century. However, I have found a source what states that Vitéz's father was from Pilis county. "Atyja Csévi, másként Vitéz János, kinek ősei Pilismegyéből származtak" If it is true Vitéz (and Janus) will have ethnic Hungarian ancestors, however I know nothing more about this.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to re-edit these pages (János Vitéz, Janus) according to these references.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks, Fakirbakir, I appreciate them. I agree with your modifications: your findings on Janus Pannonius' mother are very relevant (though they were also new to me) and it is good that you have inserted them to the article. I understand now why you originally found Makkai's statement about his mother problematic; but based on the other scholarly source that you have found regarding her family, the statement about her origin is plausible. Thanks again for your work, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography

Budapest

http://en.wikipedia.org/Budapest#Timeline_of_the_history_of_Budapest

Don't you think that the passage about the 1919-1919 is too ample? The other events are presented in short statements of only a few lines... Panoniann (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole table (Timeline of the history of Budapest) is a bit ample, but this cannot be solved by simply deleting some sentences that you think are not well-cited. In my opinion, the whole table might be left out from the article (since a similar table is already in the article about the History of Budapest), however, these issues should be initiated and discussed on the Talk page of the Budapest article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that the table should be simply deleted without any discussion... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Panoniann was a sock puppet of the banned user Iaaasi. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

History

Principality of Hungary

Dear Koertefa, As you see, user PANONIAN (the first one, who redirected principality of Hungary, a Serb user)and user Samofi (a Slovak user) can ruin our editing easily. Unfortunately, English editors, administrators do not know Hungarian history however they can judge existence of page without any (proper)historical background. But, your comment will help us because that page can be "free" again, it depends on wish of admins. Thank you for your supporting! (Nálam kicsapta a biztosítékot ez az admin húzás)Fakirbakir (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and it is sad that articles such as this could be redirected based on vague arguments, for example, claiming that it was an unwanted fork. I think that this topic clearly deserves an own article and hope that the protection will be removed, soon. Probably, as you suggested, we should find an unbiased admin for that. Naturally, we should not give up, even if there were some malicious edits and unfair redirections (és ezen az átírányításon én is eléggé meglepődtem). -- Koertefa (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919

I see you have removed the other warning, nevertheless this still counts as the second warning. Octavian8 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings, see WP:User_pages, especially since I think that your "warnings" are not justified. You are just desperately trying to keep your control over the article, without even taking the time to pointing out your problem with the (sourced) claims that you keep deleting blindly. Koertefa (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, now that we are ready with modifying the text, I would like to ask you if you want to become an editor for this article besides me. By editor I understand someone who looks over the article and takes care that major changes are done only after agreement on the talk page. You should also keep an eye on vandalism and involve yourself into discussions should they arise on the talk page. In general, we should follow the rules on editing the article, while giving anyone who is interested a chance to explain himself and accordingly improve the article if the contribution is valuable. We should also coordinate our efforts to keep the article balanced and concise.Octavian8 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Octavian8, it was a long discussion, but our efforts resulted in a quite balanced section. On the other hand, my opinion did not change on your set of rules. :-) Nevertheless, even though our viewpoints are sometimes different, we both want an informative, netural article and that is more than enough for cooperation. And, no worries, I will follow the article and help to maintain and improve it. Koertefa (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, please update your sandbox (including the links), where you have gathered all text propositions, (good ideea by the way). I would suggest that you link there also the propositions from our previous discussion on the Aftermath and the Introduction. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, sure, I can update it (by the way, you are also free to edit it if you prefer). I am not sure whether the discussion on the Aftermath should be included, since it has already finished and the article has been updated. Anyway, perhaps a section about past/finished discussions (with links) could be a solution. The previous discussions on the Introduction may indeed still be relevant, though they are in the archives now. Particularly which sections do you have in mind? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I am planning the propose text variants for both the Lead and the Introduction in the next days. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, good work with the links! Look forward to seeing your text propositions, but before perhaps we should first agree on what is our intent here, with respect to the Lead. The thing with the Introduction, and I mean her the causes for AH's collapse is pretty clear. Octavian8 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Something else my old discussion partner on "hot" HU-RO topics ;-), what about my text where I introduce in the article (in Phase I) a mentioning of the Magyarization? I really look forward to your input there. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Octavian8, I will provide my propositions and my view on yours, especially on the "hot" topics :-), soon; however, I am a bit engaged in the next days, so I may only be able to write proper answers in the second half of next week. Sorry for the delay, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Magyarization

Hi! I saw your revert on Magyarization article and I was wondering what this edit summary: "The reference to the 1849 minority/ethnic laws should not be deleted." refers to exactly. Because this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Magyarization&diff=prev&oldid=460923164 did not remove anything. On the contrary, it added information. Thanks in advance for your answer SSzatmari (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi SSzatmari, you are right, no information was removed, only added. It was my fault, thus I have reverted that undo of mine. Thanks, Koertefa (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, anybody can make such mistakes. However I am not sure if the sentence The eagerness of the Hungarian government in its Magyarization efforts was comparable to that of tsarist Russification from the late 19th century (source: The Finno-Ugric republics and the Russian state, by Rein Taagepera 1999 (page 84) ) satisfies WP:NPOV. What's your opinion? Would it be better if it would be rephrased to "According to Rein Taagepera,..." or something like that? SSzatmari (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, that sentence treats the opinion of a single source as a fact, thus it should be rephrased. Koertefa (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From the same category is the affirmation: "From the onset of Enlightenment Era, the same or even more severe forced assimilation techniques were used with success by significant Western European countries, such as Spain, France or Britain.", which has no citation. If you have ideas, please make the phrasing adjustments SSzatmari (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a similar style statement and thus it may also need rephrasing. Though, it was not me who added that claim, however, earlier I have also read it in one of the sources about Magyarization. After your message I tried the find the proper one but, unfortunately, so far I could not. Of course, I also agree that it would need a suitable citation (since Misplaced Pages is no place for original research). Koertefa (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

SSzatmari was a sock puppet of the banned user Iaaasi. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hunnic Empire

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Hunnic_Empire Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a good idea. Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		As exemplified by your work on the merger discussion at Hunnic Empire. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Mohács

Hello! I found a new source on this subject: . I think there is no contradiction. Two thirds of the members of the Hungarian army were Hungarian, but most of the killed soldiers were mercenaries (probably most of the Hungarian warriors survived) 79.117.175.214 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Iaaasi, your are banned and there is even a warning not to act on your behalf. Moreover, I think that this information is controversial, it needs further clarification and mentioning this in itself would be misleading. As far as I know only a small portion of the mass graves were uncovered that contained the remains of some hundred soldiers out of the 15-20.000 dead, which is not a representative sample. And even it was true, it would not belong to the info box, which is already too ample. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics of Transylvana

The article Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) covers 1570–1711 period. The whole table can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population BMatthew HU (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi...hmmm... Iaaasi(?) Anyway, your are right, sorry. On the other hand, the table shown in History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population is not totally correct, for example, the column of the other ethnicities is missing and some numbers (1850, 1869, etc.) are different than, e.g., here: Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is me, of course. However the table History_of_Transylvania#Historical_population is kind of misleading, because it presents together different theories (Daco-Roman theory with Romanians being 66% in 1241 and 60% in 1600 and the immigrationist theory) BMatthew HU (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Hungarian Kingdom and Transylvania

Your edit summary was: "the Voivodeship of Transylvania was not a country, moreover, it did not cover the area of the East. Hung. Kingdom"

• "the Voivodeship of Transylvania was not a country" - Look in the infobox of Banat of Temeswar. None of the territories listed there are countries. Temeşvar Eyalet is not a country, Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar is not a country etc
• John Zápolya is the last voivode of TRasnylvania and the ruler of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, so the E Hu K is the natural successor of V of Tr
• "it did not cover the area of the East. Hung. Kingdom" Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) covered the same territory as the Voivodeship of Transylvania of Transylvania (just look at the map), but it is presented as the succesor of the East. Hung. Kingdom Dobitocilor (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi, thanks for your comments. (1) Regarding the country issue: the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (EHK) was a country, one of the successors of the original Kingdom of Hungary (KoH), it did not contain parts from any other countries, so the KoH is the only acceptable predecessor of the EHK. The Banat of Temesvár is a bad example, because it was not country. (2) John Zápolya was indeed the voivode of Transylvania before he became (one of the) king(s) of Hungary. He used the title "king" and not the title "voivode" when he ruled the EHK. (3) Unlike the Voivodeship of Transylvania, the Principality of Transylvania was again a country (though only semi-independent), so that is why it is presented as a successor of the EHK, even though the areas they covered were not exactly the same. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of examples. For example Royal Hungary is displayed as the succesor of Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, even it is not a country. Also the predecessor of the Principality of Bulgaria is Ottoman Bulgaria, which is not a country.

In the infobox of the Voivodeship of Transylvania article, the Principality of Transylvania is mentioned as succesor, what do you say of this? Dobitocilor (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal Hungary was, of course, a country, there is no doubt about that. Only because the Hungarian nobles elected Ferdinand as the king of Hungary (in hope he would help expelling the Turks), it does not mean that KoH ceased to exist. Even if some articles messed up the "predecessor" / "successor" links (as it seems with the Voivodeship of Transylvania), it does not mean that we have to spread the confusion. Could you provide any scholarly sources that the predecessor of the EHK was not the KoH, but only the Voivodeship of Transylvania? If you look at the map, the EHK contained a much larger area than Transylvania. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: One more thing: take a look at this source: . It explicitly states that: "The eastern Hungarian kingdom was not a continuation after 1541 of the medieval Transylvanian province. No Voivode was nominated at all, the crown exercising its power directly ". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary" was in "subentity" status, it was one of the Habsburg "countries" (although Anjou, Jagiellon or Luxembourg rulers simultaneously possessed and ruled other countries, kingdoms as well in the past) however it was a "proper" kingdom where the ruler was always an elected king. (Only Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor (1780-1790) was an exception, because the nobles elected him in Pozsony but there was no coronation in Hungary and they (the nobles) did not accept him entirely as their king (his nickname was "king with hat")Fakirbakir (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with you that as soon as the nobles elected Ferdinand as the king, the Kingdom of Hungary was not independent any more, but it was still a "proper" kingdom. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Banat of Temeswar

Are you sure this edit is appropriate? In my opinion the article should refer only to 1718–1778 period, because we have a history section at Banat article Banat#History Dobitocilor (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it some kind of revenge? Anyway, if mentioning Gelou, a probably fictional character from Gesta Hungarorum who (might be) ruled in the 9th century, in an article about the Voivodeship of Transylvania, which existed between the 12th and 16th centuries, then of course, my edit is completely appropriate. As you know, there is a History of Transylvania article, as well, that already mentions Gelou... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Revenge for what? Are you serious? You should know that I am not the one who added the Gelou part to Voivodeship of Transylvania article. I removed it, cause it's not its place there. PS My opinion is that he was a probably real character, but our opinions are not important Dobitocilor (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that every such article (as the Banat of Temesvar or Voivodeship of Transylvania) should have a brief history section that puts the entity in a historical context, even if there are specific articles about their histories that discuss these issues in more detail. Hence, I have no problem with mentioning earlier events in such articles, as long as they are strongly related to the topic in question. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, in such case, we would have a dispute about the question of which of the earlier events are "strongly related to the topic in question" and then we would have to copy-paste entire history section from Banat article to Banat of Temeswar article since I do not see how period of administration of one country could be more "related to the topic" then periods of administration of other countries. PANONIAN 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion continues here: Talk:Banat_of_Temeswar. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of External Link

I’m interested in talking with you about my purpose in adding the external link to forecasts from International Futures. I feel that discussions of potential development futures are missing on country pages in Misplaced Pages, so I joined the WikiProject: Countries community to start this discussion. I’ve been given the go ahead to add this link to country pages – with the understanding that consensus is met by editors of country pages.

The difference between the population figures is purely a matter of sources. According to the World Bank, the population total for Hungary is the same as International Futures. The minute difference between Eurostat, or any national census that you’re referring to, does not render their forecasts meaningless. As you can see from the links below, even historic population totals differ based on the source.

1. Population from the World Bank

2. Population from Eurostat

International Futures is the largest integrated assessment model in the world. In terms of population forecasting, this model is state-of-the-art in the field because it utilizes an agent-cohort approach to model population futures. While long term forecasting is difficult and certainly has its limits, it is a generally accepted practice in the scientific community (See reputable publications like Nature or Science). And there is clearly an interest in the policy community to use a long-term forecasting approach. The purpose and utility of these forecasts is not to predict the future, but to structure relationships and plan for a range of known uncertainties. Could I ask for more clarity as to why you feel there is “no need” for these development forecasts? Cheers. (Shredder2012 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your comment. It might have been better to place it on the Talk page of the "Hungary" article, since other editors may also be interested in the discussion. Can you explain why do you think it would be nice to have that link in the "Hungary" article? Why would it make the article better? In my opinion, International Futures (IF) is just one model to make long-term forecasts, but there are other models, as well, why should we add this one? Please note that Misplaced Pages is not for advertising models and scientific ideas. I think that Misplaced Pages articles about countries should primarily contain basic facts, and a long-term forecast based on a computer simulation is, of course, not a basic fact. I do not doubt that this kind of forecasts could be interesting for some people, but I do doubt that it has such an importance that it should be linked from a Misplaced Pages article about a country. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: It's good that you have mentioned the word "uncertainties". In addition to the deviations from the 2011 Census and the EuroStat data, what makes me suspicious about the linked forecast of International Futures is that it only provides point estimates for the different values and does not state anything about their confidence. Obviously, a prediction (e.g., population) for 2060 is much more uncertain than a prediction for 2012, so providing just one number for each of them without giving appropriate confidence intervals looks kind of amateurish. But, of course, it is just my personal opinion. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You were reported

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance --Samofi (talk) 06:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Miért?

Szia!

Miért állítottad helyre Iaaasi szerkesztését itt ? Ilyet nem szabad csinálni... nem beszélve arról, hogy a "Bzg1920" user név-nek, egy kifejzetten rasszista, és magyarellenes hangzása van. Iaaasi egy site-banned szerkesztő akinek nincsenek a wikipédián szerkesztési jogai.--Nmate (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nmate, and thanks for the message. (1) I did not know that "Bzg" could be interpreted as anti-Hungarian. (2) My experience with (the sockpuppets of) Iaaasi so far is that he is a reasonable editor with whom you can argue with based on sources. He may be a patriotic Romanian, but in itself it should not be a problem, as long as the rules of Misplaced Pages are kept. On the other hand, I admit that I do not know the reason of his ban. (3) I have restored his edit on the Talk page, because we were in the middle of a discussion and he had a valid argument, so I though his contribution should not be simply deleted. I tried to answer him. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Bocs, hogy nem magyarul válaszoltam (sorry that I did not answer in Hungarian). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)