Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fakirbakir (talk | contribs) at 10:40, 31 October 2010 (→Princes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Fakirbakir

Replaceable fair use File:Dino_Komlosaurus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dino_Komlosaurus.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of History of Somogy

A tag has been placed on History of Somogy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GILO  _EMERGENCY 22:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Unfortunately I identified myself as vandalism on the Great Moravia article. How can I delete this? Is it a problem? Im just learning editingFakirbakir (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. All you did was mark one edit as vandalism but you undid it, so it's fine. — HelloAnnyong 19:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Great Moravia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — HelloAnnyong 19:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Careful

When there are problems with editing you need to be very careful not to revert too many times. As you are a new user you do not know all the rules and such and must be extra careful in editing, better to leave alone an article which is problematic when you are a new editor. Once you learn how to edit and learn how to do things you can be sure that you violate the rules or not. But now you cant be sure if it's really OK or not. The worst situation you can have is when more people revert one of your edits, when that happens, as a new user you need to stop reverting immediately. The place has many rules and you are already warned by an admin, that's not good. Right now that means you should try to post to the article talk pages only and even there cautiously. Hobartimus (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have just finished with my wee contribution on the talk page of Great Moravia. I try to learn and adapt.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's very good that you are trying to discuss edits, for example here but it is better to do it in the talk page of an article. For example write on the talk page not a statement of your opinion "Kristó Gyula was one of the biggest..." altough this might be very true an admin who looks at the case wont know it, you should instead ask "WHY do you think Kristó or his book is unreliable?" It might be the case that the problem is not with Kristó but the fact that the book is not available online so others might look at it, who knows what the real reason behind the objection is it might even be nothing. In any case it's better to try to find out the reasoning behind a revert. Then you can try to address it for example sometimes in these cases you can give a little bit of the original text, like quote the original sentence from the book in the original language and then give your own translation/paraphrasing. Anyway posting to the talk pages of articles and asking questions is good thing to show that you are not trying to force the issue with pure reverting, admins really dont like that. Also if there is a big disagreement in one article, you can just let it cool off a bit, and move to another article where you are the only editor, there are so many articles (millions) so that not every article has even one editor, especially true for minor /lesser articles. I just say this as a good way to learn the ways of wikipedia, by editing smaller articles first rather than the large ones that many people are interested in. Hobartimus (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! If I am honest I was very disappointed. First, I tried to communicate of course and I got a simple answer 'Study history and wiki-rules' and nothing else. If I was admin I think the other part would be willing to speak with me. After that while I was wandering I just realized the justice is less important for the Misplaced Pages. The rules are more important. (I was upset, I wrote a little bit huffily, you can see on the 'nobility' talk page) If they can get an admin post they can misuse from that position. In my case, The problems are rooted from the divergent aspects (Hungarian or 'chechoslovakian' point of view). In the Hungarian Nobility page, If they want to emphasize that slovakian origin, They must tell us it is just one point of view. Others have different opinion....and They have to write down that. If not, deletion is the perfect solution. Moreover that page is not an ethnic based page, they can write that stuff elsewhere. Great Moravia page is nearly the same problem. First, Gyula Kristo's work is not allowed to be unmarked who knows that topic. Secondly, That page has clashing options whether the Empire disappeared immediately, or it was a gradual process, however (what is good) it contains (opposite)theories at least. I have to be patient I know.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Yopie (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That happened in the same time yesterday. I had a disagreement with Yopie and Waldthelmat. I released my opinion on the Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary and Great Moravia talk pages. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Balaton

It is a poorly worded sentence. but it means that there was a community between al Slavic groups from Baltic and Russia to Balkans, but this was the interrupted by Germanization of Austria, Magyarization of Hungary/ eastern Pannonia and Romanization of what is now modern Romania. The latter, however, probably truly happened as late as high middle ages/ early modern period. Hxseek (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think now I understand. I thought those events were happened within the borders of Balaton Principality, but the sentence defines a bigger territory. Thank you for your help.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Balaton, in what is now western Hungary probably had a mixed population, predominanlty SLavic speakin. No Romanians, though Hxseek (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Andreas Hadik

He was a Hungarian citizen, that's all, no sources mention his Magyar background but the DO however mention that his mother was of German vernacular, it's a no-brainer really. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just added very accurate sources from the Record Office of Ministry of Defense (Hungary). These are the source of the Book what I cited.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a short glimpse to Wladthemlat's wonted deportment

Szia!

I would not embolden you to engage in lingering discussions with Wladthemlat. By the way, it is frankly baffling to write you in order to discredit one another user but such is the plight:

Looking over your contributions, it appears that your contributions are almost universally aimed at removing Hungarian-related content, or modifying content to be more anti-Hungarian.

This user's mind always revolves around what Hungarian users are just doing and then appears there as an antipode... And if there is no Hungarian-Slovak related content, momentarily, over which it is possible to participate in an edit war, Wladthemlat might as well go to Székelyudvarhely to do the same. It is quite reprehensible. It is on my mind that I have him flung out of the Misplaced Pages. This project draws many odd people to swarm around --Nmate (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice. You can see, I tried to be neutral on Andras Hadik's page, I was who inserted Franciska Hardy's German ancestry, but I also know that source (what i added) mentions Andras Hadik's Hungarian origin. This is a fact from records. And..He just reverted me, I can admit Hadik had a mixed origin, but He had Hungarian ancestry as well. I have just realized (I am 'new' here) Wiki has a lot of fake, untrue facts about Hungarian History. I will disregard Wladthemlat, now I know that. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What you know or think you know is irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. You should provide some sources. An internet page with telephone numbers is far too little to give credibility to your claims. I have edited solely based on the source you provided and the source that I added before. Those two mention Slovak origin of the family and the origin of his mother (however, this still needs to be proven, as the only thing you were able to provide was an image of the book's cover). So please, invest more time in finding verifiable sources backing your claims, and less in edit warring.

Nmate on the other hand keeps editing and warring on the Slovak- Romanian- and Serbian-related content, pushing Hungarian nationalistic POV most of the time, and getting blocked the rest of it. I wouldn't advise you to take his advice, but do as you deem the best. Wladthemlat (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Records mean archive files from the XVIII. century. Archive files what the historians use to verify their researches. Gyongyi Farkas made a very good work. You should read that, and you can borrow it from Hungarian Libraries. I hope somebody made a full translation from Hungarian to English. I do not deny his Slovak ancestors but I am sure He had Hungarian (Magyar) too. This book just verify that fact. Kingdom of Hungary was a big mixer, everybody has diverse ancestors. You can not expropriate for the "Slovak Nation" Fakirbakir (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A Hadik család „nemzetsége felette régi eredetűnek tartatik, mely már a magyarok kijövetelekor. s még a X VIII. század vége felé is a Kaukázus tövénél maradt magyarok rokonainak fejedelmeiben virágzott." — E vélemény világosabbá tételére nézve a t családtól nyert adatok nyomán közölhetem a következőket:...Mosdokae, vír pro more oríentali paríius , fide digous , montis Caucasi admodtim gaams , ei ideo a mwis tempore Belli praecedentii sub generáli Tottleben jpro dactoré per moniem Caueatmn, per Georgiám Natoliam usque adhibitus, Jsperín, xtú et occaaione commeroti quidam Princlpi in Rabardia minori (cui subieota Gabardia major) notus et fere familiarif, prinoipis uomeo jam memória excidit. Priaoepé ille , prout et alit etiam novitatum amantes saepe de bello Turcico , et aliis com praefato Zacharia ditoonum formanj, de Bellidncibus Ruuicla: de Ro- maaczoir , etc. de CaeiareiSy iater quoe íama peritua tupremuB Belli MartoLalltif Sxedleniiftimiia Dominui Greneralia Hadik. Copidos ei caríosus uii et alii prin* oipee plures teiendi num ex familia aliqua erűm taniue Heros prodierit , oum natio Unngarioa sea Hnnnxca , velut bio oommuoiter ab antiquissima Civitate Hadiár (eoins de Caoto extant rudera) Madaryana , sit de eonim naiione , adeo maximo dacebant honori et gloriae de Stemate eorum tantum florere virmn , et prmecipiie ilie praeCatiu senex prinoepe qui inter reliqna etiam reoenaebat : q uod dnaeantiqQtBsimae inter prinoipet tint familiae Hadi kirepna, Genikire altéra, quae autem in varios puliurarunt ramos , ad mo- rwD garmanioarum magnae nobilitatis lÜamiliarum , nti sant Saohien , Saohien- CoVorg, SachsenSeitz, SaohMn-Gotlia eta Anbalt, Anbalt-Zeobst eta Sic etiam Hadikire, Sobabarkire, Beokmursare eto. Xonc quaestio est an Excellenmus Dous geaeraüs de aliquo borom sit ateramate , ego attamen (?) indagare neqntvi , quia imprímis cam illis omnis oonversatio a RuMts fnit iohibita, neqae negotium mibi rAOOoiendatum. lllud unnm poasum astesere « quod avidi fuerint reioiendi , num ille tam famoaoa Heros de eorum origine tit/' — Haec relatio nuUia annalibua sertptís, B9d pure fnloitur traditionibns. Ita narravit P. Agatbagelus Mayerliau- ser Capucinns ex provincia Boemica , quondam in Moscovia miasiouariua."

Read the entire history of the Hadik family and don't forget to check the family tree.--Your Azrael (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

From the very same book:

Hadik család biztos adatok szerint a család a Thurócz megyei eredetu hol már a XVI században a protest. egyháznak jeles férfiakat mutatott fel.

Hadik Boldizsár 1585-ben Tót-pronán volt evang. lelkész

I have checked the family tree, and there's no evidence of Magyar ancestry there, magyar transcriptions were used for any ethnicity in that period. Tót pronán is used more than once and with names like Jabloniczky it is clear, that he was indisputably predominantly Slovak and your Magyar theory is not based on facts. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the author(Page 6 footnote) Hadik family is an ancestral family (a Genus), The family came with the Magyars at the Hungarian Conquest, and the Latin sentences (what he cited) can affirm that. "nemzetsége felette régi eredetűnek tartatik, mely már a magyarok kijövetelekor. s még a X VIII. század vége felé is a Kaukázus tövénél maradt magyarok rokonainak fejedelmeiben virágzott"Fakirbakir (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can the names attest Hungarian or Slovak ancestry? It is ridiculous. What is the proper Slovak or Hungarian name? (What if I live among Slovaks and I change my name. It might be happened a lot of time.) Hadik was member of the nobility , It means He had a diverse ancestry. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Your Azrael. Thank you for your help, It is a very good source. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Source from 1859 could be expected to push some nationalistic mythology, and that's exactly what the story about caucasus is. Please find some reliable factual data, modern ones, that support your argument. This is too little and way too unreliable. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This source is another point of view.Why do not we use that? You can not admit other theories, but Misplaced Pages can. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages should be based on reliable sources. This one is unreliable, at least the long citation seems to be more than dubious. If it was true, it would be no problem for you to find modern sources confirming that. So please, provide some. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think this book is unreliable (István Friebeisz's book)? because it is old? A lot of researchers (genealogy, history) use that book to verify their statements. Why do you think Gyongyi Farkas's work is unreliable? She has 2 books about Andras Hadik, and I just cited one of them. Gyongyi Farkas'books are 'new' (2000, 2002). Are these nationalist? According to you these books are unreliable 'sources' because these have opposite opinions. You are the one who is nationalist. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your source is unreliable. Décsy's book said: Hadik had Hungarian ethnic origin. http://books.google.com/books?ei=-6yoTN--BpG7jAeum7DTDA&ct=book-thumbnail&id=XrFnAAAAMAAJ&dq=andreas+hadik+slovak&q=hadik#search_anchor Fakirbakir (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Princes

Dear Fakirbakir. I am afraid you misinterpret some sources. For exemple here indeed you can find that Szőllösy (Herczeg), but it does not mean that the family had princely rank, rather Herczeg was their alternative surname. Also there is no Worum Würtemberg family, Worum and Württemberg are 2 different families, and only the last one was princely, but they were listed alphabetically. I am going to fix these problems. Thanks. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Csesznekgirl. I used reliable source. These families were presented in Kindom of Hungary.

• List of Historical Surnames of the Hungarian Nobility

Fakirbakir (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)