User talk:Squash Racket/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 'See also' section 2 Thanks! 3 Csepel 4 Talk page 5 re: Ausgleich 6 Israel 7 BMW edit 8 Vandalism 9 Israel 10 Okedem 11 Encyclopedias as sources 12 Solidarity 13 Unblock 14 Finland, Estonia etc. 15 Benes decrees 16 Benes decrees 17 Congratulations 18 Messages left for The Random Editor 19 3RR 20 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami 21 Re: Budapest 22 Re: Template/Gyorgy Almasy 23 google searches 24 thank you for blaming me for vandalism 25 Review Hungary if you feel like (Good Article) 26 Reverting 27 Merry Xmas 28 re: Budapest 29 she's Hungarian... 30 AfD nomination of Hedvig Malina 31 Names of towns 32 Re: 3RR reports 33 Returning 34 Improving sources of articles

'See also' section

As far as I know 'See also' section is not for mentioning whole Categories' names AGAIN, but for specific articles related to the subject. See Magyarization 'See also' section. Squash Racket 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's correct. DrKiernan 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't know how I managed to write Bucharest instead of Budapest at my RFA. Thanks very much for fixing that! Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From Wp:rfa#About_RfA: "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections." -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words! It's been a bit stressful, but not too bad. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Csepel

The best way to define the part of Csepel island belonging to Budapest is to call it the part belonging to Budapest, any other circumscription makes it less precise :)

I change it to a more encyclopedia-conform wording.

--peyerk 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page

It was nothing to do with your edit - the problem was further up the page when someone had used some bad coding. DrKiernan 15:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Ausgleich

I've replied on my talk page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel

You meant 'that will secure'? I mean instead of 'as will secure'? Squash Racket 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant "as will secure". It's a direct quote so you can't modify it (in the same way this was not permissible). -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't want to interrupt anything. It was just a bit strange to have 'Palestine' three times in one sentence as I wrote in the edit summary. Squash Racket 17:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

BMW edit

I went ahead and just rolled back all the edits because it was easier than spending an inordinate amount of time just to correct some very minor details. Feel free to add the inner links--I think they are a good idea. Qwazywabbit^{Msg me} 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Treaty of Trianon, you will be blocked from editing. Your edits keep infringing on 3 Wikipedia policies I mentioned on the talk page of the article. Moreover, you keep caling me a vandal, which is vandalism by itself. I assume good faith and warn you, but the next time I will report you.Dpotop 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep removing referenced material, I have already reported you to the administrators. Squash Racket 09:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Chill out, guys. Neither the removal of referenced material nor personal attacks constitute vandalism in themselves (though the latter is always a bad idea, and the former also if the references are proper). KissL 10:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel

Please restore the POV flag that I placed on this article. Tegwarrior 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Answered you on the talk page of Israel. Squash Racket 15:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Okedem

Unfortunately, rules are rules. Both users violated WP:3RR policy. Thanks for letting me know about the situation, though. I did not of Tegwarrior's intentions. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that part of 3RR policy, but from what you've told me, I feel that Okedem is still responsible for his actions and his rule violation. I believe that part of the policy refers to people who revert to remove vandalism, clearly libelous material, and other stuff (it's all mentioned on WP:3RR). Nishkid64 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedias as sources

I brought up this issue at the Israel FAC as you can see. Frankly I need to know this. Once I got reverted for using Britannica and now I think maybe the one who did it was right. Britannica is perhaps the best way for finding info on something but is it acceptable as a reference? I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica? Is it good for us in the long term if we can't trace all information to its roots? Squash Racket 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may use Britannicia and other tertiary sources. I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica - the same could be said of any source of information. Raul654 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Use them only as last resort, of course—secondary sources are still the preferred. Marskell 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Squash Racket 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Solidarity

I would like to express my solidarity with you because of this block. I'm quite sure that your are not VinceB but you touched some of the "dangerous" articles that he edited. It seems to me that anybody who is trying to present the Hungarian point-of-view in this group of articles will be accused by sockpuppetry and blocked. I hope that you will be unblocked soon because your example is certainly an intimidating one for new users. Best wishes, Zello 20:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. You are quite sure? If you have any kind of insecurity, you can ask Vince himself (last time I edited Hungarian Wiki I could see his name there) if he has any connection with my account here. I was about to call an administrator from the Hungarian Wiki who knows him and me to clarify the situation, but there's no need for that at least for now. Squash Racket 04:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Also thanks for restoring my user page. Squash Racket 18:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

ONLY Administrators and me post here until block is reviewed, thank you:

I'd meant to get to this sockpuppetry report earlier today, but still haven't looked at it. Reviewing admins should look at this checkuser comment.--Chaser - T 06:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen this:Community ban proposal for VinceB. If you really think based on my contributions to Wikipedia I can be identified with that person, it would be at least a bit strange... Squash Racket 13:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I will answer his accusations step by step:

• There is a debate going on how to apply historical Hungarian names for Slovakian places. See Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Presenting this as a few users' 'favorite hobby' is misleading. The identical edits Tankred mentioned are not identical, because Vince used an archaic form, while I used the most widely known Hungarian historical name (Pozsony). Although now I see that in English sources the most widely used historical name for today's Bratislava is the German Pressburg, see my recent edit[1].
• I don't deny the Hunt-Poznan family any Slovak identity, but the term 'Slovak' was not used in the 12th century, so using that form there is not encyclopedic. Even though you can find different theories in the articles about the ancestry of these families, Tankred insists that they are Slovak (well, let's say Slavic) noble families. One thing is only sure: they are of Swabian origin. Stating these are extremely low profile articles is more than misleading. There are inner links to these on the page of Stephen I who basically founded Hungary. If these are so unimportant articles why did Tankred revert all my edits?
• Magyarization pushes anti-Hungarian POV, even non-Hungarian users say that. All I did to Slovakization is put some articles into the 'See also' section to make it more understandable to readers and more NPOV. I haven't actually edited that article! Please also read the loads of edits I made at 2006 Slovak-Hungarian diplomatic affairs. I edit a limited number of articles? Please check all my contributions and decide for yourself.
• I knew the Wiki jargon a bit because I had edited the Hungarian Wiki before I had an account here.
• As far as I know, we can edit our talk pages as we want to. Don't know why is this an issue. I reported him at WP:ANI, because he didn't answer me on his talk page, just kept reverting my edit. Earlier he reported me for breaking 3RR - with a little help[2]. Since then I'm very careful with the rule and I tend to call for a third party if he is involved. Yes, earlier I made the mistake of calling another editor a liar, but stating that is such a special insult used by only a few editors and that I do this regularly is not true. Tankred talks about using the words of my 'adversaries'? Perhaps in disputes, just like everyone else in the world. "Calling other people dudes is unusual among Hungarians". That may be true, as I can remember I used that phrase only once[3], but obviously that is my 'regular' term. Our level of English is similar. Perhaps. But we don't talk similarly, just check out his contributions and mine.
  

Well, I think, that's it. Squash Racket 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: does VinceB speak German? You could all along see on my user page that I do speak German (well, not perfectly). Squash Racket 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: you can contact Tankred on his talk page. Squash Racket 16:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked you on a probationary basis. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The situation was a bit bizarre. I thought unless the user clearly vandalizes pages first you contact him before taking action. Squash Racket 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't delete it, but if you want I can block it. It will not affect you. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Finland, Estonia etc.

Sorry for taking your comment, "if you have the source please drop me a line on the talk page", on the statement, "Catholicism spread among the Germanic peoples (initially in competition with Arianism); the Vikings; the Poles, Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns and Estonians", to mean that you were questioning the statement. I see now that you were really questioning a different idea, namely that Catholicism spread among no other peoples. Lima 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You may be quite right. I have not looked up the article Baltic peoples. I really only meant that Estonia is (undoubtedly) one of the three "Baltic states". I believe that linguistically the Estonians are very similar to the Finns. Again, I have not checked on this. So feel free to make what changes you like on the basis of your own research. (Of course, this has nothing to do with "original research" in the Wikipedia sense, sometimes unduly extended by certain editors.)

By the way, thanks for not putting back the {{fact}} tag, which seemed to me to question the truth of the statement it was attached to. Lima 11:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Benes decrees

My pleasure. So what the final version should be? Vryadly 05:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Benes decrees

In this case I'm adding it. I hope nobody would mind. Vryadly 05:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations for Israel becoming a featured article. I know it is already long, but you removed one of the sources I provided[4], which could be helpful to those who would like to understand the history of the Middle East very quickly. I understand that, the article is too long, but maybe if you look at it, you could find some space for it. I trust you on your decision, you're an expert and that's official. Squash Racket 05:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe a respected encyclopedia would make a better source than a flash movie (although the flash movies are quite interesting). -- tariqabjotu 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Messages left for The Random Editor

Hi. I saw that you had left messages at User talk:The Random Editor and just wanted to let you know that according to his message at the top of that page, he's on sabbatical, possibly permanently. If you have urgent need to contact him, you may be able to reach him through "email this user" in his toolbox, but if the matter concerns Wikipedia he may not choose to respond. --Moonriddengirl 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All I know is what it says at the top of his talk page, which includes the words "I feel that it is time for me to move on with life. I thank you all for becoming such a special part of my life. Perhaps, I shall return under another account someday." I personally hope that he does return, which is why I say "possibly" permanently instead of simply permanently. I've been watching his talk page in case he does decide to come back under that name and just didn't want you wondering why he didn't get back with you. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Kösz. I hope I wont be blocked, I just reverted twice and edited once more. I am afraid this person is a sockpuppet and is provoking me. --Koppany 16:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommedn you [5] Karácsonyi: Magyar nemzetségek. Furthermore: Nagy Iván: Magyarország családai. --Koppany 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I can do it only in the next week because at the moment I have not them at hands. --Koppany 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Thanks for your vote of confidence on this article's Featured Article criteria. NancyHeise 12:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Budapest

Thank you. It's now officially B-class but I want it Featured if I can help it. Never intended to rewrite it and revise others' work but it's so neglected -- I'm sorry... Check out my version of 'highlighted districts' when i'm done with it. Gregorik 10:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template/Gyorgy Almasy

I replied on my talk page. --The Palatine 11:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

google searches

Hobartimus, we need to include the word 'Wikipedia' when we want general information on Google search results? 'Magnate conspiracy' brings 136000 hits. Squash Racket 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

-wikipedia means you discard(and not include) all results from wikipedia (notice the -). The way you search for a phrase is to put it into quotes, just do the search I wrote above and see it for yourself, "magnate conspiracy" -wikipedia. If you search without the "" you get results about princess Diana for example, which is one of the top results of your search. Hobartimus 12:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

thank you for blaming me for vandalism

Please read wikipedia rules what the vandalism means. It is something different from somebody having a different opinion than you. milanmm 8:53, 29 November 2007

You have also broken the three revert rule, please use the talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No I have not broken the three revert rule, I did two reverts only, please see the history. Also, I consider the change done in July to be vandalism. Milanmm (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1. [6]

2. [7]

3. [8]

4. [9]

Dear Michigan State University student, please check the diffs... Squash Racket (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Only two of them were reverts. Though, the hungarian mafia (Hobartimus, Svetovid, Squash Racket) did three reverts already (are they really 3 persons? not just one?). Also, I am not a student. Milanmm (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By this time you've made five reverts. Also no personal attacks please. Squash Racket (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Review Hungary if you feel like (Good Article)

You seem to be interested in Hungary-related articles. I invite you to GA-review Hungary to which I've contributed pretty much in the past 2-3 weeks. Thanks. Gregorik (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

If you want to revert to an earlier revision, the simplest way is to click the (cur) link next to the chosen revision in the history page, which will show you all the changes since that revision, and then click (undo) on the diff. A slightly more complicated way is to click the revision date, which will show you that revision, then click "edit this page", and save the page without changing anything.

If there have been "good" edits since the last clean revision, things get more complicated. In such cases, you are either lucky enough to be able to revert all the vandal edits by undoing them in chunks (if the vandals and the constructive editors touched different sections) or else you have to do it manually. When this happens, I usually view a diff from the last clean revision, click undo, and copy the content of the good edits from the shown diff to the edit box manually until "Show changes" only shows the vandalism removal.

Cheers, KissL 12:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Xmas

I wish you a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  18:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Budapest

Sorry. I think a most livable ranking of 74 is rather poor for a European capital and shouldn't be advertised in the lead. But no problem. Also, I do think there are some strong references (NYTimes, Unesco, IHT etc.), but the rest of the Refs needs an overhaul, true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorik (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

she's Hungarian...

I don't know whether you were mislead or are the one misleading, but Hedviga Malinová is indeed Slovak of Hungarian ethnicity. Her name is written in all official documentations as Hedviga Malinová. Please clarify and defend your opinion or stop inserting nonsense.--Svetovid (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) I also noticed that you inserted back the off topic and inflammatory comment on the talk page. Was it just a mistake or do you think it's a valid comment?--Svetovid (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the revert war is pointless since I am going to nominate the article for deletion as not notable but need a correct name so that the process cannot be interrupted by Hobartimus (talk · contribs).--Svetovid (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hedvig Malina

An editor has nominated Hedvig Malina, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedvig Malina and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Names of towns

Please do not remove names of Hungarian towns in other languages. It not only violates WP:NCGN, but also inspires people like Svetovid to remove Hungarian names from articles about Slovak towns. Tankred (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you tell me which part of WP:NCGN tells that? I thought only versions should be left there that may be found in English language sources, all other forms belong to list of alternative names. Anyway, Svetovid started this, you didn't revert his edit, although Trencsén may be found in English language sources by that name, Hungarian cities most definitely not. Squash Racket (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The very part you are applying to Trencin:

"[Wikipedia:Lead|The lead]]: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}."

"Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3)."

I expect you to revert yourself. If you do not, I will take liberty to initiate an administrative action against your vandalism. Your edits only give more arguments to people wanting to remove Hungarian names from the articles about Slovak cities, towns, and villages. Think twice before you violate Wikipedia's rules that protect a status quo favorable to your own POV. Tankred (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For example why do you add Slovak, Bulgarian, Italian versions then? Trencsén was basically a Hungarian city and a lot of English language sources refer to it by that name. The Hungarian towns are only referred to by their Hungarian and German names (at Szeged I left in some other possible versions).

You talk about administrative actions? Please watch your 'contributions' in the past few weeks!! WP:NCGN is a guideline anyway (not a rule), must be used with common sense. It is not a basis for administrative action, your constant edit warring is though... Squash Racket (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I added nothing. I merely reverted your problematic edit. If you believe some of the names should not be included, propose their removal at that article's talk page and give some time to other editors to react. I would not mind removing the Italian and Polish names of Szeged. Other editors (eg.g the ones who added these names) may think they are relevant. By the way, except for these two cases and Gyöngyös, I see no reason to remove the names you have deleted. You can find the relevant criterion in WP:NCGN (bolded in my previous comment). Again, I expect you to revert your edits or I will seek help from administrators before this turns to an edit war over hundreds of articles on northern Slovakia that include Hungarian names. Tankred (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I left in all relevant names, you still don't answer why do we need Slovak, Bulgarian, Italian, Polish etc. names. In most of the larger cities today people of approx. ten-twelve different nations live but in minor numbers. Should we add them all or these belong to list of alternative names? For example Hebrew, Yiddish because Jewish people actually live in these cities, but Polish, Slovak, Bulgarian etc. not really. At Békéscsaba I left the Slovak name, because there is a Slovak minority living there. Don't mix that with the Slovak situation, because there is a very large Hungarian minority living there even today and even German language forms get deleted by User:Svetovid, whom you never seemed to judge. Hungary is a pretty homogeneous country, besides Hungarians only Germans, Roma people and Jews are living here in considerable numbers. There is no "official process" for removing irrelevant alternative names as you try to suggest. I left in all names of places that were largely inhabited by other nations. I only hesitate because of the Turkish names - is it a mistake in the guideline (not rule) or we should really include Turkish names because of that historic occupation? Seems odd, definitely very difficult to decide that one.

After what you've been doing at Kingdom of Hungary, Magyarization, Treaty of Trianon, Slovak language etc. lately I wouldn't be so strict on others... Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If I can add my 2 cents, I would agree with the line bolded by Tankred is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place ... should be listed in alphabetic order' ^[1] but I'm sad to see that this is not the case with cities like Pozsony where Hungarians and Germans not only used to inhabit the location, they used to inhabit it as majority, AND they still inhabit it today to some degree(I think 4% Hungarians? dunno Germans) despite all the deportations and countless other crimes committed to force them to leave, and yet the German and Hungarian names are not given in the lead nor they are listed in alphabetical order in the first line of the article. And yet the Pozsony article managed to achieve featured status with such a "violation of NCGN" as Tankred puts it. It's very intresting that another article which had a lot of edits by Tankred recently has the same exact violation of NCGN where relevant names are not listed in the first line of the article in parentheses. Hobartimus (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cite WP:NCGN, Hobartimus, why do not you read it? Bratislava has an elaborated Names section placed right after the lead. This solution is recommended by WP:NCGN. By the way, does it hurt to say "Bratislava" instead of "Pozsony"? Tankred (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I see only two relevant names as defined by the section you quoted (notice that everything was quoted by you I merely repeated it for the sake of argument). It is intresting how in the case of Gdansk the name Danzig is bolded and in the lead. Would it hurt to place relevant names in the lead? Hobartimus (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN does not speak only about the present situation (i.e. after destruction of Hungary's minorities), but also about the past: "[a relevant name] is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place". Believe it or not, but Slovaks, Croatians, Serbs, Romanians, and even Turks really used to inhabit parts of Hungary. WP:NCGN is sensible in this regard and makes everyone happy. Your logic would lead to mass deletion of Hungarian and German names from most of Slovakia-related articles. There are virtually no Hungarians and Germans living in most Slovak municipalities. However, we have added Hungarian and German names to the articles about these municipalities as well because of historical reasons. Do you want to remove them? I hope you do not. Tankred (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In minor numbers a lot of different Slavic people lived on the territory of Hungary, but never in large numbers. I once again ask you to not be pretentious and don't mix the situation in Hungary and Slovakia! You heard about the Treaty of Trianon and its consequences? Based on the history of that article the answer is yes. In very small numbers Armenians, Bulgarians etc. are living even today in Hungary, so obviously we should focus on forms that may be found in English langiage sources, nations that live in Hungary today (Germans, Jewish people, Roma people etc.) or in the past lived in Hungary in large, decisive numbers. Mongols also inhabited parts of Hungary historically, so let's include Mongolic names?
Besides Svetovid who else deletes German names from articles, when these are the ones most referred to in real English language sources? You?
Those Slovak places are referred to in English language sources by German, Slovak and Hungarian names, so your logic does not respect WP:NCGN, if you visualise 'mass deletions'. I again repeat there is still a very large Hungarian minority living in Slovakia today. Squash Racket (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Squash Racket.
Squash Racket, do you know that Hungary (not only Hungary, but I'm speaking of it, because you delete the lines from Hungary-related articles) was a asylum place for a hundreds of thousands of refugees, that were forced to flee from advancing Ottomans?
Second, nobles in Habsburg Monarchy later brought new colonists on their posessions (not only from Hungary).
Third, there were further migrations (of these immigrants) inside Hungary itself, and traces of those migrations could be found in surnames (surnames formed after toponym).
All of these events above were not "specialty of Hungary". Whole Central Europe had such migration waves and counterwaves, fleeing and (partial) returning or resettling.
Further, there were different reasons for migrations: fleeing from war-struck areas, colonizing of vacated areas (with population from overpopulated areas), de-foresting and creations of villages and cities, bringing new inhabitants because of need of economy (and taxpayers for the nobles), reviving of economy by bringing artisans, etc..
Looking forward for our mutual understanding. Kamarad Walter (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR reports

Hello – thanks for the message. I'm not sure I know how to answer the question, but I'll give it a shot.

My admin process is to look carefully and independently at each 3RR report I see, and I investigate thoroughly before I even _think_ about a block. The activity has to be current, meaning within the last couple of hours, because blocks are to stop an edit war, not to punish someone for activity that happened several hours earlier. There have to be four or more reverts, which means the same material has to be added or removed four times, and we can tell if it's the same material or not. If you're blocked for 3RR, you can always appeal by using the {{unblock}} tag and/or emailing unblock-en. Don't get drawn into an edit war, and you won't have to 'defend yourself' while you're asleep.

All that said, the best way to stay away from WP:AN3, false reports or not, is to stop yourself from getting into a conflict in the first place. I guess you read my editing philosophy on my user page, but I'll say again that this stuff isn't that important. It seems you've had some disagreements, and I certainly don't want to sound condescending or like I'm trivializing issues that may be important to you, but I have to tell you that in the end, none of it matters. This is a website, albeit a large, complex site with an infinite number of parts. Worrying about the pixels on the screen – and worse yet, getting into conflict or anger or having a meltdown about the pixels on the screen – is just senseless, at least to me.

There's _nothing_ you or I or anyone else could add to or remove from an article that can't wait for at least 24 hours (unless it's a BLP issue, and we have a special place for that). Take a step back, and look at your own 'big picture' before you hit the 'save' button. That's about all I can say. I hope it helps. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who asked. :-) You must understand that I do know how popular Wikipedia is, and that I care very, very much about building a free encyclopedia. My views aren't from lack of concern, or disinterest, or defeatism, or apathy. I guess it's just a lifetime of experience; I know how impermanent life and health are, and I won't get drawn into some activity or situation here that makes me angry or upset because it's like becoming angry at a ghost or a phantom. Instead, I'll edit somewhere else for while, or I'll go play mahjong solitaire, or I'll pick up a book, and come back later when I'm refreshed. I'm just not going get into an argument or an edit war, or get puffed up and angry about this little hobby of ours. It's a _decision_, not an emotion. It's kind of like forgiveness – forgiveness isn't for a person who wronged you. It's for yourself.

You may think differently, and that's fine. Many, many people do, although I wish they wouldn't. It's a good thing we have however many gazillion articles we have, so there's something for everyone to fight about. ;-) Anyway, thus endeth the sermon... if you ever need help or have questions, let me know, and have a good week – KrakatoaKatie 04:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Improving sources of articles

Started collecting sources at a subpage user:Hobartimus/src you can use it or even add to it or start your own collection. If you find an intresting reliable source with new information it should be saved for later use. Hobartimus (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.