Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 20:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 12:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pribina. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cntras ( talk) 06:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 17:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Omen1229,

I would like to notify you that there being a discussion at WP ANI in which you have been mentioned. [1]-- Nmate ( talk) 12:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

I don´t see any racist in my user page. All sources are from wikipedia.org and I have not changed anything. This is your another personal attack. I am not racist! Please don´t insult me! WP:BATTLEGROUND Do you know what is racism? Ethnic conflicts: "Debates over the origins of racism often suffer from a lack of clarity over the term. Many use the term "racism" to refer to more general phenomena, such as xenophobia and ethnocentrism, although scholars attempt to clearly distinguish those phenomena from racism as an ideology or from scientific racism, which has little to do with ordinary xenophobia." You wrote in Revision history of Lake Balaton a about name in Slovak language: based on what? No importance at all! Slovaks have never been lived in the neighborhood

some articles about Lake Balaton in Hungarian language with Slovak name Blatenské jazero: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaton http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port%C3%A1l:Balaton

You could have saved some trouble by making it clearer that your user page is a statement of your point of view, along the lines of "I believe from my reading of the relevant history that..."

It is generally fine to express a belief or opinion on your user page, and to give others a good idea of your perspective on important matters. It is best to do this in a way that shows sensitivity to the Wikipedia ideals of understanding, compromise, and following the sources. In other words, it is best to sound more like a scholar and less like a demagogue.

I have closed the discussion at this point and I suggest you disengage from Nmate or at least restrict your discussions to specific changes to content supported from good sources. Guy ( Help!) 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 10:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, regarding historical demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary, modern geneticists undoubtedly confirmed that modern Hungarians are descendants of local Indo-European peoples and not descendants of old Hungarians who came to Central Europe in the 9th century. Therefore, number of these old Hungarians certainly could not be larger than 25-30,000. Historical science is not exact science so, no matter that some Hungarian historians claimed that from 400,000 to 1,000,000 old Hungarians came to central Europe this cannot be confirmed by any genetical research and if one historian and one geneticist are having dispute about origins of certain population, the geneticist would be always right. However, main problem with Demographics of Hungary article is the fact that user Hobartimus is strongly pushing certain POV and I do not have enough free time to be involved in revert warring with him there. There are some other more creative things that I would rather do instead. Also, there are two other things that I want to discuss with you: Can you please see my post there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Nitra#Map_of_the_Principality.3F I hope that you can say which border represents what in this map: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qNwtg5trdGo/TdUTswI7EUI/AAAAAAAAAa0/zYo1RsbRc3M/s1600/Nitra+Neutra+Nyitra+Nitriansko.jpg Is border of Nitra Principality only area with lines in left part of the map or whole marked area (or perhaps marked area represent Slovak ethnic territory?).I want to draw similar map for Wikipedia, but I am not sure about exact interpretation of borders in this source. The second thing that I want to ask you is this: do you know some good source with list of historical Slovak names for cities in Slovakia? I believe that historical Slovak names should be listed together with historical Hungarian and German ones in certain articles, in the way like I used them here: [2] It would be very wrong that readers of articles gain wrong impression that Slovak names for these towns are "new" and "non-historical". Therefore, instead "Pozsony (today Bratislava)" we should say "Pozsony (Slovak: Požúň, today Bratislava)" (if we speak about period of Hungarian administration) or "Pressburg (Slovak: Prešporok, today Bratislava)" (if we speak about period of Habsburg/Austrian administration). So, do you know some good source where all these historical Slovak names could be found? Perhaps we can create an new article named Historical Slovak exonyms? PANONIAN 18:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) reply

400,000 to 1,000,000 old Hungarians... Colossal army :-D The amount reminds me Xerxes’ army in 300 film

1. This is new map by MM. Red area: Slavs of Nitrian Principality (area inhabited by Slavic people with main connection to the Nitra or sphere of influence), Red area with diagonals: the core of principality, Purple border line: Northern borders of Avar Khaganate until 780, Brown - yellow lines: roads, Circle: Slavonic tribes (period before the Principality of Nitra), Big pink point: slavic cultural centrum, fortress, Small red point: slavic settlement, Purple cross: still standing buildings identified as Great Moravian, Green corss: churches builded between 820 - 900, Underlined name: historical name, The arrow: attack of Slavs from Moravian Principality

2. You have a good idea to create an new article named Historical Slovak exonyms. Slovak names are definitely older than Hungarian. Good sources are books by Ján Stanislav. In his books Slovenský juh v stredoveku I.-II. (1948; 1999, 2004) are thousands historical Slovak names (+ maps) of cities, rivers, mountains in Hungary. But I don´t know some web database with names. I will search more infos and I will inform you.

OK, thanks for clarification. Actually, I can read Slovak text in that map (it is not much different from Serbian), but I was not sure what were borders of principality (and that was not clearly specified in map legend). I am not going to make exactly same map like in that link, but only some simplified version with presented principality borders and main cities. By the way, I just created an article about historical Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina: Former Serbian exonyms (Vojvodina) (it is actually only partially written since there are a lot more exonyms to be included here - seems lot more than I originally thought), and article with similar form could be created for Slovak exonyms too (I might start that one as well when I finish first one with Serbian exonyms). After these articles are finished, we would have valuable lists of historical exonyms that we can later use in various historical articles. Anyway, I am not able to use books of Ján Stanislav, so I am afraid that I would had to stick to web sources.Of course, if you have these books, you can use them to expand article. PANONIAN 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC) reply

OK and I will inform you.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Ahoj. Pre clanok Jozef Murgaš plati http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment

Naming convention

Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)". In biographies of clearly Slovak persons, the name should be used in the form "Prešov (Eperjes)" and later "Prešov" exclusively

Bol si tam revertnuty nejakym madarskym redaktorom ale nepravom.-- LastLion ( talk) 14:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Dakujem za info, napravim tie nazvy -- Omen1229 ( talk) 14:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Čo som tak zbežne pozeral tak podobný problém je aj u Hviezdoslava.-- LastLion ( talk) 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

OK-- Omen1229 ( talk) 21:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 09:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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 complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Omen1229 reported by User:Nmate (Result: 31h). EdJohnston ( talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

You're being warned under DIGWUREN because you broke 3RR at Magyarization, an article where nationalist disputes have occurred in the past. If you take care to work for talk page consensus before making risky changes, you should be able to avoid any further trouble. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Omen1229, You have been reported here.-- Nmate ( talk) 09:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello Omen1229,

I will delete every contribution to Wikipedia if you continue making personal attacks on me and Pov pushing ,and I will report to ArbCom whose outcome won't be as auspicious as it was last time. Also, your way of editing is clearly chauvinistic.

• For instance:

You deleted the Hungarian name from here: (Magyarized name (used only in Hungary) is not important for English article. Karol Hingis (02. 05. 1951) is Slovak from Košice, only speaks Hungarian. His sisters are Eva, Marta, Helena and brothers Ľudovít and Gejza.)

Then you added the Slovak names to at least two Hungarian persons here and here.

This is what looks like: a sheer very obnixious chauvinism.-- Nmate ( talk) 10:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

? I deleted vague and Magyarized name of Slovak Karol Hingis in article about Martina Hingis. Do you understand? Please stop with Personal attack and deleted Refererences in aticles, because Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thank you! -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

What you think about "vague Magyarized name" is highly controversial. As for Wikipedia is not a battleground, you have a serious problem as can be seen. And I usually call a spade a spade, which is hardly a personal attack. -- Nmate ( talk) 11:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

vague and Magyarized name... because he is Slovak and his name is Karol. And info about Karol name is irrelevant in artcle about Martina Hingis. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned before, what you think about "vague Magyarized name" is highly controversial. And your reason why you deleted that name was it is not important for English article. Why do you think that the Slovak names of Ányos Jedlik , Bálint Balassi, and László Mednyánszky are more important to the English Wikipedia than that of Károly Hingis'? The only reasonable explanation for that is the chauvinism.-- Nmate ( talk) 11:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Please stop with Personal attack. Info about name of Slovak person Karol Hingis is irrelevant in artcle about Martina Hingis. I added Slovak names of Ányos Jedlik , Bálint Balassi, and László Mednyánszky, because it is main article. Do you understand or not? Please don´t blame me for chauvinism, bacause your is what? -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, please don`t call edits like this 1; 2 vandalism - because they are not. There are obvious problems here, but that isn`t vandalism. I don`t know the solution for this problem nor I want to imply one but maybe you should try at ANI again since he obviously ignored his warning and continued his old ways - that`s up to you, but you should stop using vandalism reverts in this case. Or maybe you should ask for an advice from some administrator how to behave in this situations. The bottom line is to stay calm, avoid edit wars and ignore/avoid inflammatory statements. Please bare in mind that calling some edit vandalism can be considered an inflammatory statement also. If I am "sticking" my nose where it has no place please say so and I won`t bother you anymore. Greetings. Adrian ( talk) 10:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

OK thanks for info. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Košice. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the changes; 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 without further notice. v/r - T P 11:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

User:Nmate has reverted the material you keep adding. At this time, you need to follow WP:BRD. You've added the material, he has reverted, it's time to disuss on the talk page. Further edit warring will result in blocks for both of you.--v/r - T P 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, Omen1229. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. reply

v/r - T P 15:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

You were mentioned here: [3]

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." WP:YESPOV

It is disputed whether and how much the Hungarian census was manipulated, so please stop presenting it as a fact. There are no numbers, everything is just assumptions SSzatmari ( talk) 14:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Dear SSzatmari
1910 census was manipulated, it´s fact. Census did not record the respondents' ethnicity, but only language (whether it was "native language" or "most frequently spoken language") and Slovak language was prohibited. It was the first and last census in the history recorded language and not nationality. Census was under control the Ministry of Interior, which promoted Magyarization. We have also numbers, for example: In clearly Slovak district Turiec(north Slovakia) were 55 703 inhabitants, 5 560 Hungarian nationality(10 %!). And this is not manipulation? Only one person would be enough to be falsely counted and we can say that the census was manipulated. So please don´t write nonsense on my talk page, because you insult thousands of Slovaks, who lived in tyrany. Thanks! -- Omen1229 ( talk) 15:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmmm, sorry to disappoint you, but I have to side with SSzatmari on this. And not because I "hate everything that's Slovak" (as you might think), but because this is an encyclopedia. This means that you just CAN'T put in there text like "Hungarians are the worst kind of scumbag that've ever walked on earth" no matter how much you'd like to do so (for contrast: I can't insert stuff like "Slovaks are complete idiots who not only lack education, but also the will to educate themselves, instead they live in an imaginary world and besides they hate everyone" either). The "manipulation of 1910 census data" is only stated as a fact only by Slovak nationalists (and probably Romanian ones too), Hungarians claim the contrary and the findings are somewhat inconclusive (mostly because both parties have valid arguments in favor of their POV). This means that the preferred form is to write something like "the 1910 census is claimed to have been manipulated by Slovak and Romanian scholars", which should be followed by a list of sources (verifiable, NOT self-published and preferably neutral) that confirm this. Problem solved.

-- OR --

The problem WOULD'VE been solved if you would've refrained from pushing your POVish material on the Treaty of Trianon article (the fact that it's almost entirely taken from the Pravda article you're tried to pass as a valid source makes the whole edit even more pathetic) and refrained from the promotion of myth. But now the genie's out of the bottle. So I REALLY hate to break it to you, but I happen to have a scanned version of the original census form (from this site) coupled with some background information regarding census. And while you're right in the fact that question no. 12 of the form pertains to the "native language" (and NOT the "most frequently spoken language", but the "language one considers to be his own and speak the best and likes to speak the most" as stated by the form) and in Hungary this very question has served to record the citizens' nationality up until 1941, when the question has been replaced with the one about the person's nationality. I also have to disappoint you with the fact that it wasn't only the Inferior Ministry that has promoted Magyarization, but alas the entire government plus the Hungarian elite (though not exactly in the form you think they did), but filling out the form was still left to the person's own conscience (so it was up to every individual to record the language of their preference). Even if there were 5560 people in Turóc county (which did NOT comprise the entire present-day northern Slovakia, such a pity that idiotic morons have completely messed up the whole county/administrative division system in Slovakia too) who might've comprised of Jews (they usually wrote Hungarian/German in language field and circled "Jewish" in the religion field -izr.=izraelita in the form-), Hungarian noblemen and various state employees of various ethnicity, but they've almost certainly chosen their native language on their own accord (i.e. nobody was threatening to put them in jail for claiming themselves to be Slovak). Also don't forget that these were the people who've left the newly founded Czechoslovakia among the first (they were the first ones who've been thrown out of their jobs) which make the statistics quite precise.

As for insulting "thousands of Slovaks, who lived in tyrany" this statement of yours is entirely pathetic. If this were true then by 1918 there would've been no Slovaks left to join Czechoslovakia. Sure, Slovak didn't have official recognition in Austria-Hungary and it MIGHT'VE been true that they were discriminated against in government jobs if they've refused to Magyarize their names, but they were NOT persecuted on the fact that they were Slovaks alone, ever.

So once again, please stop with reinserting POV material. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Dear CoolKoon

The "manipulation of 1910 census data" is only stated as a fact only by Slovak nationalists (and probably Romanian ones too), Hungarians claim the contrary and the findings are somewhat inconclusive (mostly because both parties have valid arguments in favor of their POV) > Do you really think Dr. Anatol Murad or people in Cambridge University Press are Slovak nationalists? Sorry, I don´t think.

NOT the "most frequently spoken language", but the "language one considers to be his own and speak the best and likes to speak the most" And what is the difference?

in Hungary this very question has served to record the citizens' nationality up until 1941, when the question has been replaced with the one about the person's nationality. > Problem is that 1910 census was without nationality question and this is great manipulation. I don´t know what was census in Hungray after 1910(what there were nationality + language question or only language question. If only language question, so these were also manipulated...), but before 1910 there was question about nationality. Of course there are another big problems with this unfair census, but I´m tired from your POV essay and original research on my talk page.-- Omen1229 ( talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

So once again, please stop with reinserting POV material. > So once again, another personal attack. I added and will add only sourced material. So please stop attack me. Thank you very much! -- Omen1229 ( talk) 23:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello!

Yes of course we can see with Objective POV, not we got blocked several times like you. But you just keep adding uncredited stuff to those articles.

Even asked politely, you are talking about Hungarians like the Nazis about Jews. In a long run, you may have to register a new account.

You may also try to insult others with lies but we don't really care, all of those stuff will be removed with time.

About that census: the Romanians even claimed Debrecen and other major cities to the east bank of the Tisza as ancient Romanian territories, of course they wanted to spread that false info. Your education seems like told to hate the Magyars ... Hungarians=bad/evil/DEVIL. Can you name anything good in Hungary or the Hungarian people? (really)

Regards Csendesmark ( talk) 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

How amusing that the book of Anatol Murad which you've pointed to (namely the one titled Franz Joseph I of Austria and His Empire) just reeks of bad science, EXCESSIVE guesswork and a swarm of generalizations (e.g. "the Hungarian government manipulated the census figures" on p. 20 without mentioning ANY date regarding the census, thus implying that ALL of them have been manipulated and thus even alluding the author's mild paranoia as well) so I won't consider this book as a reliable source (as far as census data are concerned). I'm not sure about the latter book you're referring to (Cambridge University Press seems to be a publishing house publishing books on a variety of topics), but there tends to be something fishy around the books that talk about excessive census data manipulation from the 19th century Hungary (e.g. referencing material written by Robert Seton-Watson and his comrades). Sure, I might be wrong, but up until now there was ALWAYS fishy regarding the circumstances of such sources.

It's obvious from your comment above (NOT the "most frequently spoken language", but the "language one considers to be his own and speak the best and likes to speak the most" And what is the difference?) that you've NEVER lived in a mixed-language environment nor have you worked in one. Otherwise you'd know the difference between the two. For instance because of the contacts/clients I have there are days when I communicate almost exclusively in English. On other days I have to talk in Slovak almost all day. Suppose that I persist in one of such environments or another (e.g. by working at AT&T, which requires all of their employees to have almost flawless English proficiency) for a long time (years) so my most frequently spoken language will become English. Will that turn me into a person of English nationality? Will that cause my native language to shift to English? Or would that make me state my nationality at a census as "English"? Of course not. Because having to speak a language on a regular basis due to circumstances (e.g. workplace duties) does NOT and will not mean that that'll be the language "I like to speak the most" nor "consider to be mine".

"Problem is that 1910 census was without nationality question and this is great manipulation." - Actually there wasn't a question about nationality in ANY of the censuses of Hungary before of after 1920 up until 1941 (when the nationality was recorded for the first time and has been recorded ever since). This means that there was no question for the nationality in the census of the 1900s, the 1890s etc. Call that manipulation, but still, the de facto way of recording one's nationality in Hungary was by asking for his/her native language (once again, even during censuses after 1920 up until 1941).

"So once again, another personal attack. I added and will add only sourced material. So please stop attack me. Thank you very much!" - So once again, another case of assuming bad faith. I've tried to point out to you the fact that it was the wording of your edit which was the most problematic, not necessarily the content itself (though I strongly object to some of it too). So you can either choose to ignore my advice (Wladthemlat would probably advise in favor of that), keep pushing the POVishly worded material and risk an ANI report and sanctions (I'm not blackmailing you, any other editor could file an ANI report for inserting POV material too) OR you could reword your edit (in the sorts of "the census has been challenged by some[sources go here] as being manipulated") and could subsequently report editors who'd try to remove it, even though it's "properly sourced NPOV material" (provided your sources ARE reliable and not in the likes of beo.sk, extraplus.sk or voltaire.netkosice.sk etc.). The power (to choose one of the options) is yours.... -- CoolKoon ( talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I also agree with the remark of SSzatmari. Even if some historians believe that the questions/results of the 1910 census were manipulated, it does not make it a "fact", since other researchers think otherwise. The question of the potential manipulation is adequately discussed in the current article with references and with arguments on which the claims are based. Therefore, the current way of treating this question is perfectly in line with the neutrality point of view policy of Wikipedia, while the version that you (Omen1229) try to push treats one side of the story as an absolute truth, hence it is a POV. Koertefa ( talk) 08:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Your really long essays and original researchs are boring. Prof. Štefan Šutaj is head of the department of history, Institute of Social Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences 1. Until you provide some reliable sources disputing Šutaj's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. He is also head of the SK-HU intergovernmental committee of historians - if Hungarian government is ok with him, so am I.

I´m shocked how many advocates of undemocratic Kingdom of Hungary is here in the 21st century. Kingdom of Hungary had a dishonest, undemocratic franchise, and the tradition of racial intolerance, and a system of local government by counties, which makes no preparation for Federalism. CoolKoon and others think Kingdom of Hungary was democratic paradise, especially for minorities. Census manipulation is is for them attack on the Hungarians and is not enough neutral. What crime is neutral? No this is not about Hungarians, but about political system in Kingdom of Hungary. Another numbers: 2 See tabs, especially year 1910. PS: Do not forget in your original researchs why census sheets in Kingdom of Hungary were only in Hungarian language, because in Austrian Empire were also in Czech language 3.-- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Your really long essays and original researches are boring. - Welcome back, Wladthemlat :P. But just think for a moment (I know it's hard to do, but give it a try): if you call the original census form from 1910 and technical facts regarding nationality/'native language' original research, why do you think that anyone with an opposing view to yours will take your arguments seriously? Are you seriously here to wage a battle against the "evil supporters of the even more evil Kingdom of Hungary" instead of trying to create articles with NPOV? Do you even treat the whole discussion as a zero-sum game? Because if you are and you do, you REALLY shouldn't bother. You MIGHT be convinced about the anti-Hungarian propaganda pushed by SNS, Smer, Matica Slovenská and various historians as the ultimate truth, but pushing their POV won't earn you any brownie points here. You can even try to support your arguments with various books with anti-Hungarian content, but tell me: who are you kidding? Nobody's gonna get convinced by hate-mongering books (except the hate-mongering Slovak nationalists of course) who state everything but the facts. Moreover it's a pity that the book contradicts even your statement about an undemocratic Hungary: it speaks about elected non-Hungarian MPs (moreover many members of the Slovak intelligentsia were MPs at the Hungarian "national assembly" -i.e. parliament- at one point or another right up to 1918).

CoolKoon and others think Kingdom of Hungary was democratic paradise, especially for minorities. - Who said that it was a "liberal" democracy? It was a dualist monarchy with SOME democratic elements (e.g. there WAS suffrage, but was limited to those with a university degree/noblemen/owners of at least a certain amount of land, hence it was far from universal, but even so there were more people in KoH with suffrage than in some of the Western countries at the time), but wasn't a modern democracy (such a shame that you talk about democracy, because you surely don't desire democracy as that'd ALWAYS mean that Hungarians of Slovakia would have a say in the Slovak state affairs, which makes your whole argument kinda hypocritical). Still, KoH WAS on its way to democratization despite some of the unfortunate events that've happened, which's been confirmed even by its rapidly improving macroeconomic indicators (how amusing that all the books you keep citing somehow fail to mention this fact). I've also found another interesting fragment on the same page: "This allowed the ruling classes to see off [...] all demands for land reform [...] and to preserve the political and social status quo." <-- wow, perhaps a communist book (land reform=stealing land from their former owners and distributing it between ones who never owned one -preferably friends and close relatives of the "land reformers"-=unimpeded robbery)? And that's what you call a "reliable source"?

Another numbers: 2 See tabs, especially year 1910. - Are you freakin' kidding me?! Citing an article that's citing a source book written by Ladislav Deák, one of the most outspoken (and avid) supporter of all the anti-Hungarian myths circulated in Slovakia?! But it's a quite typical method of conscious misinterpretation of ANY statistics that have to do with the KoH (the land of Evil, right?). First of all: hundreds of thousands of people have left the newly founded Czechoslovakia immediately after its founding (in the years 1920-22), mostly members of the Hungarian intelligentsia, who've lived in wagons near railway stations of Budapest for years. This accounts for a LOT of "lost" Hungarians. The rest can be pretty much explained by the Jews' tendency to switch sides i.e. after 1920 they've either declared themselves "Czechoslovak" or German. Then there were those two-faced brown-noses who'd kiss up to whatever new power would rule Slovakia immediately too.

PS: Do not forget in your original researchs why census sheets in Kingdom of Hungary were only in Hungarian language, because in Austrian Empire were also in Czech language 3. - I've already admitted that Slovak had ZERO official recognition within the KoH (it wasn't featured even on A-H banknotes, unlike all the other minority languages). I also admit that it wasn't a nice thing to do, but the founding of Czechoslovakia hasn't changed much about this, since only a so-called "Czechoslovak nation" was recognized with a strong Czech dominance. But this still doesn't mean that ANY members of the minorities were persecuted on the fact that they spoke a different language alone (or belonged to a different religion). Everyone who says otherwise is either lying or is ignorant (and no, the Cernova massacre was NOT an example of an ethnic slaughter, it was a shameful incident mostly for political reasons). -- CoolKoon ( talk) 13:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome back, Wladthemlat :P > Hello CoolKoon

But just think for a moment (I know it's hard to do, but give it a try): if you call the original census form from 1910 and technical facts regarding nationality/'native language' original research, why do you think that anyone with an opposing view to yours will take your arguments seriously? Are you seriously here to wage a battle against the "evil supporters of the even more evil Kingdom of Hungary" instead of trying to create articles with NPOV? Do you even treat the whole discussion as a zero-sum game? Because if you are and you do, you REALLY shouldn't bother. You MIGHT be convinced about the anti-Hungarian propaganda pushed by SNS, Smer, Matica Slovenská and various historians as the ultimate truth, but pushing their POV won't earn you any brownie points here > Please provide some reliable sources disputing Šutaj's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. Your original research about SNS or Smer is absurd. Improve rather the "great NOPV" article about Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia what you created. I think this essay has low quality, but maybe WP needs more these NOPV articles.

it speaks about elected non-Hungarian MPs (moreover many members of the Slovak intelligentsia were MPs at the Hungarian "national assembly" -i.e. parliament- at one point or another right up to 1918). > Yes, "many members"... 6 people in in the whole history

Who said that it was a "liberal" democracy? It was a dualist monarchy with SOME democratic elements (e.g. there WAS suffrage, but was limited to those with a university degree/noblemen/owners of at least a certain amount of land, hence it was far from universal, but even so there were more people in KoH with suffrage than in some of the Western countries at the time), but wasn't a modern democracy (such a shame that you talk about democracy, because you surely don't desire democracy as that'd ALWAYS mean that Hungarians of Slovakia would have a say in the Slovak state affairs, which makes your whole argument kinda hypocritical). Still, KoH WAS on its way to democratization despite some of the unfortunate events that've happened, which's been confirmed even by its rapidly improving macroeconomic indicators (how amusing that all the books you keep citing somehow fail to mention this fact). > But you forgot one important fact, this "monarchy with SOME democratic elements" began World War I. There were over 15 million deaths and 20 million wounded ranking it among the deadliest conflicts in human history.

Are you freakin' kidding me?! Citing an article that's citing a source book written by Ladislav Deák, one of the most outspoken (and avid) supporter of all the anti-Hungarian myths circulated in Slovakia?! But it's a quite typical method of conscious misinterpretation of ANY statistics that have to do with the KoH (the land of Evil, right?). First of all: hundreds of thousands of people have left the newly founded Czechoslovakia immediately after its founding (in the years 1920-22), mostly members of the Hungarian intelligentsia, who've lived in wagons near railway stations of Budapest for years. This accounts for a LOT of "lost" Hungarians. The rest can be pretty much explained by the Jews' tendency to switch sides i.e. after 1920 they've either declared themselves "Czechoslovak" or German. Then there were those two-faced brown-noses who'd kiss up to whatever new power would rule Slovakia immediately too. > Again, a lot of original researchs + personal attack on Ladislav Deák. Do you have any evidence that he is "supporter of all the anti-Hungarian myths circulated in Slovakia"? I don´t see also any connection between tabs and collector work of Deak. Or do you think Ladislav Deák manipulated 1910 census?

I've already admitted that Slovak had ZERO official recognition within the KoH (it wasn't featured even on A-H banknotes, unlike all the other minority languages). I also admit that it wasn't a nice thing to do, but the founding of Czechoslovakia hasn't changed much about this, since only a so-called "Czechoslovak nation" was recognized with a strong Czech dominance. > Please do not compare Kingdom of Hungary and democratic Czechoslovakia. Also do not compare Hungarian and Czech language, especially after the tragic eduction system in Kingdom of Hungary. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

> Please provide some reliable sources disputing Šutaj's qualification or academic work, his qualification does make him an expert and his publications expert ones. Your original research about SNS or Smer is absurd. Improve rather the "great NOPV" article about Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia what you created. I think this essay has low quality, but maybe WP needs more these NOPV articles. - I don't really know who this Šutaj is, but I might do a "background check on him". Until then I'll leave the judging of him and his work as is. And my statements about SNS and Smer are NOT absurd. SNS and Smer make a living by spreading hate propaganda especially against Hungarians (but the SNS loves to badmouth the Gypsies as well). This is NOT original research, because I can cite ANY no. of Slovak/English/Hungarian publications (hell even German ones if I really had to) that confirm all of my words. And you can quote me on the fact that SNS and Smer are groups of scumbags who'd go as far as annihilating Hungarians even if they had the power to and were positive that this'd bring them more votes (and it certainly would, they're acting like this because they're political prostitutes) and who're soulless bastards who care for no one except their own family and business partners (I can repeat the same even in court should the need arise, but I don't think that'd happen, not until there's at least a few elements of democracy left in Slovakia). You can vote for him as much as you want, but that'll only land Slovakia right next to Greece (or shall I rather say the PIGS states?).

> Yes, "many members"... 6 people in in the whole history - yes, plus don't forget the Czech MPs who were sitting in the Austrian Imperial Assembly too (e.g. Masaryk) and who later (along with the Slovak former MPs) became the "founding fathers" of Czechoslovakia and their most prominent figures too (i.e. went from being a member of the A-H elite to being a member of the CS elite).

"> But you forgot one important fact, this "monarchy with SOME democratic elements" began World War I." - You seem to forget that Hungarians didn't have much say in this. It was mostly the Habsburgs who wanted the war and actually Germany wanted it the most. And besides, what relevance does it have?

> Again, a lot of original researchs + personal attack on Ladislav Deák. Do you have any evidence that he is "supporter of all the anti-Hungarian myths circulated in Slovakia"? I don´t see also any connection between tabs and collector work of Deak. Or do you think Ladislav Deák manipulated 1910 census? - Personal attack on Ladislav Deák? He can feel free to sue me (in fact I STRONGLY recommend him to do so, because it might set a desirable example against all the Slovak nationalist historians), in which case I'd have it easy: I'd just present ALL the books he's authored or co-authored in the court. He IS a nationalist "historician" who's (co-)authored several SCHOOLbooks with strong anti-Hungarian content. I've managed to get hold of one of them, but so far I didn't have the time to translate it. But it's underway, so don't worry, everyone will get to know why works by Ladislav Deák should NEVER be used as a source for ANY article that's even remotely connected to Hungarians. And as for numbers, even if Ladislav Deák got those right (which's VERY easily verifiable: one just has to visit "Magyar Országos Levéltár" in Budapest and take a look at the original census data, then go to the "Slovensky Národny Archív" in Bratislava and do the same with the newer census data), it doesn't mean that the explanation for the decline of Hungarians' percentage is sufficient, logical and truthful. Because the "forced magyarization" might be a convenient explanation, but it doesn't have to be true. And Ladislav Deák seems to be content with such explanation alone (=bad science).

> Please do not compare Kingdom of Hungary and democratic Czechoslovakia. Also do not compare Hungarian and Czech language, especially after the tragic eduction system in Kingdom of Hungary. - Yeah, right, the "liberal democratic First Republic". How come you only talk about the "forced magyarization" and yet fail to mention that in the Slovak part of the "democratic Czechoslovakia" all the universities and colleges were closed down (because they were "disloyal Hungarian chauvinistic institutions" obviously) to be replaced with only a single university right until the end of WWII, statues of Hungarian and Austrian nobilities were blown to smithereens/were broken by a mob of nationalist scumbags (which was preceded by the Slovak nationalist MPs calls for such acts), destroying of shop glazing, shooting into (unarmed) protesters who were provoked by the same anti-Hungarian scumbags and a complete import ban of any books published in Hungary? Or these were "rightful repercussions", right? As for the Czech language, you were the one who talked about the fact that the Czechs had census forms in Czech (YES, I KNOW that Hungarian minorities didn't have forms in their native language, which wasn't a nice thing to do, yet it didn't prevent them from marking their native language as "szlovák" - since the forms had to be filled out in Hungarian too-). -- CoolKoon ( talk) 15:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't really know who this Šutaj is, but I might do a "background check on him". Until then I'll leave the judging of him and his work as is. 15:10, 23 November 2011 > Again, quickly changed his mind and 22:23, 23 November 2011 he wrote nonsenses about "heavy nationalist POV material" 1. This is incredible discussion with CoolKoon. I´m surprised, why administrators still tolerate his behavior.

SNS and Smer > And what is my connection with these parties? I don´t like them, but I know your view about "psychotic claims" already 2.

yes, plus don't forget the Czech MPs who were sitting in the Austrian Imperial Assembly > What is connection between Austrian Imperial Assembly and Slovaks in Kingdom in Hungary in 20. century?

You seem to forget that Hungarians didn't have much say in this. It was mostly the Habsburgs who wanted the war and actually Germany wanted it the most. And besides, what relevance does it have? Of course :-D, Kingdom of Hungary politicians "did not want war", but they battled and were defeated. And relevance is the Peace Treaty of Trianon.

Another personal attack on Ladislav Deák without evidence. What is your specialization, if you write about "bad science".

Yeah, right, the "liberal democratic First Republic". How come you only talk about the "forced magyarization" and yet fail to mention that in the Slovak part of the "democratic Czechoslovakia" all the universities and colleges were closed down (because they were "disloyal Hungarian chauvinistic institutions" obviously) to be replaced with only a single university right until the end of WWII, > Do you have any reference for this: "(because they were "disloyal Hungarian chauvinistic institutions" obviously)" This is more complex than you described. Eduction system in Kingdom of Hungary for Slovaks: 1 Kindergarten, 322 Elementary schools, 0 Junior high schools, 0 Science high schools, 0 Teachers' colleges, 0 Gymnasiums for boys, 0 High schools for girls, 0 Trade schools, 0 Commercial schools and 0 Universities. What should be a school for Slovak children? Keep the old system? Please write me also how many Slovak schools were in Hungary after 1918. We can compare these stats with CS eduction system, also published books. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 14:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello. You didn't react on the talk page. You may help us improve the article.

Csendesmark ( talk) 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC) reply

It appears your presence here on Wikipedia is almost entirely focussed on Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles, which is highly disruptive to the project. You have been warned earlier. Under the rules of the WP:DIGWUREN Arbcom decision, I am therefore topic-banning you from all edits relating to Slovak-Historian history for a period of six months. This topic ban will be logged at the Arbcom page. I'll be looking at your opponents a bit later, when I find the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Its very interesting that Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and Omen1229 after few minutes of investigation but in last 13 months he had not find a time to look on "opponents" as he promised. And here is topic-banned the reporting editor'. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Omen1229 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.137.105 ( talk) 12:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Per my comment at User talk:EdJohnston#Omen1229, you should stop editing the Slovaks article and its talk page. In my opinion there is hardly any edit you can make there which will not violate your topic ban from Slovakian-Hungarian history. Some of your edits there also suggest that you are removing respectable academic work in order to favor your own theories about Slovak identity. Any kind of edit that looks to be boosting a patriotic nationalist theory is going to bring you trouble under DIGWUREN, so please avoid it. Quoting from the Slovak constitution does not strengthen your case. That document is not a work of scholarship that is based on careful collection of data by historians, and it would not be expected to be. What's next, will you be quoting from national anthems to support your case? Admins will take action to limit boosterism whether it comes from the Slovakian or the Hungarian side. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

It is strange and worrying, if article about Slovaks, especially Name and ethnogenesis is for you "Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles". About my Topic-banned: In the first sentence Future Perfect at Sunrise mentioned Slovak-Hungarian nationalist struggles and in another sentence mentioned "Slovak-Historian history". This is clear that he thought "Slovak-Hungarian history". See Slovaks article again and maybe you will see who is real "patriotic nationalist" and who want to create neutral article. I didn´t remove also sources.

Quoting from the Slovak constitution does not strengthen your case. That document is not a work of scholarship that is based on careful collection of data by historians, and it would not be expected to be. > Oh really? Do you have any references for this shocking statement? -- Omen1229 ( talk) 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

If you continue to edit at Slovaks or its talk page, you may be blocked to enforce your ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your reply. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 21:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I have a seriouse doubts about objectivity of user EdJohnston. User Omen1229 used the exact citations - and he have to left the article. On the other hand User:Fakirbakir used negative statement which has nothing to do with article and adapted it to article [4]. Its strange that person (Fakirbakir) who said "Nazi Slovakia" or "The modern Slovakia is a neo-fascist state" [5] is allowed to edit Slovak related articles and he is not under WP:DIGWUREN sanctions. -- Samofi ( talk) 07:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Its really bizarre that "neutral" User:Fakirbakir with "good behavior" [6] who cooperates with fascist term "Turanid race" [7] and simultaneously called the modern Slovakia as a neo-fascist state is still allowed to edit Slovak related articles. User:Fakirbakir used negative statement which has nothing to do with article and adapted it to article [8], but it is curious that EdJohnston complimented him [9]. These perfectly "neutral" good quotes are known from numerous articles [10] [11] [12] [13], where participate User:Fakirbakir, User:Nmate, User:Hobartimus, User:Baxter9 and others. An example of this "neutral" edit of User:Fakirbakir: "The modern Slovak nation is the result of radical processes of modernization within the Habsburg Empire in the 19th century." [14] The exact citation: "The modern Slovak nation is the result of radical processes of modernization within the Habsburg Empire which culminated in the middle of 19th century." -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I challenged objectivity of user EdJohnston. They are a lot of biased results here. The most shocking for me was this my sock puppet: [15] He made edit 25th May 2010 9:05, in this time I was at university for opponenture for my diploma :D But for users Baxter9, Stubes99 and admin User:Tariqabjotu it was my sockpuppet :D [16]. Iaaasi told that it was he, but there is still my name. I lost illusions about objectivity and neutrality of Wikipedia :) -- Samofi ( talk) 08:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Samofi, do you have wiki link who wanted to delete this article? -- Omen1229 ( talk) 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I have this one: [17]. Article nominated for deletion user Dpmuk and main supporters of deletion were Guy and Hobartimus. I am sure that the second one user you know :) User with strong anti-Slovak sentiment, at Wikimedia blocked for the Intimidating behaviour/harassment [18]. He openly propagate Hungarian fascism, nazism and revisionism there [19].-- Samofi ( talk) 11:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

No surprise for me that Hobartimus who supports fascism, nazism, revisionism, Arrow Cross Party etc. is still not blocked at Wikipedia. -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I lost illusions about objectivity and neutrality of Wikipedia, when User:CoolKoon created essay: Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia, where is also active User:Fakirbakir. By the way User:Nmate who wanted to delete [20] Slovak and Hungarian wikipedians cooperation board, who has an AE block for a wikistalking in connection with me reported EdJohnston recently. Nmate wrote: "This does not make much sense, but because I did not appeal it, reporting Omen1229 to WP AE would not be a good idea on my part." [21] -- Omen1229 ( talk) 10:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Omen1229, I was asked by Nmate to interpret the scope of your existing topic ban (issued by Future Perfect in November 2011) and I did so. The six-month ban expires on 22 May, 2012. Future Perfect issued the ban per a complaint that you made at ANI. It seems to me that you have not yet appealed that ban, and you can do so if you wish. See the instructions for Appeals in the colored box at the top of the WP:AE board. FP also stated (in his ban message above) that he would 'look at your opponents a bit later, when I find the time.' You could ask him to go ahead with his promised review of your opponents if you want. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

It looks like Nmate's game again. And your statement [22] is valid or not? I will also ask FP what is with review of my "opponents". -- Omen1229 ( talk) 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, you should still avoid editing Slovaks or its talk page. In case Future Perfect's opinion differs from mine, you should follow whatever he says, since he is the admin who issued the topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 05:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I really do not understand your WP:DIGWUREN policy. In my case, you (admins) were quick and User:Fakirbakir, who called the modern Slovakia as a neo-fascist state, is still clear and she/he is allowed to edit Slovak related articles. I will ask Fut.Perf. what is new of my "opponents" and maybe I'll get ban for a period of two years. [23]> [24] -- Omen1229 ( talk) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Its very interesting that Fut.Perf. banned Samofi and Omen1229 after few minutes of investigation but in last 6 months he had not find a time to look on opponents as he promised. -- Samofi ( talk) 11:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Right. So the appearance of information you personally deem unacceptable/undesirable means an anti-Slovak bias for you? Do you seriously think that praising your heavily loaded agenda is "NPOV" and providing counterarguments to them is bias? Because if you think so, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Wikipedia is not the right place for you. I suggest reading sites such as beo.sk, voltaire.netkosice.sk, sns.sk and extraplus.sk. These sites present information exactly the way you presumably find them acceptable and desirable. Unfortunately (for you that is) Wikipedia isn't a place where people's goal is to spread misinformation (at best) in order to further some sort of obscure agenda. So perhaps you might want to stop arguing about well-referenced facts presented by reliable sources and concentrate on obtaining sources which present Hungarian-Slovak history in a factual way (i.e. NOT sources which try to spread misinformation disguised as facts).

BTW it wasn't my idea to split the topic contained in Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia article at all. First it was proposed by Iaaasi in a somewhat overbearing manner (he kept deleting it from the Hungary-Slovakia relations article and later on argued that it doesn't belong there) who's been later joined by Wladthemlat in this. Since I was kinda pushed into creating the article by these two, feel free to turn to them. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 21:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply

So once again CoolKoon, I heard it already. [25] Please stop with your advice, because I know your POV. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Are you the manager of Nmate [47] and Norden1990 [48]? -- Omen1229 ( talk) 12:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Omen1229 you REALLY never cease to amaze me. You know it always amuses me when someone (preferably a heavily biased Slovak editor) hand picks some of my (long-forgotten) edits and tries to draw conclusions from them. And the most interesting part is when those conclusions border on psychotic paranoia that calls for the best shrink and insane dosage of anti-psychotic medicine. So tell me Omen1229, who else do you think I control? Perhaps even Fakirbakir? And Hobartimus? And Baxter9? And Csendesmark? And even EdJohnston with Future Perfect at Sunrise? Also, are you aware that in the diff you cite for my support for Nmate and Norden1990 I actually REVERTED them?

Also, another note for one of your arguments in the ANI report that earned you the topic ban: I used reference by Dr. Anatol Murad (US professor), but CoolKoon wrote about his work: reeks of bad science 4 This is personal attack on Dr. Anatol Murad. - well guess what, science IS about challenging the findings of others and risk having your work challenged as well. Probably Dr. Anatol Murad knows this just as well as any other scientist around the world. And they've learned to live with it, because the ones who didn't ended up making up conspiracy theories and mythical stories that are so far-fetched that nobody dares to take them seriously anymore. And the good scientists also know that they have to stick to facts and logical arguments and focus on the topic of discussion instead of the background of the person making the arguments. And what did you do? You went on and attacked me instead of presenting any arguments that would make sense and/or disprove my claims: Who are CoolKoon? What is his education? Any expert in this theme? Or original researcher.

Also, could you explain me (by factual means) what's wrong with these edits of mine from the list above? [49], [50], [51] and [52] -- CoolKoon ( talk) 18:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Its only your demagogy and frustration. :) This answer looks like the soap opera or your POV essay bordering with personal attack. Your arguments are supported with NO links. "I suggest reading sites such as beo.sk, voltaire.netkosice.sk, sns.sk and extraplus.sk...", why do you connect such pages with me or Omen? "Do you seriously think that praising your heavily loaded agenda is "NPOV" and providing counterarguments to them is bias?" - its for specialist :) Who thinks so? :) Why did not you protest against these fringe theories: Principality of Hungary, [53], [54] and so on? "Unfortunately (for you that is) Wikipedia isn't a place where people's goal is to spread misinformation (at best) in order to further some sort of obscure agenda" Its seems to be a paranoid. Who thinks that? Whom do you blame? :) Which misinformation do you mean? Which obscure agenda do you mean? :) Only empty phrases.. You should start to write about your mind process and not about mind processes of other people. Mental hygiene is very important (for you that is). -- Samofi ( talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC) reply

You're joking, right? First of all: it's bordering ON this or that (doslova "na hranici niecoho" a nie "hranici s niecim", to zrejme ta hnusna madarska skola, co?). Second: do you seriously think that after all the arguments above (e.g. in my former discussion with Omen1229 which was supposed to be ceased due to his topic ban) I still need a link to support my arguments? I mean you've already shot yourself in the foot numerous times by your previous comments and your editing style. But be it: which arguments of mine do you want me to support with links?

"I suggest reading sites such as beo.sk, voltaire.netkosice.sk, sns.sk and extraplus.sk...", why do you connect such pages with me or Omen? and Its seems to be a paranoid. Who thinks that? Whom do you blame? :) Which misinformation do you mean? Which obscure agenda do you mean? :) Only empty phrases.. Let's see:

-"Any kind of edit that looks to be boosting a patriotic nationalist theory is going to bring you trouble under DIGWUREN, so please avoid it. Quoting from the Slovak constitution does not strengthen your case"

-"I have a seriouse doubts about objectivity of user EdJohnston. User Omen1229 used the exact citations - and he have to left the article. On the other hand User:Fakirbakir used negative statement which has nothing to do with article and adapted it to article" (for the record: Fakirbakir is NOT topic banned unlike Omen1229)

-"User with strong anti-Slovak sentiment, at Wikimedia blocked for the Intimidating behaviour/harassment [15]. He openly propagate Hungarian fascism, nazism and revisionism there " (the account has NEVER been controlled by Hobartimus which he confirmed in numerous statements and yet you automatically assume that Hobartimus from Commons=Hobartimus from Wikipedia)

-'User:Fakirbakir with "good behavior"[3] who cooperates with fascist term "Turanid race"'

-and of course my personal favorite 'I lost illusions about objectivity and neutrality of Wikipedia, when User:CoolKoon created essay: Ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia, where is also active User:Fakirbakir.' (essay? The article's also edited by Fakirbakir hence it's suspicious?)

And I've collected these from this single thread alone. Would you like me to collect some additional gems which suggest that you might be fond of the sites above?

Why did not you protest against these fringe theories: Principality of Hungary, [55], [56] and so on? First and foremost because I haven't been active on WP for a while. And second because I'm not too good at sports, especially sports history in particular. But why would Zigmund Pálffy's Hungarian origin be a fringe theory? You claim to understand at least some Hungarian, yet you seem to ignore the fact that the whole name itself hints quite a LOT of Hungarian ancestry. First of all the Pálffys were one of the most prominent Hungarian noble families, a catholic family which was loyal to the Habsburgs right until the end. Second you know just as well as I do that "Žigmund" is NOT a common Slovak (or Slavic) name (in fact he's the only Slovak I ever heard of who bears such name), whereas in Hungary Zsigmond is a bit more popular (in fact at least 2 persons with such name come into my mind: Zsigmond Móricz, an early 20th century Hungarian writer and Zsigmond Járai, a former MNB president and minister of finance). So even if he doesn't speak some Hungarian at all (which hasn't been disproved yet) his parents/grandparents surely do/did.

You should start to write about your mind process and not about mind processes of other people. Mental hygiene is very important (for you that is). I don't quite understand these two sentences (perhaps you might convey them in Slovak), but it seems to be that after you ran out of logical arguments, you've just resorted to ad hominem attacks. The tricky part is however that it doesn't strengthen your arguments at all (instead it weakens them). -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

In fact Zigmund is a Slavic name too (see Polish Zigmund Adamski). It comes from German Sigismund. Dobitocilor ( talk) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Second you know just as well as I do that "Žigmund" is NOT a common Slovak (or Slavic) name (in fact he's the only Slovak I ever heard of who bears such name) > In fact Žigmund is a common Slovak name [57]. Yes, we know it -- Omen1229 ( talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Ok, but could you name another Slovak famous person with the name "Žigmund"? Also, could you provide another proof besides a link to a calendar with horoscope? (for the record: the very same calendar contains the name Arpád on February 13, which is NOT a Slovak name) -- CoolKoon ( talk) 13:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

See phone book for person with the name Žigmund, but I don´t understand what is connection between the name and nationality. Or use google, if you are bored [58] -- Omen1229 ( talk) 14:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

I don´t understand what is connection between the name and nationality. - perhaps the fact that the spelling of a name hints of the person's acenstry (the least). And since Pálffy IS a Hungarian family name (it literally means "son of Pál" spelled in a fancy way Hungarian nobility spelled their name) and Žigmund/Zsigmond IS a common Hungarian name, it leads one to think that he MIGHT have at least SOME Hungarian ancestry. Or do you happen to have a proof of the contrary? -- CoolKoon ( talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

All problematic users were reported about year ago [59] but nothing was happened. In that time I mistakenly broken 3RR in article about Principality of Hungary (I did not check the time of edit warring but I accepted my fault and one week long ban) and I was placed on notice to [60] by EdJohnston. After this I always used the exact citations, but I was topic banned by Fut.Perf. after FEW days because of my activity at talk page of Hungarian people [61] and I had a no chance for explanation. And shortly after that was banned Omen1229. Time shows they are exist next editors whose have opinion similar to me and users Fakirbakir with Koertefa were in opposition [62] (users from former Yugoslavia and USA). It really looks that only Czecho-Slovak editors are accused from nationalism or banned from Slovak related articles: Omen1229, Yoppie, Wladthemlat, Samofi... Nations from former Hungarian kingdom and Hungarians has a different look on history, but to blame only one side from nationalism? What nationalistic I have said (I mean something worse than my unbanned opponents)? It were just a differences of opinions. So fast topic ban after warning is an arbitrariness of Fut.Perf.. User who told that I am nationalist and Slovakia is neo-fascist state is all year smiling, he was not punished in that time and opponents are destroyed. Perverted justice... -- Samofi ( talk) 11:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Este raz pre Omen1229 and Samofi: kludne sa pridte porozpravat na moju diskusnu stranku aj po slovensky, ked vas nieco trapi. Kludne vam aj odpisem. Jedinou mojou podmienkou je rozumne argumenty a pokojny ton. (feel free to come even for some Slovak discussion to my talk page if something troubles you. I'll even reply you. My only condition is the use of logical arguments and maintaining a calm tone) -- CoolKoon ( talk) 22:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you please set a wiki email here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences? I want to sent you an e-mail. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavbrat ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

OK-- Omen1229 ( talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images stolen from either web sites or printed material as you did here: [63] . This article appears to contain material copied from the Jerusalem post web site [64], and therefore constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. We must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.-- Nmate ( talk) 08:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I noticed that you added sources to the claim saying that Szegedi has strong anti-EU, anti-Roma, anti-Romanian, anti-Semitic and anti-Slovak sentiments.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13] However, in this case Slovak sources are not suitable here ; especially, about anti-Slovak sentiment. Instead, I suggest you try to replace them with English sources ,or they will be deleted otherwise. Also, I was astonished to see that you used the barikad.hu as a source. First of all, it is because of the fact that it is written in Hungarian, and I know of you wery well that you do not speak Hungarian at all. Second, it is also not a realible source not least due to the fact that this newspaper is closely related to The Movement for a Better Hungary and additionally, the articles published in barikad.hu of which you inserted the information in the article do not particularly say anything of what sentiments Csanád Szegedi may have.-- Nmate ( talk) 16:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Bíró András nem tudós, még egy alapbelépőnek számító PHD doktorija sincsen neki. Se levelező se rendes tagjai között nincs az akadémiának. Nem tagja tehát tudós társaságnak. Az R1A Y haplocsoportot meg magyar génnek hazudja (r1a leggyakoribb az oroszokban lengyelekben beloruszokban stb..., de a leggyakoribb haplocsoport egész K-Európában. Ezzel a magyar gén (R1a) hazugsággal igyekszik hamis áltudományos cikkeket megjelentetni. Kurultáj pedig jó bevétel mivel valójában profit orientált vállalkozás, a made-in-china bóvliárusoktól jó helypénzt szed be. Bíró Andrásnak van egy alapdiplomája. Egy alapdiploma letétele után nem leszel tudós (a mai fiatalok 1/4 része diplomás azaz a te gondolkodásmódod szerint "tudós") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.78.45 ( talk) 09:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you just sent me that. Please use the relevant article talk pages instead. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Translation is here: "When I wrote the ominous sentences, I already knew, nothing good could come from that, but I just couldn't stop, knowing Omen's edits in here, the Wikipedia. I have already conflicts with him over the last year or two. From now I trying to retire and not get involved in unnecessary conflicts. Anyway writing articles about Hungarian politicians from the 20th and 21th century is a busy for me for a while." You're welcome. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

When do you warn yourself? -- Norden1990 ( talk) 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I can only repeat myself. I don't understand your problem with me. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 22:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Ahoj. Madarsky uzivatel Koerfa sustavne vandalizuje stranku Kosice a pridava do infoboxu nazvy v madarskom a nemecku jazyku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.196.157 ( talk) 10:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Cau, vytvor si ucet a napis mni sprvavu > na mojom profile pravohore - taka obalocka :-D -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you were engaged in several edit wars. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

When an addition of content is contested, don't insist on inserting it.in lack of consensus, as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pavel_Jozef_%C5%A0af%C3%A1rik&action=history -- Norden1990 ( talk) 14:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Don't bring up old issues when they were already have been discussed (and you're wrong). This is not a Slovak Wikipedia where Hungary before 1918 was called as "Uhorsko" (who are the Uhors?). Slovakia never existed before 1918 (1993), so who was born in the territory of today's Slovakia, will not be automatically Slovaks. Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit. Since you're here, you are only destructive and always push your Slovak POV. You delete inportant information, provide false details, you are uncompromising and frustrated. Please calm down. I know your next step will be the report in the administrator's noticeboard. I don't care. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 11:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Please, don't start an editing war over Kálmán Mikszáth and other articles pushing your Hungarophobic bias. If you are not happy with some expressions, please use the discussion page, if you are not happy with facts, well, then I can't help you.-- Csesznekgirl ( talk) 09:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Csesznekgirl please do not harass me with your false personal attacks and write me what means for you "pushing Hungarophobic bias". Indeed this is only questionable harassment in cooperation with User:Norden1990[ [65]] (*Note: Csesznekgirl did not use Talk page in the articles...)

Please also write me User:Csesznekgirl according to which WP rules you made this threat on my Talk page. Thanks! -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Omen1229, just a quick note: the Kingdom of Hungary was not part of the Austrian Empire when Ľudovít Štúr, Kálmán Mikszáth, etc., were born. See for example [66] or [67] or [68]. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

PS: Of course, the King of Hungary was Habsburg in that time, but that does not automatically imply that the kingdom was part of the Austrian Empire, which was (in some sense) a successor of the Holy Roman Empire (after Napoleon forced the latter to dissolve). Note that the Kingdom of Hungary was not part of the Holy Roman Empire either, even if, e.g., Habsburg Ferdinand was both Holy Roman Emperor and King of Hungary. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Koertefa, you are mixing up things. Act X could not have referred to the Austrian Empire, because the Austrian Empire did not exist in 1790; it was founded as a state in 1804. Newnou ( talk) 06:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Austria's predecessor state was the Holy Roman Emmpire which abolished in 1806. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 11:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply

At first, you forgot to change your account or what? I do not know who's who. I have no idea why you just wrote here some your original resarch. You should read the whole section and do not take things out of context to suit your own needs. When you talk about 18th century. Who was emperor and who was king of regnum Hungariae? From the perspective of the Court, since 1723 regnum Hungariae had been hereditary province of the dynasty´s main three... Austrian Empire: in 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblände of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Kingdom of Hungary. Thus Kingdom of Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria. Or Hungarian Revolution of 1848 > The revolution in the Kingdom of Hungary grew into a war for independence from the Austrian Empire, ruled by the Habsburg monarchy...-- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Omen1229, could you bring some sources for your claims? And which part of "Francis I, [...], had still sufficient respect for his oath, publicly to avow that Hungary formed no portion of the Austrian empire" [69] looks original research to you? As for the "Hungarian Revolution of 1848" article: its lead is misleading, and should be refined. The Kingdom of Hungary was connected to the Austrian Empire through the monarch (Ferdinand) and the war was about getting independent from the Habsburgs. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply

PS: Newnou - Act X of 1790 was indeed made before the Austrian Empire was announced, however, it was still in force (as the quotation above shows) even after Habsburgs promoted themselves to the title: "Emperor of Austria". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply

PS2: Another source, from the Oxford University Press, which states this clearly: "The emperor of Austria was also, in personal union, king of Hungary. Napoleon forced Emperor Francis Joseph II to resign the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, which was dissolved; henceforth the Habsburgs were reduced to being emperors of Austria and kings of Hungary." [70]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC) reply

could you bring some sources for your claims? > I used "your" sources, but unfortunately you do not know them, right? And about Holy Roman Emmpire - Austrian Empire please read this source. [71] -- Omen1229 ( talk) 11:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Your recent editing history shows that you were engaged in several edit wars. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=%C4%BDudov%C3%ADt_%C5%A0t%C3%BAr&diff=prev&oldid=553028792 -- Norden1990 ( talk) 12:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=%C4%BDudov%C3%ADt_%C5%A0t%C3%BAr&diff=next&oldid=553080897 -- Norden1990 ( talk) 12:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Dear User:Norden1990, unfortunately you are again [72] [73] [74] violated the three-revert rule [75] [76] [77].-- Omen1229 ( talk) 12:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think so, these are only restores from your provocative, frustrated, unilateral, unsourced and chauvinist edits, where you call into question basic historical facts (like Modor was part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1920). Would you please finally leave me alone? I abide by the rules of Wikipedia, you don't, you twist and abuse with them to use them for your chauvinist Slovak POV edits. -- Norden1990 ( talk) 13:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Omen good job. Hortobagy ( talk) 15:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Omen1229, I'm contacting you because we need some Slovakian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on sk.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Slovakian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) ( talk) 16:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Banská Bystrica article for which you are one of the top ten contributors. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding several MoS issues, see Talk:Banská Bystrica/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply