User talk:Kissl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For discussions before 2006, see here.

[edit] Collaboration

Azért írok neked, és még két-három magyar wikipédiásnak, mert szeretnék vmi szervezkedést elindítani a magyar történelemmel illetve a határon túli magyarsággal kapcsolatos oldalak ügyében. Úgy látszik, apró eredmények eléréséért is nagy harcokat kell vívni a szomszédainkkal, akik rendszerint sokkal jobban szervezettek, felkészültebbek és öntudatosabbak nálunk, így a történelmünket érintő cikkek vagy gyatra minőségűek vagy elfogultak vagy egyszerűen elhallgatják a nekünk kedvező tényeket. Kicsit fáradt vagyok már az állandó magányos csatározástól (bár a legérzékenyebb témákat eddig elkerültem) és jól jönne néha a segítség. A wikipedia azon az elven működik, hogy a sok-sok szerző egymást állandóan javítva, korrigálva, egymással vitatkozva jobbítja a cikkeket. Úgy tűnik, mi túl kevesen vagyunk ahhoz, hogy ez természetes módon, tudatos szervezkedés nélkül működjön. Ha van vmi ötleted vagy csak néha benéznél egy-egy felforrósodó topikba, előre is köszi! Üdv. Zello 03:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Targu Mures

"I would like to ask neutral editors to visit [1] to see my proposed text, immediately reverted by User:Dpotop"

"+Dear Friend, please do not confuse me with KissL in your edits.--KIDB 10:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Articles For Deletion

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

• A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
• A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The medieval Székely society

Could you please have a look at the new paragraph I wrote in hu:Székelyföld. If there are no objections I will translate it into English, too. --KIDB 08:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

In case you are interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania --KIDB 13:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treaty of Trianon

Hello, sorry. Could you please wait with minor edits, until we finish this discussion with Juro? I don't agree however, that you've changed the Hungarian river names, as in 1919 they were still on Hung. territory. We try to reach a compromise using historical Hungarian names, look at the articel about Rákóczi and the Wikipedia:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board --kelenbp 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, the river names have already a redirect to the current ones, so I changed it back to the Hung. ones. I hope all the other changes of yours are now there:) --kelenbp 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you anyway, and sorry again!--kelenbp 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Július 5

Szia! Nem szeretnék kötözködni, de miért kellett kitörölni az új képeket? Szégyen ahogy kinézett és most megint kinéz a 'Hungary' lap. Beszéljük meg, hogy milyen változtatásokat kéne csinálni, de az tuti, hogy a mostani állapotában egyszerűen nem lehet hagyni. Üdv, Döme —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dome89 (talk • contribs) .

I haven't removed all the pictures. All were nice, but most of them didn't belong to the Hungary article, not even to the section they were added to. It's fine that you've tried to make the article better and I'm sure we'll find a place for each picture (maybe even more, for some of them). However, Wikipedia has a certain established style, so it's not a matter of personal preference what they should or should not look like. Take a tour and see the articles about other countries; and of course feel free to propose changes (even major ones) on the article talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus. KissL 14:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think some more nice pictures would't hurt the article. Anyway, I am surprised to see that there is no paragraph about Tourism. This paragraph could be illustrated by some nice photos (not only about Budapest, but Pécs, Debrecen, Eger, etc.) If there is too many of them, they could be included in a picture gallery at the end of the article. --KIDB 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK --KIDB 08:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 6

Alright. Although I have not got the faintest idea why you are replying in English to me, while I sent you my message in Hungarian I accept that you are not satisfied with my contribution as it does not comply with the standards of wikipedia.org. However, you may have noticed that my edit was not the only of its kind (see Romania, for instance). Therefore, I inquire if it is possible to restore my pictures, because the state of this page is simply ridiculous at the moment. Cheers, Dome89 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Naming conventions

hi, i inform u that in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) i removed the names of the hungarian kingdom administrative divisions that were provided as alternate names for contemporary romanian administrative divisions from the leading paragraph in their coresponding articles Criztu 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC) criztu

[edit] Havas elve

hi, i am interested in this Havas Elve for Wallachia(in Etymology of Transylvania). I read about a Havas Alfoldi, alfold meaning plain, but what does Havas means ? if u have any info on that, i am interested :). oh, Havas alfold = snowy plains aha Criztu 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goulash Communism

I've closed the AfD for this article. The result was to keep. -- Longhair 16:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone has sent for the cabal!

A Mediation Cabal case in which you are named as a participant has been opened. Please read and participate at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania. Your friendly cabalist, Stifle (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1956 Hungarian Revolution

Thanks for your clarification on the link added to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution article. I don't read Hungarian, so I was mistaken about the nature of the page. Regards, --Ryanjo 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petőfi

I wrote the article relying on my own knowledge of Petőfi, so it is not a translation, but of course I did not find out all that by myself. I am going to add some references soon. Thanks for reading it. Regards, --Nve 14:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] would like to see more input of English-users from various parts of the world

...in question of whether to move or not the article under move request at Talk:John II Casimir of Poland. Would you offer your opinion? Marrtel 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transylvania

Please take a look at what User:Criztu has begun doing in the article Transylvania. This man has called for mediation, has opened ten debates on the same topic in various places, has been proven wrong every single time, and now he just adds the same views without even caring. Please give your input on the article's talk page about whether this is or isn't trolling/vandalism. Dahn 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please help me by reverting vandalism now. Dahn 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I want to write article about Serbs in Hungary. Do you know some website where I can find data how many Serbs live in Hungary according to last census? PANONIAN (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the link and I will archive my talk page if I find time, I am too busy these days (I hope I will find time soon). :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oversimplification in terms of piros and vörös

I was sorry to see your edits related to the above terms because you omitted several important things from the article. Just some examples:

• Mentioning the color chart is important because that's the criterium that the referred source (Berlin, B and Kay, P (1969) Basic Color Terms) uses. If two color names cannot clearly refer to two different hues on a color scale, their dual nature is not accepted. There was a discussion about it because someone stated that Portuguese also uses two words for red, but they failed this criterion just because they cannot be distinguished on a color chart.
• "piros is used for vivid red and vörös for dark red" – this is true and it was a shame to change it to the present version. This is the essence of their primary difference.
• "Children are first taught this word for "red"." - it's also important because it shows that "piros" is found in a more elementary layer of language, it reveals a lot about the concept of "red" of native speakers of Hungarian.
• You changed: "the use of either of the two words may be equally adequate". False. When they are in contradiction, it's not true that they can be equally adequate, because collocations usually prevail even if another kind of logic could be applied (it can be seen at many natural objects that "piros" could be applied better but "vörös" is used, mostly because of their fixed collocations).
• You deleted "rose-cheeked looks" although "piros arc" clearly means health and cheer but "vörös arc" usually means alcohol or heart problems.
• I won't mention other examples in detail but I don't see why you mind them being there.
• You deleted: "Some things, including inks, lights, roses, ribbons, and tapes, can be described by either colour name." It's also important because most things (about 80-90%) can only be used with only one of the two color names and this is an exception which again reveals something important of Hungarians' cognitive schemes.

So I kindly ask you to revert your changes, except when it obviously means an improvement (like including links or fixing English) and not deterioration of the article. Thank you so much in advance.

Adam78 10:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovakization

I changed my vote in the AfD process because Juro won't allow to write this article but turns into an absurd praise of Slovak minority policies and the presentation of exaggerated grievances of Slovaks under Magyar rule. Better to delete the whole thing. Zello 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RCU

be my guest Anonimu 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Moves

Hi Kissl, my reason for moving Association of Hungarian Girl Guides back to the Hungarian form was Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.

As I wrote, the English translation has only very few web hits, even World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts - whose official languages are English, French and Spanish - uses the hungarian form [2]. --jergen 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: When moving article could you please fix the templates? Thanks --jergen 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horthy?

Well, my addition was based on what was said in Vrba-Wetzler report; if my addition to the Horthy article was based on a misinterpretation, then could you adjust the V-W article accordingly? (Similarly, I have no problem with you correcting the Horthy article.) DS 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, that looks just fine. Good working with you, Laszlo. DS 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Hungary

Hello! please do not delete contents without comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.20.99 (talk • contribs) .

What do you consider as POV??? The history???

[edit] Slovak, Croat and Serb names for KOH and Hungary

Do what ever you want to do with these names. If you do not want them there, delete them then. PANONIAN (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, do not worry about my day, I am fine, thank you for asking. :) If you expected that I will argue about these names, I will dissapoint you today (Although, I do not guarantee that for another day). My thought was that readers would like to know what are those different names, if you think that they would not, remove them from the article. It is simple as that. :) PANONIAN (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic names

Hi. I found that you changed Bratislava into Posonium at Árpád dynasty. Of course, you are right that the name Bratislava "is an anachronism wrt the 11th century". My idea was just to make information in the article more accessible to those readers who have no idea about historic names of Bratislava (since they are not as famous as Constantinople, for instance). Well, I am absolutely fine with the use of the contemporary official (i.e. Latin) names in that article, if you prefer them. On the other hand, they should be used in a consistent way. I mean, if we use Posonium for Bratislava, we should also use Strigonium for Esztergom, shouldn't we? King Ladislaus did not found "the bishoprics of Nagyvárad", but "the bishopric of Varadinum" and the name Nagyvárad is as anacronistic in the 11th century as Bratislava is. So, we have basically two alternatives: to use modern English names (i.e. the names, which are used in the titles of the articles about cities and towns) or to use historic official names. As I said, I am fine with either of these options, but the present version of the article is messy and confusing (a historic Latin name of a city in Slovakia, a modern Hungarian name of a city in Romania, a modern Hungarian name of a city in Hungary...) as far as the geographic names are concerned. Tankred 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Since this is the English Wikipedia, I would prefer to use those geographic names that are consistently used in reliable English resources (recently published English-language encyclopedias, scholarly articles and books written in English). In most but not all cases, it would be a modern local name (Esztergom, Oradea, Bratislava). I do not see it as a problem. Indeed, it is the least confusing way for an English-speaking reader without any deep knowledge of the region, who is not aware that Posonium, Pressburg, Poszony, and Bratislava (mentioned in different parts of an article) are in fact just different names of the same city. Moreover, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to identify a name relevant for each historic context. Towns in the Kingdom of Hungary used to have multi-lingual population. Therefore, several versions of the name were used in the same time. For example, the official medieval documents of the city of Zilina used Zilina's German and Slovak names in the same period (and it is important to note that their spelling varied a lot across the individual documents), but the royal documents usually used Zilina's Latin name and later they switched to its Hungarian and German name. On the other hand, we definitely should use a particular historic name if it is used in most reliable English sources to describe the place in question in a given historical context (e.g. the Byzantine capital was called Constantinople and not Istanbul). It would be also helpful if we can add a special names section (including and explaining all the historical names and all the name used by the ethnic groups living in that place) to every article about a geographic location or (at least) if we mention all the names in the lead. So, to illustrate by an example, an article about the Arpad dynasty would say that something happened in Bratislava, the reader would know where it happened (because Bratislava is now used more frequently than Posonium), but the article about Bratislava would mention all the names, under which the city was known in the Middle Ages, when the modern name had not been invented yet. To sum up my suggestion, which can be also seen as the direct application of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements), I would suggest to use a widely accepted English historic name whenever possible. If it does not exist, I would suggest to use an appropriate local historic name if it can by unambiguously identified (and the modern English name with a link to the article about the place, in parentheses after the historic name). If this cannot be done, we would need to use the modern English name. What do you think? But what is really crucial, if we are able to find consensus (I hope we are), we should use one or other form consistently in all articles and all sections of the articles. And I would be really happy if the flow of the text was not interrupted by the constructs like "he/she was born in Posonium/Poszony/Bratislava/Pressburg in..." wherever a geogpraphic name was mentioned. Tankred 22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Szia

I was wondering if you could help me with something. I've been in a discussion about the Hungarians of Turkey at Talk:Karapinar. Since you can read Hungarian, perhaps you could answer some of our questions there with this source. Thanks in advance. —Khoikhoi 17:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Khoikhoi 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for afjusting the Bacs template. It looks better. Please could you do the same to my other templates. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry about all of my contibutions!! I have recently started:

Template:Bekes Template:Csongrad Template:Hajdu-Bihar

Also on the top left side of the boxes it says Cities and Towns. rather than blank this out can you change it as a link to for example on the Bekes box :List of cities, towns in Békes County but obviously hide this and use the pop-up Cities and Towns. As yet that article hasn't been created but it is needed to list the cities and towns by population in each county . Thanks. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I see I have already done this but when you add the structuring plese don't alter the Cities and towns label. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)