User talk:Juro

User talk:Juro/Archive 1

Košice and Kosice

I have recently redirected the Kosice article to Košice because (1) there is no other article that could be a source of confusion and (2) the city of Košice is significantly more important than the village of Kosice (Hradec Králové District), which might have a separate article in the future as you pointed out. However, you have just reverted my edit. Hoping that we reach a consensus, I would suggest that we redirect Kosice to Košice and add a disambiguation tag to the main article about Košice, leading to Kosice (disambiguation). In other words, we would use the procedure that is usually applied whenever one meaning of the word attracts much more interest than other meanings of the word. Please, see Pushkin as an example. Would you agree with this proposal? Tankred 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, if both towns were named Kosice (without š), but they are not, so that in this case, actually, Kosice should contain the text on the village and only - if any - a tag redirecting to Košice (with š) (do not forget that there is no reason to look for Kosice - the village - below the title Košice). Therefore the disambiguation is the best solution - somewhere in the middle between only Kosice with a Košice-tag on the one hand and Košice with a Kosice-tag on the other hand.

Well, non-Slovak users usually do not type š because they do not use the Slovak diacritics. For them, Kosice and Košice is the same word. Moreover, an existing article about a major city is in my opinion more relevant than a non-existing article about a small village. I would understand why you oppose my proposal if the Kosice disambiguation article leads to a dozen of relevant normal articles. But now, it simply directs the user to Košice and to one red link. So, why not to change it into an ordinary redirect? I would like just to simplify life of non-Slovak users searching information about Košice, that is all. I would be grateful if you think about my arguments again. Tankred 18:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Because the redirect is wrong, because Kosice is not the correct name of Košice, it is only the form used due to technical restrictions. I.o.w. strictly spoken, any redirect from Kosice to Košice is wrong. The name of the village on the other hand is really Kosice. Secondly, a good encyclopaedia must be exact, and thirdly the current solution still redirects you to Košice, so I do not see the problem - are you afraid that a user will not understand the "long" disambiguation page or have no time to click once more?

I currently lack a "š" on my keyboard and encountered the disambiguation page somewhat to my surprise. The village of Kosice would certainly, under normal circumstances, occupy the Kosice article title, but these circumstances are not normal: Košice is clearly far more important, and most users would only be able to access it by typing in "Kosice". That would suggest that a WP:HATNOTE on Košice, and leaving Kosice as a redirect would be a good idea. But on further consideration, I think that a disambiguation page has a very strong advantage. Any article that links to Kosice is ambiguous - one does not know whether the article means the Czech village or Košice itself. There are various projects and techniques to attack the problem of inappropriate links to disambiguation pages, so those bad links would end up being fixed (in time). So the disambiguation actually serves a good purpose. It is not the same as the situation is for, say, Nashville (which redirects to Nashville, Tennessee, with a WP:HATNOTE there linking to Nashville (disambiguation) from which other Nashvilles, such as Nashville, Georgia may be reached) because while they all share the same spelling, a wikilink ([[Nashville]]) or user search for "Nashville" will invariably be for the Tennessee city (otherwise they would be disambiguated). It seems clear to me that while a reader might type "Kosice" into a search box with the aim of finding Košice, a wikilink [[Kosice]] should, prima facie, point to the Czech not Slovak settlement (after all, "Kosice" seems to be the only place called "Kosice"). This discrepancy makes a disambiguation page worthwhile, since it means ingoing links will be checked and corrected.TheGrappler 19:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hung. kingdom

Hi Juro! I have just finished my response to your last edit and than I read your edit summary. You are right. The term "Hungarian Kingdom" is more appropriate for the interwar period than the "Kingdom of Hungary". It would be great to write an article about this period. Although it is a very disputed era. My point is to indicate some sort of distance between pre-WW2 and modern Hungary. It is vitaly important. Why? Because the idea of political continuity to the "Hungarian Kingdom"(1920-1944) is very harmful to the modern Hungarian society. --kuko 10:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the aim HERE is not to make policy with names, but only to use usual/correct names. Using "Hungarian kingdom" for the interwar period is just misleading and unnecessary for 99 % of non-Magyar readers (because they could think that Greater Hungary is meant given that we have used "Kingdom of Hungary" previously in the article) and using just "Hungary" is definitely also correct and not-misleading. And above all, the term "Hungary" is linked to the Hungary article, where these details are or should be explained for those who are intersted. Juro 13:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point about the ambiguity. In this context your argument is acceptable.--kuko 11:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Magyarisation

I've added some material on Magyarisation process in Slovakia, maybe you're intersted since I see you come from Slovakia. Best regards, --Latinitas 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I know these things and that texts is actually a very polite version of what really happened in this region around 1900. But, as long as vandals like Arpad alias all the other names he uses (who has "expelled" several Romanians from this wikipedia, and who as you can see even calls the work of the best contemporary western expert on Austria-Hungary and its ethnic issues -cited by all relevant sources until today - a "pamphlet" only because he does not like the content) are active here, any further discussions are superfluous. Juro 02:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can that Arpad vandal be blocked? Anyway I will try my best to keep an eye on the article. --Latinitas 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi, probably you noticed that in Romanian and Hungarian city articles a lot of inboxes were changed to bilingual, for example Oradea and Békéscsaba. The reason for this that minority names are official in settlement level in these countries. In Romania the translation of official documents and bilingual place name tables are provided by the law when a minority gives 20 % of the population of the town. In Hungary there is no percentage limit, but an official Settlement Codex was published in 2003 with the list of bilingual place name tables. In Vojvodina, municipalities with Hungarian majority also have bilingual infoboxes, for example Subotica.

I would like to ask you about the situation in Slovakia. What is criterion for bilingual place name tables? Can we use the recognized names in the infoboxes? Zello 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, 20%. But personally, I would not use the alternative names in the infoboxes (unlike in the intro) not even in Romania or Hungary, because they simply are no official names of the settlements and I think the infoboxes should contain official names only. They are "only" names allowed to be used in communication with the offices (which is not the same as an official language as some expert has informed me here some months ago) and allowed to be mentioned on the tables. The only CEE country where the minority languages are really official is Serbia. Juro 02:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the first line usage of the names and the infoboxes. In the first line all alternatives names are mentioned regardless of their status. You are right that infoboxes only contain official data - that's why we indicated only those names that gained official recognition on settlement level. A bilingual place name table means official recognition because it is set up and maintained by the government. In Romania and Hungary bilingual place name tables are frequent and their usage is regulated by the minority rights law. Although I have been several times in Slovakia I don't remember whether there are such tables there. Do exist bilingual place names tables in Slovakia? Did the Slovakian Parliament approved a minority rights law that regulates this question? Zello 02:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer to the last questions is yes and yes (of course; and if you visit the region once more, you will see that not only the tables, but every inscription is bilingual or even only in Hungarian). But the fact that people are allowed to use the name on tables or even in documents by law does not make the name automatically a second official name in the region - that' a purely legal issue, I have been told this. There is a difference between being favoured/allowed etc. and having the status of "official name". In practical terms, if you mention the name in the infobox, foreigners could think (I would definitely think) that it is the same case like in Canada or Belgium, but it is not. Two names in the infobox are therefore misleading. Juro 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this situation is similar to Romania or Hungary. Obviously the recognized alternative names and the official names don't have an equal status. But the alternative name gained some degree of "officialty" by the governmental recognition. Békéšska Čaba is more similar to an official name than - for example - Päťkostolie but didn't became an equal alternative for Békéscsaba. You are right that these names are "weaker" than German names in Südtirol but "stronger" than not recognized minority names. Because of their transitional status or quasi-officiality I know that there good arguments against/for their usage. In Hungary I decided to change the infoboxes and no Hungarian user opposed this movement (I announced it on the noticeboard), so I think it is OK. In Romania Ronline and Dahn did the same, an edit war broke out but the majority of Romanian users accepted the new infoboxes. Obviously I would like to change the infoboxes of Southern Slovakia (according to the 20 % limit you wrote) but not at the expense of a major edit war. Zello 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think bilingual infoboxes misleading, see for example the official homepage of Solymár/Schaumar and Lórév/Lovra: lorev.hu and solymar.hu. Both use the bilingual form on the opening page. Zello 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) I meant misleading at the en-wikipedia level, not at the internet level or elsewhere. (2) The solution would be simple if you had not changed these things for Hungary and Romania without explicitely previously organizing a voting or something like that (to say that nobody oppposed this is not enough, because for example I did not know about this). The solution would be: let's see whether there is a rule for such cases somewhere and/or how this is handled in the infoboxes of other similar (not only one) regions of the world: if it is handled like you propose it here I have no objections, if not I am definitely against creating the wrong impression that former KoH countries are somehow special, because if I - or anybody - see(s) a name in two languages in an infobox, this fact alone implies that those two languages are official languages in that region and that is certainly misleading. And let me just point out that otherwise I am not against mentioning the name in any language at the beginning or elsewhere in the article. Juro 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a generally accepted rule but the former KoH countries are certainly not exceptional. I found some examples: Koper, Alghero, Leeuwarden, Tetovo. Obviously it is possible to find other examples where the recognized alternative name is missing from the infobox.

I think in this case the probable pattern is always the same - there is a chance that users belonging to the ethnic majority (be it Hungarian, Romanian etc) will oppose the change. In the case of Hungary obviously I expected protest only from Hungarian users so I thought it enough to announce the change on the noticeboard. Things are more difficult with Slovakia because there isn't a national noticeboard yet. Zello 09:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

For the future: You have done the following: You have bypassed the need to acquire the consent of Slovak users here, by simply doing something for another country (without asking anybody) and then just claiming "now we have a precedense, so we will do that for the other countries too". Obviously, this is not how things should be done here, because then I could change anything in Slovakia articles without asking anybody (and obviously nobody would notice that, since we are not 1000 local users here) and argue "now I have already changed that, so we have to adapt all the other articles". I hope you understand the problem... As for the matter at hand, go ahead and add the Hungarian names then. Juro 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As for historical accuracy: Ronline started the whole campaign in the Romanian articles. Later there was a debate whether Hungarian users should intervene at all. After other Hungarian users made reverts in the Romanian articles I thought it more fair to create bilingual infoboxes in the Hungarian articles also. Of course I agreed with Ronline's arguments and look up the Hungarian minority law (1993) whether it allows bilingual names or not. It turned out that there is an established group of names that are officially recognized. Of course I think - aside from the legal arguments - that it is a positive step and causes no harm for anybody. What's more it adds a plus information for the articles - from the first line we know how much alternative and historical name exists, from the bilingual infoboxes we know that one of them is still living and used semi-officially. Zello 15:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. If I can join your discussion, I think that infoboxes should be as short as possible. I must oppose inclusion of any alternative names there. Names in the minority languages are already included in a special "Names" section (such as the one I created in Banská Bystrica) or in the lead. I believe that two names in an infobox may confuse a reader. In addition, the names in a minority language do not have the same status as the official name in Slovakia. This small yet significant legal difference can be nicely illustrated by the graphic difference between the "Štúrovo" and "Párkány" tables at the borders of the municipality. Tankred 17:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But there are "Párkány" tables - and that's an important difference compared to other alternative names mentioned in the lead. The status of the name "Párkány" is different from "Besztercebánya" or "Komorn". The bilingual infoboxes in cases when Hungarians (or Rusyns) give up more than 20 % of the population illustrate the different status of that names. Zello 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics and page moves

Hi! Recently several editors, including yourself, have reverted edits by User:Gene Nygaard which moved pages to diacriticless titles, or expressed concern at the moves on his talk page. Despite this, Gene has carried on making many moves of this type, some of which will require admin work to revert - this behaviour is becoming disruptive, and is reducing consistency in article naming schemes. Further comments, suggestions and opinions would be welcome either at User talk:Gene Nygaard or at the section started by Renata3 at WP:AN/I. I believe this may require a report at RfM - please let me know if you think this would be a suitable action or otherwise. Aquilina 17:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

František Alexander Zvrškovec

Could you please take look as an expert? The page is on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 03:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Arpad vandal

Vandal Arpad is again on Magyarisation article. I've reverted his edits. Can you also watch that article? --Latinitas 10:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching that article since its creation, but I really do not have the mood for any form of contact whatsoever with an obvious idiot. You must understand that I have to deal with him here for months. And since the English wikipedia does not function properly anymore at the admin level since about 2 years or so, I see no solution. Juro 12:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Too bad. Anyway stay close Juro. --Latinitas 12:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One additional thing for your Magyarisation quotes: I propose you reduce the quotes to those related to Magyarisation and to those said by prominent persons and rename it to show that these are quotes of contemporary Hungarians, not "examples". Otherwise we cannot keep that, although the oroiginal article id definitely a Hungarian propaganda article, equivalent to Holocaust-denial (I do not mean that in terms of seriousness, but in terms of style). Ah yes, and Alphysicist is quite sure the 100th sockpuppet of the same person. Juro 13:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Thank you for your valuable sugesstion. --Latinitas 13:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the original name of the vandal? HunTom or what? I need for posting in correct form at CheckUser. --Latinitas 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:HunTomy, but note that I am not 100% sure and Arpad has had many names in the meantime (even two in the same discussion - he pretended to be two persons). Juro 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. It's enough for the moment.--Latinitas 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Slovakization

I've put the article for deletion here. Please provide your input on this page. :) Borisblue 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Slovakization. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. I have chosen not to block you this time, as you were not warned during the reversions. Next revert, you will be blocked. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not made reverts, I have changed the text. Be careful. Juro 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fascist views", "ethnic propaganda"

[1]

It's very bad style to label other editors' comments as "fascist views" or "ethnic propaganda". It's also bad form to remove comments from the talk page.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

-- nyenyec ☎ 17:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You do not know the history behind. Arpad IS a fascist user permanently creating sockpuppets and permanently placing explicit ethnic insults, he called me "primitive shephard" without special motivation. He also places fascist texts and ethnic propaganda on the talk pages without any relation to the topic of the article or to the topic being discussed. Unless someone blocks his account I will continue to remove any such spam. Juro 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. And see also Talk:Treaty of Trianon

Regarding this: comment and others:

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. --InShaneee 02:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What "personal attacks"??Juro 10:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits such as this:

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --InShaneee 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no personal attack in the above quote. Juro 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean besides calling them liars, hypocrites, and nationalists? --InShaneee 17:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that someone lies and then explaining why, is a personal attack??? Hypocrite and nationalist is a personal attack?? Besides, Mr. Arpad called others nationalists several times, why do not you block him? Juro 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For your disruptive accusations and threats here immediatly following your last block, you have now been blocked again. --InShaneee 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro,

I guess you still haven't read my message for you: Talk:Ján Slota

My answer to your reaction is already there. Laddy

References

I hope you can list here some Slovak literature about the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization#References Currently, only Serbian sources are listed and this could lead that somebody think that article is entirely based on Serbian sources. PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently, I have to normalize the artificial "Slovakization" article. Later on I will improve the Magyarization article. Since Magyarisation is a central part of Slovak history, my actual problem will be, what to leave out :)) Juro 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you wait to start that CheckUser? and an RfC against those bastards?

Because the central vandal has a dynamic IP, I would have to list at least 10 users for a check (which is too much) and I have no proofs other than general observation and they require a "proof" on the CheckUser page. Juro 12:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro, I will be happy to support you if you initiate the CheckUser procedure. Perhaps we can prove that several IPs worked in collusion with HunTomy and Arpad. I think this is quite obvious in case of Arpad and the List of Slovaks, but it would be more difficult to provide evidence for the link between HunTomy and Arpad. Another (very weak) evidence is that none of them disagreed with your accusation of sockpuppetry. As for Arpad's socpuppets, the list should definitely include User:HunTomy, User:Enigma1, User:Árpád, 81.183.183.12, 81.182.208.176, 81.182.208.215, 81.182.167.190, 81.182.208.155, 81.182.208.161, 81.182.209.198, 81.182.209.170 and possibly also 84.2.101.211, 86.101.74.39. The collusion between those 81... IPs and Arpad can be documented by Talk:List of Slovaks#Thököly, Báthory, Selye. Perhaps you can find similar arguments for HunTomy and Enigma1. For example, cooperation of a sort between Arpad and Enigma occured on the Treaty of Trianon talk page[2]. Enigma1 and 81.182.209.170 colluded here[3] and here[4]. Well, good luck and if you need any support in proving this case of sockpuppetry (and related cases of vandalism and personal attacks), feel free to drop me a line. Tankred 14:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)