User talk:Fakirbakir

User talk:Fakirbakir

Princes

Dear Fakirbakir. I am afraid you misinterpret some sources. For exemple here [1] indeed you can find that Szőllösy (Herczeg), but it does not mean that the family had princely rank, rather Herczeg was their alternative surname. Also there is no Worum Würtemberg family, Worum and Württemberg are 2 different families, and only the last one was princely, but they were listed alphabetically. I am going to fix these problems. Thanks. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• List of Historical Surnames of the Hungarian Nobility

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

That's great. Thank you. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added most of the families that appear in the Royal books. Please, feel free to add more from Tötösy's list, if I have forgotten them. BTW, stay out of edit wars, you might be blocked. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you wanted to write Andlow instead of András. Tötösy lists it as Andlow. The source used by Tötösy probably was Béla Kempelen, but Kempelen mispelled the surname, correcly it was Andlau. I have fixed it. Have a good night. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Hunyadi. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 13:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It was obvious vandalism. I added sources and somebody wanted to delete it immediately.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be neutral, I was, who added neutral sentences about ethnicity. (e.g.probably Romanian or Hungarian). Moreover, I contributed on the Hunyadi's talk page to discuss it.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your editing was more than scandalous. I had tried to fix page of History of Hungary up after User:217.23.241.3 and you reverted me with ridiculous justification.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

After that User:Attilios's editing proved that I was right.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

House of Koháry

Hello. You recently added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [2]).

I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. A lot of similar references have been removed as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Despite giving an appearance of reliability, the name "Webster's" has been public domain since the late 19th century. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to participate at this discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fakirbakir. You have new messages at Borsoka's talk page.
Message added 18:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Romania in the Middle Ages Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

{{adminhelp}} Could you please explain me why I got it? I did not harm the three-revert rule. I think Yopie is a nationalist user who can not bear dissimilar point of views. I had a deal with him before (half year ago). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC) If he was not right about this, please remove this edit war tag. Thank you.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Yopie is trying to be helpful. You have reverted twice on the same article in a short period of time, if you do it once more you will be in violation of the rule.--SPhilbrickT 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, an IP added a statement to the lead, presumably to improve the discussion. You reverted the addition, as it was not referenced. Yopie apparently agreed that a citation was warranted, so re-added the statement with the citation needed template. So far, everything is fine. The next step is for all interested editors to retire to the talk page and discuss the issue - does the sentence belong in the lead, if so, where is the reliable source supporting it.

However, rather than going to the talk page and discussing, you simply reverted again.

Yopie restored the sentence, with the need for a citation, again, time to go to the talk page, and rather than let you revert again, and possibly earn a block, Yopie let you know that you were close to three reverts.

I suggest going to the article talk page and discuss whether the sentence belongs, and if so, whether it can be properly sourced.--SPhilbrickT 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 13:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this and this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Navigation template

Hi Fakirbakir, since you're interested in history, maybe you would be a good person to ask this question. I would like to create a navigation template (like this Template:Turkic topics) for all the different ancient cultures that were assimilated into modern Eastern Europe and Asia. I'm not sure where to begin, but I think such a template would be very useful. Would you be interested in collaborating or advising on a project like this? For example, I'm not sure what time periods should be covered or what geographical areas to include. I think I can get technical assistance from a task force, and your knowledge of history would be very valuable. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. USchick (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hunyadi

Hi

Here are some sources for you that referenced by Britannica Online. The New Advent is already used in the Wiki Hunyadi article.

• New Advent Catholic encyclopaedia
• Hunyadi, Lajos Elekes (1952) - In Hungarian

I do not know if you have access to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, I have added a message about it to Talk:John Hunyadi

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

TURANID RACE

It was a scientific rasist fantasy ideology before the ww2. You can't cite modern real (academic) scientists anthropologists who support the existence of that fantasy. According to modern geneticist and anthropology: The turanid race have never existed. Genetic science: Ironically, the Slovaks Belorussians European Russians and Ukrainians have more Asian (aka: Mongoloid) haplogroups than present-day Hungarians. Please learn genetics (which is a real science) instead of reading pseudoscientific fantasy books of uneducated self-appointed Historians. Many of the uneducated authors of these fantasy books about the origin of Hungarians haven't any thesis/diploma/(Huns planet-sirius, "Jesus was a Hungarian" , hungarians related to sumerians etc...)--Wrongcopy (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That wiki page was not correct. Pal Liptak, Lajos Bartucz are renowed anthropologists, Hungarian academics use this term.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

and please stop personal attack.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

weak faulty reasoning...Lipták and Bartucz lived and worked before the discovery of DNA and Y and mt DNa haplogoups, therefore they are not relevant in modern sense yet. Czeizel deny the relations between easterners (asians) and modern Hungarians

Turanism, or Pan-Turanism, is a political movement for the union of all Turanian peoples. It implies not merely the unity of all Turkic peoples (as in Pan-Turkism), but also the unification of a wider Turanid race, also known as the controversial Uralo-Altaic race, believed to include all peoples speaking "Turanian languages". Turkish proponents of scientific racism purported that this racial group embraced"

Turanid is a now obsolete term, orinially intended to cover populations of Central Asia associated with the spread of the Turanian languages, that is the combination of the Uralic and Altaic families (hence also "Ural-Altaic race"), in human genetics,[1] physical anthropology and historically in scientific racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest this book, which was written by Czeizel: http://www.libri.hu/konyv/a-magyarsag-genetikaja.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You mix the science with the early political movements. Liptak's works are dominant in terms of early Hungarians or Avars. He was an academic, and anthropologist. Czeizel's work is just one point of view, however he established historical processions without any backround (historical).Fakirbakir (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Turanism is racism (see Jobbik party in Hungary and Turkish extremist groups) Turanism and the very early anthropology is not considered as real sciences in the terms of 21th century. Modern anthropology is based on genetics.

Phenotypes subraces are depend on genetic haplotypes. Turanism estabilish fantasy "kinship" between nations which are genetically NOT related to each other. That's why It's obsolete fantasy term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valosag (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you deny (decades) works of Hungarian academic anthropolgists? Because, according to you Turanid race is obsolete term, It does not exist, and there are racist researchers if somebody of them dare to use it? It is ridiculous. Please read something about Liptak!s work and you will see his astonishing good knowledge about migration period, Hungarians.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, it estabilished kinship betweeen nations which genetically/biologically are NOT related to each other. These anthropologists were born too early. The genetic researches were changed radically the anthropology similar to the carbon isotope dating changed the archeology.--Valosag (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovaks "Current ethnolinguistic Slovak nationalism traces the roots of the Slovak nation to the times of Greater Moravia, claiming the polity to have been the ‘first Slovak state’. However, there is no continuity in politics, culture, or written language between this early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation." source: Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. This is a joke, right? They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation: example Ján Stanislav: Slovenský juh v stredoveku I.-II. (1948; 1999, 2004), Starosloviensky jazyk (1978; 1983), Dejiny slovenského jazyka I. - V. (1956, 1957, 1958, 1973, 1974) and million others grammarians and historians...

You wrote: "Please cite your source, and do not delete or transform cited sentence" Ok, for example my source: Hrnko, Anton (2009). Language is not only an Instrument of Communication. Casting of Doubt on Slovak – Causes and Consequences. in Insight into Slovak-Magyar Relations. ed. Prof. PhDr. Ján Doruľa, DrSc., Slovak Committee of Slavists in cooperation with the Institute of Slavonic Studies of Ján Stanislav of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, BRATISLAVA 2009. ss. 18 - 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omen1229 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

you can insert those If you have source about the subject, however we do not delete citations. These are wiki rules.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia

They are thousands source of continuity between early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation, only stupid magyar fasist on wiki do not see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.75.114 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. Can you please take a look at this thread: [3]?

Hello, Fakirbakir. You have new messages at Talk:John Hunyadi.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Iaaasi (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Matthias Corvinus

The link refers to place of origin (the link is to Wallachia), not to ethnicity. As you put it: You are not right, He was probably from Wallachia this is a place and it does not explain his origin, and we do not know whether he was Vlach, Cuman, Serb etc. Origin and the place where from he was originated are different things. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (Iaaasi (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Serban

Your sources make some strange suppositions. Serban is a typical Romanian name... (Iaaasi (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

According to the source, SORBE is the correct form.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Sorbe had supposedly Tatar-Cuman origin, because the second part of his name 'Bâg' was a Cuman dignity name ('prince') and 'Sor' also means 'Calamity' ('Sor' was an Altaic people in that period as well" - Sorbe or Sorbâg? (Iaaasi (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

It is Turkic, different to write and to pronounce. But I am not linguist and they are.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

However, the Turk source may be biased when supporting Turkic origin (Iaaasi (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC))

I have no right (and I am not enough) to decide it is biased or not, It is right or not. I insert what the source states.Fakirbakir (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Golden Team

You might be interested in the latest proposal at Talk:Magical Magyars#Requested move 2, proposing a move to Hungarian Golden Team. Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to your suggestion to roll back the article to its "non-vandalised" version, can I request that you compare the article as it is now, against the version that the original author wants to roll back to? The original author has previously claimed that I have "vandalised" his work, so I referred the article for independent review, and my version was preferred. This is all documented in the Talk page if you wish to check it. I hope this helps and that it becomes apparent that my "vandalism" was just judicious editing :) Coopuk (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Stubes99

I respectfully ask you not to support the edits of his socks. As the admins said, his IP range is too wide for a range block, so the only way to stop him is reverting his edits. If we support him, he weill create tomorrow another account, knowing that his contributions will be accepted even if the account will end up being blocekd. Thank you (Iaaasi (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Move proposal

I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread: [4]. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys(Iaaasi (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

A-H

You should not blindly reverting

Read the complete phrase:

The "Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867", in creating a semi-independent Hungary, entailed the rise of an assertive Magyar identity within the Kingdom of Hungary.

Hung was semi-indep because foreign policy etc were controlled by Vienna (Iaaasi (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

Vienna is just a city. The place of the common ministry of foreign affairs is not interesting, perhabs Vienna was geographically closer to Schönbrunn than other cities.

The Austrian half of the empire had the same voting-rights and delegation as Hungarian half of the Empire.

The key man of the foreign affairs was the Emperor-King, who had extra voting rights in voting-standoffs. --Lbombardiers (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Austria became semi-independent as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Black army of Hungary

There are dosens of anachronistic patingts in the black army of hungary article. Many leaders of the black army are depicted in 17th century hussar uniforms. That pictures mislead the reader.--Gyrospeen (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian nationality or Natio Hungarica?

Hello, I think that more correct term for the nationality from the Hungarian Kingdom before 1918 is Hungarus or Natio Hungarica. It covers all people from the kingdom regardless of their ethnic origin. English does not distinguish between Hungarian before 1918 and Hungarian after 1918. For example Ludevit Stur was Hungarian patriot and Slovak patriot in the begin of his political career. Hungarian because of his loyalty to Hungarian Kingdom and Slovak because he was Slovak, he loved Slovak people, Slovakian Upper Hungary and Slovak language. So in English it would be written that he was a Hungarian politic - but its not clear if Magyar or Slovak. The term Natio Hungarica or Hungarus is clear, and its historicaly recorded and more correct. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=%22natio+hungarica%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= --Samofi (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Natio Hungarica should be redirected as was done by administrator Dbachmann. I see you meant well by trying to rewrite it. If the topic merits an article it should be under an English name like Hungarian Nation or "Hungarian Nation in the Middle ages" or any other English name that fits the topic. And it was an administrator who turned it into a redirect which is a pretty strong action and shouldn't be undone without discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 05:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you with the help with article Natio Hungarica. Dbachamann is not an administrator, you can check his profile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann. Hobartimus just try to manipulate with the facts. Natio Hungarica is historical term and does not mean "Hungarian Nation" or "Hungarian people" - its status, which used Magyars, Slovaks(Slavs), Saxons and next other nations. After Natio Hungarica, it was identity Hungarus in the Kingdom of Hungary (http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=hungarus#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22hungarus%22&aq=f&aqi=g-l1g-lm2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=5915f5820557ebd8&biw=1680&bih=811). Later I would like to expand this article. Next article with which I would need help is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovaks_in_Hungary --Samofi (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, Dbachmann is an administrator. [5]--Nmate (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

{{help me}}

I was willing to contribute on page of Natio Hungarica however 2 administrators recommended to delete that page. I understood them because this theme is related to Hungarian nobility. The administrators redirected this page 2 times. There is another question whether it was a good redirection or not because I think page of name of Hungary can not handle this subject as opposed to page of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. In my opinion the page of Natio Hungarica is entirely equal with Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. After the redirection, I inserted my contributions from the redirected page of Natio Hungarica to page of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary. I was surprised when I saw the page of Natio Hungarica exists again. So I deleted my contributions because it was duplicated (here and on page of nobility of the K. of Hungary).I do not understand how it happens. Everybody can restore redirected pages without discussion? Can we alter the redirections? I would appreciate if somebody explained it to me. I understand page of Natio Hungarica perhaps unnecessary. The redirection would be good solution if it was page of Nobility of Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy done, Reverted back to admin User:Dbachmann redirect, and protected. The page was never deleted, so the old pages were still in the history, and easy to restore. Any changes will now have to be admin approved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. To check for an admin status - the only way is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Dbachmann  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Nobody deleted that article, I miswrote my comment they recommended to redirect and not to delete.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary

Give me a link that a discussion was closed by admin. --Samofi (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think a source from the 18th century should not be regarded as a reliable source. The expression "Hungary" referring to a period preceding the formation of the state sounds strange. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Careful!

These edits could be falling under WP:CANVAS. Please try to avoid them in the future. Divide et Impera (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed. (Partially)Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You should fully remove the paragraph, because Samofi's edits were done before you started a new thread in WikiProject Hungary . You have to also remove Koertefa's edits as related to your canvassing activity.Divide et Impera (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolutionary War

I think your revert was incorrect. What do you think? Metricopolus (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The term Hungarian Revolutionary War is used in connection to Hungarian Revolution of 1848, please check Google Books results [6].(SamiraJ (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Hungary 13th cent.png

The map is not accurate. According to the original map (which I am surprised you found so fast, given the fact that the upload was done by other account), there were no Wallachian local autonomies in Hungary. In Partium the we have "románok", not Wallachians. The Banat of Severin and the Carpathian strip is not depicted as a Hungarian territory. Also, the Wallachian bubbles form the Banat of Sevein are not drawn like that in the map. Another thing I don't understand is the hole from the middle of Szekelyfold (SamiraJ (talk) 07:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

I suggest that some minor changes should be made on the map. For example, the existence of Székely communities to the west of the Danube and in the Felvidék in the end of the 13th century is highly dubious; similarly dubious is the claim that parts of Romania (with the exception of the Banate of Severin) were under the Hungarian monarchs' suzerainty after the Mongol invasion; finally, I think that the names of the Banates should be revised - maybe the Hungarian form (Ozora, Szörény, Só, Macsó, Kucsó) should be consequently used. Otherwise, I think it is an excellent map. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Austria - semi independent?

As far as I know, the foreign policy was still an attribution of the Austrian (Habsburg) side (SamiraJ (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Please see,Talk:Austria-Hungary#Semi-independent_Austria Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read Anti-Hungarian propaganda and bias here the following: "In the Dual Monarchy (Austria-Hungary), decisions relating to diplomatic and military matters were taken in Vienna (41). In July 1914, the Hungarian government was firmly opposed to the aggressive Habsburg policy towards Serbia (42). However, the Hungarian objections were overruled by the Austrians, and Hungary was forced to accept the decisions taken by the Habsburg government. The accusation that Hungary was responsible for the war is therefore unfounded". If Austria was dependent of Hungary, A-H would not have been able to declare war without its accept (SamiraJ (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Ganxsta Zolee

hi i need a hungarian native speaker here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganxsta_Zolee its a new article. thank you --Samofi (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nem ott kellett volna jelenteni, mivel 3RR-t sértett

So I reported this individual here.--Nmate (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)