User talk:Juro/Archive 1

I'm sure you'll get an official welcome later. Just wanted to ask if you were the same fellow who has added all of the interesting info to Jozef Tiso before you created a user page? Good job. -- Smerdis of Tlön 18:43, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes.

Don't worry about your mention on

12:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From Valasek

Hi, have a look on Slovak Wikipedia to help us improve that. Have a great times here!
Pozri si Slovenskú Wikipédiu, vítame akúkoľvek pomocnú roku. Stráv tu super čas!
-- Valasek 08:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vidím, že jste opravil zpět opravy Vašich chyb. Myslím, že je nemá cenu diskutovat zvlášť, tak to vezmu popořadě zde:

1. Edvard Beneš. Buď uznáváte Mnichov a dobu nesvobody, nebo II. exil a prozatímní státní zřízení. Pokud to druhé, tak Benešova abdikace byla vynucená a neplatná. Proto byl presidentem nepřetržitě od roku 1935 a v exilu od roku 1938.
2. KSČ by nikdo za první republiky do vlády nevzal, i kdyby vyhrála volby.
3. Konservativismus je přesně definovaný pojem, který s komunismem nemá nic společného. A krom toho Mlynář a spol. za "konservativce" označovali Bilaka a spol., nikoliv centristy.
4. to control znamená řídit nebo ovládat, nikoliv kontrolovat. Jakeš nebyl členem žádné řídící nýbrž kontrolní, tj. dozorčí komise. To, že to nějací Američani takto překládají, ještě neznamená, že tomu rozumějí.
5. V Ústavě 9. května žádná vedoucí role nebyla, ať už de iure, nebo de facto. Je mi líto.
6. Ústava z roku 1960 se nazývala "socialistická", nevím proč tento fakt chcete censurovat.
7. Vlado Clementis i Gustáv Husák byli staří kommunisté. KSČ z vlády žádné nekomunisty nevyhazovala.

--

17:18, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First of all, two points:

• You should stop writing anything in other languages then English in this language version (even if the English should not be perfect), because the talk pages are supposed to be understable for everybody. Therefore I will answer in English
• I am not the author of any of the articles corrected by you (except for the years sections under Benes and Gottwald). I simply have put them as public domain articles on Wikipedia. Since most of „my“ articles and edits regarding Czechoslovakia stem from a (quit good) official US government or Slovak Academy of Sciences text, I am obviously more suspicious towards any quick edit of these texts than in the case of other articles.

And now your points:

1. The fact that the Munich agreement is void does not mean that everything that happened after the agreement (even if it indirectly resulted from it) did not happen and is also void, because that would for example imply that the British, US and later Soviet government did not recognize the Czechoslovak government in exile (on July 21 1940) [because according to your argument the pre-Munich Czechoslovakia was still in existence, so that there could be no government in exile to be recognized] and so on. Imagine what riduculous consequences for the description of history we would get if we would “delet” all events that happened after an associated agreement was cancelled in retrospect. In our case the truth is that Benes abdicated (he was not forced to do so, although of course it was a consequence of the Munich agreement), then he was a professor in London (not claiming that he is still the president), and (only) on July 9 1940 the Czechoslovak National Committee established a provisional „státní zřízení“ of Czechoslovakia, which included the Office of the President (Benes), the Government and the State Council. And it was only on July 21 1940 that he became president again, because only then the British government recognized this „státní zřízení“ (as the first world government to do so), thereby recognizing Czechoslovakia. In other words, it is only from July 21 1940 onwards that we have three subjects of international law [Czechoslovakia (Benes), Slovakia (Tiso) and The Protectorate (or rather the Reich)] – of course depending on whether the country in question recognized the first one or the other two, but nevertheless there were three possible subjects. Furthermore, the interpretation in my original version is not my personal opinion, but the official opinion of all scientific Czech and Slovak encyclopedias I have (both from the Communist and from the present era) and particularly it is the opinon of the Slovak Academy of Sciencies, which is a reliable source. Therefore I will revert your change, but you can add your opinion as an interesting remark in the text if you want.

2. If the issue is that the Communist Party was nevertheless a relatively strong party and you think that the sentence with the unsufficient strenght was missleading in this context, then O. K.

3. The word Conservative has many meanings, I and the authors understood it in the meaning 2 of [1]. What you understand under Conservative was a special (negative) connotation the word received during a certain period within the Communist Era in some countries, but this is an official US text based on hundreds of sources and the way how the Americans called the wing at that time.

4. Here again to control also means to check or so (as you can see in any big English-only dictionary), although I know that one of the first things the English-learners learn is that control does not mean that. But since [2] nowadays says that this meaning is archaic, we can keep your edits.

5. The last modified version did not say that, it only said that it enabled the Communists to become de-facto leaders. I mean, if a constitution is constructed in such a way that one party is able to stay at power permanently under the constitution, and it makes most of the economy available to the party (namely through the provisions on nationalization), what else does the party need to get its “leading role”?. And do you really think that the authors of the original version (which was even stricter then my last edit) did not have the English translation of the constitution when writing the text? – constitutions are usually the first texts to be translated.

6. Please write what edit you are referring to (But I can imagine two problems: a) the constitution was also in force after 1990, when it was not called Socialist anymore, b) for technical reasons the name of the article is the 1960 constitution of Czechoslovakia

7. First, again this is a language problem: In the US, government does not mean only “vláda”, it has a wider meaning (basically all institutions governing the country – not only the ministers). The editor simply wanted to say that non-communists were removed from leading posts of the country. Second, the sentence on Husák obviously was not meant to be an example of the previous sentence.

-- Juro 01:52, 26 Feb 2004 (CET)

OK, I'll answer in English. Sorry for Czech, but I've thought it would be easier to exchange views if we would talk in Czech and Slovak.

a) Official translations. You must not rely on them. Even they have a lot of mistakes. I can give you two examples from Czech legaslation. Central authority was officially translated as centrální autorita, although correct should be ústřední úřad. In force is officially translated as platnost, although correct should be účinnost.

1. a) Munich Treaty. Not every legal act after 29 September 1939 is null and void, but every legal act depending on this is.

1. b) Recogniction is a declaratory act (ex tunc), not constitutive (ex nunc).

1. c) Statement, that "pre-Munich Czechoslovakia was still in existence" was argument of the whole Second Resistance, not only mine.

1. d) Where the government is situated, whether at home or exile, depends on circumstances, not denying existence of a state. For instance, government was seated in Kosice, although the lawful seat was Praha.

1. e) It is not only description of history (de facto), but first of all decrition of law (de jure). If Beneš lawfully abdicated, he could not be the President in 1940. Please respect London Provisional State Constitution. I can give tons of scientific articles about that, supporting that view. It is a pity that some historians do not recognize legal aspects of their claims.

1. f) I can make a compromise: write about historical facts, but legal interpretation should stand first.

2. a) http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Conservative&x=0&y=0 stipulates my meaning - 2nd case. 3rd case is never related to politics. Therefore there are none conservative communists.

3. b) Some Westeners accepted Communist perception of terms, but it was journalistic approach, not scientific. Therefore "conservative" communists is acceptable, but not preferable.

5. a) The Constitution did not enable anything. We would have communism even if 1920 Constitution was still in force. Coup d'etat was on 25 February 1948, not on 9 May 1948.

5. b) I don't know the intentions of writers of your text. But Ninth-of-May Constitution has nothing to do with legal or de facto leading role of KSC. It was only formal text.

6. You are right. It was the original name only.

7. a) The government. You are right. But purges were in the whole public life, for instance in economy, not only in government.

7. b) Husák should have a separate paragraph then.

--

V. Z.

10:50, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We could discuss here each of the above points, especially point 1, for years, but since the current state of the articles is quite O.K. now, I'll only mention some points: ad 2a) This is simply not true. Of course there are conservative Communists in the meaning 3 of http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Conservative&x=0&y=0 (just as there conservative members of any kind of party in the world), and of course case 3 is related also to politics. And the term conservative communists is even used very often both in English and in Slovak modern (everyday) texts nowadays even in terms of the pre-1989 Communism. But in relation to the article this is really not that important.

ad 5b) I cannot imagine how the Communists could remain permanent de-facto (-because that's what we are talking about)leaders in the country according to e.g. the 1920 constitution, because there were e.g. no provisions that (so to say from now on) the whole economy is officially state-owned (as it was the case in the 1948 C.) and the Communists "were the state" at the time when the constitution in question was set up. And, of course a constitution (which is a formal text) has factual implications - as the supreme law of a country.

ad 7b)O.K. (You can even rewrite the article completely, since - except for the years- it is not based on any special official source or so)

I agree that every disputed article is now correct. I am not satisfied with Communist Party of Czechoslovakia because lack of reformists, but this another case.

The term "conservative communist" is litteral "translation" of reformist expression. In communist countries there were not any Conservatives, that's why it was possible. But in Western countries it was rather absurd. There are no conservative liberals, no conservative socialists, no conservative anarchists etc. I agree some people in Eastern Europe use it in that sense, but this is caused by not knowing what Conservatism is.

Ad 5b. The National Front won the elections. This was the basis for absolute KSC power. Not the constitution which was important for the name and composition of bodies only. No one cared about human rights. They were not enforceable.

The whole economy was not officially state-owned. Officially there was no difference between 1945 - 1948 and 1948 - 1960.

Ad 7b. OK. But I don't the see reason for doing that.

--

V. Z.

10:32, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rulers of Slovakia: The information that are missing I couldn't find in the text. Apparently Slovakia were ruled by Arpads under overlord rule of Poland? This is not making to much sense to me, since many times Poland and Hungary fought over Slovakia.

I think I see the problem - the text uses the (almost invisible) abbreviation A for Arpads. And yes - Slovakia was rules by Arpads,who were in conflict with the Arpads ruling present-day Hungary, under overlord of Poland. Concerning other details see below

.

What were the borders of principality in Nitra? Did they reach Donau river? Cautious 08:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At the time in question (1000), the exact borders were approximately todays southwesten borders of Slovakia (ie also the Danube), and in the north maybe somewhere above the todays towns Trencin - Zvolen - Lucenec + adjacent northern central present-day Hungary. But note that the Poles did not conquer the Nitra principality only, but also the remaining present-day Slovakia (except for an easternmost strip), which was ruled many by unknown Slav/Slovak regional rulers around castles separated in various Slovak mountains and valleys (Slovakia is a mountainous country with many separate mountain ranges). User: Juro

No, not much other than copyedits, as described in the commit log messages. I disambiguated a link after that. --

10:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

on your edit it of this article, The party was called national Socialist in 1896. Benes came in and changed it to add just the "slovak" part. What's your references that he changed it to the Socialist party?? WHEELER 15:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See the article. I have also added important information and moved it to the better known and longer lasting name version. Juro

Thanks for your work on the article. You write: "In 1938, a part of the Czech membership entered into the Strana národní jednoty (Party of National Unity), while a part of the Slovak members joined Hlinka's Slovak People's Party."

Can you please elaborate on this a little? Was this forcible or voluntary? Why did they join these parties? ThanksAndyL 01:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've created a Slovak People's Party article, feel free to make contributions etcAndyL 03:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have added an article on the Party of National Unity and later on I will correct the article on Slovak People's Party. Juro

---

Dear Juro,

If the short form Spojené štáty is unusual in Slovak, then you should not enter it at all. It is enough to enter the full form under the next heading "United States of America". A separate entry for "United States" exists for languages in which the short form is in fact usual!

I doubt that in most of the languages listed the form United States is as usual as in English. For example, the given German form is as unsual as it is in Slovak, nevertheless it exists. In other words, where the Americans say US, the Slovaks and Germans say USA and so on or yet in other words in some other languages, US is not the equivalent of the English US. But ignoring this - in my opinion very important - fact, actually we can keep Spojene staty, if you want.

Also, there is a problem with listing "Holandsko" both under "Holland" and under "Netherlands", because there are many other languages in which the local version of "Holland" is used as the official name of the country. In those cases, no entry should be given under "Netherlands". However, as a compromise solution, I would suggest writing as follows:

Nizozemsko (Slovak before 1830; since 1830 only Holandsko is used),

Here I absolutely disagree. Even if the OFFICIAL name of the Netherlands in other languages (in which ones?- I really would like to know them) is by coincidence identical with one province, why not list these other language forms? In other words, eg. in Slovak the translation of the modern country of Netherlands is always (without exception) Holandsko, so it should be in the list (If the form Nizozemsko was not used in the Czech language, no normal Slovak would know today what Nizozemsko means). I even believe that this fact is a special reason for adding it to the list, because the Holla... form is not what the reader would expect, so it is an interesting information. And I also see no problem with listing Holandsko twice, if it corresponds to the reality. You cannot expect all languages to have the same number of words for the same number of objects - it is normal that one word in one language is used for two or more words in another language and vice versa.

Pasquale 17:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

All right, sir, let's see. As for (1), thank you. I assure you, in any case, that such short forms as "Estados Unidos", "États-Unis", "Stati Uniti", etc., are extremely common, almost to the exclusion of the short forms; and even in German, phrases such as "in den Vereinigten Staaten" are quite common, in my experience.

As for (2), you have a valid point. So, we'll just have to go your way. You are right that few other languages use the "Holla..." form as the OFFICIAL name for the Netherlands (you said you really would like to know which ones). The only other European languages I can come up with are Icelandic and Romanian; plus, outside of Europe, Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malay, Japanese, and probably a few others.

Pasquale 17:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Regarding on your edit "You cannot leave out the Treaty of Trianon !" to the article History of Hungary, maybe you would like to be more explicit about the periods of time that should be consider. The year 1920 is not a revolutionary (or counter-revolutionary) one. --Vasile 05:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You simply left out two important text parts from the text, that's all. I hope you did not do that deliberately. The heading is no problem.Juro 00:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Be more explicit, please. I do not understand what are those "two important parts" that I left out from the text. --Vasile 02:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You left out the paragraph on the Treaty of Trianon and the preceding one. Juro 02:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I don't believe that the Rusyn language is an official language in Slovakia. That's why I reverted your change in the article. Sorry. The Constitution of the Slovak Republic doesn't mention Rusyn as an official language:

?l. 6

(1) Na území Slovenskej republiky je ?tátnym jazykom slovenský jazyk.

(2) Pou?ívanie iných jazykov ne? ?tátneho jazyka v úradnom styku ustanoví zákon.

If you believe I am wrong, please specify the legal act which establishes Rusyn as an official language. Boraczek 15:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've searched for more up-to-date legal acts and they support my view:

http://www.government.gov.sk/mensiny/zakon184.html

http://www.government.gov.sk/mensiny/jazykovy_zakon-navrh.html

Rusyn is established as a minority language, not as an official language. Boraczek 15:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rusyn can be used as "úradný" (= appr. official) language (the constitution mentions the "state" language) in communities where they make up more than 20% (which however is very rare in reality). And the constitution mentions the Rusyn language as an official language, because it says that official languages are regulated in a seperate piece of legislation, which is a mention in the constitution. I also doubt that in Serbia they can use the language at the same level as Serbian. So I am pretty sure that it is quite the same thing, how ever it is called. I also think to remember that there was a kind of official declaration that " now we officially accept the language" or so. But I am not going to do a research in this field, so you can keep it out if you want. No problem.Juro 16:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you confuse three things:

1. officialy recognized language
2. language that can be used in official communication
3. official language

An official recognition by a state doesn't necessarily mean that the recognized language can be used in official communication (in contacts with the administration, in courts etc.). Then, some minority languages are granted the right of being used in official communication in some regions, but it doesn't make them official languages. The official language status is an even higher grade. It means that, for instance, all official documents should be stored in that language and no other language has a higher rank. But the basic criterion is that the language is explicitly established as an official language in some legal act. So I can't agree that Rusyn is an official language of Slovakia. It's only an officially recognized minority language that can be used in official communication (under some conditions). The only official language of Slovakia is Slovak. I know this is complicated, but there are many subtle legal distinctions as far as minority rights are concerned.

Anyway, I'd like to add that it's thanks to you that I got to know that Rusyn was officially recognized in Slovakia. So - thank you.

BTW I live 2km away from the Slovakian border :-) Boraczek 22:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But does the language de-facto have the status, as you describe an official language above, in Serbia? There is also a big Slovak community in Voivodina, but I have never heard that the language would have such a status...Juro 00:35, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what it looks like in practice. But from the legal point of view in Vojvodina Rusyn and Slovak have the same status as Serbian. The article 6 of the Statute of AP Vojvodina says:
V Autonómnej pokrajine Vojvodine sa rovnoprávne úradne pou?ívajú srbský, ma?arský, chorvátsky, slovenský, rumunský a rusínsky jazyk a písma. Boraczek 07:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK Juro 12:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe that articles on rivers should include the word "river" in the title, as part of the river's proper name. E.g., "Hron River" instead of just "

rivers.

Also, please review the

Wikipedia Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

. Numbers should use commas (",") to break up very large numbers every three digits, and a period (".") as the decimal point to separate the integer and fractional portions of decimal numbers. Yes, this is different than what you were taught in school and use in your everyday life. But it is the standard chosen by Wikipedia, and it is important to use it consistently throughout.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. - Kbh3rd 19:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) I am not ready to call any river "XY" a XY River, if it is not absolutely necessary (as with Slatina), because a) the river is not a part of the name as with many English river names, b) above all, the additional word "River" strongly complicates the writing of links in longer texts. (2) This is a copy from the German encyclopedia, therefore the wrong signs. I am sorry for that- I forgot to switch my "mind" to English once again...Juro 19:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding sk:Pavel Jozef Šafárik... I think this may be because sk isn't UTF-8. I know links to people with Š in the name to hr: and de: work fine. If you're an admin on sk:, maybe you can get something done regarding this... --Joy [shallot] 13:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) I thought that sk is UTF-8 too because all characters work there (I am not an expert on character sets and those things)... (2) I am not an admin on sk, because I don't want to be one (for the time being at least). Juro 16:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After adding section headings and scrolling through it all it seems to me that most of this talk page is duplicated. You might wish to clean it up some time. :) --Joy [shallot]

I will archivate it if course. But what do you mean by "duplicated" ? Juro 16:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the ToC - content is duplicated roughly from #Arpads to the #History of Hungary. -- Naive cynic 21:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, thank's indeed...Juro 22:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if it wouldn't make sense to put the towns of

into a table with "Slovak name", "German name", "Hungarian name", "Population" column headers. I could do this, if you agree. (BTW: I could also provide the IPA codes for the German names, should I insert them in the list?)

--

22:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The user Law is working on a complete list of all Slovak communities (towns and villages) with all names and administrative asignments in the German Wiki {see there|, but it does not include all districts yet, I guess. So, actually I am planning to copy it from there later on, but, of course, you can put the list of towns into a table if you do not think that this will entail a duplication... Juro 23:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, my list will be done in about 1 month. It's not that funny to put all the small villages into table-form. In addition to that, i'm first finishing to find all german names (if they have one) of these towns and afterwards add them to this list. The hungarian names won't be so difficult to find, though it will be hard to fill in ~ 1700 entries with the corresponding names. You can see the results of my work under http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_St%C3%A4dte_und_Gemeinden_in_der_Slowakei and if you edit the text, you can see at the beginning of the file until which okres i managed to fill in the data! --murli 11:53, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, i finished the list under de:Liste der Städte und Gemeinden in der Slowakei, everybody might feel free to copy it and adjust it for his needs. --murli 07:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Juro. Tell me, why my example about 16 towns of Spiš was wrong? They were not incorporated in the Polish state, only polish kings made use of them as a kind of an advance. It is the same like Hongkong from 1898 to 1997 yet, isn´t it? Hongkong wasn´t incorporated in UK, it was still chinese land in UK´s temporary possession.

There are so many differences between the two arrangements that saying "it's like Hong Kong" is strongly misleading (especially for an encyclopaedia).

What is your source of this information: A small part of the territory (at the Rysy, today in Poland) became part of Austria (at that time the western part of Austria-Hungary) as early as in 1902. In 1918, when Austria-Hungary ceased to exist, the terrirory thus "automatically" became part of Poland. Rysy is on the Slovak-polish border, but I know anything about what you wrote about small part of the Spiš.

For example Ernst Hochberger (from Liptov): Das große Buch der Slowakei. It also includes a very nice map.

Information about Germans expelled from Spiš after WWII was printed in Podtatranske noviny in August 2004, if you want I can send it to you in .jpg format, give me your e-mail, please.

I will give you my e-mail, but do you mean this last point as an interesting addition or are you reacting to something particular?... Juro 13:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(PS: We use to sign here in discussions by typing ~~~~)

I am sorry, I meant it about Slovaks expelled from polish Spiš, not Germans.

21:44, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Historical regions Is it necessary to create new page for List of historical regions of Slovakia? These regions are still ,,alive" between people, you can also buy books, maps or turistic handbooks about them although they aren´t oficial regions of Slovakia. Their names are much more used among people to call their homeland than present-day regions (kraje). In my opinion, it is better and more useful to display original names and their map on main page about Slovakia. --Kristo 16:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The reason is that this is not done anywhere else in the Wikipedia for other countries and the part on administrative regions is meant to show the PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE units and it contains a clearly visible link to the List of historic regions. The country main pages are designed to contain only basic information and then links to more detailed articles. In addition, what you are saying about the regions holds only for the Spiš, Orava (Kaysuce), Saris, Liptov and maybe Turiec and Gemer. And even there the statement that the use of historical names is "much" higher is certainly an exaggeration... Juro 17:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Juro, thanks for fixing History of

. You have changed Evangelical College to Evangelical Lutheran College. On the Internet, I have seen it called either Evangelical College or Lutheran College but never Evangelical Lutheran College. What do you think is the correct name? I could probably write a short stub about it once we decide on the name.

Evangelical Lutheran is - strictly speaking- the correct translation of "evanjelický", but there is generally a big confusion about this term. Also, intuitively, "Lutheran" is important for the correct meaning, while "Evangelical" in order to have a word at the beginning that is similar to the Slovak name...

I was also thinking it would be good to have a standard

20:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A good idea, of course - if you have the time you can take the maps of regions and districts (under the articles Kraj and Okres etc) and maybe also the infobox from the German wikipedia, where there is a (once) very diligent user dealing with this... Juro 01:04, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, i'm still diligent, though i do not have that much time to write for wiki as i had in summer!! Since my list of cities and villages in slovakia is done now, i can go on with other things like a map of slovakia for example. --murli 07:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely did not mean that you got lazy, and I know about your "time problems" ... "once diligent" was supposed to mean that you wrote a lot on the topic in the summer and do not so now anymore, that's all - I thought "(once) diligent" was shorter :):) ...Juro 21:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would correct the spelling error in this title (Souces for Sources) but do not know how to edit the title. [[PaulinSaudi 17:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

Just move the whole aricle and type the correct title there ...Juro 03:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Juro,

I noticed you removed the

00:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've

Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at

. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the

You are correct that WikiTravel using parts of our articles would be a copyright infringement. But whether or not people disobey the law, doing so puts the entire project at risk and as such this can't be done. If you truly feel this way, why not multi-license, as you already believe that people will steal your edits if they want to anyway. At least let people like myself be legal. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 22:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know how often you visit the

18:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OCS

I fear it will be necessary to take VMORO to Requests for Mediation soon. Such a process requires two people. Would you be willing to join me? I'll do the work of writing up the actual text of the complaint, but I would be grateful if you could give a voice of support. Crculver 00:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, just tell me what I have to do, because I have never done something like that here. But I think we should wait first what will happen now ...Juro 01:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Juro - I must apologise to both you and

23:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ján Fígeľ

Hello. I'm interested to know why you moved the article to

16:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The answer is very simple: (1) since there are many various accents in Slovak and other languages, as a rule, we write the word without any accents, so that authors of other articles that include e.g. the word Fígeľ as a link do not have to guess how this word might have been written by the original author of the original article...that`s the only logical procedure, otherwise there would be quarrels with each new Slovak, Hungarian, Czech etc. article (2) there is no apostrophe behind the l (rather , ľ is one special character), so the original version was wrong in the first place...Juro 02:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Juro, I believe Ján Figeľ does not have accent on "i". See for example his commissioner website [3] or any Slovak newspaper articles. Brona 02:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a frequent error, because I have checked that for the German wikipedia months ago on Slovak pages and always found a long i...Figeľ would sound rather weird phonetically either...But if you are persuaded that it's a short i, change it...Juro 02:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In a quick google search I have not seen any Fígeľs, but Figeľ is used on his website (see above), in his CV at KDH website [4], Radio Slovakia international [5], etc. Probably the short "i" comes from Vranov dialect. Some I will change it.... Brona 03:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, then, I do not know any more where I have looked up it last time...Sorry for the additional workJuro 03:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I created it I was confused about whether there should be an accent on the "i", especially because the German Wikipedia had it, but after looking around the internet I decided it probably shouldn't be there. As for the ľ character, perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my message. I know it's a single character, but I put the article at l apostrophe because to the casual reader it looks the same. You'll notice that in the text of the article itself I used the proper character throughout. It's only article titles that the software won't allow to have certain characters in. Also, I wonder if you could point me to some piece of Wikipedia policy where it says that articles should be located at names with no accents whatsoever. It seems to me that it's best to put the article at the nearest approximation possible, and then make redirects to it from all possible alternatives people might use, including most importantly the version with no accents. I made plenty of redirects, including with combinations involving the accent above the "i" in case anyone typed this in thinking that's how it was spelt. When the article was moved, all these were broken. Because of the redirects, authors of other articles who want to link to this one don't need to worry about which accents are included; readers will be redirected to something that looks completely correct, even if strictly speaking the software doesn't allow us to get the ľ quite perfect (maybe one day that problem will be sorted). — Trilobite (Talk) 12:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What I have described to you is a kind of unwritten rule for CEO articles. Thousands of articles have been named basically in the way I have described to you, without any special discussion - which implies that most people came to the same conclusion...Of course, you can change this rule by creating redirects, but the (big) problem is that editors, including me, don't have the time and do not feel like creating (in some cases up to 10) redirects for each article...Juro 18:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juro, if kraj means county and not region, why not calling it like that? Thus also bringing it more in line with Hungarian counties. Additional county seems to be more official than region to me. Are you from Slovakia? Maybe you also like to look at name harmonization on

03:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Linguistically, kraj does not mean explicitely "county", it actually rather means something like "country". In my opinion, the translation "county" is closer to the true meaning. Technically however, kraj cannot be translated as "county", because there were counties (in Slovak župy, i.e. comitatuses inherited from the Kingdom of Hungary) in Slovakia in the past, and even nowadays the krajs are called župy (counties) if they are meant as self-governing entities. In other words there is a difference between the Hungarian counties and Slovak Regions. Therefore we need both the term county and a second term, the second term being almost always "region" in English texts (although this can be confused with the general term region existing both in English and in Slovak). To make at least some disctinction, I suggest to write the krajs as Regions with a capital R. Juro 00:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Juro! Thanks for the edit of the Slovak National Party article. I'm just not so sure that in 1929 SNS was in elections coalition with a Ruthenian party. I think I have read that it was ethnic Russian. My source was Encyklopédia Slovenska from 1970s and 1980s, but I don´t have it by hand right now. Please check it if you can in the article about SNS. Liberal Nationalist 15:01, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to ask you not to change the headline SNS in the common Czecho-Slovak state. My explanation is in the article discussion. Liberal Nationalist 18:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Juro, I ask you preventively not to change the word ludaci to Slovak People's Party in the SNS article. In 1901 they weren't organized as a party yet. I suggested to call them "Populars", but it seems that you don't want to accept the word. So I hope you won't be doing any trouble ;) . Liberal Nationalist 13:33, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

See the SNS talk, Mr. Laddy :-). And do not be so touchy for such details, you can be sure that one day someone will make much bigger changes in your article then me. Juro 03:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Juro, Czechoslovakia po Slovensky je Československo aj pred aj po 1990-tom. Martin

1. It's not - since 1990/1991. You should learn Slovak orthography. The explanation is on the corresponding talk page. 2. It's po slovensky, not po Slovensky 3. We communicate in English here. Juro 18:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I sholud not have edited "Czechoslovakia" before discussing it. I was not right at all and it was very rude. Juro, think about changing translation to Česko-Slovensko. I wrote to Institute of Linguistics and they recommend it. I know, you discussed it but just let me know whether you are interested in their replay. Have a nice day. Martin

1. I am afraid I do not understand from your answer, which form you are advocating now. 2 . All current dictionaries of the Academy of Sciences prescribe and all standard history books use Cesko-Slovensko. In other words, using Ceskoslovensko without a special reason is a normal error of orthography. I do not understand why a recommendation should be needed in such a clear case...That's like asking whether the correct form is riba or ryba... Juro 13:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to use only “Česko-Slovensko” not “Česko-Slovensko/before 1990 Československo”. What did happen in 1989/1990? It looks like before 1990 should have been officially and grammatically correct used form without hyphen. I don't think so. Martin.

The answer is very simple. In 1990, the country's name in the Slovak language was changed from Československo to Česko-Slovensko by a constitutional law. The "Pravidlá slovenského pravopisu" published in 1991 (which is the obligatory codification of Slovak orthography) and all the subsequent editions of it and of other dictionaries and encyklopaedias etc. have been using this form since. In other words there has been a change in orthography in 1990/1991. Juro 17:58, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I've just written a stub for the Social Democratic Party of Slovakia. Information about them is a bit tricky to find, especially since I don't speak Slovak; could you have a quick look at it and see if I've let any mistakes slip through?

(I apologise for appearing like this; you have several edits on the

09:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I have reviewed the history of this article -- seems like you have done a lot of great work there. Major kudos to you.

I believe your comments were less than friendly and I have decided to revert my "corrections", as you have sarcastically referred to them. I stand by my view however, and the article would benefit greatly from some stylistic changes or possibly a complete rewrite by a copy editor.

If I'm not mistaken the particular paragraph in question was last copy edited by Picapica and you have then made some additional changes to it. I'm not sure what you meant by "has already been completely reedited several times by native speakers".

If I may suggest something -- work on you attitude a bit. Everyone would benefit, including you :-)

Have a great day dude!

Jbetak 02:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article has been completely reedited several times, because it is quite old. I did not say you have to revert your edits, I have only replied to your "remark" that there is a lot to do here or so (I do not remember the exact words) and to the language corrections you have done (I have done this repeatedly to other users too so that they know how they are "correcting" themselves mutually) - such "remarks" used in a wrong place - instead of writing articles - and provision of wrong numbers in an encyclopaedia (30 instead of 65 km! is a big difference) are what should be changed here... don't you think, "dude" ...Juro 03:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Juro, thanks for elaborating on this. My comments are directed at others as well as at myself. I might not have as much time as some others and when I return to my previous contributions, it helps me to remember where I have left off. I considered my changes "work in progress", hence my comment. I felt it was best to back it all out -- before I had to take even more crap.

If I may, I'd suggest to tread more lightly. More often than not, things are not what they may appear to be - you might be barking up the wrong tree.

Just out of curiosity - do you understand the contextual meaning of "dude" here in California?

Jbetak 06:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for "dude" - one can never be sure with English language slang, therefore I just took the word and used it in an analogous way as you did...:) What exactly does it mean in your usage? Juro 16:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to ask you about this Bratislava - Presporok question. As I know the name Bratislava was invented in 1832 by a Slovak linguist who tried to reconstruct the old Slavic name. I would like to know that between 1832 and 1919 was this name used by anybody? And after 1919 how long the common Slovak usage stayed to Presporok? When it became obviously archaic? Thank you for the (future) help! Zello 20:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tak a look at Spiš article and talk page. I think the current shape is highly POV. I will try to reshape it significantly. They were some errors in article (as e.g. blaming Poland for refusing to make plebiscite, while it was rather Czechoslovakian fault) and similar Szopen 12:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem basically...Juro 23:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit slovak version of article about Spiš and also article about The Pawning of Spiš towns. I think it could dismantle a dispute in part about the pawning in english version. Your english is rather better than mine.

Tiny part of territory which according to you became part of Austria in 1902, had never been a part of Spiš before. Please see also [6], it is in polish. Thanks. --Kristo 15:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have prepared texts for the Spiš article supporting all my arguments (the text of the contract), but my computer got broken in the meantime, I could not find them anymore, so I forgot the article completely. What is your quick opinion on the mini-dispute?

My Polish is not so good to read the whole article without problems. Could you tell me what it says and in in what part it says it? Juro 19:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juro, while you probably feel angry and that you've given up, I'm very glad that someone eventually did stop the revert war and I respect you for that. We all are tired by the endless attacks and reverts. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles on Wikipedia that you can alter to perfection without making controversy (be it even because of other people's ignorance!). As you know, I myself have no problem with Czechia although I personally would wait for some more time, after it will have been made more official, and perhaps spreaded a little bit more, too. If the two (or three if you count me too :)) are ignorants and you are right, they will sooner or later go, and your version will win in the end! BTW, you promised me to find the source of Czechia being in the official UNO list of countries, which I doubt it exists, but should you be fed up with that matter now, don't worry about it. Anyway, I wish you good luck and enjoyable editing! Matt ෙ 18:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I would refind it if I felt that I have the time to spend at least half a day with a topic I have dealt with already extensively and knowing that even if I find it nothing will change - I have been observing the Czechia issue here for a long time, there is always someone who deletes all occurrencies of the word (they even ask: "Does the word exist?") and it is even getting "worse" - from my point of view. But maybe I will find the time for your personal information. You can read the transcript of the corresponding debate of the special Czech Senate meeting in the meantime - it's quite interesting to read (only approximately the second part is relevant).Juro 00:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I read the Senate debate some time ago and, interestingly, it was this document that pointed me to the IMO fact, that Czechia is still not in the official UNO list. Your reply made me check this again and in my opinion it clearly stands out from the speaches by Misters Jeleček and especially Paŝek. Both of them have also shown big disappointment because of this in their speaches. Anyway, you are probably right that even such a "proof" would not change anything. Wikipedia is apparently not ready for "Czechia" yet nor are many others. I still have the article on the history of the usage of the one-word name of Czech Rep. in my mind, but God knows whether it will ever realize. With best regards, Matt ෙ 18:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully (up to the end), you will see that all the experts (by virtue of their profession) say that Czechia must me used and all others (like normal senators) say "I will use what I want to use" (which is quite symptomatic). The experts say in sum: it must be used not only because it is systematic, but also because it is (even in its English form) explicitely prescribed by Czech laws and standard specifications for geographic terminology and by the Czech Academy of Sciences (linguists).

Secondly: no, one of the speakers (after those menationed by you) says somewhere near the end of the document that the name was included in the long UN list at the end of the 90s (which is the list with long AND short forms which unfortunately does not seem to be on the internet). Juro 12:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm unable to find what you state in the document. You might mean the famous Names of States and their Territorial Parts document from 1993, made by the Czech catastral office, where they explicitely state Czechia as the offical short name, but this change did not make it to the other official lists at the UNO, as it seems. Even quite recent sources, such as this [7] confirm, that while the situation is clear from the Czech laws point-of-view, it is not as well clear from the UNO itself, as they are waiting for an official approval from the Czech authorities, which does not come. This is my understanding of the whole matter, from the publicly available documents. The UN Working Group on Country Names periodically issues an official list of recommended country names (both short AND long), but the latest, E/CONF.94/CRP.11, unfortunately has no mention of Czechia (page 36).

Being neither linguist nor lawyer dealing with international matters, I of course don't know or dare to judge the precise formalities needed for a country name change to be included in the official lists, but my common sense tells me that our authorities (the government, or the Ministry of Foreign affairs), for some reason, are afraid or unwilling to officially impel this. Nevertheless, I'm leaving this off for now, I also have other things to do :) . Thanks anyway. Matt ෙ 14:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add details about Slovakia into

]

Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 00:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I (vaguely) remember this: for more important laws confirmation was needed from:

• 1. Snemovna lidu
• 2. ceska cast snemovny narodu
• 3. slovenska cast snemovny narodu
• 4. vetsina cele snemovny narodu
• 5. Ceska narodni rada (nevim presne v jakych pripadech)
• 6. Slovenska narodni rada (--//--)

So perhaps "uncountable" would fit best here ;-). Pavel Vozenilek 02:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so why don't you write "6" then...Juro 01:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the explanation u provided on the discussion page could be added to the actual "

03:38, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Zamarovsky

Thanks for Zamarovsky - especially the English short descriptions are useful. In the article I wrote first name as Vojtech (because most websites do it) though the books I have show Vojtěch. Is that correct? Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before 1993 his official name was Vojtech (because there is no ě in Slovak and he was born in Slovakia ["národnosť slovenská" on forms... :)] and has no ě in his original Slovak editions). Vojtěch could be either his new name since the time he (also) got Czech citizenship (after 1993) and/or his artistic name for Czech texts (I cannot think of another possibility). So, if you see Vojtěch on his books PUBLISHED before 1992, I assume the second case holds. But I have no proofs...Juro 00:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The book was decades old so the name got translated as well. Pavel Vozenilek 02:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juro,

To be frank, I don't understand you. To me, it clearly seems that the normal, common and widespread policy in the English Wikipedia is leaving all diacritics which are available in the ISO Latin-1 character set. Just to name a few examples from a couple of languages (see my earlier contribution at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)):

La bohème, Résumé, Crêpe, Château, Déjà vu, Ménage à trois (French), Hans Christian Ørsted, Søren Kierkegaard, Tor Nørretranders (Danish); Václav Havel, Emil Zátopek (Czech), Kurt Gödel (Czech-Austrian), Ernst Thälmann, Max Müller (German), Béla Bartók, Ferenc Mádl (Hungarian), Niccolò Machiavelli (Italian), José Saramago, Diogo Cão, Luís de Camões, Nuno Gonçalves (Portuguese), Ildefons Cerdà, Antoni Gaudí, Salvador Dalí, Benito Pérez Galdós, Luis Buñuel (Spanish); Sabiha Gökçen, Turgut Özal (Turkish).

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions)#charset_issues, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), Template talk:Titlelacksdiacritics.

Best regards,
Adam78 19:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the point is that normal people (including me) normally do not know the various character sets. Secondly, I can understand if names are written with an accent if that's all what they contain, but I find it quite weird - i.e. very unintuitive - to leave out some diacritics (like š) from a name but to keep some other diacritics (like á) - every normal English article writer simple leaves out, if any, ALL the diacritics (I am correcting this almost every day) and, unless redirects are created for every single article, we have a problem, because links in texts are without diacritics. Therefore I think it is easier to simply create the title of an articles without any diacritics, if there is even one single unusual diacritic sign in the name. Juro 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know the Latin-1 charset either, but we can both check it here:
  ô and ý
  ).
• As a rule, each and every article with diacritics should have redirects from the versions without diacritics (I don't think it's my own idea; it seems to be common in English Wikipedia).
• I don't think you should bother about yourself or other Wikipedians who leave out accented letters from titles if they are unsure. Sooner or later these titles will be corrected if any letters with diacritics can be included. The fact that they are not aware of the possible diacritics doesn't mean we should depart from the general Wikipedia policy. In short: everyone should feel free to use titles without diacritics; these all can be renamed.
• This above applies to links as well. If there exist redirects (as they always should), you don't have to worry: both kinds of links will work. After all, that's what redirect is for.
• However, one can easily skim the chart at
  the above page and find those Slovak characters
  (I think you're Slovak) which are not present in this character set:
  • present: á ä é í ó ô ú ý
  • missing: č ď ľ ĺ ň ŕ š ť ž (+dž)

– as you can see, it is a pleasant surprise: one can freely use all possible Slovak vowels, but one is not supposed to use any of the specifically Slovak consonants (except for dz and ch, of course).

• As far as titles with both kinds of diacritics are concerned (i.e. existing in and missing from Latin-1), I don't quite agree with you. To me your reasoning sounds like "if we can't correct all the mistakes in a book, let's leave the whole without correction". I think we should aim to include all the diacritics which are available – because we can't possibly eliminate inconsistency in itself anyway, as long as some diacritics are not available.
• Perhaps it's not decisive, but all the Hungarian titles in the English Wikipedia work like what I've described. Take
  Sándor Petőfi
  as an example: the ő is not available in this character set, so it is replaced with o, however, the á is retained in the same title. I suppose there have been quite a few readers and administrators who have seen this article and they didn't find it disturbing. I may be wrong, but to me it seems like a tacit endorsement to this practice.

Adam78 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not trying to persuade you to change your policy and I understand your aguments, but I am just pointing out the problems. I can create redirects, but my experience here (which you cannot have, because you do not have so many problematic characters in Hungarian) is that if Slovaks/Czechs that are new to the wikipedia or generally people not knowing those languages create articles and write links in texts they either write all diacritics (which is wrong) or leave them all out (which is now wrong too, unless there is a redirect) - nobody leaves out only the several specific characters (for obvious reasons)- and they create no redirects (I do not know how they possibly could be informed of the necessity of these redirects, given that even I myself did not know this until recently). Finally, you are assuming that everything here gets corrected but that is simply not the case, therefore in my opinion we should account for possible "imperfections" of users (after all Mikulás and Mikulas are both simply incorrect, since the only correct form is Mikuláš). If I was to correct all such formal mistakes I would have to spend "24" hours a day here :). Juro 00:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I accept everything you say (including that almost nobody will leave out only the specific characters) – but remember that if I actually move (or anyone moves) a page to a new (more correct) title, redirects will be automatically created, so no matter people will look for titles in a way you propose it or in a way I propose it, the links will be working. I think on the long run redirects should be made to each article with diacritics, independently of what kind of special characters they include. It's not difficult to realize that several hundreds of millions of people have only English keyboards and we should ideally enable them to make searches about Slovak/etc.-related terms. This is why having redirects without diacritics is a must, at least on the long run. If there exist redirects without diacritics, links should be eventually working – and if people happen to have time, they might correct these sooner or later. If they don't, the links will still work. – However, we might include into the

07:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted the text in the Slovak language article. Juro 03:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to inform you that technical restrictions prohibiting special (Slovak, Hungarian or whatever) characters have become obsolete and outdated (as it is shown in the "titlelacksdiacritics" template text), so you can now use whatever Slovak diacritics in the article titles and you don't need to care about Latin-1 encoding. You can also rename/move Slovak-related articles to their correct names and remove the above template. -- Adam78 28 June 2005 09:24 (UTC)

OIC - Wikipedia has finally discovered UTF-8! Adam, would you know if it

happened during the big and hairy system update yesterday?

Jbetak 28 June 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of its achievements. Adam78 28 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)

At last! They should organize a party or something like that..:).. I am still wondering why this did not happen much earlier...Juro 28 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)

SUCH reference: it is encyclopedia, covers non-political items quite well and mentions such obscure figures as Janousek. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean that it is a bad reference, but people do not use to cite general encyclopaedias as sources here (I did it once and I have been wondering until today why I actually did it) Juro 03:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juro, I do not agree. Although general state of references in most articles is quite bad, there is a drive to cite sources as much as possible in Wikipedia, see

Template:Citeencyclopedia to cite encyclopedic articles. Brona

23:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page. I realize that you wrote in about October '03, but is this section simply a list of Slovak kingdoms where Nitra was the capital? If so, it might be better to break it out in a couple of sentences (or even a list with bullets) instead of in parenthesis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please contact me about the copyedits you have reverted. Jbetak 02:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juro, I just came across this page and made a few minor edits. You seem to be pretty active around here and especially on this specific page, so I wondered if you could go over my changes to make sure I'm not reverting something that has been discussed earlier. Also, it would be nice if you could set up a disambiguation page for "Banat(e)", or tell me how to do that -- see the edit in

to see why this is needed.

You could also have a look to the first paragraph under

. It is mentioning "Slovakia", but as far as I know, the lands constituting present day Slovakia were at that time part of the Hungarian Kingdom, and not termed Slovakia by any authority of the time. So this reference seems to be out of place to me.

Please reply on

(too). Thanks in advance for any reply/comment.

15:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Popping back to add another bunch of notes:

• About the article mentioned above: The current paragraph talks about Transylvania, Slavonia, and Slovakia. This is no good; the first two were roughly political units at that time, but are quite unofficial today, whereas Slovakia is the other way round. It is true that it's not claiming Slovakia was a political unit, but I still find it confusing. How about a paragraph like this:

In the late 14th and in the 15th century there were around 70 counties, out of which 7(?) under the

).

If you can think of a way to put it more precisely, feel free; I prefer to discuss this first because it can be a quite sensitive topic at times. :)

KissL

7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

I have changed it, but have also kept the 21 - the idea is to give a basic quantification of the concentration of counties in what is now Slovakia (becuase the number is quite high). I hope the current version is OK. Juro 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Much better for sure. However, for a basic quantification, I think it would be better to say simply "about <nn> in present-day Slovakia". Given that 8 of these units are entirely in present-day SK (Tekov, Liptov, Nitra, Bratislava, Šariš, Turiec, Trenčín, Zvolen) and 13 partially, I think 15 (8 + 13/2, rounded up) would be a fair nn. I'm also OK with a version saying "8 entirely and 13 partially in present-day Slovakia", except that I find it more detailed than necessary in this paragraph.

KissL 15:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, but your numbers are wrong, it's 10+11 (you have omitted Orava and Spiš)Juro 17:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted them because

KissL 12:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Magyars and Hungarian prehistory
  - it is just incredible. I have the intention to add some info to Magyars and maybe the prehistory stuff as well, but I have to work too sometimes... Meanwhile, if there is any urgent action to take (like forcing consensus by reverting stupid edits, or voting somewhere), drop me a line. And thanks for your involvement.
• Banate disambiguation: thanks for your help, I'll do it when I have time. Meanwhile, I edited most of the links pointing to
  that awfully titled article you moved
  to point to the right place.
• On the same page you wrote (if I recollect rightly from the history) that Slavic people started migrating into the Pannonian Plain while there was still Germanic rule there. Could you cite your sources for this? An Encyclopedia Catholica article, on which the beginning of the History section of the
  KissL
  7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

The statement is that Slavs can be prooven in Pannonia around 500 (late 5th century or early 6th century depending on dating methods). This is really basic knowledge. I do not know any scientific text or text book for schools that would claim something else (and I am ignoring the frequent speculative theory that the Slavs actually arose in today's Hungary/Slovakia). There is even a written mention to Slavs in Pannonia referring to 512. Archeologically, we have the situation in Bratislava, for example, that there were Slavs in the city from around 500 and the Lombards came for a certain period to the westernmost parts of present-day town and then left. So there were both Slavs and the Lombards (the "peoples" during the Great Migration Era were rather groups of persons, anyway - not what we would consider "peoples" today). This was quite typical for the Germanic tribes - everybody just came and some 50 years moved away. I have not read the Catholic Encyclopaedia article, but, frankly, the encyclopaedia is some 100 years old, detailed, but biased, dogmatic and imprecise - I would never use it as a source, not for a second. But maybe, what you mean is the time when the Slavs went to the Alps and probably also to Croatia- that happened after 560 or so only, indeed. Juro 8 July 2005 17:01 (UTC)

Yes, I'm interested in today's Hungary, so not as north as Bratislava. From what you say, it seems that as long as "the beginning of a Slavic migration to the south" is mentioned in an article about the history of today's Hungary, it should be referring to about 560. I'll correct that then.

KissL 15:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

You did not understand what I have written. I mentioned Bratislava as an example for the fact that there were BOTH Lombards (who moved to Pannonia then, by the way) AND Slavic tribes here, not for any other reason (although Bratislava actually partly lies in Pannonia). I also said that from Pannonia (and from other territories) the Slavs moved to the Alps and maybe to Croatia after 560 (not that they moved to Pannonia after 560) and there is (the first) written mention to Slavs in Pannonia (or rather Hungary) for around 512. I am always ready to change this, but only if you can provide a professional source (i.e. certainly not the Catholic Enc.) confirming your (wrong) assumption - for me however this would be as if you proved to me that "Spain is situated in Africa", that is very surprising.Juro 17:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no reason to get nervous about it. I misunderstood what you said about Bratislava, which is quite on the edge of Pannonia. I'll go and undo my change. What do you think about my comment above? You didn't reply to it.

KissL 13:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Magyars

page

Hi, Juro, thank you for drawing my attention to that page, but on the one hand, I'm not a historian but (at best) a linguist, on the other hand, I don't think I have the time, mood or energy to debate with agressive, unintelligent and biased people whenever they pop up... However, I added what I know on this subject. Thanks again. Adam78 13:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Juro, just wanted to note that you should check the "what links here" link for doble-redirects after you move a page. I fixed all the doble-redirects created when you moved the

30 June 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Thanks. Juro 30 June 2005 02:10 (UTC)

Hi Juro, thanks for the link to the subdivision of the Slovak Carpathians. I also found a subdivision of all Carpathians in Polish wikipedia,

part of that? According to the Polish system it is (at least of the Poloniny Beskids). I'm going to make a subdivision for the Carpathian Mountains article, I think I'll simplify the Polish system for that.

Something else: Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical Hungarian counties is getting a restart, you may want to share your views. Can you check the Hungarian names of the post-1876 circles (or should we call them lands, what is the Hungarian term anyway?). Markussep 3 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

I copied our discussion to

Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary#1867 - 1918, and the Hungarian names in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historical Hungarian counties#Circles/Lands. Markussep

4 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Hyphen War, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

— Knowledge Seeker দ 07:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What do you think forms the border between the western and eastern part of the Pannonian plain? I thought wherever this border is located, it must be an approximately "vertical" (north-south) line, isn't it? -- Adam78 18:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Of course not, the border is the Transdanubian Medium Mountains (i.e. Bakony etc.). (2) How can you edit these things when obviously your only source is your "intuition" and a general map??? Stop editing when you have no source and no idea what you are doing. All your "longitude", "vertical" etc. assumptions are just ridiculous (I do not mean this as an insult)...Juro 19:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange to call natural things "ridiculous". I hope your world is not inside-out otherwise, is it? :-O

Seriously speaking, here is a possible normal answer to my edits on your part:

"Yes, I know that normally the border between western and eastern parts of things is a north-south line, but this case seems to be an exception, because my maps show the border to be in a diagonal, SW/NE line, along the Transdanubian Mountains. I admit this is silly and strange, but that's geography terminology, sorry... My sources are: [here you name them specifically]. Juro"

Adam78 20:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK in the first moment I understood this as an ironic contribution, now I see that you have understood what I mean...It is sometimes difficult to derive the intention from written text, especially in English (a rather inflexible language) Juro 22:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm a little confused about what has been going on with regard to Slovakia-geo-stub. Firstly, the idea of having a separate slovakia-geo-stub wasn't proposed at the stub sorting project (all new stubs should be proposed a week before creation, to debate their worth and make sure that they fit in with the stub hierarchy), and secondly, discussion about such a stub in the past has indicated that such a stub should not be created until the criteria (60-100 stubs) had been reached. I've listed the new stub at

]

I did not know that I need a permission for the template. No reasonable person can have anything against THIS stub (we can spare all the Euro-stub redirects and remarks of the type <-- for a possible SVK stuc--> ). The 60-100 articles rule is non-sense in this case, because the alternative is obvious chaos (which someone tried to prevent by the "mysterious" redirect). If you really need more stubs, you can add the template to each Slovakia article, because for Slovakia we have only stubs here (I did not change all the Euro-stubs into Slovakia-geo stubs,either). (One cannot wait until there are 100 stubs and then change the templates in 100 articles into new ones!). The rest I have done was a copy from another country and I did not know that the stub categories are so unsystematic and different for each country. In sum, just change Slovakia-related stubs to Slovakia stubs (or vice versa, I do not know which one is correct according to you) - I do not see another problem. Juro 16:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, this particular stub type was likely to be created at some point soon anyway, since there were 53 Slovakia geo-stubs - not too far below threshold. To answer your points one at a time:

• I did not know that I need a permission for the template - It's clearly stated at
  WP:WSS/ST
  , and in most other stub-related files on Wikipedia.
• The 60-100 articles rule is non-sense in this case, because the alternative is obvious chaos - not really. There are only some 200 articles in the Euro-geo-stub category covering those countries with too few stubs for their own templates. The category is not intended for readers (who would find it chaotic) but for editors, who could easily pick out the stubs from the country they are looking for from 200 stubs.
• One cannot wait until there are 100 stubs and then change the templates in 100 articles into new ones! That's exactly the system that is used at WP:WSS, since it is by far the most effective - it guarantees that you don't miss any. Currently there are 4000 UK geography stubs about to be split into smaller categories by this method.
• The rest I have done was a copy from another country and I did not know that the stub categories are so unsystematic and different for each country - well, it's not something we like at WP:WSS either - but that's what happens when people simply create new categories without geoing through the stub-creation procedure with us first. As for the problem, to change template-created articles from one category to another requires a null-edit for each. With only a couple of dozen stubs that won't be too difficult, but consider what would have happened if you'd made a category with several hundred stubs!

Basically there's not much harm done this time, but if you're planning to make any more stub categories, it would be very helpful if you could follow the procedures at Wikipedia:Stub next time! Grutness...wha? 22:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment on

]

IP address

I can see that you get logged out while making larger changes. It happens to me too, that's why I usually press "show preview" first, and if I see my IP in place of my signature, I log in from a separate window and press "show preview" again before saving.

If you decide to do the same, be aware that when you get logged out and then log in again, the software (pretty annoyingly) clears your "minor edit" and "watch this page" checkboxes, so if you are editing a watched page, you have to check it again, otherwise you'll unwittingly remove the page from your watchlist. (Also, I only tried this using Firefox, it may not work with IE or other browsers.)

]

It only happens today to me, because I am not at my own computer...But, lost from my watchlist?? I will have to check this, thanks...Juro 17:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English. And you're stepping on my final merge. --FourthAve 21:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain then why all the English archaelogical texts I have read call it Linear Pottery culture and I have never seen "Linear Band Ware culture?". And see especially all the English expert texts in Google print...I am waiting for an explanation (and since I am sure, you have just invented that name, I will make the corresponding changes soon) .Juro 21:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You stepped on my final save. See

calls it in [EEIC]]. The only other name I have ever known it by in English is the German Linearbandkeramik or the abbreviation thereto, LBK.

Don't be arrogant! The name Fourthave wants to use is not his own invention. Fourthave is doing great work on Wikipedia with these articles, and he actually tries to merge the pages! Have you tried?--Wiglaf 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but still, Linear Pottery culture is much more common (and you do not even mention it in the introduction!!! - are you really such a "Mallory-phile" that you think that all the other texts are wrong??). Linear Band Ware culture is a kind of neologism (a simple translation from German), because I am living on the territory of the culture and am constantly coming in contact with texts on that culture and have NEVER seen that name version (but I have seen LBK, Linearbandkeramik and Linear Ceramic quite often). And, it cannot be desive how one or three persons call it, but the name usual in English texts (again - see Google print if you do not believe me).Juro 22:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The fact that someone has written an article does not give him a monopoly on errors in it or even in its name...Or...do we have a new wikipedia policy? Juro 22:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, politeness and cooperation are Wikipedia policies. I think you went too far when you said I am waiting for an explanation (and since I am sure, you have just invented that name, I will make the corresponding changes soon). You could have bothered to google the name before you accused him of inventing names. Next time you argue about which name is most correct, do what most experienced wikipedians do, google and compare the freqences, before you assert which name is most common.--Wiglaf 22:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry (I got upset by an anonymous vandal), but the rest of the above text remains open and I will do the changes, unless I here an argument that Linear Pottery is wrong (which obviously isn't). And, FourthAve, on the other hand, should not have reverted all my changes, but should have checked google for Linear Pottey, don't you think? Juro 23:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it matters much what name is used, as long as there are redirects from the other names and an introduction to these names in the intro.--Wiglaf 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Wiglaf#Linear_Band_Ware_culture --FourthAve 23:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As before, on Wiglaf's page. --FourthAve 00:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my spelling of names in Slovak National Uprising. You also removed the reference "The events are also known as Czechoslovak Uprising and the Mutiny of the Slovak army". You are right that especially the first name could be confused with the events of 1968. However, foreign commentators have used those terms to describe the uprising (regardless of the fact of how inappropriate they may be). - Skysmith 09:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in 1944, but certainly not afterwards and today...Juro 03:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ku tomu zmazaniu pochybnosti o "narodnosti" SNP.

priznam sa velmi dlho som vahal nad tym ci to tam nechat alebo nie a rad si necham poradit. Preco som sa rozhodol vymazat to:

1. hovori sa o "some expats" - well, aj ked sa o tuto temu zaujimam len zmierne. nikde som nevidel kto to konkretne je. Co to znamena - "some"??? To moze byt jeden clovek, dvaja? Je to infotmacia, ktora mi nic nehovori ergo je zbytocna

Co to znamena - "expats"??? - nerozumiem preco prave expats. Zda sa mi ze som pocul zopar ludi (nie expats ale slovakov) hovorit ze SNP nepodporovali vsetci (npr. pretoze sposobili vnutrostatnu nestabilitu a pod.)

Celkovo neviem kto to hovori a preco, nie je to nicim podporene.

2. Preco sa vlastne pouziva Narodne. Predovsetkym kvoli tomu, ze: I. nebolo organizovane iba v ramci malej lokality (geograficky - vid Varsavske p.) ale zasiahnute bolo cca 2/3 Slovenska. II. povstala vacsina slovenskej armady na strednom a vych. slovensku III. do povstania sa vo velkej miery (aj ked nie do samotnych bojov) zapajali aj obycajni obcania.

Je pravda ze nie vsetci obcania Slovenska podporovali Povstanie. To je jednoduchy fakt.

Na druhej strane to z mojho (subjektivneho) pohladu vobec nema vplyv na to ci to bolo povstanie narodne alebo nie. Pretoze cela ta veta smeruje k tomu, ze za narodne povstanie by sa malo povazovat povstanie, do ktoreho sa pusti cela krajina. To je ale utopia, ktora sa nikde nikdy neuskutocnila, napriek tomu, ze vo svete mame x narodnych povstani.

Preto si myslim, ze je zbytocne argumentovat tym ze "nejaki Slovaci zo zahranicia" si myslia ze nemalo narodnu podporu. Takyto argument je prazdny a samozrejmy. Navyse nie je nicim podporeny.

I must admit I have overseen/ignored the "expats" and concentrated on the rest of the sentence, but the sentence must be restored because all the "nationally" oriented Slovaks do not call the uprising SNP anymore because they argue that it was not supported by the whole nation. Hence the uprising is called the 1944 Uprising in new textbooks for schools, for example. Whether YOU or I think that the opinion is correct is irrelevant...I will rephrase the sentence then...Juro 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for protection of the page. I know very little about the topic but the new edits lack source so I reverted them. (I have also feeling the anonymous editor is classical example of posuk so frequent around here.) Pavel Vozenilek 17:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I will have very little time these days to involve in any quarrels. But to put it short: I know every possible detail of the history of Great Moravia and what he has written is nationalist non-sense (the only semi-correct point out of his edits is the interpretation of the state as a "Slovak" state - correct in the sense that there is a minority of Slovak authors who hold that this is true, but that's definitely not the mainstream opinion, so he cannot add it to the history summary on the Slovakia page as a fact)...But I have already got used that almost every second day some extremists (in the widest sense of the word) appear in the English wikipedia and its getting worse...Juro 20:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the first time I saw fully qualified crank on article about Czech lands or Slovakia or related articles. I have suspicion things are going to be worse even here. I remember how much wasted time an idiot can take away from good editors. Ouch. Pavel Vozenilek 21:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi there,

I saw that you are the creator of this article

]

List of Slavs

Juro, aid me in my endeavour to have this pointless list deleted.

OK, but what can I do? I have expressed my opinion and you are the first one to react to it. Juro 01:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may vote on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can create article like

]

An interesting topic, but frankly, I am not an expert on this and there are much more important topics about Slovakia that should be written. The only active Slovak users here vandalize the Slovakia and Great Moravia articles, you know..:)) Juro 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Juro,

The

, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Thanks! Pasquale 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what Slovakia's modus operandi is for a terrorist attack? Do they have preparation? freestylefrappe 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the selections of Zipernowsky and Hummel (both of whom were ethnically Slovak) than can you please add two other names? Thanks. 70.146.75.53 03:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just got finished writing an article for Albin Brunovsky. Can you do me a favor a clean up theKoloman Sokol article. It seems to be a very rough translation of the Slovak article. Thanks. 72.144.136.229 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Bel

Could you possibly translate some of the information off the Slovak article http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matej_Bel and replace it with the brief bio on

?

If you want me to translate the Slovak article, I am not sure whether I will have the time for this during the next days. But the current article seems to be quite OK anyway...Juro 02:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not contribute the mess in list

]

Well, the "mess" is on your side. What you say is of course all wrong. Nothing but nationalist propaganda. They are Ukrainians only in the sense that they are inhabitants of the Ukraine - those who "feel" like Ukrainians are Ukrainians, not Lemkos etc.. And they are subgroups of the Rusyns - by definition - and the (wrong) comment about Rusyns that they are considered Ukrainians was there. But since no articles concerning east Slavs are correct in the wikipedia (and thanks to the prevailing culture of medieval pathetic nationalism in those countries it never will be), write what you want. I really have no time for this. Ask your neigbour and derive from it that all Russians and "Voevodinians" are Ukrainians or vice-versa, whatever...This is getting increasingly ridiculous here. Juro 02:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible my english difficult to understand.

Not it is necessary its ignorance, reasonning in a circle accusations in nationism. I thank you that did not continue that support returns wars. If you have time please see http://lemko.org for study the standpoint lemkos. --Yakudza 12:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you possibly clean up the Jozef Murgaš article and make a short stub for Ján Cikker (as it's fairly difficult to find English sources on him). Thanks. HotelRoom 19:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see you edited Mikoviny's name to Mikovini - is Mikovini even a Slovak name?? HotelRoom 21:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikovíni is just a name, it's origin is quite unimportant (Slovaks have and have had foreign names and vice versa, just like in most countries). As far I know, -i is the original spelling, -y is the modern Slovak spelling (the -y used to prevent a wrong pronounciation of the -ni group which is palatalized in modern Slovak spelling). Juro 00:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mikov- part sounds Slovak though, while the -ini part doesnt'. It is slightly important because we should know if he was infact a Slovak. HotelRoom 02:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one was, without any doubt:). But still, names do not mean much in central Europe, many people have "foreign" names here. Juro 03:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea. I've noticed a lot of Czechs and Poles have Germanic, sometimes even Romanic last names. Still, I looked up the name Mikovini and it doesnt exist outside of him. Also, nice job on the Jozef Murgaš article! Complete turnaround. When I have the time, I'll go through the scientists/artists sections on list of Slovaks and start as many articles as I can research. HotelRoom 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Well, you might actually be right - but then we also have to change the entry dates for the other six New Member States; I quite distinctly recall that the press release for the entry of Cyprus, Malta, and Lithuania was in late April, while it was effective on

]

I do not know, but maybe in this case the situation is different in that this time they made it very quickly and totally in secret: the minister went on Thursday to Brussels, they made an agreement in the night and the entry became effective the next day. Juro 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at this press release: The date we use here in Wikipedia is the

]

I do not understand why press releases have been used as primary source. First, there must be a list showing the entry dates (if not, then web pages of the respective central banks should be used), secondly, I think there is some trading somewhere in world even during weekends, thirdly, the web page of the Slovak National Bank and all articles in newspapers etc. say explicitely that Slovakia entered the ERM II on 25.11., meaning that any other date is just wrong. Juro 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Please change the respective dates for the six currencies affected in all relevant articles then (Estonian, Lithuanian and Slovenian --> 27 June, not 28 June; Cypriot, Latvian and Maltese --> 29 April, not 2 May); you've got my support, I just wanted it to be consistent, that's why I reverted your edits. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juro, please start an RfC and I will support you. He just call us fascists. There are enough proofs to be blocked for good.

]

Thank you Juro.

talk & contribs 20:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I will be more careful when reverting the text :)

talk & contribs 21:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Czechoslovakian currency

Hi! As per

]

I have explained it in the summary: The official English name at that time was "crown" (not koruna) and "Czechoslovakian" is a misnommer, the correct form is Czechoslovak. Actually, Slovak koruna is still more correctly called Slovak crown (e.g. by the Slovak Central Bank), but I accept that US etc. newspapers prefer "koruna" in this case. Juro 03:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. Okay, I accept the Czechoslovak issue, error on my part. However, it's WP:Num policy to use the domestic name if it's in use at all... Are you against that as a whole, or only in this case? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against the policy as a whole ( but - like always in such cases - what is "in use at all"? - if, say, 1 out of 1000 persons uses it?? :) )... This is not really a problem, because we have redirects, but as I have explained above, the only name I have heard and seen in the past was Czechoslovak crown, the "koruna" names became popular only recently. Take it as a historic name. Juro 17:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dove1950 uses it, too, and he's currently responsible for about 70% of all edits to currency articles... ;) Anyway, the classic Google Test seems to favour Czechoslovak koruna to a large degree... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 17:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have explained to you that this is a "historic" name and that Czechoslovak crown is the correct (the then official) English name. If you insist and prefer google as a source, go on and move it, I will not stop you, but I disagree. Juro 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've called for a separate vote on this at the Numismatics talk page and referred potential voters to this discussion so that they can hear both sides of the discussion before voting. Is that okay for you? I don't want to act against the outspoken opinion of a fellow editor, so I thought a vote might be a way of compromise... D'accord? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that it's not a question of what the English name of the currency is. I think we can all agree that that is "Czechoslovak crown". The Numismatics project specifically says to use the local name, not the English name. To me, this makes sense because that's what will appear on the coins/banknotes. But that's a separate issue that can be discussed at the Numismatics style page. Mom2jandk 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that then - if you want to proceed that way - the currency name is "Koruna československá" and not "Czechoslovak koruna", because the CS part is an integral part of the name. But as I said above, move it to koruna, I really do not know what I could say more about this topic. Juro 00:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juro I need you!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Alexander_007 ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Alexander_007 . I've nominated

]

Thank you Juro, please have my best regards. And when you need my help, I'll be there for you.

talk & contribs 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

hungarian anon

It seems that this guy is trying to push a POV. And he's changing his IP. We should ask for someone to block him, or start an RfC or something. --

]

I have done my best on the page protection page, but the problem is that other users do not know the topic, so that they do not see what stupidities he is adding/changing. Try a RfC, I will support you, but I am really afraid that this is another group of "lost" articles in the wikipedia, which we will be unable to save, because the topic is relatively unknown and he has nothing else to do here than to concentrate on those few articles, while the others have many other things to do here and elsewhere. Juro 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is also

talk & contribs 15:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I asked an admin to handle the problem. Don't worry Juro I am here. --

]

Don't worry Juro I am here I've seen your answers.--

talk 13:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Jozef Karol Hell

If there's anyway you can expand these articles, that would be great. Thanks. I asked for permission to use the

]

I have written a very long and very interesting Petzval biography in the German wikipedia and a user promised to translate it, but he has not, as I notice now, so if you understand German you are free to translate it...The problem is that I have been involved in so many edit wars recently, that I really cannot afford to invest so much time any more, at least not right now, but I will try later. (I must add that all these wars could have been prevented (like always) if the pages had been protected temporarily and the person in question was forced to discuss right at the beginning, but the admin community of this wikipedia just does not work properly, I do not understand why). Juro 01:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately am not fluent enough in German to translate, sorry. Also, inform me in which edit wars you are participating and I will aid you. HotelRoom 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the offer, the matter seems to have been settled temporarily, because the pages have been protected.Juro 00:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

]

Sorry, but I would prefer not to participate in the RfC. I think that HotelRoom (Antidote, if he is really the user I think he is) is a somewhat chaotic and too stubborn user (even in cases where he is not right), but I think his intents are positive and, as far as I am concerned, his contributions have overweighted his negative behaviour. In addition, I cannot assess his edits on Jews or Romanians, so I really do not feel like being able to comment on him. But if you really think he has done extremist edits, you can prompt me again. Juro 21:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected

]

Pustý hrad

Hello. Why did you revert my copyediting of Pustý hrad? If I made something factually incorrect, please correct it, but please do not blindly revert my other changes. Olessi 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, this was just a typical "ignored-edit-conflict" problem, I only edited the last version before you. I hope this did not happen in other articles too. Juro 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I'll remove the mention of Pusztavár then. Olessi 04:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to retrieve an INCREDIBLY rough translation of the German article and put it into

]

Slovak coins.

All now uploaded to commons and listed for deletion on en.wikipedia. (I'm just hoping that the restrictions placed on them by the ECB are tolerated by Commons, cause the rules don't seem to explictly allow or disallow these). They are now also working on de.wikipedia.org. -

]

Happy ...

Happy Christmas etc, seeing you here at this time :-) Pavel Vozenilek 16:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Feel free to delete this from your page after it's read) Just want to wish everyone on Wikipedia who've I've "spoken" to this year a Happy Christmas. Happy New Year too (and if you don't celebrate Christmas then I guess it's just "Happy New Year") -

]

Komárov is name of about dozen villages in the Czech Republic and I noticed at least one in Slovakia (in Spiš area). I hed created disambig page Komárov (and link on Komarov page). I do not know how much Slovakian villages are covered but prhaps something can be integrated. Pavel Vozenilek 07:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it (and happy Christmas, to you too) Juro 16:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Juro! Within the last two weeks I have noticed three similar IP addresses (

]

Hello Juro

]

You are laughing, but I would prefer not to see that permanently vandalized article any more. :) Juro 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Trianon&diff=33178700&oldid=33177731 You understand what he's saying?

]

I believe it might be something about being away and friends watching over articles - for all I know he could be talking about you ;-) Jbetak 09:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is basically saying that I "the young buddy have not answered what he asked in Hungarian on his talk page" (translation to English: "the shepherd-kid has not fulfilled in Hungarian my request set up in Hungarian"). My explanation: Weeks ago he "requested" and "required" etc. that I answer him, see his (HunTomy's) talk page for details. Oh, yes, and note that now, we are "imperialists" (that's like calling a killed person the murderer :))) ) Juro 04:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep me informed about it. Please.

talk 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edits to "Slavic peoples"

Dear Juro, Boikos and Hutsuls identify themselves as Ukrainians. If you disagree, please provide factural matherial.--AndriyK 11:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal opinion on this, but Boikos and Hutsuls have always been considered Rusyns at least in Central and Western European literature, and they have also been defined as such in the wikipedia, until postmodern Ukrainian nationalists edited the text with the "argumnet" ("we are Ukrainians"). I have accepted that the current list under Slavic people and all Rusyns articles are wrong, but you must have at least the honesty to allow other (and actually majority) opinions to be mentioned. Also, note that:

-there is no problem if someone is considered both Ukrainian (citizen of the Ukraine) and Rusyn

-there is a difference between how people define themselves (after all, these things change from census to census) and what they truly are.

If you want sources, read for example the works of Magocsi (I hope I remember the name well), who is considered one of the best and most neutral authors in this field, or virtually any other non-Ukrainian source. Juro 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.:Here is an excellent text explaining all the views in maximum details, unfortunately in Slovak:[8] (it should be also available in English somewhere) Juro 17:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference. I am not fluent in Slovak to read the whole article. But as is seen from the maps, the article mostly devoted to Lemkos living in Slovakia. A part of Lemkos indeed identify themselves as Rusyns. So does a part (a very small, in fact) of lowlanders in Ukrainian Transkarpatia.

But we are talking about Hutsuls and Boikos. It would be nice if you suggest me how these words are spelled in Slovak so I could find them in the text you cited and see what is written about them.

I ment that Boiko and Hutsuls consider themselves as ethnic Ukrainians, not merely as citizens of Ukraine.

I read some works of the main ideologists of separate Rusyn ethnicity: Magocsi and Pop (they are not "neutral", be honest). But even they admit that Hutsuls and Boikos "have developed Ukrainian identity".

Galicians where also called "Rusyns" even in the first quater of the last century and sometimes even later, eastern Ukrainians had this name one and a half century earlier. Gradually, the ethnos changed the name of its identity to "Ukrainians". So did Hutsuls and Boikos. There is no indication that they consider themselves as separate ethnos from Galician lowlanders or from the rest of Ukrainians. If things change at the next census then the article should be changed. But now the article shoul be based on the presently available sources.

What means "what they truly are"? Who is allowed to decide this except people themselves? If some of Lemkos and Transcarpatian lowlander do not consider themselves Ukrainian, I respect their choice, but let's respect the choice of Boiko and Hutsuls who do consider themselves Ukrainian.--AndriyK 18:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1)They are spelled Bojko and Hucul. (2) What you are saying is the same type of arguments I have seen here in many ethnic group discussions, I disagree with you, but I am not going to involve in any further discussions of this type in the wikipedia any more, because it leads nowhere. I just remind that there is more in ethnology and decription of ethnicities then just repeating the result of the last census, that should be quite obvious. In fact, the whole Slavs list is a mess, because it has no true scientific (what ever) system, it is just an ad-hoc collection of approaches, but even if someone would correct it, there is always a majority of users, who just include there any name they can find. Also, note that self-definition of people often changes. For example, in Slovakia's censuses the same people that defined themselves as Ukrainians in past (which also had political reasons), partly define themselves as Rusyns now etc., although their ethnicity or language has not changes - this clearly shows that census are useless when it comes to making "objective" statements.(3) Ad Ukrainians: The people asked in censuses are no scientists and they are not asked to make an ethnic analysis before filling out the form etc., they - just like anybody else in the world - write how they used to be called, in this case Ukrainians. This can mean anything from "of Ukraine" up to "strictly ethnic Ukrainian". (4) The main point is that, I have read a lot of text on ethnic groups, and while I am certainly not an expert specifically on Rusyns, I am quite sure that I have always read that Rusyns include the Boikos and the Hutzuls. And a neutral encyclopaedia has to mentioned that. That's all. (5) As for Magocsi. His texts are highly neutral, he mentions all views. If you consider such texts biased, then we have a big problem. (6)Who you truly are is a mixture of your language, culture, religion, race and historical/political background. Juro 20:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that self-definition of may change. But it did not happened yet(?) for Boiko and Hutsuls. Wikipedia should give an account of facts. Speculations about what can or can not happen is not appropriate.

In Ukrainian census, the question was formulated clearly. Morover, I know many people from these two regions. You will hardly find any other region in Ukraine where people are so certain about their ethnicity as Hutsuls and Boikos.

Who is allowed to deduce my ethnicity from "a mixture of language, culture, religion, race and historical/political background" except myself?--AndriyK 21:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1)Wikipedia should repeat what is stated in scientific literature, and not what you or anybody else derives for himself. (2) There is no way how such a question could be formulated "clearly" and no way how the whole population could be instructed in defining ethnic groups. (3) I see from the beginning that things like scientists, ethnologists, historians etc. are unknown to you, otherwise you would not ask such a stupid question. You could equally ask: Who is "allowed" to teach you that the Earth is not a plain, and who is allowed to deduce that there are planets in the space etc. etc. (4) What you are doing in the article is nationalist POV pushing (deleting even only an alternative mention), but I got used to it from user from the European East. Many things will have to be changed there yet....Anybody reading the wikipedia articles on Eastern European countries should rather ignore them. Juro 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Juro, please cool down and switch to civil discussion instead of political labeling.

I do know very well what is history, ethnology and science in general. It looks like you mistaking about it. So I'll try to explain it to you.

The purpose of science is to describe the things, i.e. the science tries to answer the questions

• What are stars/planets/plants/animals/people/etc.
• How do they behave?
• etc.

The true science never prescribes

• What stars/planets/plants/animals/people/ethnosis shuld be.
• How they should behave?
• etc.

Scientist found that the Earth is spherical, they do not forth or convince ;) it to be so.

The true ethnologist tries to answer the questions:

• What are the feature of the dialect the ethnic group speak?
• Which (codified)language do they consider as their native tongue?
• To which religional confession do they belong?
• How do they identify their ethnicity?
• And so on...

If one tries to deside

• What language the people should speak
• To which confesion the people should belong.
• How they should identify their ethnicity.

this has nothing to do with science. This is politics. Politics may be totalitarian if the people are forthed to do something, it can be democratic if one tries to convence the people to do it. But in any case it is politics.

I have no doubts about creadibility of Paul Magocsi as scientist. But a significant part of his activity is pure politics. He is free to do what he does. But this part of his activity has nothing to do with science. And a politician cannot be neutral, by the way.

Asking people about their self-identification is the only scientific method that allows to decide who is Ukrainian, who is Slovak and who is Rusyn. There is no other "objective" criteria to do it. You can find planty of dialects within the same ethnos which are much more different then, for instance, Slovak and Czech languages. Different religions sometimes lead to creation of different ethnicities, sometimes do not. There is no common criterion.

I do not delete any alternative, if this alternative indeed exists. For instance, part of Lemkos do consider themselves as Rusyns. If I would delete it, you would have the reason to blame me for nationalism. I do not try to decide for Lemkos what they should be, I respect their choice. Please respect the choice of Hutsuls and Boikos, otherewise I'll have reasons to blame you for "Rusyn nationalism". ;)--AndriyK 13:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Juro, i am one of Hutsuls. I was born and grew up in North Bukovyna. I have never heard someone saying that Hutsuls are Rusins, on the contrary i have often heard that Hutsuls are Ukrainian. So befor you make your conclusion you should first study this topic more carefully. One more thing you should not forget is that Rusyn (Русин) is an old name of Ukrainians. This name have been stolen by Russians in ~17-18th century (more about it you can read here Украдене ім’я. Чому русини стали українцями., unfortunately only in ukrainian ). --Gutsul 08:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat that I would not insist on including those two under the Rusyns if that was not what I have seen in all expert books I have ever read on the topic. And you definitely cannot claim that I am inventing this, because we have had the Boikos und Hutzuls under the Rusyns in all wikipedia articles until recently (i.e. for years), and despite the fact that these articles are edited heavily by all sorts of Belorussia, Polish, Ukrainian and Russian -ists, nobody has changed this point. That fact should be proof enough. Finally, I know that the Ukrainian POV is completely different (after all we had that POV in Slovakia before 1989 too), but I am informing you that it is really just a POV. As for Magocsi, I do not know who he is (I have mentioned him, because you wanted a readily available source), I only now that if you read his texts he clearly explains all points of view, that's the only thing that matters.Juro 20:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "Ukrainian POV" is a mainstream POV of modern ethnology and linguistics. Take, for instance, Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropadia, Languages of the world. You will see that even the existance of a separate Rusyn language is not generally recognized. It is mentioned there, but as a rather marginal POV. More "standard" view is that this is a dialect of Ukrainian or transitional dialect between Ukrainian and Slovak.

Still, I admit that the POV about existance of separate Rusyn is strongly supported by the fact that there are people considering themselves not Ukrainian but Rusyns and they would like to develope their own language different from both Ukrainian and Slovak. If they succeed, the mainstream POV will change.

On the contrary, including of Boikos and Hutsuls to Rusyn ethnos is not supported by any fact. This is a marginal POV within a marginal POV. I would not object if this POV is mentioned in the articles about Boikos, Hutsuls and Rusyns, but only if it is accompaned by mentioned the fact that Boikos and Hutsuls identify themselves as Ukrainians, i.e. the issue should be elaborated to avoid any misunderstanding.

I am strongly against mentioning this POV in the list of Slavic peoples. It cannot be elaborated there. The situation about Lemkos is essentially different. Mentioning Boikos and Hutsuls in the same format would be misleading.--AndriyK 14:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you allow mentioning this opinion in the main articles, but not in the Slavs article under brackets and with the commentary "by some"; that shows a lot... Also, I see that you are so biased that you even do not realise that the whole world is laughing how Ukrainians managed to officially "delete" one whole nation. And I am not saying that I share that opinion, I am only stating a fact. If nobody has told you that until now, then I am telling you this now. But I am definitely not surprised, and since I have enough experience with the wikipedia and have seen all the endless Rus - Ruthenian - Rusyn - Ukrainian -Russian - Belorussian etc. conflicts about ethnicity and names articles, I will not change anything, because even if I persuaded you, 100 others will come and change everything.Juro 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Magocsi's "Historical Atlas of Central Europe: Revised and Expanded Edition" (2002). The information he presents is rather general, but he seemed neutral and balanced to me. I can check next week to see if he mentions these two ethnic groups in the text (I don't believe so, however). Olessi 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have no doubt concerning scientific creadibility of Magocsi. Many his scientific works are recognized by the world's slavistics community. But his scientific activity should be destinguished from his political activity.--AndriyK 14:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no doubt concerning his scientific credibility, then why should we be interested in his "political" activity? (which, by the way, you still have not described)Juro 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating stubs for every location in the Czech Republic. There are quite a many places with the same names, to be handled by disambig page.

Currently I ignore Slovak locations. I expect quite significant overlap there and bet that random people won't keep the semi-standard structure I set up.

Do you know an online tool to check for names of Slovakian towns/villages? It would be better to create disambiguations early and properly.

Are names of Slovak locations here somehow standardized (for the Czech ones I use "XYZ (ABC District)") and easy to construct (for me)? Pavel Vozenilek 13:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best online tool are the German wikipedia articles (in many cases you just have to copy the disambiguation page, compare e.g. this wikipedia's and the German wikipedia's Slatina article). For other sources see e.g. the bottom part at de:Benutzer:Law. As for the brackets name, that's a very good question. Although both the German and Slovak wikipedia usually use the XY(Okres XY) name, I think another name would be more appropriate in the long run, because the okres' virtually do not exist anymore in Slovakia (similarly to Czechia), therefore I would prefer the name of the next big town or something like that.Juro 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "XYZ, Big Town" syntax may be dedicated to city parts. At least this is what they use on Czech Wiki and I fear someone will bring it here as well. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But do you see an alternative to using the next town or the okres? And what do you think about what I said about the okresy in the long run? I really think the town would be better, unless you have a better idea. Also, you could use XYZ (town) for villages and XYZ, town for city parts. Juro 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You also have to answer to those questions below. Don't worry.

talk 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

go and accept

Dear Juro, I am glad to tell you that you already have 5 votes. Go and accept. You'll be sysop.

talk 14:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Juro; I strongly recommend you answer the questions on your RfA. It's going well now, but it has very little chance of ultimately going well if you don't answer the questions. --Durin 21:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a waste of time. As soon as Vay et al. appear there, it's over.

Don't take my opposition as a personal attack. Sorry for the situation. Zello 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, Zello, I expected this, that's why I am not surprised. On the other hand, Zello, you are new here, you have no idea, how many long articles I have written for this wikipedia, even about Hungary, and people get an absolutely wrong idea of me because of the last weeks. That is really said. I should have insisted on being nominated much later. Juro 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are a valuable contributor and done a great work in different articles. And I hoped very much that you will turn down this offer because I didn't want to insult you with opposition even after our content disputes. But I'd fear of your administrativ power in Central-Europe related articles and I don't think this will change later. Zello 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what could I do as an admin except blocking permanent reverters ?Juro 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do easy reverts, block users, protect pages. And being an admin means a lot of prestige so your opinion would seem "official" for others. I think if somebody has stong opinions and feelings about a topic it is really hard to remain objective. For us Central-Europeans it would be better if we had only western admins in sensitive articles like history, demographic etc. because we have too much personal involvement. Zello 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My seemingly personal remarks result from the fact that I do not have the time for lenghty discussion of things I consider facts (what you said about Jews in our last discussion was an exception, I am quite allergic to such statements), but such discussions are the rule now in this wikipedia. So this does not have to do with "personal involvement" as you understand it. You have not had the "opportunity" to speak to "real Slovaks" here (equivalents of fzXY etc.), if you really consider my statements "personal involvement" :)... Juro 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man sometimes says things in the heat of a discussion I'm not really offended. But imagine the same from an admin (for example a Hungarian admin and in a case when you think you are right). It is quite disturbing, isn't it? And he has the right to stop discussion with administrative tools because he strongly believes he knows better the facts... I think adminship is not about being a very valuable user, it is a different role in the wikipedia: a lot of little work, fight against vandalism, tedious project chores and mediation in disputes in which the person is not a partaker. I think you are a more confrontative kind of personality. Zello 06:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the process works, but I imagine that you could withdraw your candidacy. I wouldn't worry too much about not passing, if that is the outcome you fear. I think the comments you receive will show you the areas you should concentrate on. Jbetak 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's exactly why I finally accepted the nomination, I wanted to see who appears there and what he says :). Do you think I should withdraw now? Juro 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably either answer the three questions at the bottom as soon as possible, or withdraw. If you do apply for adminship again, please consider adhering to

Interiot 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, a number of people seemed to vote against because the standard questions at the bottom of the page were not answered. This is just a technicality, but it appears as if some people voted more or less automatically against because of it. It might be a good idea to continue the discussion. Of course if you don't have time or feel that you have seen enough, then I think everyone would understand. Just my $0.02 :-) Jbetak 08:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Juro. Please go there and respond to the questions. A lot of people will change their votes once you respond to the questions.

talk 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Great Slovak Empire

Do you know whether this term (present in Great Moravia article) is used by any serious author or whether it is popular in public? The attribute some smells of a troll. I'd never heard about this but as they say, one is never old enough to learn. Pavel Vozenilek 01:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember anymore whether it is used exactly in this form, but I remeber having seen the form "Slovak empire" in some nationally oriented texts. But all the traditional authors and a vast majority still uses Great Moravia. It is hard to say, what the percentages are, because nobody has ever drawn up a statistical table for this :))). But the point here is that the we have a user here who insists on mentioning the Grest Slovak Empire form and nobody will stop him. Juro 05:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had changed wording of the sentence. Please check. I also see a vandal on

Mikulcice - he's from anonymous AOL account so there's no way to discuss whatever. I think immediate revert will be the best to handle such. Pavel Vozenilek 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not A vandal, it is always the same person. You should have already found out, actually, that the number of editors in the wikipedia is much lower than it seems :) Juro 22:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic map of Slovakia

Hi. I need your help. I want to draw ethnic map of Slovakia based on 2001 census data for Slovak counties (okresov). I found some data on official Slovak statistical web site, but it is little confusing. According to this data, in most of the okresov Slovaks are in majority, while in two of them majority are Hungarians. But, for 4 okresov there is confusing data. According to this data, Slovak population in these 4 okresov is between 30.00% and 59.99%. So, I do not know are Slovaks in majority in these 4 okresov too, and if they are, are they in absolute or in a relative majority. On this map from the statistical web site these 4 okresov are labeled with letters ML, RS, NZ, and GA, and I think that they would be Medzilaborce okres/District (in Prešov region), Rimavská Sobota District (in Banská Bystrica Region), Nové Zámky District (in Nitra Region), and Galanta District (in Trnava Region). In fact, you can just tell me a simple answer: does all okresov of Slovakia except two have absolute Slovak majority? PANONIAN (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I look at that, could you be more precise and tell me which site says what? Or does one site say that there are between 30 and 60% Slovaks in one district?? But generally, I can hardly tell you things that are different from what an official site says....And another question: Is there a special website where one can draw such maps or something? (I have no idea about these graphics stuff). Juro 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think that the data I have is from official web site (but I am not sure). It is some PDF document, with the maps, which show the percent of several nationalities within the Slovakian districts. I cannot find the information about nationalities on this official site (I think that my browser cannot read from that program they used one that site). So, if there is data about nationalities in that 4 districts on official site, can you just tell me what is written there? PANONIAN (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Here is what the help section from the official site say: "Menu divided by thematic domains is situated in top part of the screen". My internet browser do not show that menu, that is a problem, I think. PANONIAN (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Sorry for breaking into your conversation but I think (and it is only my personal opinion) if you'd like to draw a map which really reflect the ethnic situation than better not to based it on the administrative borders. Hungarians live in a narrow region next to the border (except in the Komarno-Zitny ostrov region) and administrativ borders don't follow this line but cut it into pieces. So if you count only with the districts this Hungarian "fringe" will absolutely disappear. Or you get districts with 30 % minority - but this really means 80 % in the south and nothing in the middle and north. You will get a real picture if you collect datas of the localities (more work of course but it's possible). Zello 15:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Yes, but I have only data for districts, not for local communities. If you give me some source with data for those communities, I could draw a map based on that. PANONIAN (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

That is the typical problem with such maps, municipalities would be better, but even if Panonian had that data, I do not think he would spend so much time with analysing each single village (because in many cases the ethnic border takes the form of steep "waves").

You'll find every data on the homepage of the Slovak Statistical Office (www.statistics.sk). Look up the municipality and under the tag "Population census" there is a percent of nationality in 1991 and 2001. I think it is not so much work - there aren't Hungarians in the whole northern and middle Slovakia (except a little language island next to Nitra) and there is a strong Hungarian majority in the Zitny ostrov region. You have to find only the line of the ethnic border - which really takes steep turns here and there. Zello 07:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I already visited that site, but I did not find a percent of nationality in districts or municipalities (maybe my internet browser cannot read from that program they used on that web site). Another problem is that I do not have map of the municipalities of Slovakia, only map of the districts. PANONIAN (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you enter switch to the English version, then click to the tag "Urban and municipal statistics" on the left. Enter again (under the English flag). Now you'll have a map with all the districts of Slovakia. Click one of them and a list appear with the names of all municipalities of the given district. Click any of them and you'll see a data chart - then click on the tag "Population census 91,01" in the upper band. A new chart appears - that's it!

As for the map I think every municipality is easily identificated with an ordinary (paper) map about the country for example Freytag & Berndt. Zello 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the site with Internet Explorer and Opera and it works. With Mozilla the map is dead but you can use the district-list on the left. Zello 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can only confirm that the map does not work with me, either (Firefox). Juro 22:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you are still interested in the districts, I have found maps of exactly the type you originally wanted to draw it (for each nationality a shaded map of districts). For the Magyars, it shows the following (the names are the names of districts):

• 69,07 – 83,4 % : Dunajská Streda (83,34%), Komárno (69,07%)
• 25 – 41,29%: Galanta, Šaľa, Nové Zámky, Levice, Veľký Krtíš, Lučenec, Rimavská Sobota(41,29%), Rožňava, Trebišov
• 5-25%: Bratislava II (i.e eastern Bratislava), Senec, Nitra, Košice-okolie, Michalovce, Revúca

---

Yes, these maps are similar to those I have, but I still have no answer to my question. I will not draw ethnic map based on municipality data since I do not have a map of these municipalities, and even if I have one, there is too many of them and it is very big job. However, I could draw one based on the district data, but only after I see the data for those 4 districts I mentioned. In the future somebody could to draw map based on the municipality data too. I do not see why both maps should not to exist. For example, we posted 2 ethnic maps into the Sandžak article, one is based on the data for the municipalities, and other on the data for settlements. Of course, if somebody do not tell me who is majority in those 4 districts which I mentioned above, I cannot draw even this map based on district data. PANONIAN (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Now, I do not understand why you are asking this. The numbers are above: There are 5-25% Magyars in the Michalovce District, 41,29% in the Rimavská Sobota District, 25-41,29% in the Nové Zámky District and in the Galanta District. What is the problem? Juro 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Well, problem is that I do not know much about ethnic composition of Slovakia. The information that there are 41,29% Hungarians in Rimavská Sobota do not tell me who is a majority there. For example, there could be 41% Hungarians, 39% Slovaks and 20% others or 52% Slovaks, 41% Hungarians and 7% others or 49% Slovaks, 41% Hungarians and 10% others. Do you understand what I mean? I just want to know who is a majority in those districts and is that majority absolute or relative. As for the districts of Nové Zámky, Galanta, and Rimavská Sobota, I want to know are Slovaks or Hungarians in majority there, while for the Medzilaborce district I want to know are Slovaks or Ukrainians and Rusyns majority there (That is what I do not understand from these maps I have). PANONIAN (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

I see. The ethnic composition of Slovakia (unlike that of Vojvodina) is quite simple: Slovaks everywhere, Magyars in the south, Ruthenians and Ukrainians in the northeast, and Roma in the Spiš and in the south-east (as described below). Everything else is negligible (there are some 2% Czechs in central Bratislava and in the Skalica district, to be more precise). The only case where more than 2 ethnicities meet is south-eastern Slovakia, where there are Slovaks, Magyars and Roma (and many of the Magyars are Roma, but let's stick to the census data).

Now your question:

• there are only Magyars and Slovaks in south-western Slovakia, and Magyars and Slovaks and Roma in south-eastern Slovakia. Other nationalities are negligible there (max. 1%).
• As for the south-eastern districts in question: The Roma make up around 5 % (never more than 6%) in all the border districts between (excluding) Lučenec and Trebišov (and are negligible elsewhere in the south).
• As for Medzilaborce (I hope you do not confuse it with Michalovce): 40,4 % Ruthenians, 5 % Ukrainians, the rest are Slovaks and a negligible % of Roma.

In other words, the Slovaks form the relative and absolute majority in all districts in Slovakia except for Žitný ostrov (Dunajská Streda and Komárno), in which the Magyars form the absolute and relative majority.

Juro 03:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! You may find this map useful: [10]--Tamas 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the best - municipalities and the datas of the 2001 census. Should we use it on wikipedia? Zello 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Ok, thank you for information. By the way, did you saw what anonymous user wrote on your user page? PANONIAN (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Lubosh G. Hale

Nominated for speedy deletion. Pavel Vozenilek 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Vajdaság

Could you translate the text below Image:Vajdaság.jpg and try to determine where it comes from? I think it's from the hungarian government cartography department (a magyar nemzet térképe) but I'm not sure. Nicholas 02:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text says: The last map from the time before the Yugoslav (South Slavic) War, prepared on the basis of the 1991 census. The "magyarship" (Magyars) forms the majority in the Districts of Szabadka, ......even nowadays. I do not know more about "a magyar nemzet térképe" than you, I have used google and found nothing. You should ask the author directly. He has been uploading non-public domain maps for weeks now, I do not know whether he has not been told that or whether he just ignores any warnings. Juro 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Slovak origin

Can you please take look at this and either fill something in or propose it for delete? Pavel Vozenilek 03:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles

You are right. Sorry for that. I had a problem with capitals and didn't know how to get rid of that.Jurohi 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ba-primatialpalast.jpeg

Thanks for uploading

Copyright policy

).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

talk 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ba-palais grassalkovich front.jpeg

Thanks for uploading

Copyright policy

).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

talk 02:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

(I do not know, whether you read this but) Please wait. Juro 03:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kossuth

Is this a fact: His family was of Slovak origin  ???

Please insert your source (any non Slovak material) into the article. If you will not do this, I will delete it again. 193.225.153.254 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Hungarian user Zello has added the details, I have added 1 or 2 sentences. This should be OK with you, now. A "mixed" origin was very frequent in the Kingdom of Hungary, therefore I do not understand your harsh reaction. Obviously, one can have a family of XY origin, but can consider oneself and actually be and become something else during one's life. Juro 23:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what nationality a user is, it should only matter what they write: is it correct or not. Your tone seems hostile to Hungarians, as does your writing. The family name Kossuth is actually of 'Polish' origin. There are a number of Coszuths in Poland alive today. I wonder if we could tone down the rhetoric a bit. This interaction between Slovaks and Hungarians seems to be way too emotional. And for the record, you are indeed correct, most everyone in the former Kingdom of Hungary was a mutt.

Let me tell only this: None of what you have written here is true. Juro 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your rethoric is not better, "mutt". Zello 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is XYZ a village in Slovakia?

Question: is there some (relatively) easy way for me to check online whether a geographical name is also municipality in Slovakia? I'd returned to covering all Czech locations and would prefere to create disambiguations early to keep the whole structure consistent. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 18:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only internet source I know (except for the page of the Statistical Offica, which however only shows municipalities) is [11]. However, the page is highly unreliable. It contains wrong characteristics of the settlements (e.g. "city" for "osada" :)) ), it repeats the same settlements under different names as (seemingly) different settlements, it includes settlements under their old names (and does not show what the new name is) and there are problems with diacritics there. Nevertheless, it is better than nothing. Juro 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 03:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a POV check

Could you please take look at

Gay rights in Slovakia. I quite dislike the tone here but don't have enough of info. Pavel Vozenilek 03:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately, the tone (I do not know about the rough facts) corresponds to the reality. Although Czechia and Slovakia have become quite similar (almost culturally interchangeable) countries during the past decades, religion and tolerance and similar stuff are still the two basic differences and the situation in these fields is very different, so you should not apply Czech circumstances when judging such articles, because the situation is different. (And note that there will be premature elections in Slovakia in June exactly because of the party mentioned in the article and because of these issues!. ) The real question is whether say the corresponding article on Poland is equally critical - and it is not. Juro 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vienna Awards picture

...should correctly say "Czecho-Slovakia" (not Slovakia"

As far as I know Czecho-Slovakia already was disintegrated, but maybe you are right. Erdelyiek 17:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czecho-Slovakia was disintergrated on March 14/15 1939 (i.e. some 6 months later). Juro 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for correcting the

Peace of Žitava and Žitava articles. I had found very little information about the "Treaty of Zsitvatorok" in English, so I tried to use my (extremely limited) knowledge of Hungarian on hu:Zsitvatorok while working on the articles. Once again, thanks. Olessi 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I created a stub article for

Peace of Žitava. Please correct/expand if you have additional information! Olessi 10:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A CfD vote on Category:Slovakian law

It is question of Slovakian versus Slovak. You may come there as an authority. Pavel Vozenilek 21:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your

WP:NA

entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakian Koruna

You seem to have a real problem with this article. What have you got against an article containing the correct names of the currency and its subdivision? If you know the different forms of the plurals of koruna and halier, why not put them in the article? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
Dove1950 15:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have not understood, what the problem is, the only thing I can tell you is this: you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE (and actually I should use an insult at this point), neither from the linguistic (the word DOES NOT HAVE TWO PLURAL FORMS), nor from the factual point of view, so please just stop this and go and play around elsewhere. It is you who has a problem here and a big one. Juro 18:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC) P.S.:And disussions take place on the talk pages, by the way.[reply]

First apologies for putting the above in the wrong place. Second, go ahead and swear, its your user talk page. Third you've already been told by other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics that we use local names of currencies, not English names. If the Slovak language is complicated, then it is the responsibility of an encyclopedia article to give the necessary forms of the words koruna and halier that will be useful to those encountering them. This might need to be all 14 forms, it might not. Fourth, I'm not playing.
Dove1950 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with local - non-local name (crown vs. koruna), what is that supposed to mean again?? Secondly, the only local name is koruna. There is nothing else to discuss about this. In many languages words have a number of cases and no article in the world mentions them. For example, Latin words also have cases, and no article with Latin titles (in the wikipedia or elsewhere) mentions all the case forms, but only the basic form. The same holds for all Slavic articles (except Bulgarian) a part of German articles etc. etc. I hope this explanation has been simple enough. Capito? Juro 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Slovak banknotes. You won't see koruna but korún, since the denominations are all 5 or higher. It therefore makes sense to give this form of the noun as well as koruna. Similarly, halierov was used on coins but you won't find halier. This isn't about case, it's about number and you will find plural forms given in other currency articles.
Dove1950 17:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But these are not just plural forms, these are plural GENITIVE forms and they are not used for all numbers and definitely not in all sentences etc. However, that does not mean that the currency has two alternative names, just as any other Latin, Slavic etc. article in any encyclopedia does not say the equivalent for any Latin, Slavic etc. word. Currenciea are by no means special in this respect. And, nevertheless, the text mentions this already. Juro 04:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What an article needs is to give useful information. The reason for putting in plurals (as they appear on the currency) is to assist in identification. It may seem obvious to you that halierov means "haliers" but you oughtn't to assume that this is obvious to everyone. What I object to about the current article is the use of haliers and korunas which don't exist in any language but I appreciate how objectionable it might be to you to see a genitive plural being used where it oughtn't to be. Incidentaly, I don't suppose you feel like explaining why the genitive is used on coins and notes?
Dove1950 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current text GIVES that information, although the information is actually ridiculous given that the article on the ruble or any other Slavic currency does not give the same information (Russian , to give an example of a "big" language, works similarly to Slovak in this respect). And the same holds for any other Slavic, Latin and German article (I am repeating this sentence for a third time in this discussion, just to be sure that everybody gets the point). Grammatical issues (declension etc.) are supposed to be placed in the Wictionary - that is what the wictionary has been created for, after all. As to "why": The exact answer is bound to numbers, prepositions and sentences, not to the question whether we are talking about a currency or another object. The answer would be very long, but maybe I have forgotten to inform you that the genitive plural is never used for 1 crown or 2 crowns ,for example (but those coins do not write the whole name I suppose, so that you cannot see that). Juro 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: To give one final simple argument: "korún" means exactly "of crowns" - now imagine how ridiculous it would be, if there was an introduction in the dollar article saying: Dollar (also called of dollars) is a..... And your argument in favor of "of dollars" would be that people use that combination frequently. Juro 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forms of the word koruna which appear on Slovak notes are not obvious to people who don't speak Slovak, hence they should be included in the article. If you had looked more carefully at the Russian ruble article, you'd have seen that we've been through a similar discusion, leading to the inclusion of the forms which appear on the coins and banknotes. As German doesn't use the genitive is similar circumstances, the problem does not arise there.
Dove1950 15:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruble article is now analogous to the koruna article (the genitive etc. is explained within the text). The only difference is that the koruna article is much shorter and the explanation is much shorter. Although I still consider this ridiculous (I am reminding that even the explanation under ruble is far from complete, and we have the wictionary for these things), I do not understand what you are still objecting now. Secondly, I still do not understand what makes the names of currencies so special compared with other local names, that we mention the declension in selected cases, while we do not do that in other articles. Thirdly, and what about the Czech koruna article, and what about the zloty etc. etc.?? Fourthly, names are declined in German too, they acquire endings like -en, -e etc. and no article mentions that. There is absolutely no system in these things here. Juro 20:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ba-haus zum guten hirten.jpeg

You say that this image comes from the German wiki. I can't find it there. Because it doesn't have a tag indicating its copyright status, we need to find the original. If you can help or can add an appropriate

copyright tag

, that would help. If no license information can be provided, the image may be deleted.

Thanks!

SteinbDJ 18:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tmp

more of my reply here.
plus one more quest: what is concathedral?

Slovak-Hungarian War

Hi, recently I found an article about "Slovak-Hungarian War". As far as I know the whole article is fake. It was proposed for deletion but it survived somehow. Please take a look at this nonsense! Thanks Zello 13:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard about this event and the former version seemed very dubious. Thanks! Zello 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Feldek vs. Dušan Slobodník

Dear Juro, following our discussion regarding Mr. Carnogursky vision of optimal relation between Slovakia and the Czechia, I decided to add to Summer Shakespeare Festival page one paragraph about Mr.Huba's project to stage Romeo and Juliet, such as that one evening Capulets would be Slovaks and Monteks Czechs and the next day vice versa. The project failed, Mr. Huba said to the media that even though the dialogs translated by Ľubomír Feldek and Martin Hilský are pefect, they somehow do not fit together. In the end, the only character performed in Slovak language was the Nurse (Emília Vášáryová).

First, I translated cz-wiki and sk-wiki pages of Mr. Hilsky and Mr. Feldek to en-wiki. While checking translations of Mr. Feldek work, I got sucked into the controversial dispute with Mr. Slobodník. I would appreciate if you could check the relevant paragraph for accuracy and neutrality. Sucháč JanSuchy 20:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

city parts

Hi Juro. I see the term city parts being used often on the pages about SK localities. It doesn't sound like English to me. I checked and actualy it doesn't appear anywhere on web except pages written by nonnative EN writers ie french etc, nor it is reported in any English dictionary.
Apparently city parts is a literal translation of SK term mestske casti, and I see its usage as simply wrong. The problem arose probably from the fact that both okres and obvod (now called mestska cast) translates to English as district. I find quite unpleasant calling Petrzalka the city part, while the district seems more apropriate. I am trying to find a proper replacement for city parts, since the term is going to be used often. My proposal: mesta cast (former obvod) will be translated as district, while okres will be translated as area. Please comment. thx Jurohi 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not exist as a term in English (as far as I know), but it is linguistically correct (many people have corrected the articles and nobody had problems with this term). Administrative units should be always translated as literally as possible, otherwise we will created a huge mess of terms in the long run. We need a different term for mestská časť (city part), for okres (district) and for obvod (circuit). There are no other suitable translation alternatives, and every expert uses "city part", because anything else is just misleading. And you are completely wrong, it is not true that "obvod" and "okres" are now "mestská časť", you are confusing several things at once by claiming this. Okres, obvod and mestská časť and miestna časť and katastrálne územie are all completely different terms. Juro 23:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that "obvod", "okres" and "mestská časť" are the same thing. Obviously you didn't read very carefully my lines. Since I don't see anymore the term obvod being used, I suppose mestska cast is its newer replacement, but I may be wrong. Correct me if so. However I believe you should be more carefull when using the expression You are completely wrong. People might not aprecciate it, especialy if it is you the one who is wrong.
Anyway, there is no doubt regarding the need to distinguish okres from city part. What I am saying is just that the term district seems more apropriate, to be used for mestska cast and so only the term for okres need to be chosen. It is definitely important to avoid a huge mess of terms in the long run, however I believe this should be done without inventing expressions which might make laugh native English reader.
BTW, the argument about many people having no problems with the term, has very little weight if you consider extremely low quality of the Englished used in the article (I assume we are talking about Bratislava, the version few days ago). Jurohi 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed too much today, hence a short answer: The Bratislava article has been edited by many native speakers. We cannot use district, because district=okres, and that's a different thing, also existing in Bratislava. Currently, there are both okresy and obvody and mestské časti in Bratislava, which brings us back to what I have said above. Juro 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hostel movie, re BA

maybe because this is hot topic nowadays? that's certainly not ridiculous. and no, it wasn't shot near bratislava, you are mistaken. i will be reverting or adding a note about it, please don't act irresponsibly... --dusoft 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Moravia

Hi, Juro! Thank you for your last edits of the section about the Great Moravian culture. But I am not sure whether it is a good idea to include Devin as the probable seat of the school lead by St. Methodius and Nitra as the archbishopric. Can you cite any document (or archeological evidence) proving (or at least indicating) it? Nitra was certainly a seat of a bishop, but (as far as I know) the seat of the archbishop has not been identified yet. As for the school, it would be understandable to assume that it was situated in an ecclesiastical center (such as Nitra, Mikulcice, perhaps Bratislava). But why Devin? That is why I propose not to include any town as the location of the school and to include Nitra as a "probable" archbishopric... Well, perhaps I am completely wrong and you know some newer results that I do not. Tankred 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Devín, a big/corresponding school building has been excavated in Devín recently (in the 1990s or 1980s, I do not remeber anymore), you will find that in newer literature. And since Devín is mentioned repeatedly as the biggest fortress of Rastislav etc. in Frankish documents, it is also highly probable that it is exactly the GM Academy. But theoretically, of course, the school could have been anywhere (but theoretically, anything could have been anywhere in the Middle Ages as well). And as for Nitra, he was mentioned in papal documents as archbishop with his seat at Nitra, so either I do not understand your question or I have a complete black-out at this late hour (I am not a walking hard disk, you know :-) ). Juro 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently trying to add inline references to the Great Moravia article. Although I have read or skimmed most of the books about the subject, I have not been able to find any reliable source mentioning Nitra as the seat of an archbishop. As far as I understood, some Slovak authors hypothesized this connection, but without providing any evidence. Nitra was the seat of a bishop (not an archbishop) during Methodius' life. Later, papal documents mentioned Nitra as the seat of one of the prelates sent by the Pope to Mojmir II (either an archbishop OR one of the bishops). According to excavations, Mikulcice was another important ecclesiastic center, but it is difficult to say which of the two towns was more important in religious life (since most of the Great Moravian Nitra remains unexplored). It would be helpful if you can find and cite your sources. Otherwise, I think it will be safer to reformulate the sentence "the first Slavic archbishopric (in Nitra)" in a less absolute way. What do you think? Tankred 22:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at that during the following days. No time right now. Juro 06:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

usurping the one and only view on what should belong to article on bratislava?

it seems to me so. well, i think your behaviour is not proper. what's your right to tell, that short sentence about the hostel movie should not be added? i repeat: it's hot topic and lot of people already search for it. why not to put short explanation that the hostel movie was not shot in bratislava and has nothing to do with it? i don't see a single reason, specially when it could attract more visitors to Bratislava article...

Read my edits comments. Do you have counterarguments? You don't. (And this emotional "usurping/non-usurping" theatre does not work with me.) And this is an encyclopaedia and not a tourist site and not a link collection (I mention these points specifically in view of the only edits you are doing both here and at wikitravel) and not a newspaper. Furthermore, it WAS a topic in January and February, it is no "topic" anymore. Moreover, those who are searching for information, find that information in the article on the film. And most importantly, I repeat, the film is NOT set in Bratislava and we do not have such information in such places in other articles. So, it would be nice if you finally left your "tourist information office" position and accepted that this is an encyclopaedia. Juro 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just misinterpret my arguments, but that's your decision. Re "tourist office" - I believe that without links we would be nowhere (actually, more-less Tim Berners-Lee said the same thing). And yes, I know this is encyclopaedia. Ad Wikitravel - I have not misedited Wikitravel since somebody pointed out the policy to me, I don't have any problems to accept that (if the person is not arrogant as you sometimes are). I get the fact you are a frequent editor of Bratislava article, but that does not give you right to be arrogant to other people editing it.

Regarding links at Wikipedia - there is discussion at Bratislava article, so feel free to enter your arguments there. And no, I do not only edit links, I do however watch quality of links most of the time, agreed. FYI: I have just recently edited Twin cities part. Maybe you could check with other edits I made on wikipedia, so you at least try to judge more objectively. But nevermind, feel free to do what you want. Still, I don't get why you don't agree Hostel movie should be mentioned (I don't mind if without any links, if that's the problem you have). --dusoft 13:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented very simple and fundamental arguments both here and in edit summary. Either you are able to provide rational counterarguments, or the discussion is over. What you "believe" is irrelevant...And I do not edit the Bratislava article frequently (actually I am ignoring it for most of the time) and from my perspective, it is you who is arrogant here. Juro 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright discussion is over, but somehow you have not made yourself clear why Hostel movie should nt be mentioned. dusoft 22:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an optician would help. Hear a repetition: Read my edits comments. Do you have counterarguments? You don't. (And this emotional "usurping/non-usurping" theatre does not work with me.) And this is an encyclopaedia and not a tourist site and not a link collection (I mention these points specifically in view of the only edits you are doing both here and at wikitravel) and not a newspaper. Furthermore, it WAS a topic in January and February, it is no "topic" anymore. Moreover, those who are searching for information, find that information in the article on the film. And most importantly, I repeat, the film is NOT set in Bratislava and we do not have such information in such places in other articles. So, it would be nice if you finally left your "tourist information office" position and accepted that this is an encyclopaedia. Juro 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you, I visited optician, got glasses and somehow everything is clarified now. dusoft 22:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State Theatre Košice

Hi. Since you edited the article

State Theatre Košice, I hope you might have an opinion on the following issue. Recently I expanded the article Neo-baroque substantially, and mentioned the State Theatre as an example of a building in Neo-baroque style. Today User:Ghirlandajo removed the example, with edit summary rm fringe sample. Can you think of a reason why he might have done that? I am wondering if he did it just to annoy me, because I reverted another change of his to the article just before that. Lambiam^Talk 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, probably the city is not big enough for him. I do not mind if you leave it out, but on the other hand, in terms of architecture this particular theatre is a very nice example of Neo-baroque, afaic. Juro 22:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can you please see this talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Czechoslovakia1927.png

The anonymous user claim there that this map does not show the political situation in 1927, but in 1929. However, the source which I used for this map claim that it show situation in 1927. Since you are the person who know something about history of Czechoslovakia, can you tell me does this map show situation in 1927 or in 1929? Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

The so-called "lands" shown on the map were introduced by Act No. 125/1927 Zb. and became effective on July 1 1928 in Slovakia and on December 1 1928 in Czechia (I do not know about Carpathian Ruthenia, but the date should be 1928, too). Juro 03:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Or I can just to write a note on that map page about that what you just said, that lands were introduced in 1927 and became effective in 1928? Would that be ok? PANONIAN (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

This is a misunderstanding. What I attempt to say is that the law was adopted in 1927, but the law (and thus the lands) became effective in 1928, unless there were some special provisions for Carpathian Ruthenia. In other words, the correct year for the map is neither 1927, nor 1929, but 1928. Juro 04:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

All right, I will change the map. PANONIAN (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Small Carpathians -> Little Carpathians

Hi Juro, I would like to know the reason for reverting back my change from Little Carpathians to Small Carpathians. It seems to me that vast majority of the resources traslate "Male Karpaty" as "Small Carpathians", just try searching for the terms on google VladoD 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Small Carpathians" is not the correct English-language name, the only correct names are "Little Carpathians" or "Lesser Carpathians" (this has been discussed in this wikipedia some months ago and results from the fact that this is how names of mountains are formed in English). Your "sources" are texts written by Slovaks. Juro 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nové Zámky

Please see my note on the Nové Zámky talk page. Hikitsurisan 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis II Rákóczi

I looked up, both statement is true. He was the főispán of the county and he called himself Count of Sáros in Poland. So in this case I accept the present version. Of course I strongly disagree with the grand-scale renaming of every Hungarian place name. You put the burden of launching an edit war on the other party with a step like this. I can do the same with dozens of articles Zello 09:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(One personal remark: I hoped you will say something in the Komárno edit war. Aside from the usual Slovak-Hungarian conflicts between us I think you are a fairly reasonable guy who certainly see how absurd and indeed outrageous this campaign. And this is not about nationality, for a long time I thought Mt7 a Hungarian from Slovakia) Zello 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the names: I have kept the present-day name version at the first place (with other names in brackets), if it the language of the town was one of the languages (and names) of the town at that time and the town has not been renamed in the meantime (remember that Hungarian was not the "official" language, the "official" language was Latin - but using Latin names would help nobody - and actually also German).

As for Mt7, I had a similar problem with him over an equally rather "ridiculous" issue in the German wikipedia some time ago, so I understand your concern very well. He tends to overreact. If it is not too late, I can drop a line on the talk page... Juro 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it is over now. Probably I shouldn't have got involved in this silly edit war because the whole issue is rather unimportant. But it was a matter of principle for me - whether we agree to delete a useful information only because one editor personally dislike it and he is very resolute to get through his will. Nobody will believe but personally I don't like the name Révkomárom and never use it... :) Zello 12:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of Slovakia

I see you've blanked my edits to the Slovakia article twice, even after I asked you on the talk page and provided a source. Any reason? -

Husnock 03:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason is utmost stupidity of your text. Either you write a normal "tourism section" (dealing with tourism and not the last cheap DVD or downloaded movie you have seen) or it will be deleted. Juro 12:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone's entries to an article "utmost stupidity" is extremely uncalled for and violates

Husnock 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Blanking of

Tourism of Slovakia

Why did you blank this article, without giving a reason in your efdit summary? What's the matter with it? If you don't like it edit it sure but why did you blank the whole thing?

HawkerTyphoon 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If you keep on blanking and removing sections of this article without giving valid reasons, you will be blocked for Wikipedia. Your actions are striking of article ownership and are highly uncivil. This is the only warning you will receive before this matter is reported. -

Husnock 02:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked for violation of

Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule

I asked you nicely not to blank the article

Husnock 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the block this morning as I saw you've never been blocked before and might have been unaware of the 3RR policy. I also asked other users to comment on the merits of having Hostel in the tourism article. Let's hear what others have to say and keep the edit wars down, okay? Happy editing. -

Husnock 14:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me repeat what I said on the Controversy page: Firstly, from my point of view and objectively, it is you who broke the 3RR, but unfortunately it is you who is the admin here not me, and secondly, have at least the civility and do not to start a personal campaign against me with everyone I have ever been in a dispute here (but given the "quality" of your original text version, I could have expected this) Juro 18:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to report any abuse of admin powers at

Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard. In fact, I highly encourage you to do so, for if I or other admins abuse our powers we deserve to be severely punished. As for the block, I reviewed the edit history and I do not see that I actually went over 3 reverts in 24 hours; in fact I was very careful not to do so. Your edits, however, did exceed three reverts as follows: [12], [13], [14], [15]

As I am actually off to better things now, I wot be watching the article any further. I encourage you, however, to back off from the very hostile edits. Calling edits "stupid", calling articles "messes", calling other users various things, it all leads to bad feelings. Talk pages resolve alot of things, especially when others are asked to chime in. This is why I solicated other people for inputs, not to target you for any kind of campaign. And, as the quality of the article, the other user inputs have helped. Thats all I have to say, except that

Husnock 02:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Archiving Talk Page

Hi,

I was wondering if you might archive your talk page? It's getting rather long, and vandalproof has a problem reading it for messages. Thanks!

HawkerTyphoon 23:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]