Please don't change articles to insert your own pro-Slovak/anti-Hungarian point of view. Thankyou, HawkerTyphoon 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your recent edit to Kikimora. Your edit included one or more links to the page Slovak, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Kikimora to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Samofi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

(Nobody bothered to put the welcome template on the new guy's page...how rude). :) On behalf of the Hungarian Wikipedians, I extend my friendly welcome to a new Slovakian colleague! I hope that we can work together productively and graciously. (as for your edits to Franz Liszt though--please, he wasn't Slovak. He was a Hungarian of German ancestry. I'm not saying that for any stupid nationalistic reason, I'm saying it because it was Liszt himself who always proudly declared himself to be a Hungarian.) But anyway, welcome again. :) K. Lásztocska 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He started speak hungarian in 18 years. He was session man of slavic meetings. If someone say few words in hungarian is it means that he is hungarian? Durring hard magyarization he used his contacts with Pius IX to make live of slovaks better. You can not say about nationality of die person who lived in national mixed area and his descent was mixed with 3 nations. Problem of hungarians is they live from history and hungarians change history as they wish... It is sad.

Please do not vandalize this page. You are welcome to make useful contributions to this article. Kassinachi (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Matthias Bel. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 10:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--B@xter⁹ 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Okay I agree but Baxter9 attacked me personaly firstly. Attacked my ethicity coz he said that website about important slovaks is fashist. he had not proof, so please block him or unblok mine}} . Kuru (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Tivadar Kosztka Csontváry, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --B@xter⁹ 07:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First thing: I NEVER TOLD HE IS NOT HUNGARIAN PAINTER. I talk about his roots and conection to slovak culture. Okay, he considered himfelf as Hungarian, he lived in Hungaria this I never changed and vandalized. Look to census in Hungaria 2001, It was 18 000 slovaks by nationality, 40 000 by ethnicity, 10 000 by mother language. Same situation it was in Hungarian Kingdom. When was exchange of people between Hungaria and Slovakia "Mať volá" 470 000 slovaks wanted ex-change by ethnicity, but only 94 000 declared nationality. Look, why he visited slovak elementary school, it was magyarization in that time. He could visit hungarian or german school in Sabinov. It will be new book, there will proofs. Part of his production is in Slovakia, in Poprad museum I put page and you deleted. He drawn Tatras. His surname is slovak. Do you think he was clean hungarian? He has more pictures from Slovakia than from Hungaria. And Iam not fascist, i see you are hungarian jingo, who hate slovaks, but I still believe I can explain to you something. Hungarian Kingdom, was multiethnical state to the 1918. For example Szilard Nemeth or Balazs Borbely, they naver declared hungarian nationality officialy, they are slovak futbool players, but I know their roots are hungarian, origin and ethnicity (example from present time) and Iam proud that we are multiethnical state and we have good footbal players of hungarian origin who enrich our culture. It was our common culture, we were one state and lived in peace 900 years while Hungarian Nobility started create national state based on magyar language. Slovaks appear to common culture, to Kosztka, Bel and other people with mixed ethnicity. Reltion between slovakia and hungary are bad because of politics such Slota (SNS), Jobbik and Fidesz. And people such you, who dont want discussion and find compromises. Normal people wants live in peace and in good relations. And do you think slovaks are younger than Hungarians? We came from Slavic people in the space of Hungarian Kingdom, you came from "magyar, turkic and kabar tribes" in the space of Hungarian Kingdom. We are same old, because of our old home - Hungarian Kingdom. I will not change article now, I hope you will think and you will change. If you have fear from slovak-hungarian realtion, try to understand us and start to change it from yourself.

I answered to you on Kosztka's talkpage. I NEVER SAID THAT THAT YOU DENY HIS HUNGARIAN NATIONALITY. The problem is, that you keep adding unreferenced fake informations about his ethnicity. (i.e. he was not Slovak, he was Polish). I corrected the information regarding his ethnicity (based on reliable English source)--B@xter⁹ 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now critical person would think: when they came to Sabinov (polish forefathers)? What was the dominant culture and ethnicity in the town? Who was his muther? Which langauge did he use as children? Its different ethnicity and origin. Which school he visited? I hope in book will pictures and english sumarry to be relevant source for you.

Ps.: Although you keep accusing me to be an anti-Slovak Hungarian nationalist, I am not the Jingo here who reads fascist sites. Btw, as I see other users also warned you -what a coincidence- to stop pushing anti-Hungarian propaganda.--B@xter⁹ 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

its not fascist site, its patriotic. read about is this page. and i never made antihungarian propaganda, I try make compromises about common slovak-hungarian history. but you make citation with stupid encyclopedia britannica.. i see that wikipedia is for people who declare their right like thay want, and not about thinking and finding common solutions. for me it was hungaria multiethnical state, why in "Upper Hungary" is only 10% of hungarians? 1880 there was half milion hungarians now its same. What about minorities in Hungary? 230 000 oficial slovaks in present area of Hungary in 1890 and 10 000 in 2001... Why our king Saint Stephan said that country of one language is weak? Why he fighet together with germans and slavs agains pagan magyars?

i)"i see that wikipedia is for people who declare their right like thay want, and not about thinking and finding common solutions." History and wikipedia is based upon facts, not on "compromises" or on "finding common soultions". ii) "but you make citation with stupid encyclopedia britannica" Encyclopedia Britannica is a peer reviewed scientific work written by scholars. Unfortunatelly, I can not tell the same from your fascist site. "1880 there was half milion hungarians now its same": "...According to the 1910 census conducted by the Central Statistical Office of Hungary, there were 884,309 ethnic Hungarians, constituting 30.2% of the population, in what is now Slovakia compared to the 9.7% number recorded in the 2001 census, amounting to a 3 fold decrease in the percentage of Hungarians..."--B@xter⁹ 15:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Census 1910 its for smile for me. Its demographic impossible grow from 0,5 milion to 0,9 milion in 30 years and the major ethnicum with bigger natural increase of population has stagnate. You could saw it in the reagions after the colapse of Hungarian Kingdom and arose Czechoslovakia. Fertility in Slovakia was 2x bigger than in Hungary. From 1880 to 2001 its same number of hungarians in sloakia. in hungary its only 4,9% of slovaks from 1890, so I think you should think about your politics to minorities. In time of Kosztka the schools existed, but slovakian only 1 kindergarten and 300 elementary schools, no high schools. Hungarians had 2200 kindergatrens and 14 000 elementary schools. Answer me, why Kosztka (his parents) chosed slovak school??? U are right, Kosztka its slavic name, but slovak. Dol = small bone in polish; Kusztka in czech; Kosztka in slovak. His surname is magyarized slovak surname. Its basic linguistic but you want see your true. What was surname of his polish aristocrat forefather? From where in Poland he was?

OK, thanx for new information, I have read his father family was from Silesia - czech nobility. - Petofi, was from Maly Keres in that time clean slovak village, there was only slovak lutheran church. But okay if I will agree that his father was of serbian origin he musted be slovakized, and mother was Maria Hruzova - slovak woman. Like kosztka magyarized polish/slovak, his muther was Dravcova (Daroc) - it means "ragadozo" in hungarian from [1] , again disputable origin. About age of country. Why it is not Magyaria but Hungaria? Name of area is older than hungarian state. Name is from Huns, like it was Bohemia from celtic tribe of bohmens. It was state of slavs and magyar tribes and other nations - kumans, yaziges, pechenegs, saxons, vlachs... And you did not answered why he visited slovak school (i dont want change article more while book is not on the world). And if you dont know, Slovakia shortly existed in september 1848 in the area between Myjava and Trnava. Slovak soldiers took this area but after few weeks they were defeated by habsburgs. I know its small time, for you maybe not relevant and to laugh, but for Slovaks it was very important. By the way we were together with hungarians against Habsburgs, than it changed coz you did not want allow authonomy. And area of slovakia was called between people "slovenska zem", local name. In official documents it was not Hungary, it was "Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen" and all country was "Austria-Hungaria(y)". Hungary (Magyarorszag) was local name, like "slovenska zem", or "hornouhorske slovenske okolie". And in the maps and geographical regional names its contiunuum of slovak teritory in time and space: Nitra Principality (own state, part of moravia, part of poland and to 1094 part of Hungarian Kingdom), than they are documents that western slovakia was called "Matúšová zem" to 16th century because of Mate Csak (he was Natio Hungarica). Than present day slovakia was part of Habsburg Monarchy in Royal Hungary, mostly present day slovakia and ethnicaly slovak (or slavs of hungaria) area, special part was "oberungarn" capitanate, from that time it was name "upper hungary". in 18th century it was push to create Upperhungarian slovak autonomy with the baron as head. You have continuum of area in time and space, not officaly but in people. If it would made Upperhungarian slovak autonomy in 18th century we could live in one country and present souuth slovakia would not been there: [2] Everything is about point of view. You can not ask Kosztka how did he feel, I agree he is hungarian, but origin is slavic (polish/slovak). His life and production was connected with Upper Hungary, "slovenska zem" - I hope u can agree that synonymum is Slovakia.

i) "About age of country. Why it is not Magyaria but Hungaria?" Sorry, but I dont understand this. "Hungary" is the English name of "Magyarország", the shorter form of the official name "Magyar Köztársaság" (Republic of Hungarian)And why? In the middle ages there were persons who thought that the Hungarians (or Magyars) are derived from te Huns, as you said. ii) "And you did not answered why he visited slovak school" Huh? You said that "Slovaks were brutally Magyarized". I wonder if the Hungarian wanted to destroy the Slovak nation, how was it possible that Slovak schools existed... iii) The Slovak national consciousness did not exist until the end of the late 18th century and it was very weak. (compared with the Czech) But you see here we are again: "Slovakia shortly existed in september 1848" More Slovaks fought in the Hungarian revolutionary army than in the Slovak-Habsburg, and they did not want to break away from Hungary, but from the current nationalsit Slovak POV this unremarkable event is overappreciated. "than it changed coz you did not want allow authonomy" I agree, it is true, but we were in the same situation. "slovakia was called between people "slovenska zem" ,I told you: Englis, German, Italian, Polish, Russian, Spanish etc sources make no difference between pre/and post 1918 Hungary. Only Slovak, Serb, Romanian etc do (i.e. former minorities of Hungary). "Hungary (Magyarorszag) was local name" Hungary (Magyarország) was not a local name, that is your OR, since from the middel ages in foreign (too) it is called in this name (Hungariae, Hungary, Ungarn) example: "LADISLAUS IV, XXII REX HUNGARIAE". "And in the maps and geographical regional names its contiunuum of slovak teritory in time and space: Nitra Principality" The Nitra Principality was a tribal union of Slavs, not Slovaks! Slovaks, Poles, Russians did not existed in that time, just SLAVS. And what maps? Do you have any? We dont even know exactly who inhabited that territory, or how did Pribina look like but you have maps? "You have continuum of area in time and space, not officaly but in people" Regarding the Slovak's ethnogenesis, you should read this. "than they are documents that western slovakia was called "Matúšová zem" to 16th century because of Mate Csak" The conception that Slovakia existed in some form (i.e. Matúšová zem) is a lie, it was created by the prominent members of the Slovak movement in the 19th century (when Slovaks fought for autonomy) as a political instrument to prove that Slovaks always had some independence but the Hungarians took that away. btw, the Csák's were ethnic Hungarians. "If it would made Upperhungarian slovak autonomy in 18th century we could live in one country and present souuth slovakia would not been there: [2] Everything is about point of view." I agree with you.--B@xter⁹ 14:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U again see what you wish. I told in Nitra lived Slovaks????? The term slovak started use in 14th century, so to that time I always use slavic, or slavic forefather of slovaks or "slavs of hungary". And this kind of tribe it was "slovenes" - forefathers of slovaks, moravians and slovenians. I was talking about continuum of "present slovakian area in time and space". It has different names, local names. I know Csak has hungarian origin, did I told not? But area of his dominium was slavic, probably he comunicate in slavic with local feudals and peasants. But it was local name for area of western slovakia in 16th century. In book of Yugoslavian author Siracky (1980) are historical records that Tokoly was called "toth kiraly" - slovak king. Why such? I know lot of slovaks fight together with hungarians in 48/49. Hungarians betrayed, Habsburgs betrayed. Ethnicity was very confused. In 19th century it lived deep in Bakony forrest slovak speaking people who did not know they are slovaks... But they were slovaks by ethnicity, they had regional identity. Identity create when is somebody different than you. They were "Uhry" (Hungarians, Magyars inhabitants of hungaria in western languages and magyar language) but they speak different than "magyars" (Hungarians, Magyars in western and magyar language). So in western literature you have paradox - "Hungarians who speak different than Hungarians" (Magyarok, akik beszélnek, mint a magyarok) and they have different ethnicity and identity. :) Do you see this paradox? Modern scholars make difereces and I hope one day it will understand all people. (Samofi (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Imre Thököly, you will be blocked from editing. Hobartimus (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you inserted[3] "Slovak king" into the article which was obvious vandalism. Hobartimus (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hobartimus (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Hobartimus (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum so please always stay at the topic. Your thoughts regarding Miklós Horthy do not belong to Csontváry's talkpage. Furthermore, I would like to ask you again (4th time) to cite your reliable, and verifialble third party sources. Do not forget: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." and "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 12:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You started with politics, I reacted. That his surname is slovak and not hungarian you can find in dictionary. Put "bone" to slovak-english dictionary and to magyar-english dictionary. You will surprised. So delete from Orszagh´s article passage about his Hungarian surname or I will add passage about slovakian surname to Kosztka. Why hungarians can and I cannot? Play fair game friend. His father was not Csontvary [4], so he changed name. (Samofi (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"You started with politics, I reacted." Really? "JOBBIK and maybe FIDESZ are more close to fascizm then this people (Samofi (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC))", and later Horthy. Remove Orszagh's hungarian surname if you want so, (if it is unreferenced) I did not ad it.--B@xter⁹ 14:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you told I used fascist site, you started. it was not fascist site... (Samofi (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

"Why do you always delete if i write he had slovak origin? I put 4 sources, 2 were hungarian " "you told I used fascist site, you started" No. My answer (i.e. "you told I used fascist site") was not a political propaganda. You mentioned JOBBIK and FIDESZ. Did I mention SNS?--B@xter⁹ 17:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to accept wikipedia's manual of style and dont make destructive edits via inserting incorrect citations. Please read WP:REFB and check Template:Cite book. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 14:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so why did you only delete it and not repair if you know how to do? I have read its not vandalism. (Samofi (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

i) I did not say it is vandalism. ii) 1) I am not your servant, i wont fix everithing after you. if you want to participate on enwiki please observe the rules. 2)You still did not show any reliable source. --B@xter⁹ 17:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Upper Hungary. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not original research, I put there 3 online sources written by scholars. "By Duncan B. Gardiner, Ph.D., Certified Genealogist © Copyright 1997 Duncan B. Gardiner and FEEFHS, all rights reserved" Reliable sources are "Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available". I cited from wikipedia rules. You make vandalism by blanking [5] and chose relevance of sources as you wish and as you need. Do you like only sources where dreaming about Big Hungary? If you will continue with blanking I will must report you.

I answered to you on Upper Hungary's talkpage.--B@xter⁹ 10:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ps.: Next time if you ad original research, you will be blocked.--B@xter⁹ 10:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Upper Hungary. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --B@xter⁹10:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use talk pages such as Imre Thököly for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you.

I left the worthy parts which fit into the topic.--B@xter⁹06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word "Tot" (Slovak) started use in 12th century, first known document where its used is from 1405. Slovakia exist older than 1993, but with different names: Principality of Nitra, Dominium of Matthew Csak [1], Upper Hungary etc. In Wlachovsky (2006) Interetnikus kapcsolatok XXI. (A modern szlovák irodalom vázlata-2.) it is cited from book of Zeiler (1646) that he used word Tótország = Slovak land. In the same source is written that in Hungarian chronicle from Gáspár Heltai from 16th century its the Hungarian kingdom divided to Magyarország (Magyar land), Tótország (Slovakian land), Horvátország (Croatian land). So "Slovak land" is term used officialy from 16th century. Official geographical names in this time were in Latin, so I dont understand why they are used Magyar names for this period. Magyar langauge was officialy in use after Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. It was multiethnical state of Magyars, Croatians, Slovaks with minorities of Germans, Romanians, Jews etc. Local geographical names were used in local language, it changed in 1897 by the Bánffy law - see Magyarization. So Magyar names were officialy use only from 1897 to 1918. So to be historicaly correct it should be Latin names or present names in the present local language of area. Its funny this Magyar falsification of history and airing the Hungarian Kingdom as national state of Magyars (they tried to make the nation state between 1848-1918 but kingdom divided). I think its big problem for Wikipedia in general in the case of history of the Hungarian Kingdom.

i) "Slovakia exist older than 1993, but with different names: Principality of Nitra, Dominium of Matthew Csak [1], Upper Hungary etc" Slovakia as an independent country exists from 1993. These "theorie": "Dominium of Matthew Csak" and Upper Hungary as an independent Slovak realm were invented by Slovak nationalists and have 0.0 scientific rate. Read Kamusella (Kamusella, Tomasz (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. Basingstoke, UK (Foreword by Professor Peter Burke): Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 13: 978–0–230–55070. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)) and not only books printed by the nationalist^[1][2] Matica Slovenska. "Rácország", Tótország meant that the designatied area was inhabited by Serbs and Slovaks and not that they had autonomy or independence, Hungary was not a federal state (i.e Not an union of Tótország, Rácország, Erdély, Szerémség, Bánság, Horvátország etc...). ii) "Magyar names were officialy use only from 1897 to 1918" Hungarian was not only official between 1897 and 1918. Btw Slovak was never official.

I did not write that Hungarian Kingdom was federation. I only told that area of present Slovakia had regional names. From 16th century we can talk about "Protoslovakia" (Totorszag, later Slovakorszag) according to chronicle of Gáspár Heltai. I agree that in Matica is lot of nationalistic sources, same like sources from time of Magyar romantism, whose are often used with Hungarian historians. I never told that Upper Hungary and Dominium were independent Slovak realms. I told in way that they were geographicaly and "ethnicaly Slovak" subgroups of Hungarian Kingdom, dont you agree?[6] - there is lot of books cited not only Slovak. But Principality of Nitra can be considered as proto state of Slovaks: "Before the Hungarian Kingdom there was Nitrava and to the 12th century it was Principality of Nitra the politicaly separated part of Hungarian Kingdom. Ethnogenesis of Slovaks was in 10-11th century (because they were separated from other Slavs in Hungary, thank you Magyars that we could make one state together and create our ethnicity :)) so they were at least 100 years in politicaly separated part of Hungary (in Nitra principality). Nitra principality has continuity (archeological research - old slavic settlements continued), after the death of Svatopluk II and Mojmir II, the duke of Nitra principality was Lehel, he was Magyar, but it means nothing, Family of Anjou was originaly from France. In that time it was normal that leaders of political units were foreigners. So it was Slavic, later Slovak principality under Magyar dukes and princes, later as integral part of Hungarian Kingdom with regional names. For example, look on the part of Hungarian kingdom joined to Czechia - Moravian Slovakia. Slovácko - people Slováci vs. Slovakia (Slovensko) - people Slováci. So ethnogenesis of Slovaks was in the time of Nitra principality." Hungary was de facto discontinued by Osmans, it existed Royal Hungary (ethnicaly mostly Slovak), Budin pashalik (Hungarian), Transylvania (Hungarian-Romanian). Than it was Hungary integral part of Austrian Habsburg empire. I dont want pour cold water on political unity of Hungarian Kingdom. But there was region of Slovakia, used in chronicles. Region of Slovakia existed, not like indenpendent polity but existed. I want legitimize to use name Slovakia for the history of Slovak area, its my aim and I have lot of proofs. My second problem is with people who had Hungarian nationality in political sense. For me will be Kosztka Magyar-Slovak with Hungarian nationality (in sense Hungarus). For me surnames important, coz almost all important people took Hungarus nationality (Stur too), they used Magyar language, but they were Slovaks by ethnicity. Genealogy is seriouse science and investigate origin of surnames - [Onomastics]. Its for me imporant too, because not Magyars became Slovaks.. Its topic for long discussion between Slovak and Magyar scholars. (Samofi (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

i) "I only told that area of present Slovakia had regional names. From 16th century we can talk about "Protoslovakia" (Totorszag, later Slovakorszag) according to chronicle of Gáspár Heltai...I never told that Upper Hungary and Dominium were independent Slovak realms"You wrote that: "Slovakia exist older than 1993, but with different names: Principality of Nitra, Dominium of Matthew Csak [1], Upper Hungary etc and Slovakia was also in the form of polity as Nitrava which is nothing else but Slovak history falsification. First you wrote that Slovakia existed before 1993 under different names and now not? o_O So was the Dominium of Matthew Csák a proto-Slovak state or not? The term "Tótország" is not equalent with Protoslovakia/Slovakia, it was a sort of exonym for a geographical area, and a term for the peoples ("tótok") who inhabited Upper Hungary. (i.e. like Germania was not a "Protogerman" state). ii)Slovakia exist older than 1993, but with different names: Principality of Nitra, Dominium of Matthew Csak Slovakia exists from 1993 and it did not exist before that year under different names. Two countries (i.e.Hungary and Slovakia) can not lay at the same time on the same territory. At that time only Hungary existed. Principality of Nitra can be considered as proto state of Slovaks: Great Moravia was not an independent state, it payed annual tribute to the Frankish Empire. The Principality of Nitra was erased around 1100, and until its final destruction it was under Hungarian rule so your statement"so they were at least 100 years in politicaly separated part of Hungary" is incorrect. iii) "Ethnogenesis of Slovaks was in 10-11th century...So ethnogenesis of Slovaks was in the time of Nitra principality" According to Slovak (like Marsina^[1]) and non-Slovak historians (like Kirschbaum,^[2] Kamusella^[3] etc.) the principality was not a proto-Slovak state at all, since the distinct Slavic nations had not yet emerged by the 9th century and the culture and language of various Slavic tribes in central Europe were indistinguishable from each other.^[4] 100 years are not enough for ethnogenesis! The word Slovak appeared only around 1400... The Slovak ethnogenesis started after the destruction of this principality and its place was Hungary, so your theory regarding the ethnogenesis of Slovaks is clear indigenism. Quote: "there is no continuity in politics, culture, or written language between this early Slavic polity and the modern Slovak nation...The semantic closeness of the ethnonym ‘Slovak’ to that of ‘Slav’ endowed the Slovak national movement with the myth that of all the Slavic nations the Slovaks are the most direct descendants of the original Slavs"^[3] iV) "Hungary was de facto discontinued by Osmans, it existed Royal Hungary" The Habsburgs were elected kings of Hungary, crowned in Pozsony. Hungary continued to exist on a much smaller territory as Royal Hungary.--B@xter⁹ 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still dont understand... For example Orava (Arva) it was regional geographical name in Hungarian Kingdom or Slovakia. Podpoľanie it was unofficial regional name of area in Hungarian Kingdom (name is used in slovak folk songs), now one from the tourist regions in Slovakia: http://www.tradicneregiony.szm.com/podpolanie-sit.jpg ;So in written matherials its regional geographical name for Slovakia - Totorszag (later Slovakorszag) from 16th century according to Gaspar Heltay (Helth). In 1586 of Czech printer Jičínsky in Prag used term Slovakia for description of situation in Royal Hungary. So in Czech lands its was synonym "Slovakia" with Royal Hungary or Upper Hungary. IT´S FACT. In the verbal form we have not proofs, but linvisticaly in area of Slovakia was slavic tribe "Sloväne" = land of Slovänes, zem Slovänov (Slovensko), Slovakorszag... Hungarian King in the time of Ottoman Hungary it was only title "de iure" for official integral part of Habsburg Empire with name of Royal Hungary (geo-ethnical Slovak area (Totorzagh), Burgenland and north Slavonia and other small areas...). Term Slovakorszag or Totorszag used in correspondention of Bercseniy, Tokoli, Rakoci. If you like play with de facto and de iure, Slovakia was de facto polity in 16th century, de iure in 1939. 6th october 1938 it was declared autonomy of Slovakia - de iure inependent part of Czechoslovakia, in that time not puppet state of Germany. What is continuity of "de facto" Hungary from years 1000-1526 and Hungary from 1848 + 1867-1918? First Hungary was multiethnical state, with latin language :) Second tried to make nation state with Magyar language. Is it there language continuity in written form? NO. Or writing system of old Magyars (rovasiras) has continuity with present latin letters? :) Old church Slavonic is similiary to present Slovak language like old Maygar to present Magyar language. So you told STUPID reasons, unlogical. Its continuity in culture, its slavic culture, archelogocaly proved discontented slavic settlements from 5th century. I dont want lose with time with long explaining coz you hardly understand, for example local god of slovänes - Peron. Its derivation still exist in Slovakian as Parom - bad pover: http://slovnik.juls.savba.sk/?w=parom&s=exact&c=rae4&d=kssj4&d=psp&d=priezviska&d=hssjV&d=obce&d=sss&d=peciar&d=scs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And all Slovakian historicians are not bad, only Hungarian chauvinists thinks that - your prejudice. We are autochtons in Slovakia, descendants of Slavs of Nitrava. --Samofi (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Slovakia in modern sense was independant in 1939, not 93 ;) (Samofi (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I wrote "independent". 1939 Slovakia was a fascist puppet state.--B@xter⁹ 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De jure it was independent. Or Kingdom of Hungary finished in 1526? It was de facto integral part of Austria :) (Samofi (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I did not say that Hungary was not part of Habsburg Monarchy. Yes, Slovakia in 1939 was a de jure "independent" but de facto a fascist puppet state...--B@xter⁹18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is based on Slovak-Hungarian book (http://www.universum-eu.sk/knihy/071_2007-regionalna_identita.html) Article is important for global understandig of identity in Hungarian Kingdom. Its not personal thoughts I used slovak, hungarian, german and english matherials to be neutral. Sources are written by scholars. Main matherial: Štefan Šutaj, László Szarka. 2007. Regionálna a národná identita v maďarskej a slovenskej histórii 18.-20. storočia has english abstracts to each chapter so its possible to verify. Its slovak-hungarian article, so neutral. SZARKA is Magyar Professor from Hungarian academy of science, Sutaj is Slovak Professor. Here is online version of book: http://www.saske.sk/SVU/downloads/publikacie/Regionalna_identita_2007.pdf My proofs and sources are good, Horbatimus has problems with Slovaks probably he is chauvinist. Admins should consider his existention as Wikipedia´s editor. Wikipedia needs constructive Hungarian editors such Baxter9, open for discussion, not vandals such Horbatimus. (Samofi (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have nominated Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem of Slovak nationality in Hungarian Kingdom. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hobartimus (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Duck test (?)--B@xter⁹ 13:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samofi, please post a request to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Cacycle (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop you over use of bold capitalisation. We can all read what you write with out you shouting.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should re-nominate this for AFD, not vote in an AFD that was closed 4 yesrs ago. That sort of thing (as well as inserting AFD boxes for closed AFD's) and calling other users retarded will get you banned. If your not sure how to nominate an articel for deletion see here [[7]]. Hope this helps.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC) You might like to know a new AFD has been opened Articles for deletion/Slovakization (2nd nomination).Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

If you call anyone retarded or a vandal (or call edits vandalism) on content grounds the way you have been doing, or anything considered personal attacks, you will be blocked. Is that clear? Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but Hobartimus makes vandalism in his edits. But I will not to do it... --Samofi (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Monyelv-terkep3 dka.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want changes made, you do not email an administrator but you follow the instructions at the top of the page. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to your userspace because it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace. You'll find the article at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As noted at ANI, the combination of large aggressive editing with a clear POV indicates a battleground mentality that's inappropriate here. The fact that your response pointing to edits at Černová tragedy which were immediately reverted (in part, because you are obviously removing sources you don't agree with) indicates a real need to understand that purposes of Wikipedia is not for you to push your POV on everybody else. You can't even respond to a single point without making it an argument about authors along ethnic lines. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]