1928:-Your goal - based on a long term behavior - is apparently to permanently sustain coflicts, clashes even in those questions where it should not be, with a drop of good faith they could be avoided, on the other hand a harsh ego is working on you and you think with such a behavior you save the honor of the Slovak nation against Hungarians, even in such cases where there is not any intention or will to do anything that is Slovak or whatsoever. You see in everything something negative, regardless what it is. Since years, I repeat, you are the only, the only Slovak who generated such daily encounter, I've never met with any trouble with them so far, even if I made edit's regarding Slovakia or Czechoslovaka, I have never harmed their national identity, a never harmed any principle that I would not respect anything that I have to accept, I never started to push Hungarian names blatantly everywhere, just in some cases I put some because of the context but never removed the present-day name, as well also the county names I did not push anything since they were/are official administrative units of Czechoslovakia or Slovakia. No reason, in the lead or the infobox alternate names are present. Of course, if something is about an existing location, as usual since years without any trouble depending on the context both names are mentioned in the desirable order. You just simply try to shoot with a cannon on a sparrow.(
1813:
lacking the necessary good faith. This is how you are recognized also by more editors, and this is reinforced that all the time in a foxy way you repeat, reinvent, generate earlier, later, recent or closed conflicts, you provocate, deteriorate earlier or recent things and content, you talk once like so, on the other time in an other, with many illogism and controversy and contradiction. Be aware, even if you don't think or deny, it is sensible. There is no peace or will to have peace in your heart, your goal is obvious, and anyway this syndrome has also a name. To uphold the conflict, be in the center and never end. I am proud along with other editors, that we don't make similar mess in
Czechoslovakia or Slovakia related articles, we don't have any inferiority complex. Since years, you are almost the only one who is persisting continous long term mess regarding Hungarian topics, it is not a surprise anymore.
1496:
county article, this situation is different since neighboring counties are listed in a specific
Hungarian context and any names are affected, not just Slovak ones. In other words, without ending the discussion/resolution you introduced new edits also that was not part the prelude of the edit warring case and you turn this issue to a totally different case than it was started, and without consensus for your newly introduced edit's - of course only if they are proper - you simply cannot apply them according to Wiki rules. Do not mix the terms existing consensus on a subject or a consensus on a current page. Apparently the linked consensus unambigously is regulating many cases, but also it does not regulate or specify some special case or not totally clear and not even covering all possibilities -: -->
1151:
Treaty. The
Czechoslovak viewpoint regard Bratislava county as an existing county of Czechoslovakia, regradless of mutual or full de jure recognition, but what is sure, Hungary never regarded Bratislava county as her county, as vica versa. Thus this conflict can be only solved without problem if the era of Hungary and Czechoslovakia is distuinguished. I.e. in Czechoslovakia related articles as reference on the created county - regardless of de jure recognition or not - should be mentioned but also indicated the new status quo was recognized and the new borders were set in the Treaty. In Hungary related articles "Pozsony County" is proper until 1920, if there is an aftermath section there it can be mentioned how the things were regarded by Czechslovak side, as it is already written.(
1284:
cannot have a modern name also. This consensus is applied where it is wisely applicable. Finally this article is not about
Czechoslovakia, as in those related articles also nobody demands by listing neighboring counties in Hungarian or other names. Your continous conflict generating attempts are very apparent unfortunately, this is the second time you harmed WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, since this discussion is moach broader and special and contains other distractions that an other consensus you cite here, and you know it very-well. Moreover, you did not restore anything you added such content also that has no consensus and improver since the county of Hungary was never called Bratislava. I am sorry that you are not willing to co-operate with a good faith(
138:
117:
1916:-You are again mixing the things. Hungarian is a broader meaning - like every other nation/country name where all citizens of the country with different ethnicity is included, but Hungarian is including and mainly referring to Magyars as an exonym, similarly like German/Deutsch, etc. Anyway it does not matter here, since these counties were the counties of Hungary, not other country or other nation or whatsoever. Similarly as an other county nowadays is the county of Slovakia, regardless of different ethnic ratio, it is a Slovak county.
338:
320:
240:
222:
148:
1751:
Magyar County. These names existed and were actively used during the existence of these counties by the majority population, they are used in the literature covering this period, moreover they are the same as names of the regions/counties used in (English) scientific literature, touristic brochures, their usage is complaint with the existing consensus (and even if you do not agree, it does not violate anything in the consensus).
961:
statement was not contradicted. Regarding
Bratislava, the possible "contradicting" viewpoint of legalty - "1918-1920" - makes a little mess, since things happened but were later officially recognized, at least until the end of the official Hungarian Era (1920-(1921)) other name that Pozsony county were not fully recognized legally as it had been for a millenia of it's existence. You have to agree that "Bratislavská
71:
53:
348:
250:
22:
1186:
share it here. By listing neighboring non-existing administrative units that cannot have a modern name in
Hungarian context it is enough to have a reference on their main page (anyway these do not belong to any "bilingual" approach, since these counties had anyway multiple names, not just two), and these articles are not "Slovak-Hungarian" articles, but Hungarian articles.(
1000:
secondary, since - as you recognized - there is a huge difference between more versions of the same etymology, or totally constructing a new word. Like on the other debate ongoing - where I am uninvolved yet - it is desirable to distinguish between the two Eras, then such problems will not occur as these pages are meant for the historical counties of
Hungary.(
1167:
including this Slovak one. Even if the territory was
Chinese and it was inhabited by a notable Klingon population and was called "loDnI' pa'" in the Klingon language this can be mentioned according to any wikipedia policy. Especially, if Klingons had a relative majority in the county (42.6% - the most numerous ethnic group) and de facto administered it.
1959:
names for counties of
Czechoslovakia or Slovakia or any other country in the world regarding such units that existed only by them, it would be totally unprofessional as it is not applied in other articles also, twice as more because of the context and at the same time the listing purpose is the neighborhood of units of an identical level.(
870:. And of course, they used the name Prešporská before 1919 and Bratislavská (officially) thereafter. And of course, they use this name in some cases also backwardly, like Hungarians (backwardly) sometimes use later Hungarian names for the middle ages (undocumented for the period). If you want some sources, ask Norden, he deleted them.
557:(1) Would you refer to sources listing Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County? (2) No, the current consensus does not contradict the approach followed in the article. Why do you think that all alternative names of a county bordering on the county which is the topic of the article should be mentioned?
939:) which is not documented by any reliable medieval source and was artificially created later by straightforward translation from German. However, it does not mean that Hungarian authors do not write about Rózsahegy in the 13th, 14th, 15th century (and it is not something inherently wrong, but a reasonable simplification).
1922:-Again deteriorating. It does not matter what is modern-Hungary, since the article is about the historical Hungary, present-day matters only in case the entity exist also today. These counties existed only in Hungary, regardless of the disintegration of Austria-Hungary, since until 1920 historic Hungary is dating.
786:. We do not need to mention all verifiable fact in all articles. For instance, we do not need to list New York's each nickname in each article mentioning New York. (2) Please remember, you have been trying to add a piece of information, although there are three editors who do not agree with you. (for instance:
919:
newly constructed name replaced the earlier name so retrospectively use it for a non-existing administrative unit never called in such a name is not proper. Like for a Roman
Province a new name would be created backwards regarding present-day or later change, or I would refer on Beatles on a different name.(
1718:
of the country, we don't bring in politics in it. Of course as here, in the current article also other names are shown and demonstrated in the lead. You make too much fuss of something that you should not, and you should as much respect the Hungarian Era as we respect the Czechoslovak or Slovak era. I.e.
1754:
The opinion that the usage of exclusively Hungarian native names and not the bilingual approach recommended in the consensus will reduce conflicts is inherently wrong. I can guarantee you that this will be the source of long term conflicts, it was the source of conflicts in the past, it is now and it
1717:
Read back if it's still not clear. It does not matter what is present-day or other disctractions, since also we don't demand in Czechoslovakia or in today's Slovakia by listing counties to write also the Hungarian name or any other name, regardless of i.e. ethnical percentage, they are official units
1713:
Not true, because non-Hungarian names are present everywhere where it is wisely applicable, this is not a problem, the problem is partially to push an invalid name and turn upside down the listing of counties where not even Hungarian names are written in full content just the reference on their pages
1277:
I did not reinvent the wheel, you do not want to understand and continuing your campaign on a daily basis by stressing some editors and Hungarian related matters. Surprisingly these consensus you did not seem to know in an earlier case, however you misuse it totally, you just seek all the time a foxy
1032:
does not say anything like this. (By the way, the etymology of the name Bratislava has roots in Brezalauspurc od Predslava, however, it is absolutely irrelevant. It does not matter if some name was translated, reconstructed or whatever, what matters is that it was used and its known under that name).
1925:-Again deteriorating. Your initial aim was not this, the consensus is valid for existing places, there is no permanent conflict, you are insisting them only. Moreover you even guaranteed that there will be conflicts, this is not a good faith attitude and approach, better to say the worst is possible.
1619:
I have always initiated and tried to follow existing rules in the most proper way it is possible and I was never interested in conflict generating. The current issue was not started because of me, but mainly your problematic edits where simply the conflict-generating attitude we met and what is sure
1802:
The case is just the non-existent administrative units existed only in Hungary listed where not even the Hungarian exclusively in is used, but the reference to the Wiki pages - if you would not know, the bilingual approach is used whenever it is wisely applicable, much more then in any Czechoslovak
1615:
I know the page history, this was also discussed here and also in the incidents's page, and there is no agreement on false "statements" or false "accusations" or "lies", it's useless to repeat, read back if the problems are not still clear for you, and about the behavior also we already spoken many
1446:
I did, other's did, you again act like you would not understand - a tendentious activity since months - , and again a consensus is regulating some cases but not all emerging special cases. Your goal is apparent and you don't choose peaceful collaboration but instead a continous provocative attitude
1150:
No, the problem is there are conflicting de jure and de facto situations thus conflicting viewpoints. The "local authority" - if it considered as Czechoslovak - was not recognized. Pozsony county existed as county of Hungary, Bratislava County of Czechoslovakia was not recognized before the Trianon
918:
Well, this is not identical with the earlier mentioned. In medieval times the latin or phonetized latin description - as we discussed - just exist on paper, but orally or in practice is not used, or the main etymology has no difference, but regarding the Bratislava case this is not the situation, a
752:
No, the consensus does not cover this case. Would you quote the exact wording of the allegedly violated consensus? If my understanding is correct, you cannot provide examples when alternative names of historical regions neighboring a historical region which is the subject of the article are listed.
1185:
No, you confuse the things. Bratislava County was not used to designate the county of Hungary, but the county of Czechoslovakia. This is the catch. I don't recommend you to do anything without consensus. Bilinguality where it is properly applicable is already present, if you have further concerns,
767:
Boroska, I say very clearly: a mention about other names is fully compliant with all wikipedia policies. If it is not and YOU (not me) removes these names YOU (and not me) should do your homework and prove that something is wrong. I do not have to provide any examples, I will not do any additional
1958:
It's your choice, anyway I don't approach things emotionally, but on a long-term assessment people start to think on the reasons. The second "theory" listed were already discussed more times and it is not the subject of our discussion now. What is sure, I would never make a fuss to list alternate
1495:
It's your choice, you don't need to link every second what I have showed you, it is totally useless. I don't think some editors already involved would not be neutral. I spoke about a behavior in the past month, and again do not mix the case of Slovak names here, that are anyway mentioned in every
1812:
With this you reaffirmed and reinforced that you are interested in conflicts, as since more months you manifest almost on daily basis to a very negative approach and activity regarding Hungarians and Hungary related topic, regardless how much you try to hide it or deny it, it is apparent you are
1750:
Unfortunately, if somebody interprets even the mention about the Slovak names as a "disrespect" to Hungary and Hungarians (or he says that this is allegedly a proof of anti-Hungarian aims) it is a very bad ground for further discussion. Historical "Hungarian" county is not the same as historical
1283:
this is a case - it has been explained more times and demonstrated - where it is not desirable, but this goes not just to Slovak but any other names also, details above, read through as many times as you get finally. There is a difference between existing places or non-existing former units that
1166:
What is important here is not if this status was "de facto", "de iure" or whatever else (I will not open the question how was Hungary recogized as a new subject of the international law and her borders), but a plain historic fact that this county was called by several names (beyond controversy),
1081:
this was not fulfilled, but anyway, what is really relevant that Hungary did not have a county named Bratislava or any county that would neighbor of such recognized. In the modern period, even if there are overlapping de facto and de jure status quo, these things can clearly separated this case,
960:
I know the history of the evolution etymology of Rózsahegy, and if you read me properly - "or the main etymology has no difference" - hold also here since Rózsahegy = Rosenberg. Anyway, many of the occurences are written still in Latin phonetics, regardless of the word's particluar origin, so my
684:
Names". I speak about relevant names that help non-Hungarian readers to better understand the context of the text (in this case, e.g. Slovak names because these names are also the names of the current regions and were used also after 1918/1920 as county names) or reference to the widely accepted
1591:
Sorry? Look on the history of this page how sources are removed (under various pretexts - when one is refuted another is introduced), how false statements about the content were made, false accusations were made on various places (including lies like "almost all Hungarian names were removed"),
1050:
Well, sorry, not "huge" different, but "bit" different you recognized, anyway the difference is relevant. Yes it is my opinion - along with with others who share it - the two cases should not be mixed (the roots I knew of course). The story of Bratislava County properly belongs to the articles
903:
is not reliably documented in the middle ages (as far as I know), but was created later. It is used also for the period when it was not documented. I don't say that it is wrong or ahistorical, it is simply existing practice. If you do not agree with this example, we can surely find many other.
999:
Well, the question is also by whom it was called or it was recognized or not. Political and cultural dominance means also belonging to a country, these issues may be more complex sometimes regarding all the distractions we discussed in relevant timelines. I don't think that etymology would be
934:
Example: possesion Rozumberk (1340), Rosumberg (1349), civitas Rosenberg (1376), civitas de Rosenbergh (1405), civitas Rosonberg (1410), civitas Rosenbergh (1429), Ruzumberk (1430), civitas Rosonberg (1461), civitas Rosonberg (1525). As you can see, it is clearly not Latinized Hungarian name
636:
We easily can verify that New York's known as "Big Apple", which obviously should be mentioned in an article about New York. However, if we cannot verify the usage of the same nickname in other articles (which only refer to or list New York), we apply an original synthesis when mentioning it.
980:
Kingir, the county was clearly called also Bratislava county since 1919. It does not matter if you interpret it as "occupation" or nor, this is real, relevant historically documented name (and notably, the county was known under this name also later). Curiously, you argued in the past by som
1342:, where it is properly applicable it is mentioned, any you can read back very easily what is the problem with your push although the whole case is not about "Slovak names", but any other names regarding listing non-existing administrative units that cannot have a modern name.
1943:
No comment. I created a request for mediation and I suggest simply to wait and to take it less emotionally. Particularly, I will not react on theories about "saving the honor of the Slovak nation against Hungarians", "anti-Hungarian aims", "inferior complex" and similar.
730:. It doesn't even mention "Pozsony County", but says about "Pressburg County". I will not list anything because it is not necessary (according to any Knowledge (XXG) rule), I will not do any artificial work and there is an existing consensus about geographic names. --
1170:
Thus, I am restoring or reintroducing all Slovak names (the same way like bilingual names are used in other Slovak-Hungarian articles). Moreover, this bilingual approach is the way how to prevent conflicts, I don't believe that somebody can haw real problem with it.
1357:
Be aware it would be a 3RR - even with outside the 24 hour - and as an aggravating circumstance that you continue edit warring and harming WP:BRD process and WP:CONSENSUS during an ongoing discussion/resolution, you have to expect a very hash punishment for such an
516:. We do not need to list all pieces of information of a topic in all articles mentioning that topic. For instance, we do not need to mention all nicknames of New York in all articles referring to New York. If you think, that there are relevant alternative names of
1352:. I cited everything and explained everything more times. I repeat, by listing neighboring non-existent administrative units that existed only in Hungary, not any historic names are listed or should be listed, countless times it was explained also by other users.
1316:
Kiengir, read the rules for the period before 1918. I cited (letter for letter) what is the existing consensus. Please, cite a sentence from this consensus which give you a right to remove other names. If you are not able to do so, I will restore all Slovak names
1874:). Yes, the Hungarian language has the same word for historic and modern Hungary. On the other hand, Slovak language (and some other languages in the Central Europe and Balkan) has not, so it is really difficult to argue by some native names like "Magyarországh".
795:) (3) Please remember, you have not quoted a single policy or consensus which substantiate your attempt. Sorry, I do not have time to read empty declarations and unilateral statements, so I will not answer your similar messages in the future. (4) Please remember
1620:
in Czechoslovakia / Slovakia related artciles we do not initiate such conflicts as also in other pages. Simply the non-combattant attitude, a drop of good faith, a drop of respect to Hungary and Hungarians is missing, as well to the former Kingdom of Hungary.(
1417:
As far as I can understand, I do not violate any consensus, but I follow it. Word by word. By the way, I opened this section instead of some "warring" editors who have not been able to explain their changes until now (see the first comment in this section).
813:
I am really sorry for saying that but two of these three editors claim whatever to be "anti-Hungarian" and repeatedly make similar accusations without any basis. How does Norden1990 work with sources is documented in the first paragraph. I will not go to
1347:
These counties were not in Slovakia, but Hungary as they only existed in Hungary. You have to read and interpret the rules, since you are again showing the very bad symptom that you don't want to understand what can be easily understand. Especially
1120:
The question is who recognized anything, or anything else there was or was not. Thus neither a, or b, leads to a solution mutually eligible. The "Hungarian county" was never called Bratislava county, the Czechoslovak county was called like
1651:
608:"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Have you presented a source which listed Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County?
475:
1792:
Historical Hungarian County is a historical Magyar county, since Hungary = Magyarország, so do not try again this joke. :) "touristic brochures" :))) You again entered in a paradoxon :) Do not mix present-day things woth contemporary
1678:
This sound a little bit strange, because just a simple mention about non-Hungarian names raised accusations about "clear anti-Hungarian attitude" and "anti-Hungarian aims". I don't think that this is good faith or non-combatant
1784:
Where the heck you invented this fantasmagory? Again you are generating conflicts, a type of hidden provocation to always misinterpret everything and turn out of it's real meaning, the usual symptome. Very apparent and tiring,
1870:. No it is not. The word "Magyar" is an ethnic name, the word "Hungarian" (in the historic context) has also broader meaning. This is simply point of view, nothing more or less. Example: "I am Hungarian, but I am not Magyar" (
1780:
Unfortunately, if somebody interprets even the mention about the Slovak names as a "disrespect" to Hungary and Hungarians (or he says that this is allegedly a proof of anti-Hungarian aims) it is a very bad ground for further
703:
Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. Could we spoke of the "English/Hungarian/Austrian province of the Roman Empire" instead of "Britannia/Pannonia/Noricum"? Would you refer to articles about specific historical
1438:
No, no I definetely understand, you don't want understand as usual in the past months. These places = counties existed only in Hungary, they are not existinging in Slovakia. And again, this is about not "Slovak names" or
1239:. It is meant to be a specification of guideline nr. 3 (about the use of a name in other articles) of Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (geographic names). Given the long shared history of Slovakia and Hungary,
984:
The etymology is absolutely secondary (the key point is that also Hungarian authors /like other authors/ use artificially created names for the periods when they were not documented and they were created later).
837:
Are you kidding? Do you think "County" in the name of Pozsony County is a Hungarian word? The Hungarian name of the same territory is "Pozsony Vármegye". Can you refer to a source which proves that "Bratislava
1453:
You understand it wrong you harmed twice WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS process in this page regarding the relevant section about an ongoing issue still being discussed/resolved, regardless who opened this thread.(
1442:
Of course I overlooked them, and you mix the current case with other cases, since a few examples are listed that are clear, but this case the subject are counties that are non-existent and existed only in
1215:
This a very broad approach, you could then also mention Germans, Jews an others who we share a common history. Also in Czechoslovak articles we don't put the Hungarian name of the counties when they are
942:
I agree that Bratislava is a little bit different case. Bratislava was renamed in time when this county still existed (also according to you) and the county was really (officially) called Bratislavská
946:(Bratislava County). It even does not matter if the county was abolished in 1920 or 1922, or transformed to so called "Bratislava Great County", this is real authentic name used during its existence.
622:
What is alleged "conclusion" here? Fact: another name of the Pozsony county is Pressburg county. That's all. If you believe that this is "SYTH", I recommend immediate consultation with other editors.
1388:
Kiengir, you misunderstood the consensus. These places are in Slovakia and the rule about names before 1918 applies. (Moreover, they had Slovak names also before 1918 and existed also after 1918).
1803:
or Slovak article. Moreover your continous attempt to identify that it would against anything "Slovak", although it is not the case, since not any other names are listed instead of the Wiki links
1382:
Yes, it is. "for places in Slovakia", the first point: "before 1918". Whatever else what has been mentioned in this discussion is an additional criteria not listed in this consensus.
1644:
I really do not think that the editor who had such comments like "language XYZ was invented in the 19th century", "there are no historic names in language ABC" will be neutral here.
683:(2) Who speaks about "all names"? There was another editor, who wanted to list literally all names in another article and I was against. This belongs to "A Detailed Article-: -->
541:
From which moment is the mention about other names in the common history "indiscriminate collection of information"? As far as I know, the current consensus is very different. --
1773:
ridicoulus, because then any other editor involved will became also not neutral :) Anyway, I was not involved, I joined the discussion later. Neutrality is an approach or state.
1136:
No, the question is: did this county exist in 1919/1920? If yes, the local authority administering the county used exactly this name. If no then the end date should be changed.
1066:
Kiengir, I will not open again the topic what was recognized, by whom and when. The name was used (also before 1920) and this the only one encyclopedic relevant fact. Period. --
817:
Other names are used regularly in almost all SK-HU articles related to the common history, and until now, nobody said that this is "indiscriminate collection of information".
594:
I want to know the exact wording of allegedly violated SYNTH rule. Otherwise, we can discuss forever if it is really violated or no. In my opinion, none such rule exist. --
2020:
Ok, and I recommend you the "It's OK to say sorry" & "They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment" sections also.(
1029:
520:, please list them in the article dedicated to that county. In an article dedicated to Nyitra County, the alternative names of Pozsony County can hardly add any value.
83:
1797:
The opinion that the usage of exclusively Hungarian native names and not the bilingual approach recommended in the consensus will reduce conflicts is inherently wrong.
1747:
and it simply does not contain any "special rules". I am currently more interested on the opinions of other editors, it is not necessary to repeat our views or now.
1744:
1469:
82:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
204:
2181:
1475:
I have absolutely no idea what so "provocative" or "not peaceful" in a simple mention about historic Slovak place names in the territory of present-day Slovakia.
2226:
1700:
In my opinion neutrality is not connected to involvement, but connected to an approach. Anyway it does not change the fact that all involved's agreement needed.
1685:
What are you talking about? A mention about non-Hungarian names (especially on the territories in present day Slovakia and where the Slovak population was : -->
1497:
this is not necessarily a bad faith mistake, simply only this could be achived that time or the participants who builded it were not careful or precise enough.(
394:
1258:
After 1918: use the Slovak name. Use Hungarian (or other minority languages) at least once for places with significant Hungarian (or other minority) population
652:
685:
English name). Moreover, there is a wide consensus that in the light of the common history one name (other name) is not only OK, but could be also desired. --
2211:
2191:
2176:
296:
194:
726:
These are completely unrelated cases. The "Hungarian Province" instead of Pannonia is not the widely accepted historic English name. I have better example.
400:
1809:
I can guarantee you that this will be the source of long term conflicts, it was the source of conflicts in the past, it is now and it will be in the future
580:
If my understanding is correct, you cannot refer to a reliable source which lists Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County.
1481:
In other words, the existing consensus does not support removal of Slovak names so you decided that this is a special case, not covered by the consensus.
302:
2201:
1402:
821:
Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
884:
Could you tell me an example for "like Hungarians (backwardly) sometimes use later Hungarian names for the middle ages (undocumented for the period)"? (
856:
I am very serious. In the case of Pressburg, it is simply a "reference to other names". If we speak about Bratislava County, then Slovaks used the name
2186:
170:
78:
58:
1401:
As you can see, you did not. You have created your own additional criteria (not present in the consensus) and cited partial sentences. Full text is
2111:
No, no, do not distract, it is about your behavior and activity as it has been the main cause for everything from the beginning since more months.(
2231:
1585:
You mean e.g. the editor who says that there are not any historic Slovak names and Slovak language was invented in the 19th century? No, thanks.
2221:
2216:
1714:
and since they are non-existent administrative units etc. so it is totally useless to push the same that is normal by other existing locations.
370:
2206:
2196:
1846:. These counties were never places in Slovakia, they simply did not exist. But I know you don't care, the show must go on yes? Shame on you!(
272:
1435:
These counties are not in Slovakia. Consensuses, criterias etc. can supplement or override each other regarding special or not clear cases.
161:
122:
651:
FYI: "you cannot refer to a reliable source which lists Pressburg County/Bratislava County among the neighbors of Nyitra County" -: -->
1890:
a) Historic Hungary, not modern Hungary b) they did not exist only in historic Hungary but survived disintegration of Austria-Hungary.
981:
political and cultural dominance. I really don't think that the county was politically and culturally dominated by Hungary until 1920.
572:
535:
361:
325:
1320:
Moreover, the names like Turiec, Orava, Liptov and others are not some "modern names", they are historic names used before 1918.
1306:
does not contain any statement supporting your opinion that it is not desirable. It says (very clearly) about naming convention
263:
227:
1395:
is followed by the list of special cases. Did you overlooked this list? None item in the list supporst removal of Slovak names.
1612:
What do you mean by neutrality exactly here? Why you mix happenings on other pages the situation here that is a bit different?
33:
458:
the name "Pressburg" is used in the referenced source exclusively as the name of the town and not as the name of the county
1660:
I repeatedly asked for a citation of my alleged "anti-Hungarian remarks". Nobody, never ever documented anything like that.
571:(1) It is not necessary. It is simply other name, various names do not have to be mentioned by the same source. It is not
137:
116:
1080:
Well, "There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages" -: -->
481:, what is allegedly original research and what is allegedly not in source. I am asking to explain the following comment
1596:
the linked consensus unambiguously is regulating many cases, but also it does not regulate or specify some special case
1686:
90% like Trenčín County) is a "drop of respect to Hungary and Hungarians"? How this "respect" should be demonstrated?
783:
513:
1650:
Just for an illustration - the content of the book allegedly not containing any mention about Pressburg County is
796:
1598:
If you believe that it does not regulate some case, you should initiate changes or follow the existing rules.
1018:
By the state which controlled the territory and the name really existed, the fact with encyclopedic relevance.
39:
21:
1871:
484:"your anti-Hungarian remarks". Can you cite my alleged "anti-Hungarian remark" and what exactly do you mean?
2068:
Kiengir, please try to avoid statements like "continuous negative approach", "provocations", etc. Thanks. --
468:
and he adhere to this view also after it was noted that can be verified by a simple search in google books
2097:
No, Kiengir. I have avoided such sentences from the beginning, I expect the same behavior from your side.
1720:
This article is about historical Hungarian county. For the region in today's Slovakia, see Nitra Region.
369:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
271:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
169:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2003:
1450:
The counties of Kingdom of Hungary are non-exsitent administrative units, don't mix it with the names.
2082:
I would have avoided if it would not have happened, you should have avoided them from the beginning.(
2053:, on the other hand forgiveness exist if the other party is also making steps to a good direction.(
2102:
2073:
2040:
2011:
1979:
1949:
1907:
1776:
It is ridicoulus the nth time to put a content I showed you :) Yes, the consensus has defections.
1760:
1691:
1603:
1486:
1423:
1325:
1268:
1206:
1176:
1141:
1111:
1071:
1038:
990:
951:
909:
875:
828:
773:
735:
690:
660:
627:
599:
546:
500:
153:
1300:"this is a case - it has been explained more times and demonstrated - where it is not desirable"
492:
1896:
No, I proposed a solution based on the existing consensus to prevent these permanent conflicts.
1103:
b) it existed until 1920, but this county was called also Bratislava. Sorry, but it really was.
2116:
2087:
2058:
2025:
1993:
1964:
1933:
1851:
1727:
1683:
drop of respect to Hungary and Hungarians is missing, as well to the former Kingdom of Hungary
1625:
1502:
1458:
1363:
1289:
1221:
1191:
1156:
1126:
1087:
1056:
1005:
970:
924:
889:
847:
804:
758:
717:
642:
613:
585:
562:
525:
478:
446:
353:
337:
319:
166:
147:
239:
221:
1842:
PS: if you link so may times your new favorite, you should have noticed that it is for
1805:
Read this as many times, as soon you get if you did not manage in the past two weeks :)
517:
255:
2170:
2098:
2069:
2036:
2007:
1975:
1945:
1903:
1756:
1687:
1599:
1482:
1419:
1321:
1264:
1202:
1172:
1137:
1107:
1067:
1034:
986:
947:
905:
871:
824:
769:
731:
686:
656:
623:
595:
542:
496:
2051:
focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment
2112:
2083:
2054:
2021:
1989:
1960:
1929:
1847:
1723:
1621:
1498:
1454:
1359:
1285:
1280:
it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases.
1217:
1187:
1152:
1122:
1083:
1052:
1001:
966:
920:
885:
843:
800:
754:
713:
638:
609:
581:
558:
521:
488:
433:
1670:
The current issue was not started because of me, but mainly your problematic edits
1336:
it is desirable to mention both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases
1231:
Kiengir, do not reinvent the wheel. This has been already discussed so many times:
936:
900:
1386:
These counties were not in Slovakia, but Hungary as they only existed in Hungary.
1642:
Why you mix happenings on other pages the situation here that is a bit different
1411:
What is allegedly non-existing administrative unit? Other names clearly existed.
1047:
I was referring to that it was not recognized, since we speak about officiality.
70:
52:
2049:
You know, continous negative approach, provocations, creation of conflicts !=
1881:
1616:
times, on almost daily basis since a while you generate unnecessary conflicts.
343:
245:
143:
1278:
way to push through something, you don't care it's validity or proper basis.
727:
538:. Do you mean that you cannot cite anything supporting your original opinion?
1703:
You know very well not necessarily Pressburg was the ground of escalation.
1354:
If you are not able to do so, I will restore all Slovak names immediately.
653:
WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Geographic_names_from_multiple_sources
477:
and it says (letter for letter) about Pressburg County Thus, I am asking
1263:
I am restoring all Slovak names based on this widely accepted consensus.
1082:
since the article and it's context dealing with the counties of Hungary.(
366:
1026:"There is a huge difference between more versions of the same etymology"
365:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
962:
943:
862:
268:
2120:
2106:
2091:
2077:
2062:
2044:
2029:
2015:
1997:
1983:
1968:
1953:
1937:
1911:
1855:
1764:
1731:
1695:
1629:
1607:
1506:
1490:
1462:
1427:
1367:
1329:
1293:
1272:
1225:
1210:
1195:
1180:
1160:
1145:
1130:
1115:
1091:
1075:
1060:
1042:
1009:
994:
974:
955:
928:
913:
893:
879:
851:
832:
808:
777:
762:
739:
721:
694:
664:
646:
631:
617:
603:
589:
566:
550:
529:
504:
436:
1479:
consensus is regulating some cases but not all emerging special cases
1415:
you continue edit warring and harming WP:BRD process and WP:CONSENSUS
1770:
If you are involved in the conflict you are not neutral by any mean.
1740:
If you are involved in the conflict you are not neutral by any mean.
1862:
because then any other editor involved will became also not neutral
1707:
this had been already discussed in an other time, no need to repeat
1310:
and clearly describes the rules applied before 1918 and after 1918.
1894:
you reaffirmed and reinforced that you are interested in conflicts
1409:
I repeat, by listing neighboring non-existent administrative units
784:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
514:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
1583:
I don't think some editors already involved would not be neutral
1097:
What was the "local authority" in 1919 or 1920? You can say that
575:. I expect from you an exact quote according which it is SYNTH.
708:
which list the alternative names of the neighboring historical
1974:
Please, don't repeat yourself and wait for mediation. Thanks.
1380:
Several cases, where it is properly applicable it is mentioned
495:. Borsoka, can you cite the rule which supports your opinion?
15:
1393:
This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used
1350:
This depends on the (historical) context in which it is used
1248:
Before 1918: the first reference of one name in an article
1666:
When and where were "almost all Hungarians names removed"?
1988:
I could not be able to compete with you by repeating :) (
1868:
Historical Hungarian County is a historical Magyar county
1100:
a) it ceased to exist as a "Hungarian county" before 1920
1800:
You are again deteriorating foxily the things as usual.
1738:
In my opinion neutrality is not connected to involvement
1676:
Simply the non-combattant attitude, a drop of good faith
1256:
There is also an explanation related to Czechoslovakia:
1243:
both the Slovak and the Hungarian name in several cases.
1399:
I cited everything and explained everything more times.
965:(Bratislava County)" belongs to the Czechoslovak Era. (
793:
790:
787:
482:
469:
464:
459:
454:
1878:
You are again deteriorating foxily the things as usual
1638:
I mean editors who were not involved in the conflict.
1030:
Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (geographic names)
491:
says that mentioning the name of Pressburg County is
453:
the name of the Presburg County is original research
1472:, I will simply try to involve some neutral editors.
1334:
You don't know who says? You must be joking. Again:
267:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
165:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1672:
This a very subjective statement and point of view.
399:This article has not yet received a rating on the
301:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1201:No, these articles are about the common history.
1252:, e.g. "Eperjes (Prešov)" or "Prešov (Eperjes)".
1919:-You ignore or not, be aware that we are aware!
432:The article should be merged with Nitra county.
1787:it is a very bad ground for further discussion
1250:should also include a reference to other names
1051:dealing with the counties of Czechoslovakia.(
728:Here is the Library of Parliament (Hungarian)
8:
1844:The naming convention for places in Slovakia
1636:What do you mean by neutrality exactly here?
1374:You don't know who says? You must be joking.
92:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Former countries
1648:there is no agreement on false "statements"
19:
1589:I spoke about a behavior in the past month
1314:"this article is not about Czechoslovakia"
314:
216:
111:
47:
768:work only because you dislike something.
1024:I did not recognize anything like that.
463:he read the source and it is not there
316:
218:
179:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Middle Ages
113:
49:
2182:WikiProject Former countries articles
95:Template:WikiProject Former countries
7:
2227:Unknown-importance Slovakia articles
1710:Definetely not, it is crystal-clear.
1468:Kiengir, I will not argue with you.
842:" was whenever used by the Slovaks?
379:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Slovakia
359:This article is within the scope of
261:This article is within the scope of
159:This article is within the scope of
76:This article is within the scope of
2212:Unknown-importance Hungary articles
2192:Low-importance Middle Ages articles
2177:Start-Class former country articles
1880:Sorry, I will ignore any arguments
281:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Hungary
38:It is of interest to the following
1706:"false accusation" + "lies" -: -->
1447:regarding Hungary related matters.
534:This is absolutely not related to
14:
2202:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
2187:Start-Class Middle Ages articles
474:The source can be verified here
346:
336:
318:
248:
238:
220:
182:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages
146:
136:
115:
69:
51:
20:
199:This article has been rated as
2232:All WikiProject Slovakia pages
1745:here is the existing consensus
866:like Hungarians used the name
1:
2222:Start-Class Slovakia articles
2217:All WikiProject Hungary pages
382:Template:WikiProject Slovakia
373:and see a list of open tasks.
275:and see a list of open tasks.
173:and see a list of open tasks.
2207:Start-Class Hungary articles
2197:Start-Class history articles
2121:18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
2107:14:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
2092:14:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
2078:11:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
2063:09:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
2045:06:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
2030:22:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
2016:20:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1998:19:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1984:12:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1969:12:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1954:11:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1938:09:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1912:08:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
1902:Kiengir, what is my goal? --
1856:20:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1765:17:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1732:09:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1696:06:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1630:23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1608:21:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1507:20:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1491:19:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1463:18:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1428:17:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1368:16:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1330:13:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1294:10:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1273:05:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
1226:20:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
1211:20:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
1196:20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
1181:20:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
1161:21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1146:17:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
1131:19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1116:16:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1092:20:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1076:15:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1061:15:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1043:14:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1010:20:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
995:08:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
975:22:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
956:15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
929:12:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
914:09:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
894:21:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
880:18:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
852:18:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
833:17:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
809:15:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
797:Knowledge (XXG):Edit warring
778:07:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
763:03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
740:05:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
722:02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
695:17:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
665:18:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
647:15:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
632:07:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
618:03:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
604:05:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
590:02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
567:16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
551:15:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
530:14:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
505:14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
284:Template:WikiProject Hungary
79:WikiProject Former countries
1106:I am OK with any solution.
2248:
1241:it is desirable to mention
401:project's importance scale
303:project's importance scale
205:project's importance scale
899:Of course. E.g. the name
398:
331:
300:
233:
198:
131:
64:
46:
437:10:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
1888:existed only in Hungary
1755:will be in the future .
1016:"by whom it was called"
162:WikiProject Middle Ages
98:former country articles
1344:for places in Slovakia
1308:for places in Slovakia
1304:The existing consensus
1237:for places in Slovakia
1235:The naming convention
28:This article is rated
1470:Here is the concensus
782:(1) Please remember,
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1900:your goal is obvious
1432:Awesome "seriosity".
1028:It is your opinion,
442:Edit warring - names
362:WikiProject Slovakia
185:Middle Ages articles
1658:false "accusations"
1022:"as you recognized"
264:WikiProject Hungary
1376:I am very serious.
154:Middle Ages portal
34:content assessment
415:
414:
411:
410:
407:
406:
385:Slovakia articles
313:
312:
309:
308:
215:
214:
211:
210:
110:
109:
106:
105:
2239:
429:
428:
424:
387:
386:
383:
380:
377:
356:
351:
350:
349:
340:
333:
332:
322:
315:
289:
288:
287:Hungary articles
285:
282:
279:
258:
253:
252:
251:
242:
235:
234:
224:
217:
187:
186:
183:
180:
177:
156:
151:
150:
140:
133:
132:
127:
119:
112:
100:
99:
96:
93:
90:
89:Former countries
84:join the project
73:
66:
65:
59:Former countries
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2247:
2246:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2167:
2166:
479:User:Norden1990
444:
430:
426:
422:
420:
419:
384:
381:
378:
375:
374:
354:Slovakia portal
352:
347:
345:
286:
283:
280:
277:
276:
254:
249:
247:
184:
181:
178:
175:
174:
167:the Middle Ages
152:
145:
125:
97:
94:
91:
88:
87:
29:
12:
11:
5:
2245:
2243:
2235:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2209:
2204:
2199:
2194:
2189:
2184:
2179:
2169:
2168:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
1926:
1923:
1920:
1917:
1897:
1891:
1885:
1875:
1865:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1806:
1794:
1790:
1777:
1774:
1748:
1741:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1704:
1701:
1680:
1673:
1667:
1661:
1655:
1645:
1639:
1617:
1613:
1593:
1586:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1476:
1473:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1412:
1406:
1396:
1389:
1383:
1377:
1332:
1318:
1311:
1261:
1254:
1245:
1232:
1168:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1048:
1019:
982:
940:
835:
818:
815:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
539:
518:Pozsony County
472:
471:
466:
461:
456:
443:
440:
418:
416:
413:
412:
409:
408:
405:
404:
397:
391:
390:
388:
371:the discussion
358:
357:
341:
329:
328:
323:
311:
310:
307:
306:
299:
293:
292:
290:
273:the discussion
260:
259:
256:Hungary portal
243:
231:
230:
225:
213:
212:
209:
208:
201:Low-importance
197:
191:
190:
188:
171:the discussion
158:
157:
141:
129:
128:
126:Low‑importance
120:
108:
107:
104:
103:
101:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2244:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2223:
2220:
2218:
2215:
2213:
2210:
2208:
2205:
2203:
2200:
2198:
2195:
2193:
2190:
2188:
2185:
2183:
2180:
2178:
2175:
2174:
2172:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2095:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2033:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2002:
2001:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1972:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1941:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1921:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1898:
1895:
1892:
1889:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1876:
1873:
1869:
1866:
1863:
1860:
1859:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1788:
1782:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1753:
1752:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1739:
1736:
1735:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1646:
1643:
1640:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1416:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1394:
1391:The sentence
1390:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1355:
1351:
1345:
1341:
1340:Several cases
1337:
1333:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1253:
1251:
1246:
1244:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
997:
996:
992:
988:
983:
979:
978:
976:
972:
968:
964:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
933:
932:
930:
926:
922:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
902:
898:
897:
895:
891:
887:
883:
882:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
864:
859:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
836:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
816:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
791:
788:
785:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
751:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
682:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
649:
648:
644:
640:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
483:
480:
476:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
455:
452:
451:
450:
448:
441:
439:
438:
435:
425:
417:
402:
396:
393:
392:
389:
372:
368:
364:
363:
355:
344:
342:
339:
335:
334:
330:
327:
324:
321:
317:
304:
298:
295:
294:
291:
274:
270:
266:
265:
257:
246:
244:
241:
237:
236:
232:
229:
226:
223:
219:
206:
202:
196:
193:
192:
189:
172:
168:
164:
163:
155:
149:
144:
142:
139:
135:
134:
130:
124:
121:
118:
114:
102:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2050:
1899:
1893:
1887:
1877:
1872:Ľudovít Štúr
1867:
1861:
1843:
1808:
1801:
1796:
1786:
1779:
1769:
1737:
1719:
1682:
1675:
1669:
1663:
1657:
1647:
1641:
1635:
1595:
1588:
1582:
1478:
1414:
1408:
1398:
1392:
1385:
1379:
1373:
1353:
1349:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1317:immediately.
1313:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1279:
1257:
1249:
1247:
1240:
1236:
1234:
1025:
1021:
1015:
867:
861:
857:
839:
820:
709:
705:
486:
473:
449:says that:
445:
431:
360:
262:
200:
160:
77:
40:WikiProjects
2004:WP:Civility
1864:You get it.
1781:discussion.
1439:whatsoever.
176:Middle Ages
123:Middle Ages
30:Start-class
2171:Categories
1882:ad hominem
1679:attitude".
1358:activity.(
1302:Who says?
447:Norden1990
1664:or "lies"
937:Rózsahegy
901:Rózsahegy
2099:Ditinili
2070:Ditinili
2037:Ditinili
2008:Ditinili
1976:Ditinili
1946:Ditinili
1904:Ditinili
1757:Ditinili
1688:Ditinili
1600:Ditinili
1483:Ditinili
1443:Hungary.
1420:Ditinili
1322:Ditinili
1265:Ditinili
1216:listed.(
1203:Ditinili
1173:Ditinili
1138:Ditinili
1108:Ditinili
1068:Ditinili
1035:Ditinili
987:Ditinili
948:Ditinili
906:Ditinili
872:Ditinili
825:Ditinili
814:details.
770:Ditinili
732:Ditinili
687:Ditinili
657:Ditinili
624:Ditinili
596:Ditinili
543:Ditinili
497:Ditinili
376:Slovakia
367:Slovakia
326:Slovakia
2113:KIENGIR
2084:KIENGIR
2055:KIENGIR
2022:KIENGIR
1990:KIENGIR
1961:KIENGIR
1930:KIENGIR
1848:KIENGIR
1724:KIENGIR
1622:KIENGIR
1499:KIENGIR
1455:KIENGIR
1360:KIENGIR
1286:KIENGIR
1218:KIENGIR
1188:KIENGIR
1153:KIENGIR
1123:KIENGIR
1084:KIENGIR
1053:KIENGIR
1002:KIENGIR
967:KIENGIR
921:KIENGIR
886:KIENGIR
868:Vármegy
858:stolica
844:Borsoka
801:Borsoka
755:Borsoka
714:Borsoka
710:regions
706:regions
639:Borsoka
610:Borsoka
582:Borsoka
559:Borsoka
522:Borsoka
489:Borsoka
434:Baxter9
278:Hungary
269:Hungary
228:Hungary
203:on the
1811:-: -->
1799:-: -->
1793:times.
1783:-: -->
1772:-: -->
1743:Again
1356:-: -->
1346:-: -->
1338:-: -->
1282:-: -->
840:County
487:Then,
421:": -->
36:scale.
573:SYNTH
536:SYNTH
512:Yes:
493:SYNTH
2117:talk
2103:talk
2088:talk
2074:talk
2059:talk
2041:talk
2035:? --
2026:talk
2012:talk
1994:talk
1980:talk
1965:talk
1950:talk
1934:talk
1908:talk
1852:talk
1761:talk
1728:talk
1692:talk
1652:here
1626:talk
1604:talk
1592:etc.
1503:talk
1487:talk
1459:talk
1424:talk
1403:here
1364:talk
1326:talk
1290:talk
1269:talk
1222:talk
1207:talk
1192:talk
1177:talk
1157:talk
1142:talk
1127:talk
1121:so.(
1112:talk
1088:talk
1072:talk
1057:talk
1039:talk
1006:talk
991:talk
971:talk
963:župa
952:talk
944:župa
925:talk
910:talk
890:talk
876:talk
863:župa
848:talk
829:talk
805:talk
774:talk
759:talk
736:talk
718:talk
691:talk
661:talk
643:talk
628:talk
614:talk
600:talk
586:talk
563:talk
547:talk
526:talk
501:talk
423:edit
860:or
395:???
297:???
195:Low
2173::
2119:)
2105:)
2094:)
2090:)
2076:)
2065:)
2061:)
2043:)
2032:)
2028:)
2014:)
2006:--
2000:)
1996:)
1982:)
1971:)
1967:)
1952:)
1940:)
1936:)
1910:)
1858:)
1854:)
1763:)
1734:)
1730:)
1694:)
1632:)
1628:)
1606:)
1505:)
1489:)
1465:)
1461:)
1426:)
1370:)
1366:)
1328:)
1296:)
1292:)
1271:)
1228:)
1224:)
1209:)
1198:)
1194:)
1179:)
1163:)
1159:)
1144:)
1133:)
1129:)
1114:)
1094:)
1090:)
1074:)
1063:)
1059:)
1041:)
1033:--
1012:)
1008:)
993:)
977:)
973:)
954:)
931:)
927:)
912:)
896:)
892:)
878:)
850:)
831:)
823:--
807:)
799:.
792:,
789:,
776:)
761:)
738:)
720:)
712:?
693:)
663:)
655:.
645:)
630:)
616:)
602:)
588:)
565:)
549:)
528:)
503:)
2123:)
2115:(
2101:(
2086:(
2072:(
2057:(
2039:(
2024:(
2010:(
1992:(
1978:(
1963:(
1948:(
1932:(
1906:(
1884:.
1850:(
1789:.
1759:(
1726:(
1722:(
1690:(
1654:.
1624:(
1602:(
1509:)
1501:(
1485:(
1457:(
1422:(
1405:.
1362:(
1324:(
1288:(
1267:(
1260:.
1220:(
1205:(
1190:(
1175:(
1155:(
1140:(
1125:(
1110:(
1086:(
1070:(
1055:(
1037:(
1004:(
989:(
969:(
950:(
935:(
923:(
908:(
888:(
874:(
846:(
827:(
803:(
772:(
757:(
734:(
716:(
689:(
659:(
641:(
626:(
612:(
598:(
584:(
561:(
545:(
524:(
499:(
427:]
403:.
305:.
207:.
86:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
