User talk:Mathae

Consensual answer

You have written this on my talk page:

Hi!

Is the Hungarian Horthy article consensual? (Well, I think so, as only our beloved User:Math made some remarks, which have already been investigated.) And in that case why is its neutrality argued? Mathae 7 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

I think yes, Math not argued its neutrality, only said we shouldn't write about Horthy's aims and motivations, because its not lexikon-like. But it seems to be inavoidable. I think we should wait a few day, then we can ask Alensha for translate the hungarian content into the english page, where it is necessary; or you can start it too, if you want. Gubbubu 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

Hi,

I hope the revert war stopped, at least no one put him into the Fascists category since then. I can't imagine how can anyone add that category to the article after reading it... I'm not really an expert on 20th century history but I'll try to do my best. We can also discuss the matter in HunWiki now that the atheist fanatics have apparently left and we actually do have time for important things. Alensha 7 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for helping out with the "plundering" stuff, I hope you can keep it up until it's settled. It's really outrageous that some people are constantly trying to change history even when sources are presented. If you have sources stating the exact quantity / percentage of goods that were taken, could you provide those as well, to support the case? KissL 07:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll help as I can. But unfortunately I haven't found too much about this topic on the web, but I'll keep searching!--Mathae 09:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have time, could you also undo Criztu's latest change. He violated WP:3RR and I don't want to do the same. KissL 10:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration

Azért írok neked, és még két-három magyar wikipédiásnak, mert szeretnék vmi szervezkedést elindítani a magyar történelemmel illetve a határon túli magyarsággal kapcsolatos oldalak ügyében. Úgy látszik, apró eredmények eléréséért is nagy harcokat kell vívni a szomszédainkkal, akik rendszerint sokkal jobban szervezettek, felkészültebbek és öntudatosabbak nálunk, így a történelmünket érintő cikkek vagy gyatra minőségűek vagy elfogultak vagy egyszerűen elhallgatják a nekünk kedvező tényeket. Kicsit fáradt vagyok már az állandó magányos csatározástól (bár a legérzékenyebb témákat eddig elkerültem) és jól jönne néha a segítség. A wikipedia azon az elven működik, hogy a sok-sok szerző egymást állandóan javítva, korrigálva, egymással vitatkozva jobbítja a cikkeket. Úgy tűnik, mi túl kevesen vagyunk ahhoz, hogy ez természetes módon, tudatos szervezkedés nélkül működjön. Ha van vmi ötleted vagy csak néha benéznél egy-egy felforrósodó topikba, előre is köszi! Üdv. Zello 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Romania

Hello,

First of all I'd like to apologise for reverting without giving much exlanation, I am during work hours and I don't afford to spend too much time on Wikipedia, but I'll try spending a few minutes to try to explain to you my actions.

Your edits were two small modifications: one adding the word Some in front of Romanian historians who claim that Dacians..... and the other was a small modification saying that romanians only came into Transylvania since the 13th century. While the first didn't upseted me too much, I have yet no knowledge of an important group of Romanian Historians who reject the dacian ancestry theory.

The one that really upseted me was the second one, an affirmation that I consider to consider to be a little too POV. As you said if you accept the dacian origin, than the afirmation is false, if you consider the migration version, than the affirmation might be true (though I doubt that the "migration" started only in 13th century). But being such a delicate subject, I cosider that the most NPOV affirmation is the one that was before - Romanians lived in three distinct principalities: Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania.. I know that the problem is a delicate one, and if you would like to discuss it, there are the articles about Transylvania or Origin of Romanians, but I want to prevent problematic affirmations being made on the page about Romania.

Thank you for your time. Mihai -^talk 17:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Komárno

Hi, I ask your help in the case of Komárno-Révkomárom. User: Mt7 insists to delete the alternative name variant of the town. I engaged in a fierce edit war with him but it seems I'm not able prevent this deletion that I think totally unreasonable and indeed simply outrageous. I saw you had the same debate with Mt7 on hu wiki, and probably you are fed up with this case but if you have a small amount of time say one or two words because nobody follows the article with attention and alone I'm not able to stop this guy. Zello 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

:-)))

hééé adminok! hogy fog tanulni szegény Mathae a vizsgájára, ha nincs kitiltva? miattatok fog megbukni :D – Alensha 寫 词 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

ALi

Azt láttam, h egy anon 1000 karakter felett törölget :-) Kicsit később szoktam átnézni a revertjeimet. Magyarán utólagos kontroll van, most épp ezt keresgéltem, de látom nem kell már fárdanom vele. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 11:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

figyelj, én ókormániás vagyok, nekem ez a rész elég ködös, most fordítgatok kicsit a magyarból, aztán te ellenőrizd szakmai szempontból, ő meg nyelvileg. + userlapodon a Budapest-címert törölték, javítsd a hivatkozást (a Portal:Miskolcon már javítottam a testvérportálok közt, ott találod a most használt képet.) – Alensha ^talk 17:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

mondom, hogy nem értek hozzá, a huwiki cikke meg kiemelt, gondoltam, az elég jó... – Alensha ^talk 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

azért dolgoztatunk, mert elismert szakember vagy mindenféle történelmi témában és mert szeretünk és jó érzés a kezed nyomát látni a cikkeken :) – Alensha ^talk 18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ehh, mondd meg neki, hogy azt üzenem, a Mathae éppoly hiteles, mint a windows, amit használok ;) ma meg ne fárassz, egész nap Beavis és Butthead kalandjait feliratozom, már kínomban röhögök, hogy ahhoz kellett nekem a felsőfokú nyelvvizsga, hogy naphosszat azt pötyögjem, hogy "aha", "höhöhö" meg "kirúgom a seggeteket a szátokon". csak az vigasztal, hogy ezért is ugyanúgy megkapom feliratonként a tizennyolc centet, mintha shakespeare-i magasságokba emelkedő monológokat fordítanék. a bimbózó írói tehetségemet meg majd máshol kamatoztatom, pl. a wikipédián.

na, mentem aludni. :) – Alensha ^talk 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

Not that it matters much, but I think this article is already way more detailed than a stub, taking the definitions from the latter link. Are you sure you wanted to introduce that template and not something like {{underconstruction}}? KissL 11:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Max Herz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Museum of Applied Arts. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Max Herz, 1897.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Max Herz, 1897.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Max Herz, 1913.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Max Herz, 1913.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mathae. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Max Herz, 1913.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Max Herz, 1913.jpg and for sending in an email to our OTRS team. Unfortunately, the permissions received were not sufficient. Due to this a tag has been placed on the image requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. This is due to the image being tagged {{OTRS received}} for longer then 30 days without permissions being confirmed and no further responses have been received to attempt to resolve the permission issue. If you have questions about this please feel free to message me on my talk page. --Majora (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)