User talk:K. Lastochka: Difference between revisions

Good idea. Molto me piace. Now, off to rinse off those hands of mine, which look rather brown to me… ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When was the last time you read WP:NPA da capo al fine? (and please don't derail a content dispute with personal matters)Anonimu 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, a couple weeks ago I guess. You? K. Lásztocska 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again, sforzando on the WP:NPA#What is considered a personal attack?Anonimu 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've said much worse to me than I've said to you. Consider whatever comment of mine upset you to be a taste of your own medicine. K. Lásztocska 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only about your understanding of policy. BTW, you might not be aware of the NPA implications of your last words.Anonimu 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, sir, you are the LAST person on this entire project who has any right at all to lecture me about civility and NPA. K. Lásztocska 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else is doing it, I had to take on this unplesant mission. (and i like more "comrade" than "sir")Anonimu 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question: why is no one else on the Wiki upset with my behavior? Maybe they all are crazy? (And please forgive me that I prefer not to address people as "comrade." Is just "Anonimu" OK?) K. Lásztocska 19:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one else care (and the ones who do are too fascinated by the fact that they collaborate with a female that doesn't share their blood).(as long as you don't call me "sir")Anonimu 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote my favorite fellow traveler, "do not make an issue of my womanhood." I'm not even sure what the hell that comment of yours is supposed to mean. Care to elucidate? K. Lásztocska 19:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He that hath an ear, let him hear. BTW, must i make it clear (again) that this is not about your behavior?Anonimu 19:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're saying that I have groupies too. If it's not about my behavior, then why are you bothering me? Is it just a random inspection to make sure I've read all my policies lately, or what? ::K. Lásztocska 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's about your understanding of the policy. Do you really need a thorough explanation of my reasons and expected result?Anonimu 19:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind at least a brief explanation, as I'm quite confused now. K. Lásztocska 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message on the page about soviet presence in romania that preceded my message here made be doubt your understanding of "some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." from the mentioned policy Anonimu 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but which message? The one where I said "we're arguing with you, not attacking you!"? The one where I reminded you that criticism of your opinions is not meant to be an attack against your person? K. Lásztocska 19:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sƒz sƒz Seems someone's own words could be used in good effect to recommend a certain Wikipedia policy to them. Hint: the person I mean is not Hungarian. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"please don't derail a content dispute with personal matters".Anonimu 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on your behavior which I find less than conducive to a productive discussion. You would, as usual, do well to take your own advice. K. Lásztocska 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a reply to Biruitorul's question. Yours, on the other hand, was totally off-topic. BTW, i was partially wrong when i said no one cares. The ip below seems to do, and you should follow his advice.Anonimu 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're really so concerned, you are more than welcome to launch an RfC against me, then we'll see how that goes. The IP below may be extremely enthusiastic to be the co-sponsor of such an RfC. K. Lásztocska 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was just a "friendly advice". If i had problems with you, i would have reported you at ANI. And anyway, RfC is for people who have time to lose (aka les bourgeoises) 17:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have any problems with me, then why are you expending so much valuable proletarian time writing on my talk page? Go awaken the masses or something. ;-) K. Lásztocska 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'd place bets on when el rowboat de nuclear would eventually come up... again. Will ^(talk) 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have no problems with you, it doesn't mean i don't have some dissatisfaction with your off-topic comments in a serious content dispute. Follow my example: i prefer to reply at your talk page rather than clutter the talk page of an article. First I have to fight fasc reactionary propaganda and warn their Chamberlains.Anonimu 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, Will, thanks for bringing that up again... Anonimu--good luck in your battle against fascism. When you find some fascists to fight, let me know, willya? K. Lásztocska 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC) PS I would reply at your talk page, but you'd probably just...delete it...[reply]

I would, but i don't want to end like some romanian historian. Oh, right, i forgot about that... but that's not an excuse for cluttering a discussion.Anonimu 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to be so blunt and put an end to your strange daydreams, but there are no Iron Guard members here. Nor even Iron Guard sympathizers. And no, before you bring this one up again, preferring to think of Antonescu as a complex historical figure rather than a simple caricature of pure evil does not make one an Iron Guard sympathizer. And don't accuse me of paranoia, you and I both know full well just who and what you're talking about. K. Lásztocska 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid no, overdefensive yes. Sceptre, this happens when you bring old matters, a psychological switch is pressed and then we have the same discussion over and over again. I consider that my previous arguments were clear enough, and I really don't want you to spend precious time you could use to write new articles. I wish you NPOV editing and less off-topic comments!Anonimu 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the talkpage before making controversial edits.Anonimu 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to take orders from someone who thinks trying to exterminate the Polish people was "defending ideals." K. Lásztocska 17:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better go play with your dolls. War is not for girls. However wikipedia acts on consensus and its rules apply to everyone, so you should consider them before making dubious edits.Anonimu 17:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate non-Office computers :(. Also, your talk breaks on IE6 XP SP2, but doesn't everything? Will ^(talk) 19:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh what? K. Lásztocska 19:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On computers without the pretty Edwardian Script ITC font (installed free with Office), it comes up as Comic Sans MS in the header, Arial in your signature. Will ^(talk) 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah...it did that on my new computer before I installed Office. Sorry about that! :) K. Lásztocska 19:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now it's installed. And it's more my fault as I didn't put "Script" in the font declaration (geek-speak which you may skip if you don't want to bother reading it). Will ^(talk) 21:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words of concern, but don't worry, real life is overwhelming right now but in a positive way. My only other wiki-obstacle: my daughter can now walk up to the keyboard and likes to help me type, mashing buttons (its most fun with both hands), and whoever designed the layout to put an enter key in the *extreme* lower right corner certainly didn't have toddlers about... Re: Puskás, I believe you told me once but did you get his book? If not I will start hunting for it. István 21:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobbing is following certain rules of group psychology. There is a victim on the one side, and several mobbers are on the other side. The victim is blamed without bounds and very soon treated as if he was no longer a human being. The mobbers are feeling themselves as very strong and always right because they are a group of which every member is applauding to the others, whatever they might have done or said. In the end they are altogether losing all ground beneath their feet. At moment you have reached a state at which it doesn't matter to compare other persons with ugly pigs. (The "dead horse" is another variant being, without doubt, SO funny too.) It should be alarming for you yourself, although - of course - you will still find "friends", even applauding to this.

Since it will lead to severe disadvantages for you yourself when further following that way, I permit myself to give a friendly advice. You should try to leave all kinds of group thinking, as far as it is possible, and return to a state as individual again. The applause of such "friends" is completely worthless. After some time, it might be some weeks, look with calm mind at the Thalberg talk page again. You will then find that everything I wrote was true and, in comparison to your own behaviour, even polite. I was always trying to help you in solving certain problems, of which I quite well know. (Yes, I read many of your contribs.) Concerning the suggested correction of the music example, Paint would have been sufficient, and it would have been less than 3 minutes. The total disadvantage in this case is at Wikipedia's side.80.144.175.62 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may go back to authoring your Liszt and Thalberg dissertations now, Herr Protzies. That message was entirely uncalled for. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM an individual, thank you very much, and I have no control over what my "friends" choose to do or say on the Thalberg talk page or anywhere else. I also cannot remember ever treating you as if you were "no longer a human being," and frankly I think that's a bit extreme of you to accuse me of such reprehensible behavior. It's true that I have in the past treated you with impatience, annoyance, and even disrespect, and for the thousandth time I apologize for that. But I do not believe I have ever sunk so low as to compare you to an "ugly pig", how dare you accuse me of that? (Regarding the "dead horse"--that is a common idiom in English: "to beat a dead horse" means to keep returning to a topic that had either been resolved or put aside long previously. I was not calling YOU a dead horse.)

As for the music example. I was unaware that Paint would also work, since I have never used Paint and do not know if I have it installed on this computer either. I suppose I could learn how to use a new program today, since it's the weekend and I have some spare time. (Alternatively, you could do it, since you seem to be familiar with Paint already.) K. Lásztocska 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the time I got told off for saying "better the devil you know..." about Anonimu on ANI. Will ^(talk) 21:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like we have to be pretty careful with our metaphors around here--some people are a bit literal-minded. (No, Günther, I wasn't referring to only you that time either.) I just realized what made him think I called him a pig: I mentioned that quote about getting into fights with internet troublemakers ("Never mud wrestle a pig: you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.") to Springeragh, after making it quite clear that I was by that point speaking in general terms and not aiming my comments specifically at Herr Protzies. And the gist of the statement in which I quoted that quote was to say that we should do our utmost to not escalate the disputes and arguments that seem to crop up whenever certain people are around (and assuming bad faith). K. Lásztocska 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figures of speech are hard if it's not your mother tongue—you should probably give them the benefit of the doubt there. (Embarrassingly, I almost never laugh when someone tells me a joke in German, and certainly not in any of the other languages I know less than 50 words of.) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for sure (I know some Russian proverbs that sound utterly ridiculous in translation), which is why I explained the "dead horse" thing. I didn't think "I'm speaking in general terms and these remarks are not directed specifically at Herr Protzies" would be so hard to understand, though. K. Lásztocska 21:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say "Ich spreche nicht zu Herr Protzies, nur zu Springeragh" next time. ;) —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all parts of the civilized world a human being is imagined as to be endowed with dignity. Treating a person without respecting this is the same as treating him as if he was no longer a human being. For the rest let us see and quote:

As for the scholar, I figure we should just be as cool and businesslike as possible with him, and not respond in kind to his baiting. István mentioned a great quote once about fighting with internet trolls: "Never mud wrestle a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." (04:39, 6 September 2007, K. Lásztocska)

You did never sink so low as to compare other persons to ugly pigs? And your "friends" did not applaud even to this?

Concerning the "dead horse" with exploding head, please look at the chapter "Hungarian or Magyar?" of the Liszt talk page. I always thought reasonable debate entries were looking somewhat different. If wanting to tell me you’d like to read such stuff in connexion with yourself, you must be joking.80.144.142.164 09:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, the pig thing was a METAPHOR. If you will try to not be so literal-minded for a moment, you will see that in context, my use of that metaphor was to say that we should NOT RESPOND IN KIND TO YOUR RUDENESS.

If you want to complain about "exploding head," complain to Springeragh and not to me. I am not responsible for every last thing on the planet that ever offended you, you know. After that, please go back and read some of your OWN posts, on the Thalberg talk page, on my own talk page and some in the Liszt talk archive, and then perhaps it may dawn on you that I HAVE been reading insulting and degrading things in connection with myself for the past several months. Your recent baiting is no exception. K. Lásztocska 12:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh most honourable sir, my dear Günther, who blesses us with his presence and vast knowledge every time he edits, and is nothing less than a wonderful asset to our encyclopædia: Humour exists. Get over it. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to be perfectly honest, I don't even think pigs are ugly. On the contrary, I kind of like them. One inescapable fact about them, however, is they like to sit in the mud! And most people (well, most adults that is) don't! Man, I have to learn some German metaphors...K. Lásztocska 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besser der Teufel, das du weiß, als der Teufel, das du nicht weiß. >:D Sorry to butcher your mother tongue, Protzies. It was a translation I did in my head on the fly anyway. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a few seconds to figure that one out--at first it made about as much sense as "Mein Luftkissenfahrzeug ist voller Aale", and here we go again...K. Lásztocska 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! Will ^(talk) 08:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filling a page with such stuff is neither an imposing ability, nor is any humour to it. You actually have lost all ground beneath your feet and should only be ashamed. Just for correcting a mistake in the posting of 12:15, 10 September 2007, above, I know quite well what I wrote during the past several months and you know it too. There was absolutely nothing of rudeness or all of the other kinds included.80.144.89.47 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ashamed of nothing and your constant goading will not change that. Your boldness in asserting that there was nothing rude in any of your postings astonishes me: it is not for the one who makes the comments to decide whether they are rude/offensive/uncivil or not, rather it is for the one to whom they are directed to decide. From my point of view you have indeed been very rude and condescending to me for a long time now, continuing with this little witch-hunt against me. If you have such a serious problem with me, report me to an admin and get it over with. K. Lásztocska 12:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a person a pretender, a liar, and now a pig, as you and your "friends" all did, is all over the world considered as evil insult. Following your own logic, it will not be you, but I who decides. Now, please, look at your posting of 12:15,10 September 2007, above once more and compare. On the other hand, you claim I had called you a "little witch" or anything resembling this. It is not true, but if you believe the opposite, please give one or two examples from my postings.

As far as I can remember, our problem during the past months was quite different. You want to play a role as Hungarian. Please do it, no matter whether all the rest of your family may regard it as ridiculous nonsense. I did not criticize you for this because it is everybody’s right to play this or that kind of role. But wanting to be respected as Liszt expert is a somewhat different thing. Present day's Liszt-literature is huge. A total amount of 40,000 or 50,000 publications would be a good guess. Nobody can read all of this, of course, but an expert must have read several thousands of them and a huge quantity of further sources besides, which I all did. I did even more, playing much of Liszt, Chopin, even Thalberg, and many other composers myself. This is not to say, I would always be right. But I have learnt which kinds of arguments are suiting when earnestly talking about Liszt. Your argument, "I am Hungarian and for this reason can judge over all others speaking of Liszt." is surely not of that kind. To give another hint, please look at the Thalberg article once again and afterwards ask yourself whether a person, not wanting to see that the article was written by an expert, not must be blind. And you still want to call me a pig without being ashamed for this?80.144.168.128 12:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare talk about my family. How DARE you? I am not "playing the part of a Hungarian," I AM Hungarian, Hungarian blood flows in my veins and a Hungarian heart beats in my breast. The fact that I have other ethnic ancestries as well is immaterial. Not only will I still not take your word over Liszt's own with regard to HIS nationality, I will not allow you to disparage MY nationality or mock me for not being full-blooded Magyar, insinuate that I am somehow a false Hungarian, etc. Just so we're clear, I consider such comments deeply offensive and insulting.

Furthermore, I take issue with your ridiculous "description" of my take on the question of Liszt's nationality, that I think that as a Hungarian, I have some sort of infallibility when it comes to Liszt. That is an absurd caricature verging on character assassination. If you will recall, in the beginning of our legendary argument, it was LISZT'S OWN WORDS that I quoted to back up my position. No, I have not read the thousands of Liszt books that you claim to have read, but I am not ignorant and I am not stupid. My lack of proper training on the piano is irrelevant.

However, I do apologize for what was apparently an ill-chosen metaphor (the pig thing.) I clearly offended you and I regret that, but allow me to again defend myself by explaining that first of all, it was just that, a METAPHOR, and I did not intend to literally call anyone else a literal pig. Moreover, as I have explained three times already, I was not even referring specifically to YOU PERSONALLY, I was making a GENERAL POINT about the wisdom of not escalating arguments over the internet. Please try to understand that. K. Lásztocska 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC) PS and no, I do not think you called me a witch. "witch hunt" is another metaphor (maybe I should just stop using those altogether) meaning an unfair and unnecessarily vehement campaign against a person, often with little good reason. K. Lásztocska 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the purpose of avoiding a misunderstanding, a reference should be added.

I have a story for you too: over the weekend, I got dragged to a family reunion--there's nothing quite like milling around a backyard with several dozen mostly-Irish-Americans I'm apparently all related to, who literally hadn't seen me since I was a baby and seemed to be surprised that I wasn't still snuggled in a blanket in my nagymama's arms, and what was even more depressing was they all either laughed at or outright dismissed as nonsense (without even considering any of the evidence I've uncovered) my discoveries about our family's Hungarian origin. (K. Lásztocska, 17:54, 23 July 2007).

Nevertheless, since you assured to have uncovered evidence, I presume, of course, that you were in so far right

Concerning the "little witch", it had been my error to have read "little with hunt" instead of "little witch-hunt". ("witch-hunt" would have been "Hexenjagd" in German, and the meaning was the same.) In a next step I forgot that "hunt" and afterwards thought in a wrong direction. I'm sorry for it. But now, please, give one or two examples for my "witch-hunting" you. So far as I can remember, there had been nothing of this kind from my side. Several other persons were hunting you instead.

80.144.168.128 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really now. You're just being cruel. If one wanted evidence of a witch hunt one need only look at the fact that you've been reading her edits, presumably looking for amunition against her! M A Mason 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Günther, I told that story to István, and not to you. I realize that talk pages are public, but generally speaking people don't go pawing through other peoples' conversations, especially when they wander off Wiki topics and into aimless reminiscing and stories (as István and I are prone to doing.) Moreover, since István has never been involved in any of our discussions, you would have had no occasion to ever meet him and thus would have no reason to be reading his talk page unless...you were reading all my contributions, even those that have nothing whatsoever to do with our Liszt and Thalberg conversations. Again, I realize that contribs lists are public for good reason, but such detailed examination of everything I've ever said to anybody, and things completely unrelated to our interaction at that, could very easily be considered stalking and I for one do not appreciate it. In fact, I consider what little privacy I am afforded in such an open system to have been violated--not to mention that of István, who until this strange new development was a completely innocent bystander and has done nothing to deserve being dragged into this.

As for the Hexenjagd, perhaps harassment would be a better term. Specifically, your unrelenting disparagement of myself, my opinions and my motives on this very talk page!! K. Lásztocska 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

80.144, are you here to help us write an encyclopedia, or for some other reason? If the former, please stick to the issues, which in your case I believe were Liszt and Thalberg. Attacking other editors, whether blatantly or subtly, whether by using obscenities or by weaving your argument around with soft and fancy words, is never OK. If you feel someone else attacked you first, that still doesn't make it OK, and if you feel people are "mobbing" you, that still doesn't give you the right to attack them back. Stick to the encyclopedic issues please. Advice to K., please don't take the bait from this person. Thank you all, Antandrus (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Günther. Protzies. You make me so sick I want to vomit. I would have thought that any normal human being with any amount of respect for any other people would refrain from leaping into the mud with both feet unreservedly, as you have done by insulting Lastochka's family, but apparently I was mistaken. I lean wholeheartedly towards the last five words of the first sentence of Antandrus' post. They appeal to me. You know that you and we worked together just fine until you pushed the POV wedge into the middle of things, so stop! Find out what changed our last big argument into coöperation with each other, and repeat it. And don't do what changed our last coöperation into this big argument. Period. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is developing to a direction where it seems to be getting somewhat complicated. User:Springeragh, a close friend of yours, was for himself heavily involved in odd operations, while user Antandrus will hardly know the full details of the past several months. There won't be many people in the world, by the way, sticking to a strenuous work while being blamed without bounds. If this is used to be called "collaboration" at this place, please look at the Wikipedia guidelines, changing very much, so that people might be aware of Wikipedia reality.

My posting at the beginning of this chapter was as friendly meant as it actually was; and - as far as I can see - every sentence was true. But since you are still attacking me, it is my right to defend myself by putting some words to it. In my quotation concerning your family there was nothing included that can be regarded as insult of any kind. Your present theory of “harassment" is also wrong. On the other hand, I admit that I actually don't like all of your opinions. But there are many further people who dislike them too; and an encyclopaedia is certainly not the place to distribute such kinds of opinions as truth. Some of the Hungary related articles, for example, are at present state ... well, let us say somewhat astonishing.

When you are now for one claiming you wouldn't appreciate "stalking", reality has been a little different.

Of course I stalk you, did you expect any less from your loyal groupie? I stalk pretty much everybody, but I figured it was just a weird obsession of mine. (04:25, 4 September 2007, K. Lásztocska)

In fact, even the deletion of a message did not prevent that it was read by you. If there was a super stalker in the past, he seems to have had much resemblance with you yourself, after all.

Looking at my side, I had neither enough time nor any interest for stalking you. I read that you were asking for being reviewed. You also wrote that people should be honest when criticizing you. After this, it has nothing to do with stalking when a person was looking at your contribs. Instead, it was just that what you were asking for. If you'd disliked it, you had better written, "Please, be honest, but without saying the truth."

Many things can be learnt from a debate like this one. To give a single hint, I'm remembering the following quote.

All those Wikipedia-bashing pundits would do well to look at the wikis in other languages--from your examples and a few other I've seen elsewhere, enwiki appears to be among the worst-written and least serious of the bunch. (19:56, 5 August 2007, K. Lásztocska)

No idea of which kind possible reasons might be?80.144.185.13 09:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not responsible for Springeragh's behavior, past or present. Antandrus is an admin, a very intelligent person, and perhaps knows more about the debate than you think.
2. I do not "distribute my opinions as truth", and I, being only one person with not very large blocks of free time at the moment, cannot single-handedly improve every article related to Hungary. Do not hold me responsible for the poor state of articles that I may never even have edited.
3. My comment to Biruitorul: first of all I used the word "stalk" in a sarcastic way, given past debates on subjects that are none of your business but you probably already know about. I consider there to be a bit of a difference between someone (e.g. me) frequently glancing at the contribs list of her colleagues out of curiosity to see what they've been working on, and someone (e.g. you) actually reading all my contributions, especially my irrelevant talk page messages, for the purpose of fueling your never-ending crusade against me with quotes taken out of context.
4. As for your last remark, let me just say again that I am only one person with limited free time and cannot improve the entire wiki by myself. Frankly though, I think trolls are a bigger problem than editors who occasionally engage in pointless talk-page chatting. K. Lásztocska 13:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Read Antandrus' user page, Protzies. Also look at his contributions. There's hardly a [classical] music-related article he hasn't edited. He knows what he's doing. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To K. Lásztocska) There is one property being common between us. My own free time is rather restricted too. I usually prefer touching the keyboard of a piano instead of that of a computer. For this reason I unfortunately could not read all of your complete Wikipedia works. Your assumption of a crusade from my side against you is wrong. The question whether you actually were only glancing at certain messages without reading them might be let open, although there are still some doubts at my side. Anyway, you should at least admit that debating with me has never been boring for you. Comparing enwiki with other wikis, I'm thinking of Liszt, by the way. The Hungarian article about him is even worse than yours.80.144.162.253 16:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding HuWiki, it is a much smaller project than EnWiki and has a very, very long way to go. Once my Hungarian language skills have improved sufficiently (should be by this winter if all goes according to plan) I will become active on HuWiki as well, and Liszt will be one of my first projects. Incidentally, I suppose it's only fair to warn you that no one will be reading that "Liszt Ferenc egy német zeneszersző volt..." not because of my own national allegiances, but in adherence to all reliable published sources. The New Grove, to take a significant example, says Liszt was Hungarian. Many other definitive publications do as well. If nothing else comes of our long discussions here, I want you to understand that my objection to your assertion that Liszt was not Hungarian stems primarily not from any nationalistic bias on my part, but rather an adherence to highly-respected published secondary sources (in accordance with Wikipedia policy.) Your argument was based on your own synthesis of carefully-selected (and occasionally out-of-context) factoids and quotes, held together with your own interpretations and opinions. There is nothing wrong with that type of writing in itself, and I'm sure you could (probably already have) write many an interesting, if controversial, essay on that subject. However, such writing is inappropriate for Wikipedia, as it falls under the policies against original research. If you understand nothing else about me, understand this, and please be so kind as to stop slandering my motives in our debates. K. Lásztocska 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swallow, I think it's time you got some action done on this guy. The last sentence in his latest post is just... sickening. Will ^(talk) 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could get the page protected. Still, proves my long-held belief that nothing good comes from T-Mobile. Will ^(talk) 18:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect my talk page? Wha? K. Lásztocska 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only IP who ever edits this page is Bonny and Gunther. If you think he's HARASSing you, you can get it protected. Will ^(talk) 18:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't such a move just escalate the animosity, though? I don't want to give him any more ammo for his accusations against me...K. Lásztocska 18:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only takes one bullet to shoot yourself in the foot. Which he's done spectacularly. Will ^(talk) 18:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet still I hesitate...I don't want to come across as a whiny little [expletive deleted]...K. Lásztocska 19:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought it would come to this, and I haven't said it until now for that reason, but a range block is looking pretty good right about now. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't want to be responsible myself for much more hell-raising around here, but I would hardly argue with you if you wanted to request such action. K. Lásztocska 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever administrator does it, I think off-wiki would be the safest way to handle it. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you outline the problems with hunmagyar.org? Digwuren 17:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the outline. I see your point and will take it into account. Digwuren 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One part vodka, two parts orange juice, one small blue hedgehog. Serve over ice. Will ^(talk) 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could use one of those right now. Or just an episode of Doctor Who might help. I haven't seen it in two weeks now...I'm going into withdrawal. K. Lásztocska 18:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... I so did not steal that from BJAODN >_>. What episodes have you missed? (I implore you to catch Utopia if you can, seriously). Will ^(talk) 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything after "Human Nature, part 1" !!!!! *high-pitched screech of despair*. K. Lásztocska 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get repeats on SciFi or do you hasve to wait for *shudder* BBC America to air it? Will ^(talk) 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SciFi, but what I don't have is a TV that GETS that station (or the time and space to sit down and watch TV for an hour without somebody barging in or other distractions.)K. Lásztocska 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as you have a computer, there are always alternative ways. (Screw waiting nine months for Lost) Will ^(talk) 18:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU. I did not even know that program existed. :) K. Lásztocska 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the protocol - if you're torrenting, I suggest μTorrent. Will ^(talk) 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ritka vagy akkor, mint a fehér holló. Jó munkát.--Tamás Kádár 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehe :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Lastochka (talk • contribs)

Now that you said it, he'll probably show up… :P —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlith ^T/C has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You seem to speak Magyarian, so maybe you know why there is no WikiProject Hungary? I'm currently in the awkward situation of having to file Soviet occupation of Hungary under {{WikiProject Hungarian culture}}, which is certainly not the perfect solution. Perhaps, the Hungarian WikiProject just has a non-intuitive name? Digwuren 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about asking the council to merge all three projects (Hungary, culture, counties) into the proposed one (for Hungary)? Dahn 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently received this post ([1]) on my talk page giving a link to your talk page. I don't know what the heck it means, but I thought I'd ask you in case you knew. Anons can be so mysterious sometimes... ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo matey potatey. Spawn Man 03:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Famous, too, perhaps - just keep scrolling down. By the way, your mention of us being one big Hungro-Romanian family has led to some rather detailed images of me, you, Dahn, István, Annie and certain others vacationing on the Black Sea, or on Lake Balaton, and various adventures ensuing. But I will refrain! I will keep my florid visions from reaching fruition! Lest I suffer beheading, or the equivalent thereof. So difficult, yet so very necessary. Biruitorul 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I guess you could say the article is also my own disclaimer :) Dahn 13:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely we must resist, at least on-wiki. If you do go forward (note there's little momentum as of now, but some potential, especially when we get back to the house), here are some thoughts. 1. Erase the > > part for readability. (By the way, it's a dead message-board, so no one will be wondering what on earth is going on.) 2. Don't mention him at all - we want to avoid another ANI. 3. If you do go negative on someone, make up names. Call him Jack or Edward. If the person is of a specific nationality, use readily-recognizable codes (Boris or Nina=Russian, Witold or Jadwiga=Pole, Václav=Czech, etc.).
Also, for the record (but you knew this!), the fascist I am or appear to be here is not who I really am; it's all for the greater glory of literature that I libel myself. Take it away! Biruitorul 06:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - this should be fun and I look forward to it. Just remember: if you must libel, do it to purely fictional people. On a more serious note, I have an idea for a mini-project. You know those trivia sections? I think a lot of them warrant either complete removal, merging into the main article, or at least cutting down. To help, ho here to pick articles to target (these are all tagged as having trivia sections). There are close to 9,000 of these, so when you hit writers' block on Szigeti, you either work on our story or weed out trivia. But I do want to see Szigeti finished, so hopefully this won't prove too distracting. Biruitorul 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could turn into an addiction, too. I like your merciless use of the hatchet. By the way, knowing your love of flag icons, I bet you'll love this mushrooming edit war (though I have requested a 3O); note my almost Stalinist threat of denunciation on the talk page. Biruitorul 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is that some articles I keep coming across (oh, this, this, this and especially this and this) just make you wonder if we'll ever be taken seriously. One could just ignore those parts of Wikipedia (you know what I mean), but it is the same site, so I still worry. Or the parts where we have articles on every obscure athlete, every episode of every TV show...

Oh, but of course you saw it, stalker! What about my Russian leaders template tussle - any thoughts on that? I'd've been more sympathetic if at least he'd removed the template from the articles it used to appear in and put it in the newly liked-to ones, but naturally that step failed to cross his mind... Biruitorul 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a WikiProject TriviaWhack? It would certainly burnish our credentials for an RfA. Biruitorul 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course. It just seems many of those articles are all trivia. Most have a long way to go before being in presentable shape. Biruitorul 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I love it, as well as the emerging Arthur Koestler revert war. The next Balaton chapter is coming ... eventually. Biruitorul 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again my finely feathered friend. Funny you should point out Hungary v. Italy - I was that side of the pond that night and caught the highlights on Eurosport. Beating Italy - especially after they are up 1-0 and have subbed in their defensive (read: boring ugly football) unit is not easy at all (just ask the Germans). It was great to finally see a young Hungarian team fell a Goliath, and be so absolutely stoked. They are winners in their hearts now (which is half the battle with Hungarian teams) and they are on the up - but how far? I look forward to seeing... Anyway I will try to obtain the Puskas book one way or the other. Stay tuned... István 21:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! (: See the IP's talk page for more. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That guy got blocked for a day. What he kept doing was adding {{vandalism}} to user talk pages. Also thinks he can "block others" [2]. After being warned at least 5 times, he finally does stop and uses the correct warning...on me! [3] After making an ANI report, he was warned by an admin and then sealed his fate [4] and was blocked for a day. I need a vacation! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooch. Sometimes Wikipedia makes my head feel like it's about to explode. By all means take that vacation, maybe soak up the last few dwindling rays of the summer sun. (It suddenly got really cold here this week...*grumble*...) K. Lásztocska 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to let you know you that your concerns have been duly addressed. Paragraph on crime including local statistics was added to section Government. Following your advice I also expanded on section Demographics by adding a paragraph on religion with some statistics and a census report, supported by several new references and sources (see: my reply to your comment at the nomination page.) I would very much appreciate your input at this time, and I'm sorry that the only place you can see my work is in history of the article on Kraków... because User:Jotel (no user page) is repeatedly deleting everything I write. He's doing everything he can to try to fail the nomination, using methods like pasting two separate "oppose" votes in two different places at the nomination page.[5][6] In the face of his repeated deletions followed by comments to comments, I believe your feedback would be most appropriate at this time. --Poeticbent talk 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're completely wrong to assert that surname means "last name". Asian surnames, like Hungarian ones, come first. I was wrong to claim it comes from "sir e name". Have a look at a number of different English language dictionaries... surname does not necessarily mean "last name". etymology and definition

This is a false opposition to "forename", a non-religious alternative to Christian name. --MacRusgail 11:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an article, that is - did you know we have no article about the Constitution of Hungary!? If you're inclined to write one, I even have a good hook for a DYK: Hungary still uses the Stalinist 1949 constitution, albeit heavily modified by amendments in 1972 (which updated the document to reflect the "progress" made by socialism), 1989 (to remove references to the MSZMP playing a "leading role" in society) and 1997 (to deal with EU accession). Google has more. For a discussion on interwar Hungarian constitutional documents, see here and search "Horthy" (ie, pg. 30). (Apparently the actual monarchical constitution remained in place at least until 1925, if not 1944/49 - see here.) Claims have been made that Hungary's constitutional history dates back to the Golden Bull of 1222. Anyway, there's a lot of material to be mined there, and if you do take on the project at some point (I know you're busy) I can lend a hand.

Some tough talk here; I must say he's mostly right. In fact (and I'll let you connect the dots...) some of this is quite familiar to both of us. Biruitorul 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ironic title. Blame Matt Tarses. Anyway, this is my weekly-or-so post where normally the subject would be Doctor Who... did you manage to automagically catch up? Will ^(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've misplaced my sonic screwdriver and can't get the torrent-download-thingy to work. Actually, I haven't tried. Too damn busy. I was amused by your section title though, mainly because the lyrics to that song are scrawled, in their entirety, on the wall of one of the conservatory practice rooms I frequent. I often end up staring at them while trying to play my blasted arpeggios in tune, the end result being I get that annoying song stuck in my head for hours. K. Lásztocska 04:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo…I don't envy you. I hate getting songs or tunes stuck in my head, and I wouldn't mind learning how to play the violin someday (I barely know the finger positions), but not if it's California Girls. Some of the words were carved into the wall of the community centre here a few years before we moved here, and whenever I see it I can't get it out of my head. >:( —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better than having the other sad song from Scrubs in your head. And I think hell is freezing over now, seeing as Springeragh knows a pop song's name. (gasp!) Unfortunately, the common room at my sixth form college is pitifully bare (used to be the hall). Anyway, back to watching Heroes and Scrubs :) Will ^(talk) 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a little bit of the fire over in the corner under the Bahamas that's fizzling out, Will, nothing serious. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  17:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Scrubs, do you know what made me giggle like a schoolgirl when I was watching Scrubs earlier? (I'll tell you - the anti-Communist obstetrician. Kinda funny :P) Will ^(talk) 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding enforcing civility, you might be interested in certain aspects of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren; in particular, the proposed principle of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Baseless accusations are uncivil and the related proposed temporary injunction of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Absolutely no baseless accusations. A discussion has unfolded, strangely enough, on the evidence section's talkpage. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed those are interesting discussions. I am glad you enjoyed my interview! Oh, and your signature is very nice, as is your new userpage!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your userpage just got sexier :) Yay svgs! Will ^(talk) 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flag's upside down, Will. :) K. Lásztocska 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again? I swear I got it right this time! *grumble grumble fix fix* Will ^(talk) 22:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what you get with a horizontal tricolor. Ours can flip both ways (I guess that compensates for its butt-ugliness). And how about this one? (Yes, this post is good evidence that I'm pretty bored at the moment. Hope you're feeling better, K.) Dahn 22:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Don't expect me to enter into any Hungarian flagmaking contests :P (btw, Dahn, it's like Libya didn't even try. I think Gadaffi secretly wanted to put a bigass dragon on it but the phone line to the flagmaker was screwed up that day. Will ^(talk) 22:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

! —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps Gaddafi, being a child at heart, just reused King Maciuś' design of the Flag for All Kids. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 03:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, that's nice. Dahn 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh boy. Party on my talkpage! ...again. :) :P Yes, Dahn, I am feeling much better today. I caught one of those weird colds where you're fine one day, at death's door the next, and then totally fine again the day after that, a few extra sneezes notwithstanding. (incidentally, please call me KL or Lastochka, if you don't mind--the "K." doesn't stand for anything, I just thought it sounded cool when I came up with this my long-standing nom de plume about five years ago. Getting called just "K." makes me feel a little too much like I'm in a Kafka novel.) :)

Thanks for fixing the flag, Will. Thanks for the effort in the first place, it looks really neat! Oh and Dahn, why do you think the Romanian flag is so butt-ugly? I kind of like it, although I think that the very best flags in the world come from former Soviet Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan are especially nice.)

I read somewhere how the flag of Thailand used to have an elephant on it (the elephant being the national symbol of Thailand.) One day, some dimwit ran up the flag upside-down, and when the king happened to walk past later that day, he was so horrified by the sight of the national elephant lying on its back that he ran back to the palace and immediately ordered the flag be changed to its current symmetrical design. K. Lásztocska 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, Will? The dragon was there, it's just that they kept flying it upside-down.

Well, I resent blue-yellow-red combinations in all flags (sorry Venezuela, Andorra, Columbia, and, well, Budapest, but you don't make the cut either). The only thing I could picture them instilling is the notion that the circus is in town. Having color stripes run vertically is also a no-no in my book: it's not at all harmonious, and keeping the symmetry for the colors in larger formats results in horribly over-sized squares of cloth. Meaning that these guys had a better idea.

I rather like the Central Asian ones myself, except for Turkmenistan (it is a nice idea, but too complicated, and looks awful in low resolution reproductions). Kyrgyzstan's is just beautiful. For nice tricolors, I pick Estonia and Imperial Russia, for being creative and, well, intriguing.

I also read that Thailand picked the (overused - yes, USA and France, you heard me right!) color theme because it was that of the main WWI Allies. To me, that sends the wrong message (like all the hammer-and-sickle flags, it is tied to a context more than to a tradition).

Ok, KL it is from now on. I just went with the easiest option available (and the fine print on your user page led me to believe that it did stand for something). And the party continues! Dahn 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, Turkmenistan is my second-favorite flag (Kazakhstan is first.) De gustibus non disputandum...

Yeah, that fine print is pretty much BS. :) The "K" actually did stand for something all those years ago, but it no longer does. The Kafka reference was just something I came up with to give the impression of a carefully-thought-out set of meanings.

I will be so generous as to refrain from making the obvious wisecracks at your comment about the Romanian flag colors announcing the arrival of the circus...but oh how difficult it is to hold back... :) K. Lásztocska 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of exposing myself to more diatribes on the main ring, I'll say this: the pun about the circus was intended. So, please, don't refrain. I'm a Mitică, so I should be able to take it ;). Dahn 21:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mitică, I have to say I really envy you your ready-made literary alter ego. Pity no one ever wrote about a mildly neurotic, passionately patriotic part-Hungarian with intense mood swings and an occasionally sparkling wit. (Well, I mean besides me and Biru--we're at it again, only this time off-wiki.) The obvious comment was: isn't life in Romania kind of a circus anyway? K. Lásztocska 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, life in Picadilly is a circus =P Will ^(talk) 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I must say I'm not really sure that anyone ever portrayed such a character with intent, but your self-description ironically matches what I figure is one of the main clichés of Hungarians (you just have to drop the "part-" part). Mildly neurotic and intense mood swings? Well, not per se, but you have the suicidal Romantic gestures that are scattered throughout Hungarian history, and the myth (is it?) about the high suicide rate. Passionately patriotic? Typical Hungarians are often perceived as anything from exceptional civic patriots to chauvinistic. Sparkling wit? There is perhaps more to be said, but if wit is "that Oriental feature" (as it is for Mitică), you have Metternich's "Asia begins at the Landstrasse" (btw, we could have an entire article on this phrase alone). And add to this that you are playing a classical instrument, which brings to mind another cliché about Hungarians (one probably based on the influence of some people you write articles about).

Oh, yes, I guess it is often a circus, from daily mishaps to high politics. Just before writing this post, I turned on the TV, to catch a glimpse of the endless debates on mundane subjects (three national stations are immersed into discussions about a female lawyer who may or may not have been killed by her policeman husband). Tuning in was a difficult job. I have several cables all meeting in one socket. When the cable company added them, the idiot who was supposed to do the wiring noticed that the TV cable did not fit into the socket, so he fitted it with a plastic strip, and told me not to move it if I wanted to have signal. Needless to say, the strip fell off after some days, and I had to replace it with another one. The wear and tear means that I tend to lose the connection with time, so I have to readjust it almost every time I tune in. I guess you could say that with such stuff, and then with Ionesco and Urmuz, we have takes on all things absurd.

Well, I did follow your would-be roman fleuve, and am anxiously waiting to see the next episodes. It was hard bringing it into conversation (and I did enjoy the vermillion towel touch). Dahn 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is what happens when I'm not on the wiki for a day and ½! 8-O —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Dahn, wow, I really am a walking pile of Hungarian cliches. :) I suppose the only sense in which I am "part-"Hungarian is my exact genetic code--personality-wise, mentally, spiritually, and identity-wise, I'm full-Magyar! :) Those stereotypes you mention are all absolutely based in reality, by the way--and sadly, that high suicide rate is no myth.

On a more cheerful note, I've actually been trying to read some Ionesco in my spare time here. I like what I've read so far, he reminds me a bit of Havel. He's somebody I'd really like to write a quality Wiki article about, incidentally, he deserves it. Of course, he'll be a bit more difficult than someone like Caragiale, not least because we'd have to be especially cautious as we are still bound by WP:BLP. (Don't get me wrong there--I hope that we will need to be bound by BLP with regards to him for many years yet!!) ...ugh, but don't let me get started on that or anything else until I've finished Szigeti. I've got almost all my sources and reference material located and organized, it's just a matter now of actually sitting down and putting it all together. K. Lásztocska 01:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]