User talk:Do not drive it please

Hello

Hello, no standard welcome box for you, as you are clearly not a new user. Can I ask if you have had a previous account, or which IP contributions (besides obviously [1] and [2]) were yours? Thanks, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This account was created in accordance with Legitimate uses of alternative accounts, since I worry that I might get abused by less tolerant users, should I disagree with them on a topic like this. I wish to keep my primary account off this area. I made (so far, as I recall) only three previous edits to this area: [3], [4], [5]. This account will only be used to fix or revert edits such as recent edits of MagyarTürk in article valaška (no offence meant here). Though I am not an expert in Hungarian, Slovak or Polish culture (though I am interested in Polish and Slovak culture), I dislike the type of behaviour shown recently on the valaška article. Obviously I watched the article recently, which further led me to article slovaks, when tracing edits by 84.0.173.248 (again, no offence meant here). I wish to stay here as third-party mediator, helping all three (or more?) involved nations, when they might find it dificcult to cooperate. I live in Prague. Well, I hope I have answered the necessary and likely questions. Do not drive it please (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine with me. Only please keep in mind that by being a secondary account you will likely find yourself under some heightened scrutiny. Invoking the "legitimate alternative account" clause comes with an extra obligation to always be on your best behaviour. Mediating conflicts is fine (we do need that!); but should you cross the line into edit-warring you'd probably get in trouble, and your announcement that you're mainly going to "fix or revert" somebody else's edits might well be read that way if somebody is suspicious. By the way, it might be a good idea to confidentially disclose your identity to one or two admins of your trust, just so somebody can vouch for your legitimacy if it should become an issue. Anyway, good luck :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the advice. I know the rules and I already know what might come with them.. Already mediated/mediating this way. Though, using alternate accounts should not heighten scrutiny about editwarring, only the scrutiny about WP:SOCK stuff, doesn't it? Not that I would wish to spend my summer warring over this article.. :)) Anyway, thanks, I hope there won't be such trobules here.. Do not drive it please (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Valaška

Please, stop moving images in the article valaška without talking about it first. At least, please, take the time to explain, why do you think the image of Thököly is of more importance than image of Janosik and why did you misspell word valaška for valaskš while moving. Do not drive it please (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why was it problem? Fokos (valaska) was Hungarian gun first, after the Slovaks used it too, and the moutaint nations. And the correct sentence is, "Imre Thököly is holding his ..." (is) present continues. etc etc. Ok...But I have a message for Slovaks, don't copy our history and don't steal our things, as they did in 1920... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some reliable English sources for what you claim above? I would like to read them. According to my current (unfortunatelly poorly sourced) knowledge, it happend between the 14th and 17th centuries. Valaskas, daily tools of Vlach shepperds, made it from Romania through Carpathian Mountains to Slovakia, Poland, Moravia and other countries along and near the Carpathian Mountains. Is that wrong?

So, valaskas were not primarily meant to be weapons, they were mainly tools and walking sticks. However, in the picture, Thököly is holding something that can not be used as walking stick. Therefore, if Thököly's fokos is actually the same thing as valaska, then, in my opinion, Thököly is holding modified kind of valaska, amended with distinctive features of martial weapons. Finally, if valaskas were initially tools and Thököly is holding a martial weapon, then the image might (at least for now) receive little less significance in the article. Well, I would love to see someone with enough of knowledge and sources to expand each part of the article so that each image would receive a nice place near accompanying text. Could you do that with hungarian part? The point is to find reliable historical sources (preferably in english) to setup an appropriate history line and keep it and expand its parts.. Do not drive it please (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. For example it is a "Fokos" http://www.turania.hu/catalog/index.php?cPath=54_71 http://groups.msn.com/20ARPADVEZERCscs/vezetoifokosok.msnw

the ancient Hungarians who arrived here had fokos, and vlachs were never that time yet. http://istvandr.kiszely.hu/ostortenet/kep/78.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you that fokos is indeed valaska in Hungarian, no need to prove that. My question is, how do those links suggest Hungarians had their fokoses before Vlachs brought their valaskas? I have read around that Hungarians took their fokoses from Vlachs. Well, I do not speak Hungarian, thus I was not able to read those links you provided. But still, those links does not seem to contain historical text, do they? Do not drive it please (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you always look me? Kuruc units were just Hungarians, the "Talpas" units, were the infantry and Slovaks were in infantry, not in the cavalry, understand??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 15:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And that time was again Hungarian Kingdom, and not Royal Hungary, because we kicked the Turks.....the kuruc units mostly stayed at central-Hungarian Kingdom after the Danube.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And you forgot that it was anti habsburg HUNGARIRAN war for independence and that time was not yet Slovak national knowledge, the north slavs were under Hungarian Kingdom and some really joined to the infantry. It is right. But who created the movement? Francais Rákóczi, who was a Hungarian noble... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be quite an expert in local history, yet you have not provided a single source I could read to believe what you say. Anyway, I am sorry for undoing all your recent edits. I simply undid everything, which seem to be unsourced POV-pushing from your side. I might have made mistakes, but I did my best to revert only what had obvious reasons. Do not drive it please (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And see your blog, not the Hungarians write, you wrote always lies about our history and want steal our national heroes, you were never(Slovaks) just since 1920. Jealous and you hate us, because we have national heroes, because "Lord save us from the arrows of Hungarian" and we always fought our liberty. And we just try defend ourself...Tótia came from that the Slovaks were called by "Tót" when they settled in Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovaks were called Tót in historical Hungary? But is that true that Tót is a pejorative name? And how is it possible that hungarians gave them a name, when they did not exist until 1920. I do not understand you here.. Do not drive it please (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, about my blog, I just do not understand why the offence is only from one side. Why the hungarian editors keep fixing all articles by adding hungarian POV and removing slovak or rumunian or even polish POV. Why the other nations (slovaks, romanians) don't do that as well? Or do they? You know, I mean, I look at the history of article valaska right now. The article was there for almost two years and no one had any objections. But now, several editors came and started to rename the article to fokos, adding images of fokoses before images of valaskas without any sources and without talking about it first. So I keep asking: What the hell happened? Why the urge to change everything now? Something ugly happend between hungary and slovakia recently? Do not drive it please (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear here is a Hungarian warrior with fokos from the 9.10th http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lovas.jpg Enough??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And does the picture represent warrior from 9th or 10th century? It is not clear from that picture. What is the source of the picture? I want to read that source! C'mon, I really want to believe you, in the sake of resolving this, but you got to give me a written source: a source that will contain anything like fokos was a hungarian weapon in 10th century of reference to fokos can be found in chronicle from 10th century. Mere conclusion that hungarians were here in 9th century and hungarians (at some point) used fokoses as weapons implies that fokoses were used by hungarians in 9th century is not good enough. Do not drive it please (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you admin or what? Bow, Light sword(sabre) and fokos were the weapons of ancient Hungarians, i hope you knew it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, unfortunatelly I do not know, what weapons ancient Hungarians used in 9th or 10th century. But I would love you to point me to an article or reliable historical website, which says so. I am kinda lazy to do my own search just because I got hooked in this supranational mess. I am getting tired of dealing with fuelled hatred and unsourced claims. Why do you think I am responsible for finding sources for your claims. I asked kindly several times: give me your sources. In it's current state, entire valaska article can be deleted per unsourced info. Do not drive it please (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! For example, Csák Máté was not Slovak. Just want 1 real source or what about his "Slovak" origin. If you click to "Csák family" you will see they go back to the ancient Hungarian Előd leader. Csák Máté was a Hungarian baron the most famous, he lived in North part of Hungarian Kingdom, but that time was not Slovakia yet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, nothing in Matthew Csák article suggests that Csak had Slovak origin. So what are you talking about? However: A hungarian-origin noble, who ruled the lands of todays Slovakia is also a Slovak noble, whether you or the slovaks like it or not. Nobility is a matter of land, not a matter of nationality. Term Slovak noble does not necessarily mean Slovak origin. Though, you are always too hasty to realize.. Do not drive it please (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)