Gubbubu

Az angol wikipédia nem ismeri a hosszú ő betűt, legalábbis címben nem szerepelhet. --grin ✎ 22:23, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Kösz, már tájékoztattak. Gubbubu 22:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi. You uploaded Image:D-500.JPG but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags for more info. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 18:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's my own picture, and I allow its fair use without objections/exceptions. It has been taken on a flight show (Nemzetközi Repülőnap in Budaörs, Budapest, Hungary, about in 1990). I'm dead above copyright, law expressions and so ont (I'm "a legal analphabet" and hate dealing with it - and maybe the picture is not good enough to take the trouble over its license), but if it is so important, I try to do something. Gubbubu

Your post on my talk page

Hi Gubbubu,

On my talk page you posted the following:

I think you've seriously misunderstood some crucial principles of Wikipedia. First of all, principles are not rules or laws, if it is reasonable, we can and we must not respect them. For example, if secondary resources are obsolate and off-to-date. It's not original research. Please if you don't know enough on a topic, don't intervene. Thanks: Gubbubu 16:43, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this comment was indeed directed at me, may I ask you to explain it a little? I wrote the part about original research in response to Antifinnugors comment to Mustafaa that 'paper is patient'; it should be considered in its own context. From my earlier discussions with Antifinnugor, it should be clear that I do not consider everything he writes to be original research; in fact, I am the one who has pointed him to the few relevant academic sources (see this diff), thereby gathering the requested evidence of notability for him. (Regardless, I do consider the criticism leveled to be rather shallow from a linguistic point of view; and I do consider Antifinnugor's admitted political agenda and his uncritical endorsement of other politically motivated semi-linguistic positions doubtful, if not harmful.) — mark ✎ 15:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Af maybe is quite radical in style and behaviour, but the content of his criticism is right in generally. My biggest problem reading your comments on that page was that you said criticism of finno-ugric theory was POV and has political basis. This is only one side of the truth: finno-ugrism has a lot of political relevancy and basis, too. It became the "one and only theory" in Hungary only cause it's opponents have been supressed with out-of-science instruments (almost like Trofirm Denisovic Lisenko's opponents). Gubbubu 20:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gubbubu, you seem like a serious editor, and I am prepared to listen to what you have to say. But I think you are going a little too far now. I know that afu has accused me of defamation and similar things. In my opinion, without any basis. I.e. I argue that afu is himself defaming me by saying that I did things which I have not done at all. Now, you seem to believe him. But could you not tell me what exactly I am supposed to have done? If it turns out I have done something inappropriate, I will naturally apologize without delay. In the case at hand, I do think it is reasonable to suspect sockpuppetry when two users' only edits are in supporting afu in votes, as other editors beside myself have also observed. I think your comparing me to the inquisition because of this is very far out of line, and I would ask you to explain yourself. regards, dab (ᛏ) 19:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't appreciated your style of accusing someone. I tried to explain, but my english is not to good. I asked Nyenyec to translate it, I think you can read it there. I think you will understand what I've said. Your message to Af was preconcepcious a bit - if you could prove Balf is a sockpuppet, it is wrong to AF, but if not, well, you would think he is a sock even if you can't prove. Maybe you have the facts in your mind. You got the truth, no matter what the truth is. Yess! I like your attitude! :-)) Gubbubu 20:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see. I think I understand how my comment has distressed you, and I apologize. However, I think you misunderstood. I was trying to say: If these editors refuse to explain how they are connected with afu, just like Dhanak did, it will appear obvious that afu has somehow drummed them up. But this is a big if. If these editors chose to explain how they appeared on WP just to support afu, or if afu chose to explain how he knows these people, it would be very different. I agree that it is unfair to condemn somebody regardless of what he does. But I do think we gave afu every chance to improve his manners (and he could still improve them now, if he wanted). I hope this helps to reassure you that my intentions are sincere. dab (ᛏ) 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2.

Yes, I'm more peaceful with your intentions now. :-)) Gubbubu 21:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to decide whether this is sarcasm. Since you are defending afu, please provide links to the edits you are talking about. So far I have seen not a single inappropriate edit of afu's critics. dab (ᛏ) 10:21, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, in the present case that isn't. Gubbubu 12:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

re, the "academia" argument: You are very welcome to come to Talk:Finno-Ugric languages and discuss things, civilly (i.e. no accusations of 'defaming' or 'KGB'). I think it is perfectly possible that Hungarians are genetically related to Turkish tribes, but as you say, this is a question of genetics and archaeology, about which I know nothing. Note that the FU article is purely linguistics. I.e. if linguists say that Finnic and Ugric are related, they are not denying at all that Hungarians may be related to Turks genetically. They simply do not consider the question at all, because it is a wholly different subject, maybe best treated on Hungary:_Pre-History_and_Early_History (this is an article to which I have never made a single edit, because I have not done any research about it at all). dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, someone of them consider with gwenetical questions. I know about at last three finno-ugrist theories (Don't seem to be fit): hungarians genetically are related to slavs (the standard view) or not (J. Pusztay or Szabó János Mihály). Sorry, but linguistics alone can't solve this problem. If academists have their own theories, it's nice, untill they don't want me to accept it as "one and only scientific" theory. I don't know any material evidences they produced, so finno-ugrism is only a theory then. But genetics and archeology is something (more) material. I like your insist on your professors' teachings, but please look out, there are a lot of science, not only linguistic. If I count that mathematically that in hte centre of Universe there's a black hole, but astronomist prove there is not, I don't throw out reality, i throw out mathematics. Really, I don't throww it out, but not state that it's the one and olny theory. Finno-ugrists have suppose some facts (Uralian ancient Home, etc.), what they can't prove materially. This question is interdisciplinar, for example that is a false statement "genetics and linguistic are total independent" - not, they are related. If genetics and linguistic clashes, I want to know why, and as I know finno-ugrists are totally unable to explain this. They say "well ,maybe a change happened between languages", but they can't give any concrete evidence where it happened, when it happened, why it happened, how it happened, with whom it happened. So their theories are only more or less probably theories, wether they are academists or not. And we - not like them - should treat these like this. So with a lot of critics. Gubbubu 12:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you seem to be unaware that linguistics and genetics are unrelated. far from stating the 'one and only theory', we tried to include the ongoing disputes into the article, including Angela Marcantonio who believes that the Finno-Ugric grouping is nonsense. Look at the article before you accuse its editors of censorship.

I haven't accused editors with censorship. Please write here where I did, else I won't know what you are talking about. Gubbubu

as to the 'numbered links' on the rfc page, there are none. This is impossible. I ask you to provide a link like this: [1] when you talk about a user's edit, otherwise we will not understand what you are talking about. dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made links to it now.

1. [2]
2. [3].
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

en:

hi Gubbubu -- I hope you realize that nobody is blaming you for your English. In fact, that you are a learner was pointed out in your favour on my Talk page. I.e. people have given you more credit than they would have given a native speaker, to allow for misunderstandings. I do think, however, that you should consider that there may be a misunderstanding on your side, because of the language, before you start making accusations. As for the linguistic discussion, yes, it is frustrating, for me also. But it's very easy: a claim is not a proof. We will include all opinions of experts. I am sure there is enough literature in English (which was never censored by the Soviets or anybody), and all you have to do is to give a reference, and it will be included. But you will understand that we cannot treat random webpages on the same level with peer-reviewed specialist literature. dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

diff 1

Please see and read this diff link (I mean read it from its start to its end, from letter to letter, interpreting it slowly from word to word, from sentence to sentence), what could be found at the top of the RFC-page (so I did't thought why I should had to copy it again and again) : [7]

As you did, you would read that (fatting from me):

Thanks to your adding the NPOV warning, the article on Finno-Ugric languages now reads: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." This is completely false. This page has been under attack for the past few weeks by a troll, who knows nothing about this subject and whose only source is something published on the Web by a crackpot named "Dr. László Marácz" (I bothered to read it and, as a seasoned historical linguist, I guarantee you it has no scientific basis whatsoever). There is absolutely no serious scientific dispute about the status of the Finno-Ugric language family. You have done a disservice to the Wikipedia by elevating this troll to such high status. Pasquale 21:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So Pasquale said Af is troll (have you read this text from word to word, or should I sign his words with coloured divs?) and said, more ""guaranteed" Af nothing knows 'bout the subject. So he said Af is '1incomoetent. He started to state this, and then Af replied. The same thing with Hippo. Gubbubu 14:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So you on the RFC page said Af blames everyone with incompeteny. But the truth is that he only "blames back", replies.

And P. abused Maracz too, despite of that he really doesn't know anything about him.

diff 2

The diff link is above, you see it's there. You can read on that page - but tell me please if i'm not right:

• Hippo, please stop your terror
• Hippo, please do not delete:

- Mr. Maracz link
- Finnish-Hungarian ground word list
- The text of the critic. It is short, but true.

What you do is blind terror. Are you really [<-- question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!] that primitive, and without arguing, you just eliminate others work;

ín is not vein in Hungarian. Please stop including erroneous words. Or correct the English word and the others also. Your list is simply wrong.

Here the deletion caused Af's angry style. But he constructively please and ask Hippo to not do something, and give alternatives for him, not only condemn ( ... or correct ... ...).

Az angol wikipédia nem ismeri a hosszú ő betűt, legalábbis címben nem szerepelhet. --grin ✎ 22:23, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Kösz, már tájékoztattak. Gubbubu 22:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Greetings.

Hello. I was image tagging, when I came across Image:Graz-birdsight.JPG and Image:Graz-catsight.JPG. Did you take these pictures? If not, where did they come from? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have taken these. I visited Graz as I remember in 1998, and I enjoyed it so :-))). It was cool. I would like to declare these pictures as „freeware” but I don't know what should I write to their pages. Gubbubu 07:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Gubbubu 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright

Is Image:Annus0.jpg licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License? --Ellmist 21:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no idea. I uploaded it when I was new editor, and didn't know much about licences. Unfortunately, I haven't became a lawyer since then. It's a scan from a newspaper, but I remastered it with some photo editor filters, so I think it's my picture. But if you were a lawyer and didn't agree with me, surely you would be right. I think digitaly remastering makes a new artwork (I now digitalization not makes, but radical remastering maybe), but really don't know. If I'm right, I declare this picture as freeware, if not, you can delete it. Gubbubu

As the image contains parts of a copyrighted work it is still owned by the creator of the original work, sorry. I have deleted it. Thue | talk 13:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian Soviet Republic

Too pov I'm afraid! and yer spelling bad while your at it .. You are to edit out your pov "in a minute"? There has been no discussion since march - max rspct 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then correct it and don't revert please. If you can tell me what sentences are pov, I think we should reach a consense. Copy - please don't cut - to its talkpage those sentences what are pov and give me advices how could we correct them. Gubbubu

Hungarian Wikipedia

Hi. Your talk page seems partly duplicated, so I hope I'm putting this in the right place.

As far as I can tell, your user name isn't currently blocked at hu, but there was an autoblock that might have been affecting you, so I've removed that. Let me know if you're still blocked. It's hard to tell since the log there doesn't include expiry times.

I didn't understand your question about "relaying Nyenyec". What does that mean?

Has there been any community discussion of the 3 revert rule on the Hungarian Wikipedia? Just because it's policy on English doesn't mean it has to be one there as well, and it wouldn't seem fair to block someone for it if there is no consensus on that policy or if the people involved were not warned about the rule.

As I know, there wasn't (the discussion started after Nyenyec banned IGe :-((). But I'm not sure. Gubbubu

Even if the user you are edit warring is a troll, it is generally better to ask others to get involved than to revert more than 3 times yourself, even if there wasn't a policy against it, since that makes it clearer whether there is community agreement on it rather than it looking like just a fight between 2 users.

Angela. 08:55, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanx. Gubbubu

JDM

Üdv! Most látom csak, hogy javitottál a Fönök életrajzán, köszönöm. --Marcuspater 29 June 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Ééén? Kién? Gubbubu 29 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)

(Oh, I wrote in the Rudolph Steiner article, I see. Thank you for thankink me). Gubbubu 30 June 2005 11:04 (UTC)

… nemzetközivééééé lesz… :-)

Szia!

Láttam, hogy Erdős Pált átnevezted itt az angol Wikiben Paul Erdősről Pál Erdősre. Ez első látásra kétségkívül hazafias, derék ötletnek tűnhet – második látásra viszont már kevésbé.

Hadd ajánljam figyelmedbe Mr. Vörös Posztó egyik megállapítását, miszerint a nemzetközi ismertség (ami Erdős Pált minden kétséget kizáróan megillet) gyakran összhangban áll a név nemzetköziesítésével.

Nos, rá kár volt hivatkoznod :-)) Gubbubu

Az angol Wikipédia például nem San Tommaso d'Aquinóról beszél a cikkében, hanem Thomas Aquinasról, akit mi sem olasz nevén emlegetünk, hanem Aquinói Szt. Tamásnak hívunk: ezzel is utalva arra, hogy az illető ember az olasz kultúrán túlmenően a nemzetközi kultúra és köztudat része lett. Tommaso d'Aquino a magyar nyelvben (!) lehetne egy szicíliai városka polgármesterének vagy egy kalábriai kis falu focistájának neve, de ha már az lett belőle, aki, kár lenne az eredeti olasz nevét erőltetnünk: a magyar nyelvben az ő nevének hagyománya alakult ki, a hagyomány pedig nem a nemzetrontó erők földalatti ténykedésének, hanem jó pár évszázad kulturális hatásának köszönhető.

Hogy átmozgattam, annak fő oka a következetesség volt. Legtöbb matematikusunk, aki szerepel a Hungarian mathematicians oldalon, saját magyaros nevén szerepel, és maguk az angolok is át szokták az angolos vagy hunglish neveket javítani (Janos-ról Jánosra stb.). Kivétel a tartósan amerikában élőek (Neumann). Gubbubu

Ideológiai és nemzeti jellegű motivációk kivételesen nem vezettek. Ennélfogva ha szabatosabbnak vagy helyesebbnek gondolod a Paul alakot, nyugodtan állítsd vissza (a redirekt úgyis meglesz a PÁlról, ahogy most is megvan a Paulról, úgyhogy ha valaki Paul néven keresi, vsz. megtalálja). Gubbubu

Merészebb példával élve, Yehoshua, Yoshua vagy Yeshua szócikket sem fogsz találni az angol Wikipédiában, mivel viselőjük Jézus, angolul Jesus néven lett közismert: kilépett az újgörög-héber provincialitásból, és a világszintű ismertség részeként és folyományaként nyelvről nyelvre más-más néven ismert.

Na most ha úgy gondoluk, hogy Erdős Pál személye és jelentősége túlmutat a kúnfajta, nagyszemű legényeken és a híres magyar Hortobágyon (márpedig efelől talán nincs vita köztünk), akkor azt is csak üdvözölhetjük, ha más-más nyelvbe más-más helyi alakban vonul be és válik közismertté. Amint azt Aquinói Szt. Tamás és Jézus példája is mutatja, épp az válik egy személy (vagy éppen helynév) elismertségének fokmérőjévé, mennyire simul bele nevük más nyelvekbe s ezáltal az ezeket beszélő kultúrák tudatába. Ezért én pont Erdős Pál jelentőségére, hírnevére tekintettel javasolnám a Paul Erdős alak megőrzését.

Jó, nekem mindegy. Gubbubu 30 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Ui. A magyar Wikipédiában feltett kérdésedre a számítástechnika és az informatika viszonyáról egyelőre nem találtam kielégítő és egyértelmű választ, azért nem jelentkeztem; a források (az MTA ad hoc véleményét is beleértve) részben ellentmondanak. De hamarosan összeszedem eddigi eredményeimet, és tanácsot kérek egy igen precíz és rendkívül ügyes, szó szerint találékony könyvtáros barátomtól. Adam78 30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)

OK, kösz, hogy utánanéztél. Mellesleg az ellentmondásos források is érnek valamit. Gubbubu 30 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

egyébként is félmunkát végeztél, Gubb, akkor legyen már Erdős Pál, és tanulják meg a hülye angolok, hogy ez a sorrend a helyes :) Alensha 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

Nem jó ötlet, mert az összes matematikus neve fordítva szerepel a kategóriákban, tehát nem lenne következetes intézkedés. Gubbubu 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Consensual

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)

Re: Sumerian

Why are you telling me this? I have absolutely nothing to do with that discussion about Sumerian origin on Talk:Magyars. Some anonymous wrote that comment. --Joy [shallot] 21:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

User catagorization

You were listed in the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Hungary page as living in or being associated with Hungary. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Hungary for instructions. JesseW 22:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thankˇyou, I've done. Gubbubu 12:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Aristatue.jpg

Hi. Could you consider adding a license tag to this image? // Fred-Chess 10:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Budapest

Budapest lakosainak száma 1 695 000, a vandálunk kivételesen helyesen javította ki 1,7 millióra (és még így is túlzunk, mert nem több 1,7 milliónál, mint ahogy a cikk állítja). 15 év alatt 400 ezerrel lett kevesebb a lakosság.
Egyébként az angol wikiben is vissza lehet állítani az anon módosításokat vagy vigyázni kell a 3 visszaállításos szabályra? -nagytibi ! ? 20:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Akkor jó; kösz, hogy visszaállítottad. Az interrogációdat az anonim editek revertjéről negligálnom kell: fogalmam sincs, és az angol help szisztéma oly komplikált, hogy koncepcióm sincs, hol kell megcsekkolni. Gubbubu 09:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I think it's much better now. I wasn't too woried about specialists, for we all have our well formed opinions. I was more concerned about nonspecialists who based on this article conclude something that is highly debatable. Thanks again. Logic2go

Jesus

Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 21:59, 6 December 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 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A vitalapodon válaszolok. Gubbubu

Userbox

nem kérsz még néhányat? pl. {{user Hungary}}, {{user Fidesz}} ezeket én csináltam és még csak én használom, szegények nem valami népszerűek :( – Alensha 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nyugodtan rakj az itteni userlapomra bármit, ha van kedved; amit odavalónak tartasz, ami nem tetszik, azt majd törlöm. A magyar userlapomra nem akarok fidesz-sablont, sem hasonlót [az angolra jöhet] - képzeld el, miket mondanának rám az andrási árpádok meg mathok - már így is mondanak elég mindent). ha nem akarod felrakni, akkor csak mondd meg, hol vannak. Gubbubu 17:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gubb, hát én honnan tudjam, milyen userbox illik rád (milyen oprendszert használsz, szereted-e Busht, a Föderáció állampolgára vagy-e, fiúnak vagy lánynak érzed magad :-D stb. Válogass az enyémek közül, vagy innen: Wikipedia:Userboxes, itt baromi sok van.

Az a vicces, hogy folyton módosítgatják őket (eltűnt a sarló-kalapácsom, most vörös zászló van helyette…)

A fideszesbe nem köthet bele senki, az van rajta, hogy „Ez a felhasználó fideszes vagy csak szereti a narancsot”. Már valami külföldi is kirakta :-) Ki köthet bele abba, hogy szereted a narancsot? Legfeljebb az ananásztermelők, amiért nem ananászt veszel helyette.

–Alensha 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

♥♥♥

Gubb ✍ 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Béla Kun

Thank you. I was glad to do it: the article is extremely interesting. Dahn 13:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 00:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hunlit

jó, majd megcsinálom :) aláírásoddal nincs kedved csinálni valamit? az nem baj, hogy egy egész sort elfoglal, de user talk helyett user vitára linkel, az meg itt nincs :) Alensha 15:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Kedvem lenne, ha időm is. A vitakérdést is mindjárt megoldom(?).

♥♥♥Gubb ✍

16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Were you contacted by anyone to vote in the TRACS AfD?

Hello, I am curious if anyone contacted you to vote/ particpate in the TRACS school list AfD? I asked because the last AfD you voted in was almost two weeks ago and you made a keep vote[8] along with other people who have admitted being sent there by someone. Thank you for honesty. Arbusto 20:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I don't think there's any specific policy on signatures, but taking up a whole line on the page is kind of over the top. Perhaps you might consider changing it? Isopropyl 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, it was a syntactic mystake.

Slovakization

Take a look at the Slovakization article. At first Juro proposed its deletion, seeing that it failed he turned into an absurd parody. Zello 22:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I put it on my watchlist. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2006. August 24 07:33 (CEST) 07:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems better now but look up its former state in the history. I'm sure that after the 48 hours block of Juro expired my contributions will be deleted, and the edit war begins again. Zello 12:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Protests

Hi Gubb,

I was correcting minor mistakes in your last edit in the anti-Gyurcsány article :) and couldn't find out what did you mean by "amongst damns". what was that supposed to mean? – Alensha ^talk 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey Q

Have you ever been to the Southern Hemisphere? Reply here. Deadline for entries is December 15th, PST.AstroBoy 04:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Red Terror

Moved to Talk:Red Terror#Hungarian Red Terror. `'Miikka 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

valaki, valamiről

Ha a turkoman azaz turanoid elméletet erősíteni akarod, akkor a cigány magyar rokonságot is propagálnod kell! Hiszen a cigányság genetikailag félig indiai félig török eredetű. És mi a helyzet Törökországgal ami perzsa-görög keverék, és nem azonos az eredeti török népekkel ami félig színesbőrű (mongolid) volt. Jó az nekünk ha erőltetjük a színesbőrűekkel való rokonságot? Nem okozott elég gyűlöletet utálatot a magyarság iránt ez az elmélet? Ráadásul ellentétes a genetikával, amit vezető laborokban írtak. Ja van bennünk kevés mongolid vér, ez azóta nem meglepő mióta fél NY-európa tudomásul vette hogy szintén van benne native-american azaz mongoloid gén. Miért kell a jelentéktelenségeket felnagyítva tuiranoid elméleteket gyártani. Akkora baromság ez, mint maga a finnugor elmélet.

olvass kicsit: http://comdig.com/annual_pdf/COMDIG_2000_ANNUAL_EDITION.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.192.8 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Őszinte lehetek? Európa le van sz... , ha a jelenlegi tendenciák folytatódnak, akkor nem adok már neki sok időt. Az indoeuropidok (az ún. dicsőséges "fehér faj") jobbára csak szenvedést okoztak a világnak (mondom ezt annak ellenére, hogy jász, azaz állítólag indoeuropid identitású népség vagyok magam is), és mintha vérükben lenne a többi ember (ide értve őket magukat is, még egymást is irtották, akár a komcsik) gyarmatosítása, szolgasorba hajtása. Úgyhogy akkor inkább szívesebben lennék színesbőrű: különösen indián v. japán ... úgyhogy ha olyan sötét, a rasszizmust az anyatejjel magukba szívó hordák, mint a szláv, román, francia, angolszász v. akár egyes közel-keletiek, gyűlölnek minket (noha alaptalanul), azt köszönettel írom a magyar dicsőséglistára és az ő hülyeséglistájukra. Visszatérve Európára: Európa csak addig ért valamit, amíg valamennyire, amennyire tőle telt, keresztény volt (a "sötét középkor" volt szvsz az egyik legvilágosabb kor a történelemben, persze a jobbágyság ott is megvolt, mert azért csak az indoeuropidok domináltak), de ma már ennek is kb. vége, legalábbis ideiglenesen. Gubbubu (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. nem kell minden soromat komolyan venni, természetesen túlzok. de azért látható, hogy milyen alapokról indulok ki. Gubbubu (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Bolyai-grafika.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Bolyai-grafika.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Kodolányi grafika1.jpeg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kodolányi grafika1.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2014 (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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Weapons in science fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cylon. 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) 09:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gubbubu. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gubbubu. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gubbubu. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gubbubu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)