text:
Magyarization

Magyarization (, also Hungarianization; magyarosítás), after "Magyar"—the Hungarian autonym—was an assimilation or acculturation process by which non-Hungarian nationals living in the Kingdom of Hungary, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, adopted the Hungarian national identity and language in the period between the Compromise of 1867 and Austria-Hungary's dissolution in 1918. Magyarization occurred both voluntarily and as a result of social pressure, and was mandated in certain respects by specific government policies.

Before World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.

Magyarization was ideologically based on the classical liberal concepts of individualism (civil liberties of the person rather than of national groups) and civic nationalism, which encouraged ethnic minorities' cultural and linguistic assimilation, similar to the post-revolutionary "standardization" of the French language in France.

By emphasizing minority rights and civil and political rights based on individualism, Hungarian politicians sought to prevent establishment of politically autonomous territories for ethnic minorities. However the leaders of the Romanian, Serb and Slovak minorities aspired to full territorial autonomy instead of linguistic and cultural minority rights. Hungarian politicians, influenced by their experience during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, when many minorities supported the Habsburgs in opposition to Hungarian independence, and afraid of pan-slavic Russian Tzarist interventionism, viewed such autonomy as the dismemberment of Kingdom of Hungary.

Although the 1868 Hungarian Nationalities Law guaranteed legal equality to all citizens, including in language use, in this period practically only Hungarian was used in administrative, judicial, and higher educational contexts.

By 1900, Transleithanian state administration, businesses, and high society spoke Hungarian almost exclusively, and by 1910, 96% of civil servants, 91% of all public employees, 97% of judges and public prosecutors, 91% of secondary school teachers and 89% of medical doctors had learned Hungarian as their first language. Urban and industrial centers' Magyarization proceeded at a particularly quick rate; nearly all middle-class Jews and Germans and many middle-class Slovaks and Ruthenes spoke Hungarian. Overall, between 1880 and 1910, the percentage of the total population that spoke Hungarian as its first language rose from 46.6% to 54.5%. Most Magyarization occurred in central Hungary and among the educated middle classes, largely the result of urbanization and industrialization. It hardly touched rural, peasant, and peripheral populations; among these groups, linguistic frontiers did not shift significantly between 1800 and 1900.

In the 1910 census, around 87% of the minorities ( 8,895,925 citizens ) of Kingdom of Hungary could not speak Hungarian at all.

While those nationalities who opposed Magyarization faced political and cultural challenges, these were less severe than the civic and fiscal mistreatment of minorities in some of Hungary’s neighboring countries during the interwar period. After the Treaty of Trianon this mistreatment included prejudicial court proceedings, overtaxation, and biased application of social and economic legislation in those countries.

Use of the term
Magyarization usually refers specifically to the policies that were enforced in Austro-Hungarian Transleithania in the 19th century and early 20th century, especially after the Compromise of 1867 especially after Count Menyhért Lónyay's premiership beginning in 1871.

When referring to personal and geographic names, Magyarization refers to the replacement of a non-Hungarian name with a Hungarian one.

Magyarization was perceived by ethnic groups such as Romanians, Slovaks, Ruthenians (Rusyns), Croats, and Serbs as cultural aggression or active discrimination, especially in areas where national minorities formed the majority of the local population.

Medieval antecedents
Although Latin was the official language of state administration, legislation, and schooling from 1000 to 1784, smaller ethnic groups assimilated into a common Hungarian culture throughout medieval Hungarian history. Even at the time of the Hungarian conquest, the Hungarian tribal alliance was made up of tribes from different ethnic backgrounds. The Kabars, for example, were of Turkic origin, as were later groups, such as the Pechenegs and Cumans, who settled in Hungary between the 9th and 13th centuries. Still-extant Turkic toponyms, such as Kunság (Cumania), reflect this history. The subjugated local population in the Carpathian Basin, mainly in the lowlands, also took on the Hungarian language and customs during the high medieval period.

Similarly, some historians claim that ancestors of the Szeklers (Transylvanian Hungarians) were Avars or Turkic Bulgars who began using the Hungarian language in the Middle Ages. Others argue the Szeklers descended from a Hungarian-speaking "Late Avar" population or from ethnic Hungarians who, after receiving unique settlement privileges, developed a distinct regional identity.

As a reward for their military achievements, the Hungarian crown granted titles of nobility to some Romanian knezes. Many of these nobles houses, such as the Drágffy (Drăgoștești, Kendeffy (Cândești), Majláth (Mailat) or Jósika families, assimilated into the Hungarian nobility by taking on the Hungarian language and converting to Catholicism.

Modern background
Although the Kingdom of Hungary had become an integral part of the House of Habsburg's Austrian Empire following the liberation of Buda in 1686, Latin remained the administrative language until 1784, and then again between 1790 and 1844. Emperor Joseph II influenced by Enlightenment absolutism, pushed for the replacement of Latin by German as the empire's official language during his reign (1780–1790). Many lesser Hungarian nobles perceived Joseph's language reform as German cultural hegemony, and they insisted on their right to use Hungarian. This sparked a national awakening of Hungarian language and culture which increased the political tensions between the Hungarian-speaking lesser houses and the germanophone and francophone magnates, fewer than half of whom were ethnic Magyars.

Magyarization as a social policy began in earnest in the 1830s, when Hungarian started replacing Latin and German in educational contexts. Although this phase of Magyarization lacked religious and ethnic elements—language use was the only issue, as it would be, just a few decades later, during tsarist Russification –it nonetheless caused tensions within the Hungarian ruling class. The liberal revolutionary Lajos Kossuth advocated rapid Magyarization, pleading in the early 1840s in the newspaper Pesti Hírlap, "Let us hurry, let us hurry to Magyarize the Croats, the Romanians, and the Saxons, for otherwise we shall perish." Kossuth stressed that Hungarian had to be the exclusive language in public life, writing in 1842 that "in one country it is impossible to speak in a hundred different languages. There must be one language, and in Hungary, this must be Hungarian."

However, moderate nationalists, who supported a compromise with Austria, were less enthusiastic. Zsigmond Kemény, for example, agitated for a Magyar-led multinational state and disapproved of Kossuth's assimilatory ambitions. István Széchenyi was also who more conciliatory toward ethnic minorities and criticized Kossuth for "pitting one nationality against another". While Széchenyi promoted Magyarization on the basis of the alleged "moral and intellectual supremacy" of Hungarian culture, he argued that Hungary had to first become worthy of emulation if Magyarization was to succeed. Kossuth's radical program gained more popular support than Széchenyi's. The nationalists thus initially supported the policy "One country – one language – one nation" during the Kossuth-led Revolution of 1848. Some minority nationalists, such as the Slovak nationalist author and activist Janko Kráľ, were imprisoned or even sentenced to death in this period.

As the 1848 Revolution progressed, the Austrians gained the upper hand. This led the nationalist provisional government to attempt negotiations with Hungary's ethnic minorities, who comprised up to 40% of its armed forces. (The Hungarian revolutionary army was a volunteer army) On 28 July 1849, the revolutionary parliament enacted minority rights legislation, one of the first in Europe. This was insufficient to turn the tide, and the Hungarian revolutionary volunteer army under Artúr Görgey surrendered in August 1849 after the Habsburgs gained the support of Nicholas I's Russia.

The Hungarian national awakening had the lasting effect of triggering similar national revivals among the Slovak, Romanian, Serbian, and Croatian minorities in Hungary and Transylvania, who felt threatened by both German and Hungarian cultural hegemony. These revivals would blossom into nationalist movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and contribute to Austria-Hungary's collapse in 1918.

Magyarization during Dualism
The term Magyarization is used in regards to the national policies put into use by the government of the Kingdom of Hungary, which was part of the Habsburg Empire. The beginning of this process dates to the late 18th century and was intensified after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which increased the power of the Hungarian government within the newly formed Austria-Hungary. some of them had little desire to be declared a national minority like in other cultures. However, Jews in Hungary appreciated the emancipation in Hungary at a time when anti-semitic laws were still applied in Russia and Romania. Large minorities were concentrated in various regions of the kingdom, where they formed significant majorities. In Transylvania proper (1867 borders), the 1910 census finds 55.08% Romanian-speakers, 34.2% Hungarian-speakers, and 8.71% German-speakers. In the north of the Kingdom, Slovaks and Ruthenians formed an ethnic majority also, in the southern regions the majority were South Slavic Croats, Serbs and Slovenes and in the western regions the majority were Germans. The process of Magyarization did not succeed in imposing the Hungarian language as the most used language in all territories in the Kingdom of Hungary. In fact the profoundly multinational character of historic Transylvania was reflected in the fact that during the fifty years of the dual monarchy, the spread of Hungarian as the second language remained limited. In 1880, 5.7% of the non-Hungarian population, or 109,190 people, claimed to have a knowledge of the Hungarian language; the proportion rose to 11% (183,508) in 1900, and to 15.2% (266,863) in 1910. These figures reveal the reality of a bygone era, one in which millions of people could conduct their lives without speaking the state's official language. The policies of Magyarization aimed to have a Hungarian language surname as a requirement for access to basic government services such as local administration, education, and justice. Between 1850 and 1910 the ethnic Hungarian population increased by 106.7%, while the increase of other ethnic groups was far slower: Serbians and Croatians 38.2%, Romanians 31.4% and Slovaks 10.7%.

The Magyarization of Budapest was rapid and it implied not only the assimilation of the old inhabitants, but also the Magyarization of immigrants. In the capital of Hungary in 1850, 56% of the residents were Germans and only 33% Hungarians, but in 1910 almost 90% declared themselves Magyars. This evolution had beneficial influence on Hungarian culture and literature.

According to census data, the Hungarian population of Transylvania increased from 24.9% in 1869 to 31.6% in 1910. In the same time, the percentage of Romanian population decreased from 59.0% to 53.8% and the percentage of German population decreased from 11.9% to 10.7%. Changes were more significant in cities with predominantly German and Romanian population. For example, the percentage of Hungarian population increased in Braşov from 13.4% in 1850 to 43.43% in 1910, meanwhile the Romanian population decreased from 40% to 28.71% and the German population from 40.8% to 26.41%.

State policy
The first Hungarian government after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, the 1867–1871 liberal government led by Count Gyula Andrássy and sustained by Ferenc Deák and his followers, passed the 1868 Nationality Act, that declared "all citizens of Hungary form, politically, one nation, the indivisible unitary Hungarian political nation ( politikai nemzet), of which every citizen of the country, whatever his personal nationality (nemzetiség), is a member equal in rights." The Education Act, passed the same year, shared this view as the Magyars simply being primus inter pares ("first among equals"). At this time ethnic minorities de jure had a great deal of cultural and linguistic autonomy, including in education, religion, and local government.

However, after education minister Baron József Eötvös died in 1871, and in Andrássy became imperial foreign minister, Deák withdrew from active politics and Menyhért Lónyay was appointed prime minister of Hungary. He became steadily more allied with the Magyar gentry, and the notion of a Hungarian political nation increasingly became one of a Magyar nation. "[A]ny political or social movement which challenged the hegemonic position of the Magyar ruling classes was liable to be repressed or charged with 'treason'..., 'libel' or 'incitement of national hatred'. This was to be the fate of various Slovak, South Slav [e.g. Serb], Romanian and Ruthene cultural societies and nationalist parties from 1876 onward". All of this only intensified after 1875, with the rise of Kálmán Tisza, who as minister of the Interior had ordered the closing of Matica slovenská on 6 April 1875. Until 1890, Tisza, when he served as prime minister, brought the Slovaks many other measures which prevented them from keeping pace with the progress of other European nations.

For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867.

Although in Slovak, Romanian and Serbian historiography, administrative and often repressive Magyarization is usually singled out as the main factor accountable for the dramatic change in the ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 19th century, spontaneous assimilation was also an important factor. In this regard, it must be pointed out that large territories of central and southern Kingdom of Hungary lost their previous, predominantly Magyar population during the numerous wars fought by the Habsburg and Ottoman empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. These empty lands were repopulated, by administrative measures adopted by the Vienna Court especially during the 18th century, by Hungarians and Slovaks from the northern part of the Kingdom that avoided the devastation (see also Royal Hungary), Swabians, Serbs (Serbs were the majority group in most southern parts of the Pannonian Plain during Ottoman rule, i.e. before those Habsburg administrative measures), Croats and Romanians. Various ethnic groups lived side by side (this ethnic heterogeneity is preserved until today in certain parts of Vojvodina, Bačka and Banat). After 1867, Hungarian became the lingua franca on this territory in the interaction between ethnic communities, and individuals who were born in mixed marriages between two non-Magyars often grew a full-fledged allegiance to the Hungarian nation. Of course since Latin was the official language until 1844 and the country was directly governed from Vienna (which excluded any large-scale governmental assimilation policy from the Hungarian side before the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867), the factor of spontaneous assimilation should be given due weight in any analysis relating to the demographic tendencies of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 19th century.

The other key factor in mass ethnic changes is that between 1880 and 1910 about 3 million people from Austria-Hungary migrated to the United States alone. More than half of them were from Hungary (at least 1.5 million or about 10% of the total population) alone. Besides the 1.5 million that migrated to the US (two thirds of them or about a million were ethnically non-Hungarians) mainly Romanians and Serbs had migrated to their newly established mother states in large numbers, like the Principality of Serbia or the Kingdom of Romania, who proclaimed their independence in 1878. Amongst them were such noted people as the early aviator Aurel Vlaicu (represented on the 50 Romanian lei banknote), writer Liviu Rebreanu (first illegally in 1909, then legally in 1911), and Ion Ivanovici. Many also migrated to Western Europe and other parts of the Americas.

Allegation of violent oppression
Many Slovak intellectuals and activists (such as national activist Janko Kráľ who started a peasent's revolt) were imprisoned or even sentenced to death for high treason during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. One of the incidents that shocked European public opinion was the Černová (Csernova) massacre in which 15 people were killed and 52 injured in 1907. The massacre caused the Kingdom of Hungary to lose prestige in the eyes of the world when English historian R. W. Seton-Watson, Norwegian writer Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson and Russian writer Leo Tolstoy championed this cause. The case being a proof for the violence of Magyarization is disputed, partly because the sergeant who ordered the shooting and all the shooters were ethnic Slovaks and partly because of the controversial figure of Andrej Hlinka.

The writers who condemned forced Magyarization in printed publications were likely to be put in jail either on charges of treason or for incitement of ethnic hatred.

Education

"The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars."

Schools funded by churches and communes had the right to provide education in minority languages. These church-funded schools, however, were mostly founded before 1867, that is, in different socio-political circumstances. In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian.

Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law.

In about 61% of these schools the language used was exclusively Magyar, in about 20% it was mixed, and in the remainder some non-Magyar language was used.

The ratio of minority-language schools was steadily decreasing: in the period between 1880 and 1913, when the ratio of Hungarian-only schools almost doubled, the ratio of minority language-schools almost halved. Nonetheless, Transylvanian Romanians had more Romanian-language schools under the Austro-Hungarian Empire rule than there were in the Romanian Kingdom itself. Thus, for example, in 1880, in Austro-Hungarian Empire there were 2,756 schools teaching exclusively in the Romanian language, while in the Kingdom of Romania there were only 2,505 (the Romanian Kingdom gained its independence from the Ottoman Empire only two years before, in 1878). The process of Magyarization culminated in 1907 with the lex Apponyi (named after education minister Albert Apponyi) which expected all primary school children to read, write and count in Hungarian for the first four years of their education. From 1909 religion also had to be taught in Hungarian. "In 1902 there were in Hungary 18,729 elementary schools with 32,020 teachers, attended by 2,573,377 pupils, figures which compare favourably with those of 1877, when there were 15,486 schools with 20,717 teachers, attended by 1,559,636 pupils. In about 61% of these schools the language used was exclusively Magyar". Approximately 600 Romanian villages were depleted of proper schooling due to the laws. As of 1917, 2,975 primary schools in Romania were closed as a result.

The effect of Magyarization on the education system in Hungary was very significant, as can be seen from the official statistics submitted by the Hungarian government to the Paris Peace Conference (formally, all the Jewish people who spoke Hungarian as first language in the kingdom were automatically considered Hungarians, a sentiment supported by many of them, who had a magnitude higher rate of tertiary education than the Christian populations).

By 1910 about 900,000 religious Jews made up approximately 5% of the population of Hungary and about 23% of Budapest's citizenry. They accounted for 20% of all general grammar school students, and 37% of all commercial scientific grammar school students, 31.9% of all engineering students, and 34.1% of all students in human faculties of the universities. Jews were accounted for 48.5% of all physicians, and 49.4% of all lawyers/jurists in Hungary.

Source: Paclisanu 1985

Election system
The Austro-Hungarian compromise and its supporting Liberal Party remained bitterly unpopular among the ethnic Hungarian voters, and the continuous successes of the pro-compromise Liberal Party in the Hungarian parliamentary elections caused long lasting frustration among ethnic Hungarian voters. The ethnic minorities had the key role in the political maintenance of the compromise in Hungary, because they were able to vote the pro-compromise Liberal Party into the position of the majority/ruling parties of the Hungarian parliament. The pro-compromise liberal parties were the most popular among ethnic minority voters, however i.e. the Slovak, Serb and Romanian minority parties remained unpopular among their own ethnic minority voters. On the other hand, coalitions formed by Hungarian nationalist parties - which enjoyed overwhelming support from ethnic Hungarian voters - consistently found themselves in the opposition. There was a brief exception during the period of 1906 to 1910, when the coalition of Hungarian-supported nationalist parties was able to form a government.

To secure the ruling Liberal party's success, the districts in minority regions were delineated to be smaller than those in Hungarian-majority regions. This strategy enabled the election of a greater number of representatives from minority districts to parliament. Consequently, the Liberal Party was able to sustain its parliamentary majority for an extended period with considerable success.

The census system of the post-1867 Kingdom of Hungary was unfavourable to many of the non-Hungarian nationality, especially for Romanian minority because franchise was based on the income tax of the person. According to the 1874 election law, which remained unchanged until 1918, only the upper 5.9% to 6.5% of the whole population had voting rights. That effectively excluded almost the whole of the peasantry and the working class from Hungarian political life. The percentage of those on low incomes was higher among other nationalities than among the Magyars, with the exception of Germans and Jews who were generally richer than Hungarians, thus proportionally they had a much higher ratio of voters than the Hungarians. From a Hungarian point of view, the structure of the settlement system was based on differences in earning potential and wages. The Hungarians and Germans were much more urbanised than Slovaks, Romanians and Serbs in the Kingdom of Hungary.

In 1900, nearly a third of the deputies were elected by fewer than 100 votes, and close to two-thirds were elected by fewer than 1000 votes. Due to economic reasons Transylvania had an even worse representation: the more Romanian a county was, the fewer voters it had. Out of the Transylvanian deputies sent to Budapest, 35 represented the 4 mostly Hungarian counties and the major towns (which together formed 20% of the population), whereas only 30 deputies represented the other 72% of the population, which was predominantly Romanian.

In 1913, even the electorate that elected only one-third of the deputies had a non-proportional ethnic composition. The Magyars who made up 54.5% of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary represented a 60.2% majority of the electorate. Ethnic Germans made up 10.4% of the population and 13.0% of the electorate. The participation of other ethnic groups was as follows: Slovaks (10.7% in population, 10.4% in the electorate), Romanians (16.1% in population, 9.9% in the electorate), Rusyns (2.5% in population, 1.7% in the electorate), Croats (1.1% in population, 1.0% in the electorate), Serbs (2.2% in population, 1.4% in the electorate), and others (2.2% in population, 1.4% in the electorate). There is no data about the voting rights of the Jewish people, because they were counted automatically as Hungarians, due to their Hungarian mother tongue. People of Jewish origin were disproportionately represented among the businessmen and intellectuals in the country, thus making the ratio of Hungarian voters much higher.

Officially, Hungarian electoral laws never contained any legal discrimination based on nationality or language. The high census suffrage was not uncommon in other European countries in the 1860s but later the countries of Western Europe gradually lowered and at last abolished their census suffrage. That never happened in the Kingdom of Hungary, although electoral reform was one of the main topics of political debates in the last decades before World War I.

Slovak national interests were represented by the Slovak National Party (SNS) which was the main force in the fight for the emancipation of Slovaks and their main representative in establishing contacts with Romanians, Serbians and Czechs. The Hungarian government, however, did not recognize any of them as official representatives for the non-Hungarian nationalities. Pressure from the Hungarian government and irregularities at elections caused these parties to declare electoral passivity, such as in the years 1884–1901, when the SNS boycotted the election. Elections were public, voters had to say aloud who they were voting for to the electoral commission. This allowed Hungarian authorities to enact pressure on voters including the intervention of the armed forces and the persecution of Slovak candidates and their voters.

The Magyarization of personal names
The Hungarianization of names occurred mostly in bigger towns and cities, mostly in Budapest, in Hungarian majority regions like Southern Transdanubia, Danube–Tisza Interfluve (the territory between the Danube and Tisza rivers), and Tiszántúl, however the change of names in Upper Hungary (today mostly Slovakia) or Transylvania (now in Romania) remained a marginal phenomenon.

Hungarian authorities put constant pressure upon all non-Hungarians to Magyarize their names and the ease with which this could be done gave rise to the nickname of Crown Magyars (the price of registration being one korona). A private non-governmental civil organization "Central Society for Name Magyarization" (Központi Névmagyarositó Társaság) was founded in 1881 in Budapest. The aim of this private society was to provide advice and guidelines for those who wanted to Magyarize their surnames. Simon Telkes became the chairman of the society, and professed that "one can achieve being accepted as a true son of the nation by adopting a national name". The society began an advertising campaign in the newspapers and sent out circular letters. They also made a proposal to lower the fees for changing one's name. The proposal was accepted by the Parliament and the fee was lowered from 5 forints to 50 krajcárs. After this the name changes peaked in 1881 and 1882 (with 1261 and 1065 registered name changes), and continued in the following years at an average of 750–850 per year. During the Bánffy administration there was another increase, reaching a maximum of 6,700 applications in 1897, mostly due to pressure from authorities and employers in the government sector. Statistics show that between 1881 and 1905 alone, 42,437 surnames were Magyarized, although this represented less than 0.5% of the total non-Hungarian population of the Kingdom of Hungary. Voluntary Magyarization of German or Slavic-sounding surnames remained a typical phenomenon in Hungary during the whole course of the 20th century.

According to Hungarian statistics and considering the huge number of assimilated persons between 1700 and 1944 (c. 3 million) only 340,000–350,000 names were Magyarised between 1815 and 1944; this happened mainly inside the Hungarian-speaking area. One Jewish name out of 17 was Magyarised, in comparison with other nationalities: one out of 139 (German Catholic), 427 (German Lutheran), 170 (Slovak Catholic), 330 (Slovak Lutheran).

The attempts to assimilate the Carpatho-Rusyns started in the late 18th century, but their intensity grew considerably after 1867. The agents of forced Magyarization endeavored to rewrite the history of the Carpatho-Rusyns with the purpose of subordinating them to Magyars by eliminating their own national and religious identity. Carpatho-Rusyns were pressed to add Western Rite practices to their Eastern Christian traditions and efforts were made to replace the Slavonic liturgical language with Hungarian.

The Magyarization of place names
Together with Magyarization of personal names and surnames, the exclusive use of the Hungarian forms of place names, instead of multilingual usage, was also common. For those places that had not been known under Hungarian names in the past, new Hungarian names were invented and used in administration instead of the former original non-Hungarian names. Examples of places where non-Hungarian origin names were replaced with newly invented Hungarian names are: Szvidnik – Felsővízköz (in Slovak Svidník, now Slovakia), Sztarcsova – Tárcsó (in Serbian Starčevo, now Serbia), or Lyutta – Havasköz (in Ruthenian Lyuta, now Ukraine).

The same can be said the successor states. For example Kövecses became Štrkovec, Zsigárd became Žigard, Nemeshódos became Vydrany, Magyarbél became Maďarský Bél, Nagymegyer became Čalovo, Harkács became Hrkáč, Feled became Jesenské, Párkány became Párkány Štúrovo (after Slovak politician Ľudovít Štúr) and none of these had a Slovakian name. In Romania Kisbábony was changed to Băbești, Szalárd to Szălȧrd Aknasugatag to Ocna Şugatag, Bácsiláz to Lazu Baciului, Barcánfalva to Bîrsana and Farkasrév to Vadu Izei. In Transcarpathia names were changed from Baranka to Бронька, Gernyés to Копашневo and so on.

There is a list of geographical names in the former Kingdom of Hungary, which includes place names of Slavic or German origin that were replaced with newly invented Hungarian names between 1880 and 1918. On the first place the former official name used in Hungarian is given, on the second the new name and on the third place the name as it was restored after 1918 with the proper orthography of the given language.

Migration
During the dualism era, there was an internal migration of segments of the ethnically non-Hungarian population to the Kingdom of Hungary's central predominantly Hungarian counties and to Budapest where they assimilated. The ratio of ethnically non-Hungarian population in the Kingdom was also dropping due to their overrepresentation among the migrants to foreign countries, mainly to the United States. Hungarians, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom representing 45.5% of the population in 1900, accounted for only 26.2% of the emigrants, while non-Hungarians (54.5%) accounted for 72% from 1901 to 1913. The areas with the highest emigration were the northern mostly Slovak inhabited counties of Sáros, Szepes, Zemlén, and from Ung county where a substantial Rusyn population lived. In the next tier were some of the southern counties including Bács-Bodrog, Torontál, Temes, and Krassó-Szörény largely inhabited by Serbs, Romanians, and Germans, as well as the northern mostly Slovak counties of Árva and Gömör-Kishont, and the central Hungarian inhabited county of Veszprém. The reasons for emigration were mostly economic. Additionally, some may have wanted to avoid Magyarization or the draft, but direct evidence of other than economic motivation among the emigrants themselves is limited. The Kingdom's administration welcomed the development as yet another instrument of increasing the ratio of ethnic Hungarians at home.

The Hungarian government made a contract with the English-owned Cunard Steamship Company for a direct passenger line from Rijeka to New York. Its purpose was to enable the government to increase the business transacted through their medium.

By 1914, a total number of 3 million had emigrated, of whom about 25% returned. This process of returning was halted by World War I and the partition of Austria-Hungary. The majority of the emigrants came from the most indigent social groups, especially from the agrarian sector. Magyarization did not cease after the collapse of Austria-Hungary but has continued within the borders of the post-WW-I Hungary throughout most of the 20th century and resulted in high decrease of numbers of ethnic Non-Hungarians.

Jews
In the nineteenth century, the Neolog Jews were located mainly in the cities and larger towns. They arose in the environment of the latter period of the Austro-Hungarian Empire – generally a good period for upwardly mobile Jews, especially those of modernizing inclinations. In the Hungarian portion of the Empire, most Jews (nearly all Neologs and even most of the Orthodox) adopted the Hungarian language as their primary language and viewed themselves as "Magyars of the Jewish persuasion". The Jewish minority which to the extent it is attracted to a secular culture is usually attracted to the secular culture in power, was inclined to gravitate toward the cultural orientation of Budapest. (The same factor prompted Prague Jews to adopt an Austrian cultural orientation, and at least some Vilna Jews to adopt a Russian orientation.)

After the emancipation of Jews in 1867, the Jewish population of the Kingdom of Hungary (as well as the ascending German population) actively embraced Magyarization, because they saw it as an opportunity for assimilation without conceding their religion. (In the case of the Jewish people that process had been preceded by a process of Germanization earlier performed by Habsburg rulers). Stephen Roth writes, "Hungarian Jews were opposed to Zionism because they hoped that somehow they could achieve equality with other Hungarian citizens, not just in law but in fact, and that they could be integrated into the country as Hungarian Israelites. The word 'Israelite' (Izraelita) denoted only religious affiliation and was free from the ethnic or national connotations usually attached to the term 'Jew'. Hungarian Jews attained remarkable achievements in business, culture and less frequently even in politics. By 1910 about 900,000 religious Jews made up approximately 5% of the population of Hungary and about 23% of Budapest's citizenry. Jews accounted for 54% of commercial business owners, 85% of financial institution directors and owners in banking, and 62% of all employees in commerce, 20% of all general grammar school students, and 37% of all commercial scientific grammar school students, 31.9% of all engineering students, and 34.1% of all students in human faculties of the universities. Jews were accounted for 48.5% of all physicians, and 49.4% of all lawyers/jurists in Hungary. During the cabinet of pm. István Tisza three Jewish men were appointed as ministers. The first was Samu Hazai (Minister of War), János Harkányi (Minister of Trade) and János Teleszky (Minister of Finance).

While the Jewish population of the lands of the Dual Monarchy was about five percent, Jews made up nearly eighteen percent of the reserve officer corps. Thanks to the modernity of the constitution and to the benevolence of emperor Franz Joseph, the Austrian Jews came to regard the era of Austria-Hungary as a golden era of their history.

But even the most successful Jews were not fully accepted by the majority of the Magyars as one of their kind—as the events following the Nazi German invasion of the country in World War II "so tragically demonstrated."

However, in the 1930s and early 1940s Budapest was a safe haven for Slovak, German, and Austrian Jewish refugees and a center of Hungarian Jewish cultural life.

In 2006 the Company for Hungarian Jewish Minority failed to collect 1000 signatures for a petition to declare Hungarian Jews a minority, even though there are at least 100,000 Jews in the country. The official Hungarian Jewish religious organization, Mazsihisz, advised not to vote for the new status because they think that Jews identify themselves as a religious group, not as a 'national minority'. There was no real control throughout the process and non-Jewish people could also sign the petition.

Notable dates

 * 1844 – Hungarian is gradually introduced for all civil records (kept at local parishes until 1895). German became an official language again after the 1848 revolution, but the laws reverted in 1881 yet again. From 1836 to 1881, 14,000 families had their name Magyarized in the area of Banat alone.
 * 1849 – The Hungarian Parliament during the Hungarian Revolution War, passed the first minority right in Europe, an act acknowledging the rights of non-Hungarians to use their own language on local and minor administrative levels and to maintain their own schools.
 * 1868 – After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868). It was a liberal piece of legislation and offered extensive language and cultural rights.
 * 1874 – All Slovak secondary schools (created in 1860) were closed. Also the Matica slovenská was closed down in April 1875. The building was taken over by the Hungarian government and the property of Matica slovenská, which according to the statutes belonged to the Slovak nation, was confiscated by the Prime Minister's office, with the justification that, according to Hungarian laws, there did not exist a Slovak nation.
 * 1874–1892 – Slovak children were being forcefully moved into "pure Magyar districts". Between 1887 and 1888 about 500 Slovak orphans were transferred by FEMKE.
 * 1883 – The Upper Hungary Magyar Educational Society, (the Hungarian name of the NGO was FEMKE), was created. The society was founded to propagate Magyar values and Magyar education in Upper Hungary.
 * 1897 – The Bánffy law of the villages is ratified. According to this law, all officially used village names in the Hungarian Kingdom had to be in Hungarian language.
 * 1898 – Simon Telkes publishes the book "How to Magyarize family names".
 * 1907 – The Apponyi educational law made Hungarian a compulsory subject in all schools in the Kingdom of Hungary. This also extended to confessional and communal schools, which had the right to provide instruction in a minority language as well. "All pupils regardless of their native language must be able to express their thoughts in Hungarian both in spoken and in written form at the end of fourth grade [~ at the age of 10 or 11]"
 * 1907 – The Černová massacre in present-day northern Slovakia, a controversial event in which 15 people were killed during a clash between a group of gendarmes and local villagers. However the majority of the members of the gendarmes involved in the shooting were of Slovak origin (five persons from the total seven).

After Trianon
A considerable number of other nationalities remained within the frontiers of the post-Trianon Hungary:

According to the 1920 census 10.4% of the population spoke one of the minority languages as their mother language:

 * 551,212 German (6.9%)
 * 141,882 Slovak (1.8%)
 * 23,760 Romanian (0.3%)
 * 36,858 Croatian (0.5%)
 * 23,228 Bunjevac and Šokci (0.3%)
 * 17,131 Serb (0.2%)

The number of bilingual people was much higher, for example
 * 1,398,729 people spoke German (17%)
 * 399,176 people spoke Slovak (5%)
 * 179,928 people spoke Croatian (2.2%)
 * 88,828 people spoke Romanian (1.1%).

Hungarian was spoken by 96% of the total population and was the mother language of 89%.

In interwar period, Hungary expanded its university system so the administrators could be produced to carry out the Magyarization of the lost territories for the case they were regained. In this period the Roman Catholic clerics dwelled on Magyarization in the school system even more strongly than did the civil service.

The percentage and the absolute number of all non-Hungarian nationalities decreased in the next decades, although the total population of the country increased. Bilingualism was also disappearing. The main reasons of this process were both spontaneous assimilation and the deliberate Magyarization policy of the state. Minorities made up 8% of the total population in 1930 and 7% in 1941 (on the post-Trianon territory).

After World War II about 200,000 Germans were deported to Germany according to the decree of the Potsdam Conference. Under the forced exchange of population between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, approximately 73,000 Slovaks left Hungary. After these population movements Hungary became an ethnically almost homogeneous country except the rapidly growing number of Romani people in the second half of the 20th century.

After the First Vienna Award which gave Carpathian Ruthenia to Hungary, a Magyarization campaign was started by the Hungarian government in order to remove Slavic nationalism from Catholic Churches and society. There were reported interferences in the Uzhorod (Ungvár) Greek Catholic seminary, and the Hungarian-language schools excluded all pro-Slavic students.

According to Chris Hann, most of the Greek Catholics in Hungary are of Rusyn and Romanian origin, but they have been almost totally Magyarized. While according to the Hungarian Catholic Lexicon, though originally, in the 17th century, the Greek Catholics in the Kingdom of Hungary were mostly composed of Rusyns and Romanians, they also had Polish and Hungarian members. Their number increased drastically in the 17–18th centuries, when during the conflict with Protestants many Hungarians joined the Greek Catholic Church, and so adopted the Byzantine Rite rather than the Latin. In the end of the 18th century, the Hungarian Greek Catholics themselves started to translate their rites to Hungarian and created a movement to create their own diocese.

title: Magyarization


text:
User talk:Schpaux

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Schpaux, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 23:57

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Costa Rica.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Costa Rica.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 22:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Costa Rica.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Costa Rica.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. - SCEhard T 05:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Schpaux


text:
User talk:Mricon

Tabula Rasa.

A kitten for you!
cute kit!

Hadrons123 (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mricon


text: Category:People from Wakayama Prefecture


text:
User talk:Audiodude

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Audiodude, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 23:59

Twitter bot
You removed @maskchievous from the examples? Most of the examples are banned or locked and so are pointless as examples, so I put that one one as it was a working example and a good example as it has automated tweets that regularly randomly tweet a meme with random emoticons, also it regularly changed its profile avi.

So you removed the best examples of a Twitter bot that was on the wiki page. HardeeHar (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 * As stated in the edit description, it's only citation was to itself. I believe this violates Verifiability. --audiodude (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

A link to the source is acceptable in such circumstances. HardeeHar (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

People look at that page and go to the Twitter bots and find that most of the bots don't exist. So you see why i added some, and it's better for the page that there is some working examples, the examples section is pointless otherwise HardeeHar (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I believe that all of the examples should be discussed in reliable third party sources, as is the general policy of Wikipedia, or else the page would devolve into a bunch of people just listing some bot that they made that doesn't pass notability standards (as it has tended to do in the past). As for bots being suspended/blocked/no longer active, that is a separate discussion that's worth having. Perhaps we can split the list into "Current" and "Past Bots" sections. Also can we please move this discussion off my talk page and on to the article's talk page? Thank you. --audiodude (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Regards using just a link, it is ok, there are exceptions, in certain circumstances (such as in this case) its ok; I'll give you an example and you'll understand what I mean. Take the britney Spears wiki page, there's a link to her website, there's no citation, just a link to the source, link to the website. Another example is the Boulder City wiki page, there's a link to boulder city's website, again there's no citation, just a link to the website.

A link to a website is ok in such circumstances; this can be found on about 90% of Wiki pages, it's the norm. HardeeHar (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds like you're making excuses to remove examples of bots; you admit that you don't like the thought of someone adding their own bot. But It's not relevant whether it's their bot or not if it was added because it's a good example of a bot and it make the wiki page better. Seems like you singled out that example and removed it bacause you think it's my Twitter account, which if that's the case then you're guilty of malicious editing. essentially of vandalism and will be reported accordingly. HardeeHar (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Lots of wiki pages have links to the website of the topic being discussed. However, those shouldn't and likely aren't the only source for the material in the article. Every piece of information on Wikipedia has to be backed up by reliable, third-party sources WP:CITE. The twitter page of a twitter bot is not such a source. I don't know if that bot is yours or not, but if it is, there are also WHYN which states that "we require at least one secondary source". Regardless of the validity of the link, it is a primary source, not a secondary one. --audiodude (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong, the content I put on was overseen and approved by an admin. You overruled an admin! You didn't careless that the content was approved by an admin nor that the content bettered the wiki page, nor that the content had been there a year, you maliciously removed content for your own spiteful reasons. You did vandalism! HardeeHar (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vandalism/targeted hatrrassmentharrasent. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Question about testing new Assessment bot, Third generation
- For our Thursday weekly meeting on WP 1.0 bot - Third generation, Walkerma & I discussed status of new bot. Can it be tested for WikiProject Catholicism as we discussed? Is this a patch to existing bot, or completely new?

This Sat-Sun. is ending of DaylightSavingTime so would next week be a good time to test? Most days I'm able to be on Wikipedia a couple hours in morning & again 1 pm to 5 pm (CentralTime) afternoons + weekend random hours. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Once testing begins updates can be posted at User talk:WP 1.0 bot/Third generation page. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nov. 8 update
- When Walkerma & I conversed on Jitsi today, he mentioned that for the test of replacement bot it runs slow. Could that be just the Test environment vs Production? For many years (before retirement) I was "Computer Operations Specialist", meaning "many hats" at a small business. Computer jobs ran for testing were always in a smaller box & purposely restricted to give priority to online interactive stuff.

At User:CleanupWorklistBot is a page for bot that generates weekly article cleanup listings for WikiProjects. Don't know if this has any value for WP1.0bot ideas.

While reading about Python (programming language) I found category Category:Python people and wondering if any of these folks might be able to contribute.

Audiodude, if you could send me link to bot source being developed I would be willing to at least look it over - and I promise not to update anything. :-)

Lastly, I have held off contacting Signpost about any of the recent bot news. JoeHebda (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Hi ! I'm really sorry that I haven't been able to make the meetings the past couple of weeks. Yes, the current problem has to do with the new bot being too slow. It's not a matter of test versus production environment, because I'm actually developing the bot in the production environment (which is a bit crazy, yes) in order to have access to live Wikipedia data.
 * The source for the new bot is [here]. It uses SQLAlchemy, an Object-relational_mapping tool that might be the source of the slowdown. It's designed to make working with the database easier but may be causing lots of objects to be created in memory which makes things slow. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - I see that SQLAlchemy has a new release Oct. 31. Would that help or are you already on that release? JoeHebda (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * - Interesting, I'll try installing that to see if it helps, but I think the problem is more fundamental. audiodude (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nov. 9 update
- Even though "Popular pages" (monthly) is ran by a different bot (Community Tech bot), I did some investigation and see it is written with Python here.

This morning I found a recent fix they did. Popular pages fix to Capitalize class & importance. Hoping this helps. JoeHebda (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nov. 16 update
- Today I found Category:Wikipedia bots with Python source code published and wondering if any of these would be helpful? For example, User:WugBot which updates Good article nominations/Report has some interesting date/time code. Source is at here, has a good amount of comments explaining processing. JoeHebda (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

About your username
Although it's none of my business, I am still asking. Why your username is like that? Do you like listening to music? Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  07:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . This username, like most, is very old but basically yes, I like listening to music. I also like writing songs and producing my own music. You can see some of my work at https://dangerthirdrail.com and https://songs.travisbriggs.com audiodude (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

apostrophe
Perhaps you've corrected this, but, some of your earlier messages used "it's" as a possessive apostrophe. You have now clicked on the link, so you now know that this is not popular. Please don't do it again! Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

intrigued by
issue - will email JarrahTree 13:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

enwp10 tool is Broken--Gave Your Name to Contact
The various wikiprojects which use the enwp10 tool you are listed as maintaining are unable to view their assessment statistics. I in particular am using it to go through a 500-article backlog for Wikiproject:Biology that I want to get done as soon as possible.

If you know anything about this issue and/or when or how it might be fixed, I would appreciate the information very much.

Thanks for your work on the tool! Prometheus720 (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Hi -- Thanks for the heads up on this. I've restarted the tool and it seems to be working now. Not sure why it needed to be restarted. Thanks again! audiodude (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Greetings Audiodude and -- For several years that enwp10 tool has the same issue, namely it stops running. Often monthly, & sometimes weekly. It has to be manually restarted by Audiodude because there is no "Restart" button for us editors to get it running again. On the "wish-list" for the new bot is a request for "enwp10" to send out error message or email when it stops or has an error. Unfortunately these fixes/improvements may be years in the waiting. That's why I've moved on to other Wikipedia interests instead of being frustrated... Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Then in lieu of an automated error message, would you mind updating the error page that I linked in order to send people to your talk page here on Wikipedia? I didn't understand that site or what it was for, or that I could just contact the same username on Wikipedia proper. It took me two days to figure it out. For newer editors like me, it could be hard to figure out what to do. By the way, thanks for the background info. Prometheus720 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 * It's not a matter of "the web app gets into a known error state". It's more like "the web app crashes randomly". I'll look into updating the error page, but I'm not sure it's possible since it's a shared box. Do you remember what the error code was? Was it 503? audiodude (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC

 * Yes, it was definitely 503. I also want to note that when I do a large editing session (say 100 articles rated) it is quite slow to update. In some cases it has taken 2 days to notice that I have actually gone over a chunk of articles. I'm not sure if there is any connection at all to that or not, though.

 * It must have been 502, because for 503 (the app is actually down), the toolforge server serves this page: https://i.imgur.com/TwWqASR.png . When the app is hung randomly (note that I said crashed randomly before but really the problem is that it's hanging and not crashing, if it was crashing you'd see the page I screenshotted), it just takes forever and returns a 502. I've tried adding a custom lighttpd 502 page, but not sure if we'll see it until the next time this happens. Regarding the updates taking a while, the "data update" job only runs once per day, and the "data upload" job runs 12 hours after that. So it is definitely possible that when you make edits, it might feel like a few days has passed before you see your work reflected. audiodude (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

enwp10 is broken again
Hello Audiodude,

enwp10 is down again. Could you please check what's wrong? Cheers, Reyk YO! 15:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I gave it a kick and it looks like it's working again. Thanks for the notice! audiodude (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 * - Stuck again. Click on table link & it just hangs. Please kick it again. JoeHebda (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Looks like it's working for me. Do you have an example link that's broken? audiodude (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is now working. A suggestion - since the enwp10 seems to (lockup/crash/stop running) on a random timeline, how about setting up a weekly or monthly job that stops it, shuts it down, then restarts? Then it would just be a preventative thing to insure it runs smoothly going forward. JoeHebda (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I'm hesitant to invest any time in the old web tool when we are preparing to replace it with the new version. It's also not clear that restarting it on a cron job would be possible. If it locks up again, just post here on my talk page or email me directly at audiodude (a-t) gmail.com. audiodude (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

enwp10 is broken 12 December 2019
Greetings, Instead of running enwp10 bot gives Error: 503 Service Unavailable. It looks more serious than just restarting. When I reported on bots Noticeboard yesterday, they referenced phabricator, ticket: T207877. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting this. I've restarted the tool and it seems to be working again. audiodude (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

enwp10 bot is down 02 February 2020
Greetings, Instead of running enwp10 bot gives Error: 503 Service Unavailable. Please restart. JoeHebda (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I've restarted it. audiodude (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

enwp10 bot is Not Responding, 03 March 2020
Hi, For enwp10 bot, it just hangs, waiting & no response. For example, assessment table for WikiProject Saints/Assessment. Please restart. JoeHebda (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's running Ok now. Thanks. JoeHebda (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

enwp10 bot incomplete job, 10 March 2020
Greetings, From my Watchlist, I see wikiprojects not completed last night (Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Saints articles by quality log, for example). Looking at BotLog it seems to have stopped about 05:51, 9 March 2020. Following log entries look to be manual run requests. Bot may need to be Re-started. JoeHebda (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch! The bot did in fact die last night unfortunately. I believe it will be fix for this evening's run. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot/Tables
Hello. Could you update the bot that he would not add double bold to headings like "Quality" "Importance" and "Total"? Example Eurohunter (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That could be done, but I have to ask what the reasoning behind the potential change is? Also, shouldn't we get consensus from the dozens of editors who use these tables before making such a change? audiodude (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't double bold bad by its nature? If I remember correctly some people can not notice it on low quality monitors. Eurohunter (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "double" bold, I don't think there's any such thing. We're using  which you can read about here. You can double check that by clicking 'edit' on your table. audiodude (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

User:WP 1.0 bot
Hey,. I'd like you (or your bot) to assess several new poultry articles. They can be found at Category:Poultry task force articles by importance. Thanks so much, 🐔Chicdat Chicken Database 12:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Important notice: You are making a lot of login requests
Hello,

my name is Martin Urbanec and I am a Wikimedia system administrator. We've noticed your bot, WP 1.0 bot, makes a lot of login requests (since 2020-08-25 08:34:37, it made at about ~14k of login requests, which is about ~5 % of all login requests).

We would like to ask you to be considerate of other users (including other bot operators), as well as about our infrastructure. Please make sure your bot makes use of session, or use other mechanisms like OAuth to reduce the amount of requests you receive.

If you have any question, or if you want to learn more about the context of this message, please see phab:T256533.

Best,

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Update
Hi, Please update the book class of lanka premier League assessment as well as by quality log.(Fade258 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC))

 * Hello. Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you've recently made updates to the quality classifications, you can kick off a manual update yourself here. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Queries
Hello, Audiodude,

I was going to post a question at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and then noticed that there are a few questions there that have not been replied to. Should another editor be monitoring this page so they can answer questions? Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello! I'll check the page now. Generally, I don't 'monitor' that page, but I do notice when people ping me. Anyways, adding additional support sounds good in theory but I don't know of who would provide it. Go ahead and post your question and I'll do my best to respond. audiodude (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My question is basically how to deactivate reports for inactive, abandoned WikiProjects. I've seen some WikiProject reports that have 0 changes for days on end. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good question! From my perspective as the bot operator, inactive projects are usually quite small. And the fact that they're inactive means there's nothing of note to update for them. So keeping them "on the books" is cheap. On the other hand, all WikiProjects are community organized and driven, right? So they end up being quite sticky I imagine. If you wanted to close down a WikiProject, you'd likely need consensus from those who started it, and those folks would likely not want to shut it down for whatever reason (that is, if they're still even around and you could get ahold of them).
 * On the other hand, we could consider just "marking" inactive projects as inactive in the tool, but this isn't necessarily a win for the reasons I outlined above. This is, however, the method I would prefer if we did want to achieve the goal of not creating reports/tables for inactive projects. Was there something else you had in mind? Also, while I can definitely see that inactive projects tend to create a lot of "lint" in, say, the projects list on the web tool, I'm not completely clear of what other reason there is to remove them. There are only 2562 projects right now. Was there something you were thinking of? Thanks, audiodude (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

enwp10 bot down
Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index and lots more. link to mediawiki deprecation is in the link. —¿philoserf? (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot to another wikis language
Hi Audiodude,

Lovely to watch your bot running here. But i have an issue in many wikis, other than en.wiki, which still not have this bot running, specially id.wiki and ban.wiki. Can you make it running also for other wikis? I am not geek in programming so don't know what to do. Lovely if you can teach me how to do it or just upgrade your tools in toolforge so can add another wikis will really appreciate. Thanks in advance. Joseagush (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Australian sub projects query
please forgive me if I wasnt paying attention at the appropriate time/place - but have quality log records gone the way of the dodo? I have noticed a possible cut off time of about 4 or 5 years ago - but are they still viable/able whatever? I am sure there is an answer somewhere, I have hoped that you might be able to offer a clue or two... (I was hoping to find some way - if it or a similar process is available - to re-apply to the australian sub projects - however if its gone and thats it - fine no problems) JarrahTree 07:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi which projects are you talking about specifically? The bot still creates logs for projects it knows about, see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/United States articles by quality log for example. If you can list some of the projects that are having problems, I can look into figuring out what's going on. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

My problem is I had thought that about eight years or so ago that all the australian sub projects had had quality logs:

 * all 23 (?) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australia-related_WikiProjects

I was sure that I can remember statistics and logs as two separate items...

however when I look now - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_law_articles_by_quality

 * and it seems there is only the quality box... I could be very wrong of course. JarrahTree 08:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Are you talking about this page which is linked from WikiProject Australian law ? Every "WikiProject" has both a "... articles by quality log" page and an articles by quality table. Hope this helps. audiodude (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot to another wikis language
Hello, Audiodude. Can you please allow us to use your User:Wp 1.0 bot for UzWiki as well? The capabilities of the bot were also necessary for us. Thanks for your reply. Laziz Baxtiyorov (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi @Laziz Baxtiyorov, we have considered adding support for additional languages in WP 1.0 Bot in the past, for both French and Arabic. Mostly, these have been held up by the fact that I don't speak those languages at all. You can look at this comment on the bot's Github page for more information on the types of things that would have to take place to make this work. Besides the technical/deployment side, which I would handle, we would need to make sure that the UzWiki uses WikiProjects, and that we can create a mapping of the terminology used on that Wiki to the labels used in WP 1.0 (Like "Foo articles by quality" for the "Foo" project). Really, we should create a "playbook" for localizing WP 1.0 for other wikis so that in the future, once the groundwork technical hurdles are overcome, we will know exactly the steps to follow. audiodude (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Assessment tables
Hi Audiodude,

I am writing on behalf of WikiProject India. For some reason, the table of assessment by quality and importance in this WikiProject, amongst other WikiProjects as well, have not updated their status for more than four days despite work being done on assessment by me and others. This has been reported at the Index page of the WP 1.0 Bot by others but no response from anyone. Can you help?

Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Thank you so much for the ping! Updates to my user talk page go to my email, but I don't otherwise get notified of changes to the WP 1.0 Bot page (maybe there's some way I could set that up!). I've responded on the page. Cheers, audiodude (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot
Hello. Could you fix bot, so it won't add double bold to Quality, Importance and Total? Eurohunter (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 * I think there might have been discussion about this in the past, but I can't remember. I can't have the bot stop doing bold on your page but not everyone else's. So I guess there would have to be some consensus? audiodude (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Assessment table for WP:Albums articles
Hi Audiodude - back in 2022 WP:Albums concluded that the "importance" parameter was unnecessary for the project, and the consensus was that albums would be assessed only by quality going forward. However, no changes have been made to the assessment table, which means that it looks a bit of a mess with red links all across the top headings of importance which are now redundant (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Album). Effectively we now are only interested in the final "Total" column. Is there any way of getting the table changed so it looks similar to the single column for the WP:Songs WikiProject (User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Song), who also decided to assess their articles by quality only? Or do I have to put in a request to the technical helpdesk? Thanks very much. Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello! I am definitely the right person for this request, I don't think the technical helpdesk would be of much use (they would probably just direct you to me). Anyways, I understand your problem and I think I can fix it. There's currently no standardized way for the bot to recognize that a project has stopped using "...by importance" categories, but I think I can make a sort of manual update. I'll post here when I think it's been fixed. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay @Richard3120 I think I fixed it. Let me know if there are any problems or if you need any more help. audiodude (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, forgot to mention. The assessment page of your Wikiproject links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Album_articles_by_quality_statistics which hasn't been updated since 2010 (!). I think you want to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WP_1.0_bot/Tables/Project/Album audiodude (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Audiodude, thanks for your reply and getting on to it so quickly. But that can't be right - it's now saying that the total number of articles (from FA down to stub level) is just over 6000 in total. Its WAY more than that... just the stub articles alone were in excess of 30,000 last time I looked. For example, the table is telling me that there are 29 GA-class album articles... but if I go to Category:GA-Class Album articles it shows 1,519, which is the correct number. Richard3120 (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks like I managed to just "hide" the importance categories without counting them for the quality categories. Let me look again, thanks. audiodude (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Richard3120 Okay I think it's fixed now. Please take another look and let me know. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Thank you so much for your trouble. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Audiodude


text:
User talk:Laughdrjr

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Laughdrjr, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 23:59

title: User talk:Laughdrjr


text:
User talk:Kolokol

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Kolokol, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 23:59

Úbeda
Please see Naming conventions (use English)... there was a survey at the talk page, and there was a majority in favor of diacritics. This also reflects current actual practice, if you look at names of other European cities for instance, most have the diacritics, so it's best to be consistent. On an unrelated note, if you make page moves you should check for double redirects. -- Curps 01:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Please use WP:RM to request a page be moved. Doing so by repeatedly adding a CSD notice, when the article does not fit the speedy deletion criteria, is not allowed.   Ral  315   WS  14:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * RM is for controversial moves that still need to be discussed. This isn't the case here - the matter is clearly decided by Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Philip Baird Shearer's move request especially for Úbeda is invalid, as he has not explained what is special about this case that it should override the broader decision. So, I'm free to move it back like I could do any other move without getting admins' permission first. It's just a technical reason preventing me from doing so, and I'm therefore legitimately adding a speedy tag to allow me to make that move. Kolokol 14:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but you've broken 3RR and although I am in disagreement with Philip Baird Shearer and have been discussing with him, marking the page for deletion is not legitimate. Also it is not legitimate to edit a redirect to intentionally prevent moves over it, as Philip Baird Shearer has done but as you also did previous (since you seem to be a newbie, I thought at first you had done this inadvertentely). -- Curps 15:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, obviously no amount of discussion with Philip is going to bring him to reason, so how do you propose to settle this matter? Editing a redirect to prevent moves is, I think, legitimate if someone is moving the article against consensus, but of course it doesn't work against an admin. Philip abused his admin position by deleting the redirect to win this move war, which would be inappropriate even if it were an open controversy. But it is even worse when the matter has clearly been decided against him, as the poll cited above shows. K010k01 16:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Philip is not an admin. I fully support diacritics and this will be settled, but not by disruptive tactics.  Please don't do that.  See User talk:Curps for the discussion I've been having with him... -- Curps 16:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please be patient. The speedy delete notice aren't appropriate, they don't fall under any Criteria for speedy deletion. There is a discussion at the talk page, why not join that. -- Curps 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule
I've just blocked you for 24 hours for a three-revert-rule violation on the above article. This is your second violaion in quick succession. If you continue in this manner, the blocks will get longer. -Splash talk 16:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You just violated it again, with 5 reverts. So this time, we'll try a 36 hour block as it's your third in little more than a week. -Splash talk 16:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What you're doing is not helpful. Instead of repeatedly violating the Three revert rule, why don't you just vote at Talk:Ubeda (under your real name after your block expires, not under a fake name or sockpuppet). If you repeatedly break the 3RR rule you may be blocked for longer than 24 hours in the future. -- Curps 17:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ubeda

 * 1) Please don't change the article until a decision has been reached on its title.
 * 2) Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If you don't stop insisting on your edit, you are likely to be blocked from editing again. Leave the article alone until a decision has been reached at the Talk page. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The matter of diacritics in general has long been decided; there's nothing special about this case, so those move votes are invalid. Kolokol 11:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't override Wikipedia customs; there's a current discussion, which you're ignoring. Moreover, you're altering the article so that the text doesn't match the title. If you revert again I shall block you from editing for violation of 3RR. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Editing without logging in doesn't help your case. I've blocked you for three hours in the first instance.  If you continue to be disruptive, the block length will be the normal 24 hours, increasing if the behaviour continues. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You're blocked from editing for 24 hours. If on your return you continue with the same behaviour, the block will be 48 hours.  --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You're blocked from editing for 48 hours for creating multiple sockpuppets to evade 3RR while vandalising Ubeda, and forcing the article to be protected. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Andorra-Germany treaty
What is your source of the Germany-Andorra treaty date? Most websites (that aren't wikiclones) seem to indicate that the date was in fact, Sept 1939. If it was in 1958, do you have a more specific date? It would make sense that the treaty was signed in 1939, immediately before the German expansion, so that Andorra wouldn't be at war with Germany. If overrulling that other guy's date, please indicate your sources.Taco325i 20:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * New York Times, September 25, 1958, p. 66. Kolokol 20:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

For the record...
Americans don't spell it archeology, but Britons don't always spell it encyclopaedia. What I said was a little opinionated, but in the future, it will be fact. :P Jibbajabba 04:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kolokol


text: Category:People from Shimane Prefecture

title: Category:People from Shimane Prefecture