Thanks! Very interesting! Because this puts the whole "antlion" thing into context. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Squash Racket (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by with wikicookies for those editors who started new articles today. --Rosiestep (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, kind of you. Squash Racket (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge or real comment or opinion on the edit itself. My point was to Tennisexpert who doesn't seem to understand that there is no way for random editors to know that there had been a discussion of any type about the topic. To go and immediately revert every editor without explanation is not the way to do things here. I've worked on an article where I would see 20 IPs a day, each was reverted, nonsense removed, and a comment on the talk page. I kept asking if they wanted to keep playing whack-a-mole or deal with the actual issue and I finally just put a hidden comment about that exact issue so that it was clear to new editors that it wasn't just forgotten which started moving the argument to the discussion page where it belongs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This is much easier than the fun we had last month together. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information. After seeing damage done by user:Velebit aka Standshown aka Stagalj aka... on Croatia related articles in fall of 2007 I have started to delete all his contributions. His way of working is to write POV stuff with knowledge that he will be discovered and again banned but his changes will stay in article. To block that sort of POV edits which are staying in articles I am deleting all his contributions --Rjecina (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK: the link you have deleted guides to a page which can be found only by searching the newspaper's archive.--Broletto (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually I didn't delete it per an earlier comment above. But thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to understand this new thing (new to me, I mean). Thanks.--Broletto (talk) 07:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining.--Broletto (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I that the "Islands" section in this article should be included within "Geography" section because it is part of geography. What is your opinion? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but there are a number of major issues with the article. I think we should pick some featured articles of cities comparable in size to Budapest and use that as a basis for the layout/section titles etc. Than work on those sections one by one and adding only referenced information. Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I reverted your addition of the convert templates to Israel, for the following reasons:

• I initially removed them due to a display issue ruining the article's formatting. It seems there's some limit to the number of templates/display elements an article can have, and this very complex article has reached it. I removed these templates and others to fix the problem (see Talk:Israel#Display issues - template).
• The templates are superfluous. The serve no real purpose. The definition of mile isn't changing, the numbers are constant. Using the template just makes editing more complicated, and less approachable.

Note that while I don't like the templates, I didn't act on the issue until the display issues, and they are the main cause here.

okedem (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand and accept. But generally these templates make it sure that one of the data won't get changed and the conversion remains accurate, so in other articles I think these are advisable. I see that Israel may have reached that limit which is unlikely at other, less complicated articles. Israel receives enough attention anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that positive result, but I still think such a simple conversion can be left to editing, like other issues editors need to take care of themselves. Whatever... okedem (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response to your comment for you on the FAC page. Neat cookie award by the way. NancyHeise (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SquashRacket, your additional edit to the communist paragraph added a notable fact but it did not change the factual accuracy of the paragraph. I welcomed your edit because it improved it. Your comment on the FAC page makes it sound as if there are omitted facts on the page but I consider that an exaggeration. Your added fact is not a worldwide phenomenon receiving constant and global press coverage but an isolated area that does not affect the majority of priests but a small minority. The fact was notable but it was not a terrible omission and one we certainly did not omit intentionally. It is a fairly recent event as the date of your references reveals. I will continue to hope that you will have a bit more faith in our work.

It is not a worldwide phenomenon, only the ex-Communist areas could be affected. But it is also clear that we are talking about more than a "small minority" here and that it is not a recent event, the few sources I added after a quick search are really just touching the surface of this issue. I didn't want to overemphasize this, because the efforts of John Paul II are also summarized in the same sentence. I didn't assume anything was omitted intentionally.

This article is definitely heading in the right direction, the FA status to me sounds like a final stage.

I hope that part of my comment answers your last sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Britannica: tell me about it. These are the people's real names. I'm aware that with Hungarian, Serbian and Romanian in particular the diacritic actually changes the letter and so is important. Re moving the rest: I'm on wikibreak atm and have exams this coming week, but any user can correct those, including yourself if you so desire. Orderinchaos 15:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I really haven't the time to fix it at present (between sleep, cooking, travelling and exams :). I have no problem with someone else fixing them in the appropriate manner and notifying me on my talk page. If done in that order, I can look through the user contribs, see that the edits were done correctly, fix if necessary, and will be happy to defend them along with my 82 reversions. Orderinchaos 16:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a detailed response. Hope it's sufficient, as I won't be around for a while (exam week here). I find it somewhat amusing, I must admit, how crazy things are outside my home project sometimes - we Australians lead sheltered wikilives! Orderinchaos 13:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up Salomon Group. However, I noticed you dewikified several dates. A wikified date is displayed according to the user's date format preference, the preferred way to write full dates per WP:MOSDATE. An incomplete date, on the other hand (such as "January 2002") should not be wikified, since that won't format it, but links it uselessly to January and/or 2002. Hopefully that clears things up for you. If not, by all means let me know. Thanks again. —EncMstr (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for the clarification. I read somewhere a long time ago that all dates could be delinked as unnecessary, not just the month-year format (don't ask for a diff though, it was just a comment). Squash Racket (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long hot dispute, and even I and admins I work closely with are divided on the issue. If I'm editing an article substantially I tend to remove year links but keep date links (until such time as MediaWiki software can correctly display dates in line with user preferences without linking). Others favour linking years, but I've never understood what purpose such links serve. Orderinchaos 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, though I will thank you for adding the urls, the problem that got to me was that, from all the urls in the article, you added the template to those two. I almost never use the templates in the articles I edit, unless they happen to have been used in other references. Why? I think they are cumbersome and restrictive. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no requirement to use citation templates, as long as the style you use features all relevant data (and for published sources, the data we have is relevant enough - a published text does not need a retrieval date if you cite it in its original context). There is however a requirement to adapt one's editing style to what is already in there, if what is already in there is correct - both for text consistency and editing courtesy.

As for the redlink: what I usually do when I source an article is to check out if we have links to the authors, publishers etc. (red or blue, doesn't matter). Where I know about the author and think that he or she is worth an article, I even add the redlinks without them being mentioned elsewhere on wiki. Why? Because I want to "streamline" the entry and cover all possible ground, instead of revisiting the article each time we have a new link from it (there is little that bugs me more than wasting my time doing that). In this case, I found that others had created a redlink for the author in some other article. On one hand, I do wonder myself if all NYT contributors are notable by default, but, in this case, others seem to have decided so - let them remove the links in case they change their minds.

I'm sorry if I seemed hostile. What I wanted to do in fact was to cover all these issues in my edit summary, which may render my messages more bitter than I intend them, and I was quite annoyed because at least some of the above seemed obvious to me. Dahn (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I reverted only the ones I happened to notice. There are probably a few more, but I don't have time to dig much deeper now. You don't need admin tools to move over a redirect with no page history, though, so you can revert the move yourself if you wish. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a formal notification. You may have no further opposes to make

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My administrative status has nothing to do with what went on there. Just because I am an administrator does not mean anything for what I did there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to indicate you have nothing to do with past week's "heated editing", so no need to blind revert your changes by anyone. Does commenting out the whole infobox solve the technical problems? To me that too is OK. Squash Racket (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have trying to put together a comprehensive story of the Porsche 911 whale tail rear spoilers. But, the without much prior knowledge, the more I am delving into the stuff the ore I am getting lost. May be you can help. Take a look, please. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I removed all the ones I could find. (I'm using Huggle so I may have missed a few) My apologies as I was unaware of that discussion. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the English reference about her ancestry. I was trying to find some links myself, after read the Hungarian article, but found none so far.
I saw your many contributions to Hungarian-related articles, are you Hungarian yourself, or just interested in our country?
Regards, Gruen (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squash Racket - I've moved Taylormade back to where it was. It's easier for searching purposes if a dab page simply has the name of the item being searched for, rather than having "(disambiguation)" in brackets after it, especially when it's equally likely that readers will be searching for different items of that name. Given the high profile of one company with a variant of this name (Taylor-Made), and the fairly high profile of another company with this actual name as part of it (Taylormade Productions), it would be difficult to name either as the primary topic. In fact, googling Taylormade brings up Taylormade-adidas as the first hit and Taylormade Productions as the second, so they are likely to both be prominent search terms. A third company - which I've added to the dab page - came up next in the search - ahead of any other site connected to TM-adidas (such as golfing supply companies). It therefore makes more sense to keep the dab page at Taylormade, as is recommended at WP:Disambiguation ("The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term."). Grutness...wha? 23:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Taylormade Products would be equally important, then I think it would at least have its own article on Wikipedia by now, but as you wish. Squash Racket (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{| style="border: 1px solid red; padding: 4px; margin: 1px; background: none;" | valign="top" style="margin: 2px;" | [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|40 px|left|Final warning.]] | Your current conduct on [[Talk:John Hunyadi]] is now not helpful to Wikipedia, and your edits there are now considered disruptive. Particular conduct that is not acceptable on Wikipedia talk pages: intra-bickering with your fellow editors; refusing to practice professional conduct and thoughtful participation in discussions; and showing a lack of respect for your fellow editors. The dispute over [[John Hunyadi]] that you are a party to should now be taken to [[WP:MEDCAB|informal mediation]] or to a [[WP:RFC|request for comment]], and the discussion on the talk page closed and [[Template:Archive top|archived]]. In future participation with discussions over this dispute, please act in a sensible and mature way, and refrain from being condescending towards your fellow editors. Future poor and unprofessional conduct will result in a block. Thank you, [[User:AGK|<font color="#2A8B31">'''Anthøny'''</font>]] [[user talk:AGK|<font color="#2A8B31">✉</font>]] 19:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC) |}

Yes, you are correct in your comments on User talk:AGK; in trying to give each user equal treatment, I ended up being unfair towards you. I withdraw my warning, in the hope that the underlying message (it's time to proceed to dispute resolution: the Talk:John Hunyadi is clearly not working) still gets through.
Best, Anthøny ✉ 11:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

![1] thanks István (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [2]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is unnecessary to replace [[full-size]] with [[full-size car|full-size]], as you did here. Redirects are a feature, not a bug. --Sable232 (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you moved the full golf swing to the hitting a golf ball section of the Golf article. I agree with you that it fits better there, but I feel somewhat responsible that the opening section is left with no image. I deleted an image of a golf ball next to a hole there for favor of the golf swing image, but the reason for deletion (that a visitor from planet X would gain no insight from the image of a golf ball) is still valid. So I'm asking for your help in figuring out an appropriate image for the opening section, The image of Tiger Woods was one possibility that I came up with. What do you think?Eaglebreath (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the AN/I topic, you said two admins intervened. I only see one, who is the other?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 10:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is rather late, but I'm not an admin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 07:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. May I please ask you to weigh in here? Apparently, there may be reliable sources on this subject in Hungarian, but it would be useful to have someone who knows the language to help us confirm that. Thank you. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 20:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a short comment. Squash Racket (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This text is in the public domain, so I simply copied it here from the website of the Library of Congress. I don't think it needs changes. Squash Racket (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squash, I certainly don't want to get involved in a content dispute in this article since I know zip about it(even though that usually doesn't slow me down) I was more trying to copy edit for neutrality and readability of the text. I do not believe I radically changed the emphasis of the material since that was not my intent. Anyways, again, I have no "side" on this since I know zippo about the facts or the "truth". Cheers! --Tom 15:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The message I left regarding edit summaries was based on the 8 edits you made to Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. My message was meant only as a friendly reminder. Have a great day. :-)

—BMRR (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, hello Squash Racket!

Saw your food related changes... Wonder if you can help me . I thougt about adding a new section to Hungarian cuisine, called: Special occasions. About food eaten at Christmas, Easter, well you know. Unfortunatally I am a bit uncertain about these Hungarian eating and drinking habits. Would you care to help out with any suggestions??

Cheers

Warrington (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. ~My mom has Hungarian ancestors but she told me that she is not sure about Hungarian Christmas dishes, their family allways had deviled eggs - töltöt tojas in mayonaise, potato salad and cakes like Bejgli and fruit wine. Does not sounds like regular Hungarian Christmas dishes, or what do you think?

My intentiom was to try to develope further the article Hungarian cuisine, I mean. Not adding cathegories to the different articles, if is that what youwere saying in your last xcomment.

Warrington (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I just added those because somebody put on a big tag [3] orphaned article. I hoped that some other countries will find the dish and add some more info.

Well, about my family, it is a bit difficult, we lived in so many countries (America as well) and we have American, Hungarian, Norvrgian, Italian and South-African relatives as well.

And what about you?

Warrington (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Merry Christmas to you!

Warrington (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble with a suposedly American user who thinks that saffrron is a typical Hungarian spice. He is adding saffron all the time on Hungarian spices. I am absolutely sure that saffron is not a typical Hungarian spice. Need help!!!

see his new comment on Hungarian cuisine talk page and his last change in the article. He thinks I do not know about Hungarian food!!

Many of the authentic Hungarian recipes he includes use spices like saffron. One must remember that although Hungary today is only the size of Indiana, there are different regions of the nation. The food in the Dunantul is not the same as on the Alfold. The food in the far south and Serbia is not the same as the Felvidek (north) and Slovakia

Warrington (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right.

Please, could you explain this to this saffron enthusiast on the Hungarian cuisine talk page? He is edit warring on adding saffron to Hungarian spices, please, will you?

Warrington (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! that is a Transylvanian spice, see

Származása, élőhelye[edit]

Elvadulva az egész Kárpát-medencében megtalálható, főleg üde akácosok aljnövényzeteként.

Felhasználása[edit]

Zöldség- és csontleves, baromfiételek, báránysültek, de saláták, mártások ízesítője is. Kiváló még sült húsok, főleg báránysültek, tojásételek fűszerezésére is. Kora tavasszal megjelenő zsenge hajtásaiból salátát is készítenek, később a levelek már keserűvé és rágóssá válnak. Mindenféle gomba, gombás ételek és gombás mártások elengedhetetlen füszere. Íze erősen eltér a petrezselyemétől, mivel gyenge, zamatos levelei édeskések és ánizsillatúak – ezért édespetrezselyemnek is nevezik. A francia konyha kedvelt fűszere. Levesek, saláták, mártások ízesítője. Kiváló még sült húsok, főleg báránysültek, továbbá tojásételek fűszerezésére is. A francia konyha által használt „fines herbes”, azaz finom fűszernövények egyike.

Illóolaj tartalma 0,3%: főként entragol, apiin-glikozidot, keserűanyagot tartalmaz.

Gyógyhatása[edit]

Teája vese, hólyag, és légző-, és emésztőszervi megbetegedéskor jó hatású, kitűnő salaktalanítószer.

Yes you are right http://www.csor.hu/node/183?page=1

and I think saffron is an old spice which was used in Hungary in the Middle ages http://www.gourmandnet.hu/konyha/site.php?tpl=theme&id=71

http://www.mon.hu/engine.aspx/page/article-detail/cn/boon-news-ed07-20051022-021107/dc/im:all:health-family http://network.hu/gelleon/blog/kl%C3%A1ri-blogja/kozepkori_magyar_konyha-4132

Of course I understand Hungarian, and German and Norvegian and Swedish and Danish and some French and Dutch. But I am not an expert on every Hungarian topic, except food. And I make mistakes when writingh in Hungarian… And I really don't know what Hungarian Ghristmas food is, I still don't. Do Hungarians really eat fish soup at Christmas??

Warrington (talk) 10:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who is?

Warrington (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		To you

Warrington (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to express a big THANK YOU for your ongoing work on the Stuttgart page. Since an entire overhaul earlier last year it's received little official scrutiny (I've submitted requests for peer reviews and appraisals, it was a major amount of work getting it to the standard of other German cities' articles), so any input on this article is MUCH appreciated! BuzzWoof (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You don't stop :-) Having asked for a review, you've been unbelievable in scrutinising the Stuttgart article. THANK YOU. BuzzWoof (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For leaving no stone unturned on the Stuttgart page

I want to thank you for fixing the Ridgecrest, California article and NOT Reverting the stuff I added to this article. We been having problems with people Reverting the new changes. Thank you for helping me out. --71.105.37.227 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.. I just wanted to let you know, I made a Username. It is User:Michael93555 Please let me know if you need something. --Michael (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on in the Greater Los Angeles Area page. to see the dicssion about the Inland Empire an Los Angeles please click here. Thank-You -House1090 (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hay, Can you take a look at the Ridgecrest, California Article. I been adding photos and other stuff. Dose it look ok..--Michael (Talk) 00:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that. --Michael (Talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just add 5 more photos to the Ridgecrest, California article. Do you think I need to add more.--Michael (Talk) 06:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, It look allot better now. But I don't want to add to many photos. Do you think its a B-class article now.--Michael (Talk) 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the thanks, nice to be appreciated!

I've ironed out most of the creases at User:SimonTrew/Hungarian settlement, there are still a couple of small bugs: it does do thenot do the population density for metro and urban population splits properly. However it is mostly working and you may wish to take a look/copy of it and test it out, to iron out any misconceptions. It has no documentation yet, though the fields you can use are documented if you bring up the article itself.

You'll find User:SimonTrew/Abony, User:SimonTrew/Sulysap (no accents!) and User:SimonTrew/Budapest (cut down) which use the new template for testing.

I guess there are three or four things to do:

1. Write the documentation in English!
2. Decide on an appropraite name and put it into Template: namespace.
3. Perhaps make a Hungarian wrapper template, so that geo articles' infoboxes can just be cut-and-paste into English articles. I'd be glad of yours and others' opinions on whether this is good, bad or indifferent idea.

My Hungarian girlfriend User:Monkap has been around for the weekend but we chat in the week a lot so she can help with any Hungarian problems I have (which is a lot!) but we work together quite well. She is currently translating hu:John Harvey Kellogg which is her first article she has done much on her own, with some WP help from me. I am just the back-room boy for the WP stuff (templates etc) and for translating into English, she does the translations into Hungarian, with a bit of assistance for English wording etc. It works quite well, I think.

I am no expert at templates, in fact this is my first attempt, but I am a reasonably competent computer programmer so have no huge problems with them, just frustrations when they don't work as documented!

Feel free to copy this to somewhere more visible if you think fit.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I copied the relevant part of the comment to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary, so that everyone involved can see it. Squash Racket (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SR, if you have a moment, please take a look at this. Thanks! István (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that error. I had faithfully copied the error from the original. I should not be surprised if there were others, either in the original or that I have added. I've fixed both. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squash Racket,

I didn't tb you about the Szondy stuff at the WikiProject Hungary talk, because I had assumed you were watching it. Sorry about that. I actually fixed the names after checking once again in the Hungarian (the supposed Hungarian form of the name was wrong too.) The thing is, if there is going to be an edit war, a) I am not taking part in it and b) this stuff seems to me just to add fuel to the fire, however well intentioned. Seems to me reasonable that for somewhere so close to the border, a Slovakian name would still be in common use. And since the whole article has {{unreferenced}} it is hardly surprising it is unreferenced.

Please don't take this personally, I know you do a good job.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I have been collecting books on the history of Hungary written in English; so sooner or later, I will continue to edit those articles as well. For the time being, sincerely, I am more interested in editing articles in connection with the history of the Rus' principalities, Cilician Armenia and Romania - and I managed to buy some really good books on these topics. Happy New Year for you and for yours, as well. Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. I don't revert that, but I thought that intelligibility is of high priority. "János Hunyadi" and "John Hunyadi" are the widely used English forms. Isn't it important that other, not yet involved readers easily understand what the section is about? Squash Racket (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the intelligibility part, but seeing the fuss concerning "Removed\edited comments" i deemed it more prudent to keep the original version. Partly because of WP:VAN, partly to prevent another edit war over something - excuse me for the wording - as silly as a comment and a header. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Szia!

Mivel fel vagy iratkozva a WikiProject Hungary-ra, gondoltam reszt vennel annak ujjaeleszteseben. Jelenleg a WP HU elegge inaktiv allapotban van, ezen szeretnek segiteni az azonos erdeklodesu szerkesztok osszefogasaval, es egy kis eletet lehelni bele. Irtam egy rovid vazlatot, hogy mit gondolok most jelenleg, illetve felvetettem par lehetoseget hogyan lehetne kicsit aktivabba tenni a projektet. Lathatod, hogy tobbek kozott a hataron tuli magyarokkal (a Karpat-medenceben es azon kivul is) foglalkozo muhely letrehozasat is felvetettem, ami szerintem erdekelhet, es amihez orommel vennem ha csatlakoznal (masokhoz is persze, ha gondolod). Nem tudom, hogy mennyire vagy aktiv itt az angol wikin, de minden kicsi segitseg tovabb viszi a projektet. Ha barmi kerdesed lenne tedd fel batran a "Project organization" oldal vitalapjan, itt (figyelolistara tettelek) vagy az en vitalapomon.

Udv,

Thehoboclown (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Károli Gáspár University of the Reformed Church in Hungary, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. » Shadowowl | talk 16:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]