User talk:Sylvain1975

Hello, I'm Newnou. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Avram Iancu, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Talkback
Yunshui 雲 ‍ 水  08:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=606154681 your edit] to 1848–49 massacres in Transylvania may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ceased. This is why there are no sources about these places. The sources which can be researched the churches recordings, memories, some contemporary articles in the Hungarian newspapers,

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632477302 your edit] to 900 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * * After the rejection of their alliance proposal by the Bavarians, the Hungarians attack this country, occupy Pannonia and parts of Ostmark, which become part of

Saxonia
For your info: links to that area should go to Saxony. And I can also advice you to start using WPCleaner. The Banner talk 18:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At least your consequent in your incorrect linking. But Hungarian is linking to a disambiguation page while a link to Hungarian would have been just as easy. The Banner talk 18:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 937
 * added a link pointing to Hungarian


 * 954
 * added a link pointing to Hungarian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 1849
 * added links pointing to Hungarian, Russian, Romanian, Austrian and Pest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 1849
 * added links pointing to Hungarian, Russian, Austrian, Pest and Croatian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Pressburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mace. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark, I corrected the problem. sylvain1975

Battle of Pressburg
Nice work! I fixed some errors (typos, wording etc.). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping, my English is not the finest. I am stil working on this article, and I will work some days from now on, trying to include every data which is we have to know about this battle. Sylvain1975

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Pressburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostmark. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian raids in Hispania
If you wish to continue dealing with the Hungarian invasions of Europe (the expansion of Battle of Pressburg article is perfect work!), I'd like to recommend a work by Ferenc Makk: here. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and help in editing the article. I have used an article about the campaign of 942 here written by Makk Ferenc: These two articles are very similar, and they are about another year: 942. I am about to finish editing the battle of Pressburg article, I will add informations about the aftermath, because one of my friends, a professor, translated for me from Latin the parts from Annalium Boiorum, which tell the story what happened after the battle of Pressburg (it is a big shame that the parts about the Hungarians from Annalium Boiorum of Aventinus was not translated completely in Hungarian). That translated text gives also informations about the battle of Augsburg, which I editet earlier. Sylvain1975

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Pressburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Brenta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mace. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Veszprémy
Another publication about the Hungarian invasions here. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Ok, köszi. :)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of W.l.n.d.r, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Püchen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian Kingdom. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hungarian invasions of Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tournay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Trhsrzebet


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Trhsrzebet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- Finngall  talk  07:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war
Your recent editing history at Magyarization shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radezic (talk • contribs) 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radezic (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radezic (talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Magyarization
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Magyarization is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE
EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Térképek
Látom, a 910-es augsburgi csatához készítettél térképeket. Arra megkérhetlek, hogy a térkép leírásában (Commons-ban) közlöd a forrásokat, amelyek alapján elkészítetted? Mert így akkor sokkal kevesebb az esélye, hogy esetleg valaki forráshiányra hivatkozva törli a cikkből mindkét térképet. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Köszi. Sylvain1975 (talk) 1:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hát igen, ez nehéz kérdés. Ezért nem is szerkesztek nagyon érzékeny témákat, bár a "Magyarization" cikk viszonylag korrektnek mondható (tevékenyen szerkesztettem). Az a baj, hogy egy román szerkesztő ugyanannyira biztos lehet az igazában, mint Te, ő meg téged tart történelemhamisítónak. Így sokszor az erő dönt, meg hogy ki a meggyőzőbb. Az átlag admin nem igazán érti a kelet-európai történelmi sérelmek gyökereit. Mindenesetre, ha szerkeszted Iancu-t stb. azt mindig csak forrással tedd, lehetőleg idegennyelvű (angol) forrással, és a vitalapon lehet rendezni az egészet. Régen nagyon sok vitában benne voltam, az elmúlt években a tendencia bőven javuló a magyar cikkeket illetően, ebben talán nekem is van részem, de ma már nekem se időm, se kedvem csatározni, jobban szeretek új cikkeket létrehozni, és ha az tele van forrással stb. abba már nem fognak belekötni. Azért annak örülnék, ha valaki rendes forrásokra (tanulmányok, monográfiák) alapozva végre megírná már a Communist purges in Serbia in 1944–45 cikket. Az katasztrofális állapotban van --Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A baj ott van, hogy a magyar történetírás nem nagyon igyekezett angol nyelvű cikkeket írni Iancuról, a románok pedig ontották a történelemhamisító cikkeiket, írásaikat angol nyelven. Egy forrás van angol nyelven: A chronicles of Cruelties Kosztin Árpád tollából. Azt fel is használtam, amikor a Iancuról szóló hozzájárulásomat annak idején megírtam, de annak ellenére kitörülték... Tehát ezen az egyen kívül nincs, mire hivatkozni. A háromkötetes Erdély történetéből, ami angolra is lefordítódott, kihagyták Iancu magyarellenes atrocitásait, hogy úgymond ne sértse a románok érzelmeit, és mégis egy nagy román hisztikampány övezte a megjelenését, amelyben kígyót-békát rákiáltottak a könyvre és szerzőire. Tehát hiába minden óvatosság, és próbálkozás, hogy ne írjanak olyan dolgokat, amelyek a románokat zavarná, ezek már azért is cirkuszolnak, hogy könyvet mertek írni a magyarok Erdély történetéről. Miközben ők ezrével írnak, és beleírnak minden marhaságot. És ezeket le is fordítják idegen nyelvekre. Ezt nem érti sok magyar, aki csak legyint, amikor például a dáko-román agyrémről hall, mondva, hogy ebben csak a románok hisznek, pedig, angol nyelvű írásaiknak köszönhetően a nyugati történésszakma nagyrészt elfogadja ezt, mert őket nem a történelmi valóság érdekli, vagyis jobban mondva, nem foglalkoznak azzal, hogy a románok kikből erednek, és hogy mikor jöttek Erdélybe, hanem jóhiszeműen elfogadják az adott ország hivatalos történelmi szemléletét. De ha elolvasod például a Iancu cikket, a Hatvanyval és Vasváryval folytatott csetepatéit Battle of Transylvania címen jelentetik meg. Habár ilyen csata nem is létezett, de ha ráfognánk, hogy létezett, akkor az inkább Bem erdélyi hadjárata. Iancu nem Erdélyért harcolt, hanem a Nyugati Szigethegységi fészkét védte meg, ami messze nem fedi le Erdélyt. Ja, el is felejtettem, miután a Magyarization cikkbe beírtam, egy radezic nevű alak (aki még azt sem tudta, hogy hogyan kell egy üzenetet megszerkeszteni: névvel és dátummal) egy ideig vadászott a hozzájárulásaimra, akárhova írtam is ezeket (a kalandozásokkal kapcsolatosakat is), kitörülte, bosszúból, hogy miért próbáltam megváltoztatni azt a cikket? Ugyanő tiltatott ki. Hiába írtam meg mindezt az engem kitiltó moderátornak (valami Johnson), számon kérve tőle az igazságosságot, és az egyenlő bánásmódot, azt írta vissza, hogy hagyjam békén, ne zavarjam a nacionalizmusommal... --Sylvain1975 (talk) 1:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. From at least the 1960's, no Western historian of any value has accepted that today's Romanians are on the whole direct descendants of the Dacians; the Dacians were an extinct nation within a century of their Roman conquest - the survivors firmly assimilated into Roman culture and language. Romanians are currently thought to be Vlachs, a mountain people from the South. 50.111.12.90 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Múlt idő
Kérlek, a cikkeidet múlt időben írd, az enciklopédikus megfogalmazás kívánalmai szerint (javítottam a Gáspár András cikket). Másrészt, a "Hapsburg" megnevezés inkább csak régi, 19. századi angol művekben fordult elő, a Habsburg angolul is szerencsésebb változat. Csak így tovább, az 1848-as események, csaták feldolgozása már régóta nagy hiányossága az angol wikinek. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Köszi. Rendben. Természetesen én is Habsburgnak tudtam, de mivel amikor úgy írtam, a helyesírásellenőrző vörössel aláhúzta, és a Hapsburgot ajánlotta. De ezentúl Habsburgot írok. --Sylvain1975 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * András Gáspár (general)
 * added a link pointing to Battle of Isaszeg


 * Battle of Hatvan
 * added a link pointing to Pest

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sylvain1975 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Tápióbicske


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Battle of Tápióbicske requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 removed 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Jim Car ter  11:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Azért akarták törölni, mert a cikk nem tartalmazott folyószöveget. Tehát azt javaslom, ha létrehozol egy szócikket, az infobox meellett legyen legalább egy sornyi szöveg (a bevezető), abba nem fognak belekötni. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Köszi :) --Sylvain1975 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Vác (10.04.1849)
Szia! Ez a cím nem éppen bevett forma itt a Wikin. Azt látom a magyar wikin, hogy két váci csata is volt 1849-ben. Mit szólnál ezekhez a cikkcímekhez: First Battle of Vác (1849) és Second Battle of Vác (1849)? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Szia. Hú ez nehéz. Én pedig azon gondolkodtam, hogy a komáromi csatával kapcsolatos szócikket 4 különböző szócikké alakítom... Mert ha azt is kibővítem, nem férnek belé egyetlen szócikkbe, és nem is lenne jó, mert mindenki csak az elsőre figyelne. Ugyanis még volt egy negyedik ütközet is, az augusztus 2-i és 3.-i, amikor Klapka feltőrte az osztrák ostromzárat a vár körül. Azt is meg akarom írni. Akkor így lesz: First battle of Komárom (1849), Second Battle of Komárom (1849), Third Battle of Komárom (1849), Fourth Battle of Komárom (1849)? :D Most látom, hogy az isonzói csatából 11 van, és probléma nélkül írják elébük, hogy forth, sicth, stb. Bocs, annyira hülye vagyok! hisz megadtad már a linket! De közben valaki átalakította az oldalt. Megkértem, törölje ki az első cikket, mert a te általad megadottba írom bele, ugyanis lementettem. Köszi. --Sylvain1975 (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Nagysalló, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beša. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battles of Komárom into several other pages. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sylvain1975(talk) 13:59, 09 November 2016 (UTC)

Copy-paste article moves
G'day, I have completed a history merge from the Battle of Buda (1849) article to the Siege of Buda (1849) to fix the attribution following your move. Please be mindful that copy-paste moves are not the best way to move a page to a new name; the better way is to use the "move" tab at the top of each page. Instructions can be found here: Moving a page. On another note, I would like to say thank you for your efforts so far on articles such as Battle of Isaszeg (1849). Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sylvain1975(talk) 13:59, 09 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Battles of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849
Template:Campaignbox Battles of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-1849 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Pered
The article you created, "Battle of Pered", has been moved to the Draft namespace. Please use either draftspace or your userspace to create articles until they are ready to "go live" in mainspace. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter!  Paine Ellsworth  u/ c  09:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudes for all your good work at Battle of Pered!  Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  16:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I didn't finished the article yet. :) --Sylvain1975 (talk) 2:48, 07 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Győr
I moved Battle of Győr to Draft:Battle of Győr because it had a draft template and no text. Siuenti (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Erdélyi 1848-49-es csatákat miért nem szerkesztettél?
Üdv! Erdélyi 1848-49-es csatákat miért nem szerkesztettél? --Liltender (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Fogok. Sylvain1975 (talk) 21:23, 31 JAnuary 2021 (UTC)

Válasz: Battle of Komárom
Szia! Ilyenek előfordulnak, egyes türelmetlen szerkesztők telebombázzák a cikkeket ilyen sablonokkal, ahelyett, hogy megvárják a cikk elkészültét. Ez ne tántorítson el, a cikk befejezése után elég ezekre reagálni (pl. lerövidíteni a bevezetőt stb.). Ahogy nézem egy szerkesztő már javított is pár nyelvtani hibát. "This section needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia." 2. "This section includes a list of general references, but it remains largely unverified because it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations" --> ez azt jelenti, hogy keveslik a más szócikkekre történő linkeket illetve a lábjegyzeteket. De mivel egyelőre nem készültél el a cikkel, ezeket is hagyd figyelmen kívül. Utána ráér foglalkozni, és segítek is majd neked, ha esetleg igényt tartanál rá. A "Statistics of the two armies" szekciónál pl. lehetne majd valami táblázatos formát is alkalmazni. A magyar szócikkről való fordítás a cikk korábbi állapotát tükrözte, még mielőtt te elkezdted volna szerkeszteni (2016-ban tették hozzá azt a sablont a lap vitalapjában). Nyugodtan szerkessz tovább, ha esetleg bármi további kérdés felmerülne, írj! A szerkesztők alapvetően jóhiszeműek. Az utószerkesztésekkel (nyelvtani hibák, copyedit stb.) a Görgei Artúrról szóló cikk már most eléri azt a szintet, hogy a későbbiekben akár kiemelt szócikk lehet! Csak így tovább. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A táblázatban majd segítek szívesen, bár ehhez még nekem is majd tanulmányoznom kell a dolgokat. "vörösbetűs figyelmeztetést kapok a lábjegyzet helyében" --> ez azért fordul elő, mert azonos lábjegyzetkód alatt más paraméterek szerepelnek. De ezeket lehet javítani könnyedén. Más szócikkekre való hivatkozások: a belső linkekre gondolok, pl. Sándor Petőfi. De itt is majd ha kész a cikk, ráér ezzel foglalkozni. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Antal Vetter
Szia! A sablonnal én sem tudtam mit kezdeni, de megoldottam manuálisan a dolgot. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A harmadik komáromi csatát illetően egy megjegyzésem lenne: csak egyetlen forrásra épül az egész, amely nem szerencsés. Bár tudom, hogy Hermann az abszolút no.1. szakértő 1848 hadtörténetének témájában, nem lehetne citálni még néhány forrást hozzá (pl. Bóna Gábor)?

A draft megoldás abszolút jó. Figyelőlistámra raktam a cikket, úgyhogy ha elfelejtődne, majd én átmozgatom a névtérbe. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, köszi. Még belerakok egy-két Bánlaky hivatkozást. Sylvain1975 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of W.l.n.d.r
A témában jelent meg új tanulmány, ha esetleg érdekel. --Norden1990 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Köszi szépen. Belenéztem, igaz, csak a következtetésbe, de sok kérdőjelem van vele kapcsolatban. Tehát ha azt mondják, hogy a badzsgard népnév csak a keleten maradt magyarokhoz köthető, akkor miért nevezte szinte mindenik arab történetíró az etelközi magyarokat így, vagy az ebből derivált formában? És miért nevezte a Magyarországon járt Abu Hamid al Garnati is ugyanúgy? Nem beszélve arról, hogy a n.kr.da (az onogurok arab elnevezése), az nagyon is nyugodtan vonatkozhat a kárpát medencei onogurokra, akikről a honfoglalás előtt a nyugati források megemlékeznek. A legismertebb közülük a Wangariorum Marcha, de ha az ember fellapozza a Szádeczky Kardoss Samunak az avar történelem forrásairól szóló felbecsülhetetlen művét, abban a wangarokra (onogurokra) vonatkozó híradások a 7. századtól kezdve nagyon gyakoriak (wangar, vandal, meg hasonló formákban - természetesen itt a vandal a vangarok archaizáló elnevezése, mivel hasonlított az ókori vandálok nevére), legalább két tucat ilyen említés van a frank és longobard forrásokban. Ez azt valószínűsíti, hogy 934-ben a magyarok európai nevét adó onogurok még léteztek külön autonóm entitásként a Kárpát medence területén. A 934-es év nincs nagyon távol a 870-es évektől, amikor a kárpát medencei wangarok említése még gyakori volt a nyugati forrásokban. És magyarázza ez is azt, hogy miért neveznek minket onoguroknak az európaiak. És miért nem lenne a magyarok által Nándorfehérvárnak nevezett város w.ln.d.r? Tehát nem győz meg Sudárék elmélete. Ezenkívül olvastam Sudár Balázsék Dentumoger II című könyvével kapcsolatban is, amelyben a szerző megállapítja, hogy a Gyula név a keleten maradt magyarokra érthető... Akkor mi a helyzet az erdélyi gyulával és Gyulafehérvárral?
 * Mindenesetre köszi szépen. Most éppen a kishegyesi ütközeten dolgozom. Ha lesz időm (habár most a 48-49-es csatákra próbálok koncentrálni), lehet, hogy megemlítem Sudárék cikkét is a w.l.n.d.r-i csata kapcsán. De ha van időd, akkor beírhatod te is.
 * Minden jót. Sylvain1975 (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Egy pár sorban azért érdemes megemlíteni ezt a teóriát is. Megmondom őszintén, a magyar őstörténethez nem igazán értek, így állást nem foglalnék a témában. Szerintem a napokban egy-két mondatban bedolgozom ezt az új tanulmányt a szócikkbe. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Köszi. Sylvain1975 (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Az egy-két mondatból végül egy külön szakasz lett a cikken belül, plusz egy-két dolgot javítottam. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Káty has been accepted
 Battle of Káty, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Battle_of_K%C3%A1ty help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sylvain1975 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Second Battle of Vác (1849) has been accepted
 Second Battle of Vác (1849), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Second_Battle_of_V%C3%A1c_(1849) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Artem.G (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fourth Battle of Komárom (1849), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Žitava.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Josip Jelačić, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Isaszeg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I remediated the problem. Sylvain1975 (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Isaszeg (1849)
Hi Sylvain1975. You added 14,258 soldiers (101 infantry companies, 24 cavalry companies), 66 cannons. to the end of Hungarian army part of the Opposing forces section. You've used the reference "Hermann 201", was this meant to be Hermann 2001, Hermann 2013 or Hermann 2018? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noticing me. It was the book Hermann Róbert: Az 1848-49-es szabadságharc nagy csatái from 2004. I corrected it. Sylvain1975 (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Zsigárd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jäger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Győr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congreve.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Solved. Sylvain1975 (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Debrecen (1849), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Byelorussia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I remediated it. Sylvain1975 (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Debrecen (1849), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks. Sylvain1975 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Pered, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bereg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I resolved it. Thanks for noticing me. Sylvain1975 (talk) 08:46, 8 November 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Battle of Schwechat
 * added links pointing to Hungarian, Austrian, Croatian and Honvéd

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Kápolna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Squadron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Vízakna
Hi. You've added the a reference for "Breit I 1929" to Battle of Vízakna, but no such work is defined in the article. Could you added the required cite or let me know what work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed. Sylvain1975 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Congratulation!
Wow! Great new articles! Norden1990 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! In the next days the battles of Piski, 2nd Nagyszeben, Branyiszkó and 2nd Szolnok will follow. Sylvain1975 (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Szia. Leblokkolt a Wikipédia ezzel a szöveggel:
 * "The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be used by a peer-to-peer proxy service. These services allow users to change their IP address by proxying their browsing traffic through another user's computer. As with any open or anonymizing proxy or VPN service, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."
 * Nem tudom szerkeszteni a wikipédiát, amelybe pont egy cikket írtam. Ahogy értem, az a baj, hogy más számítógépet használok? Igen, van egy kisebb laptopom, amelyet akkor használok, ha nem vagyok otthon. Kéri, hogy tegyem nyilvánossá az IP címemet, de nem szeretném. Amikor viszont rámentem a blokkolási listára, nem találtam magam rajta. De ennek ellenére csak le vagyok blokkolva. Fel lehet ezt a blokkolást oldani?
 * Köszi. Sylvain1975 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second Battle of Nagyszeben, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jäger and Brassó.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Fixed. Sylvain1975 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Missing cite in Battle of Branyiszkó
The article cites "Bóna 1998" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: User:Svick/HarvErrors.js to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 01:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Sylvain1975. Thank you for your work on Battle of Friedau. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   16:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! And you too and your loved ones, have a fantastic day! Sylvain1975 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Sylvain1975. Thank you for your work on Battle of Pancsova. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   15:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! And you too and your loved ones, have a fantastic day! Sylvain1975 (talk) 16:51, 04 August 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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian revolution of 1848
Láttam szerkesztésii terveidet az 1848-as forradalommal, és különösen problémásnak látszik, hogy referenciáid alapján egy akadémikus történésztől próbálsz speciális jogtörtneti és alkotmánytörténeti kérdésekben kiigazodni sokszor tévesen. Miért? Mert ebben a kérdésben nem igazán szakember. Tételesen meg tudom cáfolni jogtörténész tudósok referenciáival azt az állítást, hogy a Magyar Királység része lett volna-e 1790 és 1848 között az un. Osztrák Birodalomnak. Nagyon fontos dolgok vannak leszögezve referenciákkal a jelenlegi cikkben a Magyar Királság státuszával kapcsolatban, hogy az angol nyelvű olvasó is megértse, hogy amit Ferenc József tett az illegális volt, és csak ezután lehet igazán megérteni mi okozta a feszültséget a dinasztia és a magyar politika között.--Mandliners (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Nézd. Én, mint amatőr, nem jókedvemben, unalmamban kezdtem el cikkeket írni 1848-49-ről, hanem azért, mert senki sem tette. Szégyen, hogy nincs egy rendes szócik az 1848-49-es magyar szabadságharcról, és az ember amikor kinyitja az erre utaló írást, mást nem talál, csak azt, hogy a románok, szlovákok, szerbek milyen hősiesen harcoltak a "gonosz, elnyomó" magyarok ellen. De a valóban fontos eseményekről majdnem semmit sem talál az ember. Ha olyan jól tudod mindezt, miért nem írsz egy jobb cikket? Te, vagy más, aki ehhez jobban ért, mint én! Én boldogan átadom ezt a dolgot. Őszintén. Én csak azért öltem bele éveket a csatákba és végül ebbe a cikkbe, mert láttam, hogy semmi sincs róla. És hanem írjuk meg ezeket angolul, akkor semmit sem fognak tudni a történelmünről. A csatákat is én írtam meg, mert vagy 5 ütközetről volt 2-3 soros írásocska, amely csak megemlítette, hogy volt egy ilyen nevű ütközet vagy csata. Ugyancsak én bővítettem ki Görgei Artúr és Klapka György életéről szóló írásokat, amelyek ugyancsak 2-3 soros semmiségek voltak. És még hány fontos személyiségről, hadvezérről szóló cikk hiányzik, vagy vár kibővítésre! Én erdélyi vagyok, és láttam, hogy a románok hány cikket írnak a történelmükről, míg mi magyarok majdnem semmit. Ezért nem hagyhattam, hogy így maradjon. Annak ellenére, hogy az angol tudásom nagyon sántít, ami még jobban megnehezíti a dolgomat. De, mint mondtam: ha látom, hogy valaki átveszi ezt tőlem, akkor boldogan átadom. Van nekem elég egyéb munkám is, ami emiatt szünetelt. Tényleg emberek kellenek ennek a periódusnak a megírásához, mert a történelmünk egyik legérdekesebb és legfontosabb korszaka.
 * Kellenek az angol nyelvű wiki cikkek 48-49-ről, kellenek a youtube animációs videók a csatákról, hadjáratokról, ugyancsak angol nyelven, mert oda is ha az ember beírja például, hogy Hussars, akkor 90 %-ban nem a magyar huszárokról szóló videók jelennek meg eredményként, hanem a lengyel szárnyas huszárokról szólók. Miért? Mert ezen a területen is magyar oldalon sok a szakember, aki nem ereszkedik le oda, hogy tudását videóban is megmutassa. Éppen ezért azon a platformon is, a magyar történelemről talál az ember a legkevesebb videót angolul. Jó példa erre, hogy néhány évvel ezelőtt a külföldi történelmi tartalmakat gyártó youtuberek indítottak egy Project Pannonia című projektet, amely keretében ők maguk készítettek néhány videót Magyarország és a magyarok történetéről. Mert a magyaroktól hiába várták ezeket...
 * Hát így állunk mi... Sylvain1975 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A másik jogtörténeti pontatlanság a Habsburg Birodalom kifejezés. Ilyen nem létezett hivatalosan, tehát nem találni meg korabeli hivatalos iratokban, diplomáciai iratokban sem, se pecséteken, sem intézmények felirataiban sehol, mert ez egy un. történészi konstrukció. A Habsburg Birodalom csupán maga a dinasztia által uralt különböző területek puszta gyűjtőneve történészi munkákban, tehát nem egy állam (hanem akár több) és nem egy ország neve. Egy hivatalosan nem létező történészi konstrukciótól jogilag sem lehet elszakadni.--Mandliners (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Utánanézek, és kijavítom. Sylvain1975 (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A probléma az, hogy csak jogtörténészek fejtik ki ezeket részletesen. Még magas rangú akadémikus történészek is írnak jogtörténeti értelemben oltári butaságokat, mert ők nem szakértők, nem az ő asztaluk. Pl: Ha szívműtétre kell menned, te sem tüdőgyógyászhoz mennél hogy végezze el a beavatkozást, azon az alapon, hogy hát hiszen mindkettő amúgy is orvos....--Mandliners (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC) A huszárok eredete sajnos szerb. A XV.századi magyar források is szerb délszláv neveket emlegetnek, a huszárság a 16.szézad közepére vált magyar fegyvernemmé. A magyar Középkorban a 13.századtól fogva a nemes (nobilis) páncélos lovas hadviselést anyagilag megfizetni képes rétegekre utalt. A könnűlovasokat lenézték a Mohácsi időkig, egyfajta "olcsó János" meegoldásnak tartották. Öltözetük nem nézett ám olyan szépen ki mint azt már 18.század végén és a 19.század során megszokhattuk. Sőt egyenesen humoros volt öltözetük, hogy addig általában piros ruhában, törp-papa sapkában lovas mikulásként harcoltak.--Mandliners (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)