User talk:Villy

Category:Wikipedians in Hungary
Hi, if you want, you can include yourself in the above category. Adam78 22:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing username
Hi, I noticed that you use User:(HUN)Villy to edit, but your userpage and the talk page are redirected to User:Villy and User talk:Villy respectively (the redirects were created due to the pagemove). If you'd prefer the User:Villy account you can change your old username here. Redirecting your userpage to another userpage creates confusion (automated bots might paste messages to the wrong place; if anyone wants to check your contributions, they'll have to figure out that User:Villy belongs to you but you don't edit with that account, and then they'd have to trace back to User:(HUN)Villy, etc.) and is discouraged. Thanks for your understanding. --Zoz (t) 14:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that the User:Villy account exists. Unfortunately you can't be renamed to an account that already exists. Since you have only 50 edits, converting the redirects to soft-redirects and starting to use the User:Villy account might be the quickest solution. Or you can change your username to any other name that doesn't exist. --Zoz (t) 15:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

re: hist. national capitals
I believe I just based everything in List of historical national capitals from other Wikipedia articles such as Esztergom, Székesfehérvár, and History of Hungary. The Székesfehérvár article seems to indicate that it was capital at the same time as Esztergom, I may have misunderstood it. If your information is more accurate, by all means correct it. JamesyWamesy 02:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

: Afghanistan casualties
Szia,

Meg szeretnélek kérni, hogy ha belenyúlsz egy szócikkbe, akkor figyelj oda, hogy mit csinálsz és mit nem. Jelen esetben sikerült törölnöd két teljes eseményt, mondjuk hálistennek észrevettem. Üdv,winyetta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winyetta (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A thank you for an old post
Hi Villy. Apologize for this very late reply, and thanks for your guidance in correcting my assumptions made in childhood, about the Danube river in the curve around Esztergom, as it flows south towards Budapest. We didn't have Google at the time (circa 1956). You and Google Earth did the job. :-)Ineuw (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

 * Thank You for Your correction on the article of Clan of Ostoja! If You have any comments on how to improve the article, please let me know! :)

213.89.182.254 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Ketchup
I added protection per your edit-summary:) In the future, you can file a request at WP:RFPP, a place many admins read regularly, instead of hoping one has watchlisted the page you find to be having the problem. DMacks (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ákos Kónya
Thanks for your help on this article, I never knew that about Hungarian names. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Esztergom Basilica
Could you please provide some genuine evidence that the cathedral is formally a basilica. Yes, I appreciate that it is known as a basilica (so is St-Denis in France, although it has never formally been granted the status). Yes, I appreciate that "it is the highest ranking church in Hungary, it is the mother church of the country. Has been since 1856." Yes, I appreciate that national and municipal pride makes you want to include it. But none of these things are evidence that the Pope has formally granted it basilica status. I have visited it. It is a beautiful church and is most definitely architecturally a basilica, but I can find no evidence that the status of a minor basilica has ever been formally granted to it. The fact it is the mother church of Hungary is utterly irrelevant: Westminster Cathedral is the RC mother church of England, but it has never been granted basilica status; Armagh Cathedral in Ireland is in the same position; St. Vitus Cathedral in Prague; St. Rumbold's Cathedral in Mechelen, Belgium; I could go on. The status must be formally granted by the Pope, not assumed owing to the status or size of a church or the fact it could be defined as a basilica in architectural terms. Giga-Catholic Information, generally a pretty reliable site on Catholic churches, does not include it in the list of basilicas in Hungary. Of the two links you provide, one (the image) appears to be broken (and I'm not sure what it would prove anyway) and the other doesn't appear to contain any evidence of basilica status. There are a number of churches that are considered basilicas, but which have never actually been granted that status, which is why I moved it to the appropriate section. If you have any genuine evidence of the status (as opposed to "it's known as a basilica and here are websites that call it that" - we know that already) then please include it, otherwise I think it is perfectly acceptable to move it to the list of churches known as basilicas but not actually granted the status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you appear to be confusing the size of a church with its status. You are also assuming that because it is referred to as a basilica (as I have already stated, it is a basilica in terms of architectural style) it must have the status of a minor basilica. Indeed, the fact it was being referred to as a basilica in 1856, the year of its consecration, would tend to support the fact that it is not a minor basilica - no church is consecrated and created a minor basilica at the same time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
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.


 * Matica srpska
 * added a link pointing to Pest


 * Serbian Revolution
 * 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) 13:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)