Kijavítottam a hiányos adatokat. Mátyás bevátele valóban csak 650 ezer volt az 1460-as évek végén. Halálára viszont elérte az 1millió aranyat. Ami az arbezukkot illeti, 1:3 volt az arány magában a gyalogságban. Az 1:5 arány is igaz, de az csak ha a teljes sereget nézzük mint egészet: lovasság dunai flotilla stb... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A svájci seregekről. Az egyik legjobb hadsereg volt az 1480-as évekig, kizárólag szálfegyvereket pika alabárd különböző lándzsákat használt. A kard is ritkaság volt náluk. Az 1550-es évekig nem használtak lőfegyvereket, mert megvetették a lőfegyvereket. Ez okozta sikertelenségüket a korai 16.sz.-ban, gyakorlatiolag minden uralkodó vesztett a 16.sz-tól aki nagy arányban svájciakat bérelt fel háborúihoz. Ezután mint testőrök lettek híresek
De az az egész seregre vonatkozik, nem pedig a gyalogságra, másrészt a levél dátuma is fontos mivel az arány és a hadsereg összetétele folyton változott az idők során. A svájciak puskásai pedig egy fatális tévedés volt, ami már alapjaiban megkérdőjelezi a szöveg hitelességét is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.106.176 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
A 650 ezres adat korai uralkodására vonatkozik. Bármelyik középiskolás tankönyvet kinyitod, ott szerepel az 1 millió forintos adat. Attól tartok, te valamiféle külföldi magyar lehetsz csak, ha még ezt sem tudod. Ha esetleg csak szakmunkásba jártál, akkor nem kell ezért haragudni rád.
Szerintem te nem Magyarországon születtél, vagy nincs gimnáziumi érettségid.
Keressed az egymillió kifejezést http://www.matyaseve.hu/Cikk.aspx?NewsID=5a8d66ad-fe1a-493f-8c22-e636a2635a94
http://tortenelem.erettsegi.org/2010/04/az-erett-feudalizmus-magyarorszagon-a-xv-szazadban/
http://epa.oszk.hu/01000/01049/00039/pdf/00039b.pdf
Itt pedig a puskákról: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm
Szerintem a hadtörténethez sem értesz. Mivel mindenki tudja hogy a puskát megvetették a svájciak, ezért voltak sikertelenek a 16.sz-ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Szerintem te nem jártál Magyarországon gimibe, ugyanis bármelyik gimis törikönyvben is az egymilliós adat van (ahogy az érettségi tételes oldalon is). Ráadásul ezt a 650 ezres adatot egyedül egy külföldi (általában a részleteket és az országot nem ismerő) szerző írja. Nincs rá még magyar forrásod sem. Nemhiába szoktak azzal dicsekedni hogy bevételei meghaladták a korabeli angol korona bevételeit is.
Ez egy idézet a végén megadott könyvből. Biztos régen érettségiztél, és még neked ezt a téves információt tanították. A gimnáziumi történelemkönyv nem a hitelesség csúcsa (sajnos)Lajbi Holla @ me 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
A 900,000 arany bevételt (un. jó évben) viszont a mostani források is széleskörben elismerik (pláne miután kiterjesztette országának határait). A katonai táblázatod (mindamellett hogy gagyi adatokat tartalmazhat csúsztatásokkal teli féligazságot) ki kellene törölni. Ráadásul túl nagy anyag ahhoz hogy engedély nélkül kimásold (70 évnél fiatalabb a forrás). Lehet használni hivatkozásként egy egy állítás/mondat alátámasztására, de ez meghaladja már azt a mértéket amit szabadon lehetne másolni. Másrészt I. Lajosnak volt ekkora katonai potenciálja (A szerb Dusán cár elleni háborúban valószínüleg nemesi felkelésre támaszkodhatott révén közvetlen határos ellenség felől érkezett idegen támadás, az adatok 80.000-ről szólnak, lévén Dusán is képes volt hódításai után hasonló sereget állítani Lajos ellen. Ezért Lajos alig tudta megnyerni Dusán ellen nagy áldozatok árán a háborút. A két uralkodó 1355-ben fegyverszünetet kötött (egy időre kimerültek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
A táblázatod meg törlésre kerül, mivel a szerkesztőnek nem elég magas a tudományos rangja, másrészt összemossa az egyetlen alkalomra összehordott feudális seregeket az állandó zsoldosseregekkel ami nem megengedhető. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.106.176 (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Miféle vetélytársakról beszélsz? Némelyik hadsereg tagjainak közel 200-300 éveg kellett volna élnie ahhoz hogy vetélytársak lehessenek. Nagyon fals nézőpontot közvetít. Visszanézve wikipédiás szerkesztéseid egy jó részét hitelességük elég vitathatónak tűnik, és enyhén magyarellenes is. Nézd ezek a régi koroknak/emberek eseményeknek nincs közük azokhoz az akrocitásokhoz amik esetleg a II.VH során érhették a felmenőidet. Vagy esetleg egy kisebbséghez tartozol (mondjuk szlovák pánszlávista) és ez lenne a "bosszú"a magyarokon? Minden alkalommal a hiteles eseményekre azaz valóságra kell törekedni, függetlenül az érzelmeitől. Látom nagyon értelmes "IQ" zenéz hallgatsz, mitöbb valódi "értelmiségi" zene. Nem lenne jobb ha megmaradnál az ilyen zenék oldalainak szerkesztésénél ahogy a wikipédiás karriered is elkezdődött? A fontosabb cikkek szerkesztését pedig rábíznád a felnőtt szerkesztőkre.
Holy Roman Emperors and French kings had smaller real (mercenary) armies in the major conflits of the early 16th century.
Read these main articles and the battles of HR. Empire and France: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_War_of_1521 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_campaign_of_1524 And read the detailed battle articles!
And don't forget! They were only ad-hoc mercenary armies. They weren't standing armies. These little mercenary armies often caused financial crisis for France and the Habsburgs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.111.254 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Matthias had signifficantly bigger army than the French contemporary standing mercenary army. Read: Compagnie d'ordonnance. --84.2.100.11 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_War_of_Independence
Kicsit szégyen hogy ennyi van belőle. Lehetne jócskán kibővíteni? Nem csak a háborúra gondolok, hanem a társadalmi előzmények, jakobinusok jozefinisták, Kossuth, Széchenyi hitel, fiatal írók költők , iparvédelem, hbsburg iparosítás ellenesség, nyelvproblémák, Habsburg reakciók, és az oda vezető út: társadalmi folyamatok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.104.41 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Please check your grammar properly, for example you wrote
The first sentence actually means thatDjokovic won their encounter in the US Open, which NAdal actually won. ANd i have placed my source for the head-to-head in doubles its matchstat.com i checked it one-by-one. Dencod16 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the h-2-h sorry for the mistakes, it was caused by me changing the seeds and not changing the h-2-h properly Dencod16 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
i have edited it on the talk page please check. tnx and reply immediately Dencod16 (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Nestor/Zimonjic is 7-1 vs Dlouhý/Paes some of their meetings french open 2010 madrid 2010 rotterdam 2009 shanghai 2008 cincinnati 2008 toronto 2008 wimbledon 2008 all win sof zimonjic/nestor
and french open 2009 is a win for dlouhy/paes Dencod16 (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I just want to say, I fixed a vast majority of them by correcting the template, but we still have roughly about 315 now by PrimeHunters' calculations. We can get those done in about two to three days if someone wants to take twenty a day, or one editor it will take two weeks.BLUEDOGTN 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I want to extend my kindest thanks and gratitude that you put the majority of the work into realizing such a comprehensive report on the Black Army of Hungary. I was the one in May 2007 that first opened the article under the alias blackcaptain. I was most pleasantly surprised by the sheer volume of information, facts, reporting, graphs and images that you attached to it. Never in my wildest aspirations would I have imaged this article to come out so perfectly. I will start contributing to it soon in the opening stanza.
Aside from the Black Army of Hungary, I also opened up another important article on the Hungarian Aranycsapat as gallopingmajor of the 1950s national football team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Team). I put 98% of the work into its writing which has been a 5 year labor of love for me. I invite you to visit it and share your thoughts. Again, I am profoundly impressed by your passion, craft and diligence in sculpting out this report. Hats off and many thanks!! :) OliverTwist88 talk —Preceding undated comment added 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC).
Lajbi, as promised I'm contributing to the article that I opened. I propose we keep the photograph on top from the museum as the first image. I'll move the photo of Corvinus somewhere else. OliverTwist88 talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
Lajbi, I'm not sure if there is rule for putting the infobox on top, I tried finding it. What I suggest is that we still put my military relics museum photograph on top the infobox. I want to first grab the attention of the reader with that photo, it will fire their imagination as to what the armor and shields of the army originally looked like. I consider this somewhat important. For my Aranycsapat article I did the same thing, its also good for aesthetic reasons. The infobox is dry and factual, and I want colorful visual imagery to segueway into the article itself. -- Best regards. :) OliverTwist88 talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC).
Thank you for uploading File:Wikipedia_screenshot_2011_02_12.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Lajbi! :)
The reason I changed the table to "Highest ranking" is because the rankings change frequently. The chances are that Raonic will play the likes of Verdasco, Nadal, Ferrer again, and they'll have different rankings to when they played the first time. For example, Verdasco was ranked 9 in their last two meetings. What happens if they are due to meet again, but Verdasco has moved down a place in the rankings to 10? Do you use both rankings in the table?
The highest ranking is used in Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray's and many others all display the highest ranking the player has achieved, rather than the ranking when they first/last met. Boddefan2009 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edits to Oleg's page, it appears to be a mistype by whoever put the box up, he clearly competed for Uzbekistan and not Chinese Taipei. I've corrected the information. Afro (Talk) 12:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I just changed – into "–". No difference in the length of the character, but it looks more readable when you edit. Mrf8128 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
First up I am back. And looking not to get booted out again. :( Secondly I've seen your note on the 2011 ATP page and yes that's exactly what we should be doing. Shame with the 08 page that the user gave up half way through, otherwise we would have a GA for a yearly article. Do you want me to set up a sandbox for the pair of us to work in. Guidlines should be, winners,strange happenings and notable comebacks. E.g March could be, Novak loses for the first time in 2011. Serena makes her long awaited comeback and Philippouss attempts to qualify for IW. And then any comments on the winners. etc. :) KnowIG (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Although del Potro would have still qualified for the tournament, he still has a protected ranking, which means we need the "PR" there. SellymeTalk 13:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Your seedings are wrong, seedings are based on the combined doubles ranking. The entry list is decided by your highest ranking in either doubles or singles. This is why Djokovic and Troicki are not seeded in the 2011 BNP Paribas Open even though they are ranked sixth in the entry list. Dencod16 (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You are so stupid, seeds are not based on that, its the entry list that is based on that. explain to me why DJokovic and Troicki are not seeded for the BNP paribas Open, if their combined ranking is 21 and they are 5th on the entry list. And your source is called an entry list ranks are from 4 weeks ago. if you are wrong with this never edit again Dencod16 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Now Look at the seeds , the draw is out Dencod16 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Really, are you a joke. The exemptions are used only to gain entry not to be seeded. Seedings are only based on one thing the combined individual doubles ranking of each member of the team. This is how it has been for a long time. Don't make changes that are stupid like you. Dencod16 (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A certain someone doesn't understand the MC masters. With the 500/1000 points. Care to sort him out please. I have no time to edit war with him. And his plain bluntness and rudeness. Cheers KnowIG (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
As I have said look at Verdasco's he played all 8 mandatory masters events but yet he got 600 points for finishing runner-up in monte carlo. There is no way he got 600 points if his points was reduced to 500 series points. And another is David Ferrer he got 360 points for reaching the semifinals despite playing all 8 mandatory masters events. Dencod16 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
What you are saying is that Monte Carlo Masters is included in the minimum of 4 500 series events, which I agree on. However, what your friend is saying is that the point distribution is changed to 500 series events, which is not true, it still uses the master series points but considered as one of the minimum of 4 500 series events.
Here is Verdasco's rankings breakdown http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Fernando-Verdasco.aspx?t=rb
Verdasco has 3,095 points as according to the ATP World Tour website, which i know is better than any of us his points breakdown are as follows Barclays ATP World Tour Finals 0
US Open 360
Australian Open 180
Roland Garros 180
Wimbledon 10
Monte Carlo 600
Rome 360
Miami 180
Paris 90
Madrid 90
Indian Wells 45
Canada R32 45
Shanghai 10
Cincinnati 10
Barcelona 500
Washington 90
San Jose 150
Nice 150
Båstad 45
Try adding it equals to 3,095 and on what you are saying that his points was change. Monte Carlo points is changed from 600 to 300
US Open 360
Australian Open 180
Roland Garros 180
Wimbledon 10
Monte Carlo 300
Rome 360
Miami 180
Paris 90
Madrid 90
Indian Wells 45
Canada R32 45
Shanghai 10
Cincinnati 10
Barcelona 500
Washington 90
San Jose 150
Nice 150
Båstad 45
It only totals to 2,795 Dencod16 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, why did you create the article 4 weeks before the tournaments starts? Normally challengers are created 2-3 days before. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
"This talk page is becoming very boring.", you write at the top, in a refreshingly self-effacing way. Well, I couldn't possibly agree with that! However, I thought you might be open to some feedback on your page, nonetheless, and I offer some only as they suggest one should wp:Be bold. So, I hope you won't take offence ...
Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
PS: Pls. feel free to reply here - I'll Watchlist it. Trafford09 (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Cheers Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thx for the replies & the emoticons e.g. that I'd not come across.
I'm not a wp:TPS as such - just stumbled across your personalised page, neat as it is.
Kudos for not taking offence. ttfn Trafford09 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - you too. Over & out. Trafford09 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)