User talk:Qorilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Qorilla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Bálint Balassa. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Marek.69 talk 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


[[ |thumb|270px| xxx]]

Now do you think this dog is a representative Komondor? This kid have seen this picture on Westminster Dog Show article on Wikipedia and now he is editwarring that the Komondors are small dogs and this picture is absolutely correct, just because this animal has been shown at the Westminster Dog Show, and that means that this can not be wrong. First I thougt this dog was a Puli. I was arguing miles about this stupid picture on that talk page, that it is misrepresenting the Komondor breed, and gives the wrong idea about the breed, and indeed it does. I was trying to put a remark in the picture that this is a small dog but he constantly reverts it. And keers adding Komondorok.

Warrington (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the kid is making adits like this: copied his last version:

== Description ==

Appearance, Size, and Proportions[edit]

The Komondors appearance is dignified and commands respect, people unfamiliar with the breed are often surprised by how quick and agile the dogs are.

The AKC Breed Standard states the following for size, weight and proportions of the Komondor:

Males 27½ inches and up at the withers; Females 25½ inches and up at the withers. Males are approximately 100 pounds and up, Females, approximately 80 pounds and up at maturity, with plenty of bone and substance. While large size is important, type, character, symmetry, movement and ruggedness are of the greatest importance and are on no account to be sacrificed for size alone. The body is slightly longer than the height at the withers. Height below the minimum is a fault.[1]

The Fédération Cynologique Internationale Hungarian Standard states the following for size weight and proportions of the Komondor:

The body length sligthly exceeds the height at the withers.
The deepest point of the brisket is approximately on a level with half of the height at the withers.
The muzzle is slightly shorter than half of the length of the head.

Males: Minimum 70 cm.
Females: Minimum 65 cm.

Males: 50 – 60 kg.
Females: 40 – 50 kg.

The breed shows few faults in type and is largely uniform as it has always been bred with the same target.[2]

Who cares about the American standard? This is a Hungarian dog, and it is also as I found out a Hungarian national tresure, what adoes it matter what the Acf says. It shoul not be put there as a first referrence, and the edits are lousy, and he probably have never seen a Komondor all his life.

Warrington (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing the plural. But your changes are not in the article any more, since you give the K. talk page as reference...

thanks again

Warrington (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's better to handle this plural topic on one talk page. What do you mean they are not in the article any more? Qorilla (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian vs.[edit]

I'm not too happy with your edits to this comparision article. Stating the scope as "Uralic" is not incorrect. However, stating it as "Finno-Ugric" limits the addition of Samoyedic data in the future, and worse yet, your lede of "there are regular correspondences between Hungarian and FU" implies between the lines that there aren't any between Hungarian and Samoyedic (which is false).

Also, the term "Finnic" is not preferrable, as it can refer to Baltic-Finnic + just about anything depending on who uses it. I do see it's not your addition; just FYI.

An entirely different issue is that there are no very good arguments for even distinguishing "Finno-Ugric" and "Uralic" in the first place, but that's only a more recent paradigm… --Trɔpʏliʊmblah 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned about any Samoyedic language in the article. The title should reflect the content. If you want to name it so, then please add a section about Samoyedic languages (maybe just a short one, with a stub-template). About the Finnic issue, please reword it with a more correct terminology. Qorilla (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text of the law[edit]

hm? -- Qorilla (talk) 23:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC) It's the text of the language law. A translation from the Slovak text if you will. Please also send me an email if you have the time, it is important. Hobartimus (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that link and have read it but the regulations and footnotes and all that is quite complicated. I'll send a mail. Qorilla (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Language law of Slovakia[edit]

Nice work. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You should probably add the above link (preferably in a nice Citation template) to note 4. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Be careful[edit]

This edit restored vandalism. --John (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise: This edit. Please discuss your views with the other regular editors on the Vlad III the Impaler Discussion page, and wait to see what the consensus is before you make any changes. If you continue to make the same unpopular edits again and again on Vlad III the Impaler, you may find yourself blocked from editing that page. BlueCerinthe (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Arrival of the Hungarians[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Arrival of the Hungarians at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arrival of the Hungarians[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arrival of the Hungarians, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job with the article. — AjaxSmack 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


the word "Bratislava" itself was made up in the 20th (sic!) century

1. no, the word "Bratislava" itself was made up in the 19th (sic!) century 2. i don't think, that words "Germany, France and Italy" in the same sentence are older words than "Bratislava" 3. poszony is hungarian name, english name is bratislava 4. pressburg is much older name than poszony

Haha, Germany as term appeared after the breaking up of Frankish Caroling Empire. Italy as term was used by ancient romans. France is similar old as Germany The Slovaks were minority in Pozsony until the 1940s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, your recent contributions in Romania article are good, but please try to expand your area of interest beyond Hungarian-Romanian POV issues. (no response is necessary) man with one red shoe 16:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the topic you mention is not really the focus of my interest, and what one edits depends many things, including where one sees things worth editing. Welcome to my talk page. Qorilla (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hungary–Slovakia relations[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Hungary–Slovakia relations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary–Slovakia relations. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions[edit]

Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article:ó_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this and this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Qorilla. You have new messages at talk:Kingdom of Hungary.
Message added 08:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantum theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Magyarország cikk, ezt azért nem kellett volna tenned![edit]

Miért törölted ki a referenciákkal együtt a cikk lead-jéből ezt a részt? Először azt hittem valami szőröstalpú vagy tót tette ezt...durva

A great power until the end of World War I; the Kingdom of Hungary subsequently lost approximately 72 percent of its territory, 64 percent of its total population,[1] one third of its ethnic Hungarian population,[2] five of its ten largest cities and all its sea ports under the Treaty of Trianon.[3][4]

Jobb lenne visszatenni, fontos info mivel nem csak területveszteség volt! Köszönöm!

Túl sok számadat ez a lead-be, ott tömören kell fogalmazni. Az ilyen részletek a történelem fejezetbe valók illetve a megfelelő cikkekbe. Egy külföldi, a témában járatlan olvasó számára a lényeget elmondja a területveszteségi adat, a többi dolog csak árnyalja a képet. Nézd meg pár másik ország cikkét, a lead-et nem szokás számadatokkal telerakni. Qorilla (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)