Hi Gyalu22! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Thinker78 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying the source of the material in your edit.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known,  even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 11:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, when I'll copy-paste from other articles in the future, I'll make sure to write my edit summaries in accordance to the example from the guideline. Thanks for noticing me. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted your edit in Origin of the Romanians, Borsoka and RF354 did. I started a discussion to which Borsoka joined in.

The talks on History of the Romanian language happened separately from each other, I haven't intervened in your debate with Borsoka, and he/she didn't intervene in our discussion, which is closed and we agreed. They were on different topics too.

Thank you for noticing me, but I don't understand what do I have to do with this. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, László Rásonyi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:User Hannibal. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept my deepest thanks. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyalu22. I stumbled across this article on the Slovjaks on your sandbox and found it very interesting. I had never heard about such a thing. However, I am a bit concerned users may see the article as POV-pushing. As I understand, the notion of the Eastern Slovaks as a separate nation from the Western Slovaks was not universally accepted and was a contentious topic or fringe standpoint, but this is not reflected in your article, as from what I see it affirms that the Slovjaks used to exist as their own separate nation. Some English-language sources seem to refer to this topic as the "Slovjak movement" [1] or "Slovjak concept" [2] or "Slovjakism" [3]. Still, when searching "Slovjaks" on Google Scholar [4], we get many articles referring to this as just an idea or movement. Therefore, I think that if this article is to exist, it should avoid being titled something like "Slovjak people" or "Slovjak language" because whether these have ever existed or not is disputed. I think "Slovjak movement" could be the most appropriate title here. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 16:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are plenty sources about the topic I haven't even started reading yet, (and most likely there are plenty useful Slovak sources that I sadly can't read) so until submitting can't be considered I won't modify the title. I decided to start the draft with this name because of the corresponding Slovak article [5]. If you'd like to help anyone can edit my sandbox, I even plan to ask some Slovak WP colleagues to do so after all Hungarian sources are used. Currently your idea looks the most rationale, but for now, I don't want to worry about the title. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure then. I might do some edits, thanks for your permission. And yes, I believe the contribution of a Slovak user is necessary as well to achieve balance. Do you plan on creating pages for related topics such as for Dvorčák?

And by the way, I am unsure about the inclusion of those supposed 1910 census figures. The 1910 Austro-Hungarian census did not include Slovjak, Eastern Slovaks were counted as Slovaks (see here: Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary). The cited source for those figures is a Hungarian article, from 1943... I don't think neutrality can be ensured from this source. Is there another source showing these figures? Super Ψ Dro 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have checked on the red links and I've deleted all, except one after not being able to find enough information for independent articles. I think Dvorčák can be explained inside this article.
2. IMO the 1943 source is reliable because it has criticism. Ez a szám azonban nagyon ingatag és nem fejezi ki a szlovják nyelvet leggyakrabban beszélők pontos számát. However, this number is very labile and doesn't express the exact number of mainly Slovjak speakers.Even so, I think we can believe that the 1910 census counted them, and that is an important information and to be told in the article. In Czechoslovakia they weren't recognized and nothing is known about their number.

Gyalu22 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was doubtful about the newspaper and the guard having an article, but Dvorčák has several long articles on various Wikipedias [6], so I think it would make sense to keep the red link for him.

As for the census, I am pretty sure its manipulation from the source (let's not forget the political context in which it was published). For example, for Sáros County, it lists 101,855 Slovjak speakers, yet on the article on the county, it says there were 101,855 Slovak-speakers in 1910. The source simply artificially counted Slovaks from certain counties on eastern Slovakia as "Slovjaks", or that's what it looks like to me. And there's also the fact that the 1910 Austro-Hungarian census does not appear to have included a "Slovjak" label. I believe Slovak sources or more recent Hungarian ones should be searched. If this data depends only on this source, it is not reliable. Super Ψ Dro 18:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you could be right. If there are no sources verifying its claim, there don't seem to be, the chart is to be deleted. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing because you are clearly interested in the medieval history of Hungary. In the recent period, many developments have been made in order to genetically identify the members of the Árpád dynasty (and also the Hunyadi family), which is a joint project of the Szeged Archeology Center and MKI (The royal tombs of Székesfehérvár, the Reliquary of St. Ladislaus, the identification of graves by radiocarbon analysis, either in Egres or Abasár, etc.). I think that a separate article could be written about this, where the current development could always be expanded. I am happy to undertake this, but I think my background knowledge is not enough. However, it would be good to collect the sources (MKI has published monographs on the subject in English). What do you think about this? I also wrote about the matter to another editor User:OrionNimrod, who is also active in the topic of medieval history. Norden1990 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. If I'm not mistaken, this would be a unique project on Wikipedia, no similar articles exist currently. Would it cover historical, archaeological and genetical results in Hungary of the recent past?

To be honest I'm not that interested in genetics, but probably I would contribute to it though, since it's Hungarian-related. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyalu22! An user started removing Hungarian related contents and strange modifications on Hungarian related articles:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Removing Hungarian related contents and strange modifications on Hungarian related articles OrionNimrod (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Péter_Eckstein-Kovács — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the heated words I accidentally used against you, when I mistook you for OrionNimrod. OrionNimrod has been for hours now throwing baseless accusations at me while engaging in circular arguments, which I've found very exhausting mentally. Please accept my deepest apology. Azure94 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I accept it, but please comply to a version finally ending this heavily emotional debate, unless we won't achieve anything. I made this to satisfy everyone's wants:

Though some from the government called for military action, Hungarian revisionism primarily aimed to restore the historical boundaries peacefully. In the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims.

The "Balogh reference" is left out. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to comply with that version, but by "Balogh reference" you mean what? Azure94 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right I wasn't clear. I meant that in this version, the source you criticized due to connections with VERITAS and criticism by Eva Balogh. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added further sources to the talk pages, including a Financial Times article, all saying the same as Eva Balogh about VERITAS. I'd also like to remind you that OrionNimrod has used Eva Balogh's Peaceful Revision: The Diplomatic Road to War as one of the sources for his claim in the article. Which is the only reason why I brought up her, since I assumed that he used her as a source because he trusts what she writes, and this if he trusts her writings about the Vienna awards, then he'll trust her writings about VERITAS. Azure94 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant about the reliability of the source written by the VERITAS member, but I don't want to let this small disagreement prevent a resolution of the dispute. I don't consider it necessary to be in the article. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's bizarre that of the 5 citations used, one citation is from Balogh (whom now OrionNimrod accuses of being paid by Soros), while another citation is from the director of VERITAS, who is by the previous citation (and other sources such as the Financial Times) accused of spreading Orban's historical revisionism. It's just schozophrenic to use both of these citations as equal. Azure94 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azure94 I just think it's bizarre that of the 5 citations used, all of them use "peaceful revision" but you changed only that word... OrionNimrod (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Légy szíves ne állítsd vissza, mert forrással van alátámasztva. Egyáltalán nem valószínűtlen. Még a szlovén kortársa Jurij Dalmatin sem volt szlovén származású és ezt tényként kezelik a szlovén források is. Doncsecz^talk 09:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bocs nem láttam, hogy megtoldottad forrással. Mindenesetre ha indifferens a személy életpályáját nézve, akkor nem szoktunk a bevezetőbe ilyet rakni, úgyhogy lejjebb helyezem egy bekezdéssel, ha beleegyezel. Egyébként rosszul is van megfogalmazva. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belegyezem. A cikket kellene bővíteni és akkor az info mondjuk egy alfejezetbe (pl. Life and work) kerülne. Doncsecz^talk 14:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you check this? Talk:Budapest#Climate OrionNimrod (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you edited Pannonia and the Roman times. Could you check or update this article regarding that period? Timeline of Hungarian history

OrionNimrod (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it okay. Thanks for the notice. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I hope you find this message well. I am writing to inquire about the possibility of uploading a map to the Wikipedia page on Dacia. The map in question depicts the Dacian Kingdom under Burebista and includes essential information such as the Roman Republic, the Dacian kingdom, rivers, the kingdom capital and borders, neighbors, cities, and other pertinent details.

I believe this map would greatly enhance the page's content and attract more readers interested in the historical context of the region. The map is licensed under CC0 and has been created by me, this is the link of the map: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Dacian_kingdom_under_Burebista.png

Could you please confirm if I am permitted to upload this map to the Wikipedia page? I am hopeful that my request will be accepted, and I thank you in advance for considering it. Portasa Cristian (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually, sorry for bothering you, I am going to make a remake of the map. Portasa Cristian (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I support creating and inserting such a map into the article. Still, for the sake of correctness, I recommend painting Dacian territories beyond the Tisza and the Danube rivers with low hardness. The reason is that historiography can't define a discrete border for the kingdom. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gyalu22, hope you're well. I was reading a bit on Czechoslovakia and remembered your article on the interesting Slovjak movement. I see you haven't made much progress lately, so I wanted to suggest you if it could be better to publish it now, so that other editors can work on it if they see anything wrong or want to expand it. You will be able to work on it after publication anyway. It seems like it'd be the kind of article to get some notable attention from editors of the region (including a fair amount of nationalist edit-warring) and I think it could become a nice article in some years even if you didn't add anything else to it right now. Of course, you're in your right to keep the article in your sandbox if you'd like to keep working on it before, just wanted to suggest publishing it as it'd probably have gotten attention and some expansion from other editors already. Have a nice day, Super Ψ Dro 15:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As you see I haven't been active in the past months, it's because I'm engaged in other things. Thank you very much for caring about my contributions though. I decided to do copyedit and give the article a try. It would be good to see the project receiving attention from different users, if that's your intention, you included. But I won't be sad if it gets deleted because I really believe Wikipedia will eventually cover all the topics we can now think of.

I appreciate your wishes immensely, and I'm hoping for the best with you. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your publication, I don't think the article will be deleted. I will try to avoid it if I see the article under such a situation. I wish the best for you too and with the things you're currently engaged with. Super Ψ Dro 16:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]