User talk:Lajbi/Archive4

Black Army of Hungary

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

Szervusz. Köszönöm a hozzátoldást, de sajnos, ha én nem távolítom el, más fogja. Hivatkozások tekintetében sajnos a blogok semmilyen formában nem számítanak megbízhatónak, főleg ha azon belül a cikk sem tüntet fel bibliográfiát. A "Timba Bizarr Bazárja" pedig...

Az adatok nem hiányosak , csak nem akartam elveszni a részletekben , mert ez nem egy diplomavédés. Az arkebúzok használatát illetően pedig egyetlenegy forrás áll rendelkezésre Mátyás levele az egri érsekhez, ahol egyértelműen "minden ötödik" katonát említ.Tisztelettel maradok Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 14:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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 svájciakat a hivatkozott szöveg is mint elavult felépítésű hadsereget hozza példaként, ezért is helyesebb nem túlbecsülni a Mátyás-kori arányokat.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 17:42, 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.

Bármilyen középiskolai tankönyvet belinkelhetsz a megfelelő ISBN számmal, különben senki nem tudhatja, hogy az információ honnan származik (az hogy "Te tudod" nem releváns). A svájci "tévedés" linkje 4 különböző könyvet is feltüntet a lap alján, így nem igazán kérdőjelezhető meg mindegyik hitelessége. Mindegy, hogy honnan jöttem és hol tanultam, (bár egyik sem talált) ezek a direktívák Rád is vonatkoznak, semmi személyes nincs ebben, nem értem, miért vetted annak. Segítségképpen be is linkeltem a Wikipédia project oldalt. Ami az arkebúzákat illeti, Mátyás levele utáni bármilyen hadügyi struktúrális változás lehetséges, ha van rá megfelelő bizonyíték. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 17:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Szerintem te nem Magyarországon születtél, vagy nincs gimnáziumi érettségid.

Teljesen lényegtelen. Azoknak az embereknek számít a referenciája, akik a témában az adott könyveket írták. Mi csak egy szócső lehetünk a Wikipédián, nem az atyaúristenek. És kérném, hogy tartsuk a hivatalos távolságot, és korlátozzuk az adott szócikkre a beszélgetést. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Pusztán szerkesztői szempontokat figyelembe véve:

Keressed az egymillió kifejezést http://www.matyaseve.hu/Cikk.aspx?NewsID=5a8d66ad-fe1a-493f-8c22-e636a2635a94

Ezt rosszul idézted. "egy-egy jobb évben" az nem állandó, és nem lehet általánosságban kijelenteni, hogy az uralkodása végén, ahogy Te tetted. A szövegben felette írtam, hogy volt olyan év, amikor kétszer szedtek adót, ez lefedi az esetenkénti (!) félmillióról egymillióra ugrást. Az oldal amúgy jó, bekönyvjelzőztem. Köszönöm.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://tortenelem.erettsegi.org/2010/04/az-erett-feudalizmus-magyarorszagon-a-xv-szazadban/

"AKÁR az egymillió forintot is elérHETte". Ez egy feltételezés. Ha pedig az alkalmankénti eshetőségre vonatkozik, akkor ugyanaz a helyzet, mint az előbbivel. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://epa.oszk.hu/01000/01049/00039/pdf/00039b.pdf

A „Király Lajos” Eszperantó Baráti Kör Tájékoztatója. Ez milyen szervezet? Megbízható?Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Itt pedig a puskákról: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/thou/thou05.htm

Én nem bíznék egy olyan oldalban ami fogalmi zavarba kerül: A "musket" szó kifejezetten téves a korra, és mindössze kétszer említi. Na de ami a lényeg, hogy a referencia link (a "8"-as), ami igazolná az állítást, az nem tölthető be. Így ez automatikusan annulálódott. Mindazonáltal szeretném, ha több angol linket keresnél, ehhez hasonlót, mert meg kell hagyni a teret a Wikipédia szerkesztőknek, hogy elbírálják az oldalt, ez pedig túlnyomó magyar oldalakkal nem lehetséges. Ezen felül pedig nem is árt, ha nemzetközi szemlélettel íródik a szócikk, és ehhez szükséges más országok szemszögéből megírt forrásokat keresni, mert a magyar (tan)könyvek hajlamosak elfogultan fogalmazni (mert ugye a túlzott felmagasztosítás is csak viszonyítás kérdése).Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 19:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Fenn kifejtettem. És kérlek használd a ~ jelet négyszer a mondanivalód után, hogy ne egy Wikipedia botnak kelljen aláírni a hozzászólásaidat.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 19:07, 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 a válasz nem tartalmazott új információt számomra. Minden könyv (külföldi vagy magyar) ugyanazokra a középkori feljegyzésekre támaszkodik (amit többségében külföldi históriások jegyeztek). Segítségképpen - mert láttam, hogy jól írsz angolul - egy újabb link a Helpdeskről Wikipedia:Hearsay. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 14:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ha hozzászámítjuk ehhez a pápától kapott illetve a Velencétől kapott törökellenes segély összegét, illetve a meghódított tartományok bevételét, ami a 80as években mintegy 100.000 forintot tett ki,a bevétel akár 800.000 egyes években akár 900.000 forintra is emelkedhetett[..]Ez az összeg ugyan tekintélyes volt, hisz duplája sőt akár háromszorosa annak, amit Zsigmond beszedett, avagy amivel Mátyás utódai rendelkeztek, ám elmarad attól az egymillió forintos összegtől, amit a hazai történetírás sokáig elfogadott." Budapesti Történeti Múzeum (2008) : Hunyadi Mátyás, a Király, Drakóczy István (CSc, egyetemi docens, Középkori és Kora Újkori Magyar Történeti Tanszék - ELTE BTK) "Mátyás bevételei és a kincstár", Budapest, 2008

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 bevételes vitát lezártnak tekintem. Ennél magasabb rendű hivatkozást egyszerűen nem találsz (nem mintha eddig találtál volna). És a "jó évben" még mindig nem általánosítható, és mivel a konkrét év sem megnevezhető, ezért beilleszthetetlen.

A táblázat egy könyvből készült, ahol prózában volt leírva ugyanez (tehát nem copy+paste volt). A Wikipédia iránymutatásairól meg főleg Te ne tarts értekezést, főleg mert eddig ezek nem a Te javadat szolgálták, nem követted őket, és említésüket is kínosan kerülted, így elég visszás, hogy pont Te huzakodsz elő vele (megjegyzem természetesen ebben sincs most sem igazad, mert összesíteni és kivonatolni adatokat egy szövegből gond nélkül lehet). Az a gyanúm, hogy Te nem is ellenőrzöd a linkeket, csak a magad igazát ismételgeted jelentősebb forrás nélkül. Ennél picivel nagyobb alázattal kell hozzáfogni egy ilyen munkához. Ha gagyi, az a Te véleményed, hibáztasd a forrást (ami vitán felül hiteles).

A Nagy Lajosos rész meg főként nem értem hogy jön ide, meg az "ekkora potenciál" mire vonatkozik, hisz te szúrtál be egy jóval nagyobb számot, én maradtam a realitás talaján (de jelzem még most is használtad a valószínűleg szót, amiket el kéne felejteni a Wikipédia szerkesztésekor, mind az ilyenekből nyert adatokat). Ez és a nemesi felkelés se tudom, hogy jön a Fekete Sereghez, illetve a táblázathoz, ha az arra hivatott, hogy összevesse a sereget európai vetélytársaival (ismételtem felhíom figyelmedet, hogy a forrás is ezeket adja meg összevetésképp)Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 15:30, 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.

From this point on let's continue on the talk page of the article because of irreconcilable differences and confront the views there involving a third party.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Important: The warnings below applies to 78.92.106.176 (talk) (possible newcomer Warharmer not the owner of the talk page).At first they will be placed here, second if it has no effect it will be transferred to the proper talk page and at last to the the talk page of the article in question

• Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.
• Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.
• Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Hello, Lajbi. You have new messages at Gabinho's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

France and HR.Empire in 16th century

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)

TUSC token 66e95c5f640176d9609cdbaa0902b05c

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

1848-49-es forradalom és szabadságharc

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)

Kívül esik az érdeklődési körömön, de hasonló kezdeményezést szívesen felügyelek (formaiság, jogszerűség, nyelvhelyesség, történelmi pontosság, Wikipedia irányelvhűség).Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 15:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

ATP World Tour

Please check your grammar properly, for example you wrote

• Nadal is 15–7 with Djokovic winning their only match this year, which was the US Open final. Nadal lead 8–3 against Berdych improving it by defeating him in both of their 2010 meeting including the Wimbledon final. Roddick closes on Nadal, with a tight 5-3 head-to-head. Djokovic is 3-1 with Berdych, and losing to Roddick 2-5. Roddick lead Davydenko 6–2 including 4 of their last meetings

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 can't check it, since Enlish is not my first language, but the H2H are correct and so are the statistical information. But I'm happy you did that. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ATP World Tour Finals

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)

Answered on your talk page. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 10:39, 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)

Ok. Now it's getting fine. I gotta leave my computer for some hours but I look back at it soon. If you think it's finished feel free to put the table back but please double-check every data on itftennis.com. I guess Wikipedia will be the only source having a compiled team head-to-heads (which is correct and up-to-date) by then, so it's important to be extra catious. Good work. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks on Davis Cup heads up

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.BLUE_DOG^TN 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for Such a Marvelous Article (Black Army of Hungary)

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).

Editing Black Army of Hungary

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).

File source problem with File:Wikipedia_screenshot_2011_02_12.jpg

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)

Milos Raonic head-to-head table

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)

I think tracking back and having to update their ratios would be too complicated and time-consuming. I'd be inclined to just change it back to your original version and see how it goes, because the current version is really unclear. Maybe below the heading, adding a note like "Raonic's win-loss record against certain players who have been ranked World No. 10 or higher is as follows" should clear up the confusion. Boddefan2009 (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oleg Ogorodov

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)

I totally agree, but I don't think the information is incorrect, I'll source the template now if it'd make you feel more comfortable in keeping the content. Afro (Talk) 12:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its fine, I checked the Wikipedia pages of the 1998 and 2002 games, and saw the mistake of participation, and I can't imagine the draws being plucked out of thin air. I'll source what little content there is and then there wont be a problem. Afro (Talk) 12:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ATP world tours

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)

2011 ATP

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)

That would be awesome. Do you want to ask someone for clarification on whether project sandboxes are allowed? KnowIG (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah Ok create a project sandbox then! KnowIG (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 BNP Paribas Open

Although del Potro would have still qualified for the tournament, he still has a protected ranking, which means we need the "PR" there. Sellyme^Talk 13:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sony Ericsson Open doubles seedings

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)

2011 MC masters

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)

Challenger

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)

I have no problem with that, was just curious! Kante4 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I will check those articles when those tournaments are 1 week ahead, to have an overview. ;) Kante4 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

"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 ...

• Length - the page is rather long. Is it time to consider archiving some of it?
• TOC - I find TOCs so convenient for finding sections & seeing the overall flavour of a document. I've never quite understood why people would want to remove such a facility. Would you mind enlightening me as to the anti-TOC viewpoint?
• Hungarian - (well I guess it is). Isn't there a guideline against using foreign languages on WP.EN?
• Black Army of Hungary - is very long - many pages. As I see you're adept at using "wikitable collapsible collapsed", would it be worth considering wrapping that section thus? (Nice picture though - please don't hide that!).

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)

Hello there. I didn't know, there's a Talk Page Monitoring Unit in Wikipedia . I feel I'm in Minority Report...

No problem at all, I try to answer all of your questions.

• Length - Coincidently it was just today that I checked its length. Since the in-edit warning about its size didn't show up, I decided to delay it but hey: I'll do it at the very moment when we'll finished this (I archive our talk as well), that's just fine for me. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 13:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
• TOC - There's a self-updated TOC at the right. It is not the traditional one, but it serves the same purpose. Thus I have no discomfort using it I just made it more attractive.
• Hungarian - Initially the editor who messaged me started to use Hungarian. At that point I felt it fine supposing he doesn't speak English that well. It was me who finally changed to English and I warned him about it as well. The discussion was continued at the Talk:Black Army of Hungary in English and as a subsequent consequence the editor was permanently blocked (he attacked me many times dating back to the Hungarian conversation then I realized that he can be caught up this way, so when we changed to Enlish others saw his manner and reported him - for the record I wasn't involved in the process)
• Black Army of Hungary - do you mean the Black Army of Hungary article or the section within my Talk Page? What picture did you mention?

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.

• TOC - ah - silly me - I'd just seen that area as an embellishment - I really should learn to read! What threw me was the pale blue writing on a dark blue background - I'd simply not seen the section names at all! Having said that, does your TOC extend to just the first 12 sections? It doesn't seem to have a vertical scrollbar.

• Black Army of Hungary - I meant the section within your Talk Page. Discussion now of ltd. value as you were about to archive anyway.

• What picture did I mention? - your TOC area - I just saw it as some sort of picture (d'oh).

Kudos for not taking offence. ttfn Trafford09 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Oh I see. The TOC needs an upgrade but since I'm archiving the page, the next one will be accurate as a Swiss clock (I usually wait 4-5 post to include them in this TOC, and the colors are pre-defined (it's a drawback of using a template)). As for the picture it shows the location within my page. Check the navigation for yourself by clicking the link. Have a nice day! Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 15:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - you too. Over & out. Trafford09 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)