Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Nitra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rulers ?

[edit]

I'm not really sure what this section was about:

Inhabited since time immemorial, it was an important center of the Celts (last centuries B.C.), and the seat of the first known rulers of what is today Slovak territory. (Quadi around 396?, Nitrian Principality around 800, Great Moravia 824?, Frontier Duchy of Nitra within the Principality of Poland in 1000-1030 and within the Kingdom of Hungary in 970/1048 1077/1108 )

Is this simply a list of different kingdoms that controlled the city? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'd go and ask Juro - I believe he wrote that thing. Jbetak 16:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, much clearer. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Trasmitter

[edit]

"The most powerful mediumwave transmitter of Slovakia, running on 1098 kHz, was situated in Nitra until recently. This transmitter could broadcast throughout all of Europe at night."

Why is this still relevant, if the transmitter no longer exists? Does anyone know? Jbetak 02:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The original text (by an unknown contributor) was "is", but the transmitter - which seems to have been "unique", because I have read about it in the newspapers - was shut down several months ago, so I changed it to "was". Juro 19:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Juro, are you sure that it was shut down? According to this [1] it currently broadcasts Radio Regina. Brona 22:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here is some more info [2]. It seems the transmitter originally broadcasted the official Slovak radio to whole Europe (so that Slovaks travelling or living abroad could listen), but now it operates on lower output to save energy cost, and transmits regional programming. The change occured in 2003 [3]. Brona 22:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure about anything concerning the transmitter...Juro 04:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nyitria

[edit]

The article states that Nitra was frequently known as Nyitria in the past, but using search engines I can only find links to wiki sites repeating this information. Can anyone provide more info/sources on this name? Olessi 9 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Books with lists of older names of the town (e.g. "Geographisch-historisches und Produkten Lexikon von Ungarn", Pressburg 1786). The internet is NOT a source for almost anything. Juro 9 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

I realize that, Juro. However, usually there are some links on the web. Wiki's spread throughout the net onto so many affiliated sites cloud the search engines, making it more difficult to find a simple name. That's why I asked here. Olessi 20:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nyitra is the Hungarian name of the city. --Serinde 14:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia Olessi. Much of the information you find on Wikipedia and its fellow online encyclopedias (which repeat what Wikipedia states) is not common anywhere else because it is free to all the public to edit. The name "Nyitria" dates back only to centuries after the middle ages and is only a modern Hungarian name. The earliest spellings of the name are Nitrava (870), Nitra (880), and Nitrensis (880). Even though Nitra was part of what Wikipedia calls the "Kingdom of Hungary," its Hungarian name did not develop until the modern era. More examples of this can be found when researching the so-called Kings of "Hungary" such as Ladislaus (Ladislav) or Stephan I. The Hungaraian versions of these names (Istvan and Laszlo) are very young and are not found in any Medieval manuscript or currency or painting. For example, Ladislav, who was born in Nitra, minted coins that had the name "LADISLAV" inscribed, not "laszlo" as in Hungarian. You have to realize that the Hungarian language during the middle ages especially, was almost entirely Slovak because when the Magyars arrived in Europe during the 10th century, their language was poorly developed that they took Slovak words for mountain, hill, stream, government, native plants and species, house, religion, etc. Visit www.slovakia.org for more information. I would like to correct Juro statement about the internet, which is the most popular and largest collection of information ever created (larger than all the books ever made in history combined). The internet can be very helpful as long as you apply common sense and good research skills. Olessi, if you want to learn about Nitra simply visit www.nitra.sk or any official website of Slovakia (www.slovakia.org prezident.sk snm.sk)

The Hungarian langauges beeing a version of the Slovak is stupidity. It's true, that the modern Hungarian langauges did not appear till the 18th century, but the langauges itself egsited. By the way: previously the "Slovak" langauges did not egsited either, but was Slavic, I suppose. It developed with the centuries just like any other one and also splited from the old Slavic langauges - as it resembels to Czech could also mean, that it is? Hungarian took lot of Germanic and latin words also, from hat point of view you could tell it was entirely German or Latin. Or Turkish. Open your mind. We even have words of French and Wallon origin longer than 500 years. --Serinde 18:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't building up your theory of Hungarian's Slovak origins upon forenames like 'Laszlo', are you? If you knew a little more than nothing about Hungarian, you'd know it just doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's like stating that English is entirely Latin, but worse. chery 21:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in the article

[edit]

Can someone upload the images of this article into the Commons category commons:Category:Nitra so other Wikipedias are able to use it? In case it's possible... --Serinde 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Cities

[edit]

Anyone want to mention the twelve sister cities that Nitra has, according to the city's website? Placenames and spellings are from the city's website.

Fair use rationale for Image:Pohlad na mesto.jpg

[edit]

Image:Pohlad na mesto.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(proto-) Slovak state before the Hungarian conquest.

[edit]

Some kind of joke? I dispute the (proto)-Slovak state existing before the Hungarian conquest.The template is rightful on this chapter, and prohibited to wipe again. Nmate (talk • contribs)

Give a reason, otherwise it's invalid. MarkBA what's up?/my mess 16:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very dubious that Slovak-state would be the legal successor of the Great Moravian empire.Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.196.249 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows that modern Slovak state isn't the legal successor of Great Moravia, and neither of the wartime Slovak Republic. MarkBA what's up?/my

mess 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC) What does it mean that(proto-) Slovak state before the Hungarian conquest?Nmate (talk • contribs)[reply]

Answer to yourself. There's nothing disputable in this article. Please stop damaging Slovak articles. 91.127.27.170 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people - János Bottyán

[edit]

What exactly is his connection to Nitra? --Ruziklan (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names of the City

[edit]

Well, a sockmaster is back (this time using open proxies). We can again have discussion on the different suggestions of Wikipedia on alternative/historical geographical names, etc. The option of moving them into a separate section is just one of the options, a possibility. The main guideline actually supports the original lead, which contains the other name variants. Please, read this again (quote from the second point of the guideline):

  • The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Estonian: Soome laht; Finnish: Suomenlahti; [Финский залив, Finskiy zaliv] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help); Swedish: Finska viken) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

Moreover, the original lead is in line with the convention and consensus of similar articles. It was a stable variant for a long time, it should only be changed based on a consensus. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If we think that the lead is too long now, we can move some of the versions to a later section. For example, the Latin and Turkish variants are not widely used by English sources to denote this particular town, thus they do not necessarily have to be in the lead. The versions "Neutra" [4] and "Nyitra" [5] are/were used, and so it would be good if the reader could immediately see that it is the very same town. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV-pushing

[edit]

Ditinili, I think your recent edits are pushing scholarly POVs which is not generally accepted by scholars. For instance, that Pribina was the prince of present-day Nitra is not accepted by all scholars. For instance, this book ([6]), published by Cambridge University Press, presents all theories in a neutral way. I also refer to Miklós Béla Szőke (a leading Hungarian archaeologist) who says that Pribina was not a "prince/duke" and he was not connected to present-day Nitra ([7]). The article describes Pribina as an independent ruler of Nitra, however, for instance, Dušan Třeštík thinks that he was only a Moravian official ([8]). The article writes that the supposed "Principality of Nitra was usually given to the heir of the Great Moravian throne as an appanage", however, this is only an assumption, which should be emphasized. For instance, when referring to Svatopluk's original realm, Dušan Třeštík writes that "We are not sure where Svatopluk's territory exactly lay, but it was probably in Nitra" ([9]). I could continue the list of POV statements presented as facts, but instead I suggest that you should rewrite the article, using the works of multiple scholars. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you look on my edit[10], then you can see that I am not author of the text tou are talking about.
However, if you want to discuss it, the old Slavonic word for leader, regardles of the level of souverainity is "knez" (modern Czech kníže, Slovak knieža) what is translated to English as "duke" or "prince". By the way, the same term used also by the authors who supports theory about influence of Moravians on formation of Nitriansko (Naďa Profantová, Dušan Třeštík) and later for leaders dependent on th central ruler (Czech: knížata, knížetství = princes-dukes, duchies-principalities), so remark about dependency or indenedency is quite irreleant. Curiously, Pribina is referenced as a "prince" also in the source provided by you [11].
In any case, if you have a problem with the particular word or sentence, it is not a reason to mark whole section as a POV. Thus, I am removing the tags and I suggest you to use tags on the correct place (word, sentence). My edits were focused exclusively on archaeology, have a nice day.--Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my above remarks. Both sections presents a specific POV (the existence of an independent or semi-independent principality between from the 800s to the 1100s) as a fact. That is why I suggest that the sections should be substantially rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read it very carefully, probably better that you have read the source suggested by you.
The section "5th to 10th centuries" is largely factual, if you have any problem with concrete sentence, tag it approprietaly instead of tagging whole section. That's all.
I don't care about "10th to 13th centuries", I did not write a single line there and I want to extend it later. Ditinili (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about your care. It is about POV pushing: the article suggests that the existence of the Principality of Nitra is a well-established, widely accepted fact, although this is not the case, because it is only a scholarly assumption, which is not accepted by all or most historians. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your personal opinion, what is "accepted by most historians", this is definitely not a main topic of the section "5th to 10th centuries", which is largely factual and describes mainly archaeological findings. Thus, I will revert any trial to tag whole section as POV.Ditinili (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a personal opinion. It is based on reliable sources cited above (especially, Berend et al). Do you suggest that all references to Pribina and his duchy, and any Principality of Nitra should be deleted, because these references do not provide facts, but scholarly assumptions? Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I suggested: use tags correctly. If you have a problem with any term or sentence, tag it. Do not tag whole section. That´s all. Ditinili (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not have time to add an individual template to about 50% of the sentences, that is why the section is tagged. Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then, you have to find some time to do it. Because what you wrote until now (regardless of our different opinions) is not 50% of the section "5th-10th centuries. If you do not have time, do not contribute.Ditinili (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To help you to identify the POV-pushing sentences, I deleted them. Sorry, but I think you misunderstand our community rules. Even if I do not have time, I can contribute to the improvement of WP, for instance, by adding tags to help other editors to identify the problems with articles. Borsoka (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that "our community rules" do not allow intentional removal of the sourced text "to help" to understand something. I restored the previou version. If you have time for chatting, unreasoned modification and reverts, you have also time to use correct tags with proper explantation in their description.Ditinili (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There are the tags, and you find explanation above. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of tags had none "explanation above". I strongly suggest you to use descriptions. Your trials to avoid proper usage of tags (for every cost), guessing and communication through comments in the history of the article is a waste of time and cannot help any editor in the future.Ditinili (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed that you can understand simple questions and statements placed in the text of the article, because you have read multiple reliable sources about the history of Nitra and you know that the early medieval history of this town is not so clear as it is shown in the article. In the future, I will take into account your limited (or maybe provincial) knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ditinili, you may have not realized, but you have been reverting edits without explanation. I strongly suggest that you should stop your edit warring and try to be constructive when editing. WP is not the proper place to fight for dogmas. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert anything "without explanation". I appreciate that after several demands you began to explain tags. You are obliged to justify tags, especially POV tags, which could be otherwise removed by any editor. It has nothing with my "limited", "maybe provincial" knowledge (focus on constructive criticism).
Note, this is an article about a town, presenting widely accepted, summarizing information, not a place to discuss every detail copied into another 3 articles or marginal theories. Thus, you can e.g. contribute to the article about Conversio, otherwise, partial information about "number of copies" will not improve neutrality anyway. Because it will not answer the question, why is this information so widely accepted, what is weight of each copy, etc. And such details do not belong here.Ditinili (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not understand what is the difference between a fact and a scholarly POV. The presentation of scholarly POVs as facts misleads the readers of WP. We must present facts and scholarly POVs separately. Try to enjoy editing instead of fighting for dogmas. If you do not stop your edit war you will be banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about dogmas. 80% of reverts was not necessary, if you properly justified tags at the beginning as it is required by Wikipedia policy, did not removed properly sourced content (not allowed by Wikipedia policy) and did not fantasy about "widely accepted" and "marginal" views (aka "marginal" (???) view about unification of Morava and Nitra and similar, sorry for saying that - junk).
You cannot be surprised that I immediately removed some really poor contributions. E.g. request for "written inscription" before the beginnings of literature in the area proving a concentration of settlements which is better addressed by archaeological research. Another example - you read something about Alexander Ruttkay (recognized scholar) and he is immediately "sharply criticized", you don't care about his qualification and especially that the source was written by another Ruttkay (!!!) (Matej Ruttkay, another recognized expert, currently the head of the Archelogical Institute in Nitra. Who is more qualified?). Hurray - POV tag. Give me a reference to Avar sites north of the line of Danube in Slovakia before the second half of the 7th century and then we can discuss expansion of their settlement area. Every single locality is registered, recorded in tables including e.g. size of burial site, list of findings, type of burial rite (inhumation/biritual), maps and published (the most comprehensive list probably by Zabojnik), so we really do not rely on various speculations.Ditinili (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to remain serious. I have several times made it clear that my concern is that the whole article about the town of Nitra presents a scholarly POV of the early medieval history of Slovakia (the existence of a principality of Nitra and its unification with Moravia into Great Moravia) as a fact. As soon as facts and scholarly POVs are distinguished (even if the scholarly POV is shared by most Slovak historians), my all concerns are away. Your attempts to present the ruling dogma of the scholarly community you know as a fact leads nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am serious. I gave you concrete examples of your work and explained why I have to revert it. You can write about "ruling dogmas of the scholarly community" to Talk:Evolution page. More, your views are very inconsistent. You describe something as a ruling dogma, but you have no problem to delete it as a "marginal" theory. Ditinili (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, I wrote of "the ruling dogma of the scholarly community you know". Yes, you do not understand simple questions because you are driven by your local dogmas. I asked how is documented that a Slavic community settled in Slovakia and you still do not understand that this is a serious question, because you are convinced that specific archaeological finds belong to specific ethnic groups (for instance, a specific form of pottery proves the presence of Slavs in Slovakia in the 5th or 6th century). Sorry, but your highly dogmatic approach makes any communication with you really difficult. You should have only written that "X and Y and Z objects unearthed in ... and other places suggests that a Slavic community settled in the region of Nitra, according to ...", instead you reverted my edit. Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same way as for other Slavic countries. If you have doubts about methodology and identification of some cultures, it is not a topic of this article and you can discuss it here Talk:Early Slavs. Extensive list of early Slavic localities in Slovakia, including details about material culture, methodology, dating, etc is available e.g. in Fusek G.: Slovakia in Early Slavic Period, 1994. ISBN: 80-88709-17-2. I reverted your irrelevant tag, because the source used in the article is reliable, published by recognized expert, up to date and you did not provide any source claiming opposite. Ditinili (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I told you that your dogmatic approach makes any communication really difficult. Yes, methodology is not subject of this article, but we should make a distinction between facts (specific archaeological finds) and scholarly interpretations (the ethnic attribution of those finds), as per WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to correct or redefine some "dogmatic views" on the Early Slavs, their migration, material culture, methodology, etc, the page about concrete town is not the right place. Go to Talk:Early Slavs and enjoy discussion.Ditinili (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously have not realized but I am one of the main contributors to the present status of the Early Slavs article. And you still do not understand what is the difference between facts and interpretations. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, so you can discuss such problems there and you can return, when you will have some serious and concrete source directly mentioning the research in Nitra region as incorrect.Ditinili (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again: you do not understand the above remarks. I have never stated that the research in Nitra region is incorrect or correct. I stated that your summary contradicts to the simplest WP policies, because it presents interpretations as facts and uses weasel words. Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is very clear and unambiguous (= the highest density of the Early Slavic settlements is documented in the area of Nitra).
It is compliant with WP:WEASEL rule as it is defined by Wikipedia, there is not a single weasel word. I am removing the tag.Ditinili (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is not clear why do scholars think that it was a Slavic settlement area. Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...decline of Germanic cultures, new material culture attributed to Slavs (houses, burial rite, ovens, social structure, other artefacts, etc) - common scholarship beyond the scope of the article. I will definitely not describe methodology in the article about a town. WP:SUMMARY. I have to revert again your change - wikipedia does not allow to "improve" or to "correct" information from to refrenced source. I had to cite it again as it was in the original.Ditinili (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you almost know what should be written, but you do not want to write it (the reference to "Germanic" cultures is really funny, it is obvious that you do not know that in some countries some of those "Germanic" cultures are attributed to Slavs or a mixed population). If I have some time, I will improve the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have a direct reference that concrete research was wrong, I will remove any "improvements" and hypothetic speculations that something is wrong in a minute. Ditinili (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still do not understand my concern, although I stated that I do not want to say that a research was wrong. I only want to make a distinction between facts and interpretations for average WP users, but I understand that in your universe of knowledge there are scholarly POVs which are accepted as facts. I do not want to help you to understand the difference between facts and interpretations any more. Of course, you can delete any unreferenced statement. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Boroska, once again. Whatever will question research results (directly or indirectly) without a direct reference to specialized study dedicated directly to the research in concrete territory will be deleted.
Evolution is also only an interpretation of archaeological findings and any other scientific theory is only hypothesis. Manipulation of sources (= trial to remove, modify or reword some information) or removal of sourced content as you did is unacceptable and I will report it as vandalism, with comprehensive list of all such your changes during the last year, because this was not the first time.
It is very clear that this is not about any facts or POVs, you repeatedly try to remove information which you dislike - regardless of reliability of authors, quality of sources, etc.Ditinili (talk) 07:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are hopelessly uncivil. If you do not report me for vandalism now, I must brought you before the administrators' noticeboard for uncivility, because you accused me of vandalism without any basis. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that with comments like "I will take into account your limited (or maybe provincial) knowledge" and similar, you violate civility very often (together with other rules). Ditinili (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my previous sentence: if you do not report me for vandalism now, I must brought you before the administrators' noticeboard for uncivility, because you accused me of vandalism without any basis. Please also feel free to report any of my remarks. I am also ready to answer any questions about them (If you remember, you reverted my tags with simple questions, accusing me of vandalism, because you were - and you are still - unable to understand that a sentence like "the highest density of their [the Slavs'] settlements is documented" does not provide sufficient information, but presents scholarly interpretations as a fact. If you cannot understand a simple question, because you think that the scholarly interpretation of archeological finds is a fact, as it is proved by your funny edit summary here [12], your knowledge is limited.) Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...as you wish. Ditinili (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nitra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nitra&oldid=1256237766"