User talk:Borsoka

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sunriseshore (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)". (This line will disappear when you save this edit.)}}

There is no discussion. Please ping me again if you took me to the ANI. Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate

Hi, could you check this? Talk:Budapest#Climate I think it is fringe that Hungary is "subtropical" OrionNimrod (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

):):):) Ez q..va jó! Yes, it is obviously fringe. Borsoka (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you join to the conversation? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Climate is not my subject of interest. Borsoka (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Theodore II Laskaris, "about a young Emperor of Nicaea (the most powerful successor state of the Byzantine Empire) who wrote several treatises about theological, historical and philosophical themes. He preferred the company of low born intellectuals which led to conflicts with the Nicaean aristocracy. He expanded the territory of his empire but died young due to a chronic illness, likely cancer. His Great Supplicatory Canon to Our Lady is still sung in Orthodox ceremonies"! - I have a composer on the same page - sadly because he died - who composed music for the Orthodox church, Romuald Twardowski. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Peer review

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I have now spent a good bit of time reading and researching the Middle Ages - my weakest area of knowledge - and I see there has been a paradigm shift in the scholarship. I had no idea. I see now that everything I referenced was from the old view. You tried to tell me. I couldn't see how you could possibly be correct, but you were. I apologize for being such a pain. Thank you for persevering. It is due to your persistence that the article will be better in the end. So thank you. You were right. I was wrong, and I handled it badly. I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to apologize. I am glad the article can be improved now. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I should now offer the perfect response of arguing with you about needing to apologize for arguing with you ... Or maybe not. I am learning more than I ever wanted to know about the Middle Ages. This article has been a bear, and I think I'm losing the fight. I doubt it will ever get to FA, but at least I will know after this that it is accurate. I thank you for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

WP is not about fights and losing them. We all are continuously learning when editing. I am sure the article can reach the level of FA, and you can contribute to it. Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I have addressed every issue raised in the peer review. I would love for you to take a look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Request

Could you start a GA discussion regarding Haile Selassie I? Its odd the page has thousands of views a day yet for over a month no discussion regarding it started? I saw that you are discussing Charlemagne which has only been nominated less than 12 days ago, while the Haile Selassie article a month, i would like this process to be quicker since again the page has [1] thousands of views a day on average.

Note: i was the nominator of the article, so i can't start a discussion by my own to make it a good article, you as a third party should review the article with some others on if the article meets the criteria. It is a simple invitation! CtasACT (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but my knowledge of him is extremly limited. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, is there any other Wikipedia's interested? Because i am not willing to wait for an article that gets 3,000 views an average and sometimes 9,000 or more in a day to be premises yet no one is willing as i am aware of to even discuss it. Thank you anyways for you open mindness! CtasACT (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sultanate of Rum on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

I don't mean to sound like an idiot - ever really - but I am wondering if you can define for me the bias you saw in History of Christianity. I took it to mean an anti-Christian bias because of all the mentions of corruption. I ask partly because I think the others understood it differently, and partly because I can't be sure it's fixed if I am incorrect about what it was. The peer review is still open. As I said above, I did as you asked and added more "History of..." sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I can only share some thoughts on the article. I think that it is still mainly based on sources specialised on specific aspects of the history of Christianity, so it can hardly reflect academic consensus on the subject. Its sources could be decimated. After a short review, I found that at least some references to Collinson are obviously wrong: his chapter starts on page 233 in The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. The article concentrates on Western Christianity, making only general statements about other branches. (I know we can find statements about the history of the Byzantine and Russian states but it is about the state, not about the church.) The article's structure could also be improved, for instance the section about papal supremacy follows the sections about the Investiture Controversy and the Crusades. I already suggested that a GAR could significantly contribute to the improvement of the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am so grateful. I will incorporate your suggestions. The article already has GA, so I don't know how to go about getting a second one, but I will see what I can find out. Thank you again, genuinely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that reference should be Colin Morris not Collinson. Thank you for catching that. I did add four new "History of C" sources as you suggested: A Short History of C. by Blainey, The Oxford Illustrated History, A Short Introduction to the History of Christianity by Dowley, and A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by MacCulloch, which I was told still represents the standard. Do these not represent consensus?

I can't find any precedent for getting a second GA. Can you help with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The link above leads to the page adding detailed instructions. It is not a second GA, it is a reassessment. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I did as you asked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Reason of attack

Hi, I would like let you know about this: [1] OrionNimrod (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for it. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems this started here [2] It is strange that how people have so deep wikipedia knowledge to find a such old ANI report, probably that info was spread by the blocked user who did that report to incite Romanian people against Hungarian editors. The outside article pretend the blocked editor is "admin" because that report is on the admin board. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Systematic distortion of historical articles. Thank you. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Schism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Borsoka. Thank you for your work on Lieutenancy Council. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Signups open for The Core Contest 2024

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Behaviour

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for Antioch

I'm planning to rewrite Antioch for WP:TCC (have made a start on it here). I'm good on sourcing for the ancient periods, but I was wondering if you, fresh from bringing Raynald of Châtillon to FA-adjacent status, might recommend any in-depth treatments of Antioch as a crusader state? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice topic! The history of the principality during the 12th century is best covered by Buck's work (Buck, Andrew D. (2017). The Principality of Antioch and Its Frontiers in the Twelfth Century. The Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-7832-7173-3.). For the 12th century, I would still use the relevant chapters from the second volume of A History of the Crusades (Setton, Kenneth M.; Wolff, Robert Lee; Hazard, Harry, eds. (1969) [1962]. The Later Crusades, 1189–1311. A History of the Crusades. Vol. II (Second ed.). The University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-04844-0.). Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Superb. Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)