User talk:Borsoka/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Please comment on Talk:2018
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Győr nemzetség
Helló! Most a Győr nemzetségről szeretnék írni egy cikket, vagy legalábbis a meglévőt jelentősen kiegészíteni, miután az egyes személyekről a cikkek már elkészültek. Ha nem gond, betennéd a vitalapomra, hogy Kézai ill. a Képes krónika hivatalos angol fordításai mit írnak a nemzetségről? Ha jól sejtem,m mindkét esetben Pot(h) nemzetségéről írnak. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Esplanade
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Esplanade. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Count of the Székelys
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Count of the Székelys you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Count of the Székelys
The article Count of the Székelys you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Count of the Székelys for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Humphrey IV of Toron
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Humphrey IV of Toron you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Humphrey IV of Toron
The article Humphrey IV of Toron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Humphrey IV of Toron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Count of the Székelys
On 31 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Count of the Székelys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that each Székely seat gave a horse to the new count of the Székelys at his installation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Count of the Székelys. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Count of the Székelys), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Hugh of Fauquembergues
 | Hello, Borsoka. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Hugh of Fauquembergues at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! – Corinne (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC) |
DYK for Humphrey IV of Toron
On 5 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Humphrey IV of Toron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Humphrey IV of Toron married Isabella of Jerusalem (marriage ceremony pictured) in Kerak Castle in 1183, but a siege by Saladin disturbed the wedding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey IV of Toron. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Humphrey IV of Toron), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Article
Hi Borsoka, I saw you have been edited article Berislavići Grabarski. Please can you see all edits starting from January 5th 2018 until now, I've supposed that those IP edits are totally fake (hoax) and it is probably our "old" problem. Best regards,--C3r4 ((ask me)) 19:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Martinuzzi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Continuation War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Continuation War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Stephen Bocskai
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stephen Bocskai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Árpád and Béla III
Why did you delete the addition of the genetic information? That was a scientific paper that was linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaFraS (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I deleted it from the Árpád article, because the scientific paper was dedicated to Béla III. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hugh of Fauquembergues
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hugh of Fauquembergues you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sigismund Rákóczi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund Rákóczi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Justina Szilágyi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Justina Szilágyi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Hugh of Fauquembergues
The article Hugh of Fauquembergues you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hugh of Fauquembergues for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Stephen Bocskai
The article Stephen Bocskai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stephen Bocskai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Transylvanian peasant revolt". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 March 2018.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Sigismund Rákóczi
The article Sigismund Rákóczi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sigismund Rákóczi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Subventio generalis
Hi there. I see you removed genuine references and a small text addition which I added to the new page you created on Subventio generalis. I did this whilst doing New Page Patrolling with the intention of improving what I saw as a rather interesting page. It's a shame you didn't seem willing to read the references or you would have been able to answer your own question "which parts of Europe?" when you reverted my edit. Of course, if you don't think the sources are reliable that's an entirely different matter, and you did right to remove them. But do please look at them and consider whether a good faith edit with references might actually have added value to that short page. Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes:, thank you for your message. Please read the cited sources: they do not refer to "other parts of Europe", they refer to the Kingdom of Sicily (which is mentioned in the article). Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- In that case, I must apologise to you - they were added at some speed in a genuine effort to improve the article. Being a scientist, not a historian, I had assumed that places like Lucera were outside (modern-day) Sicily, but of course I hadn't considered that older 'Kingdom of Sicily' might well have encompassed a much larger region we don't consider as being part of the modern-day names. It was for that reason I put in the "other parts of Europe" rather than anything more specific -hoping you or another editor might be able to make use of the additional references. Sorry if my contribution was less than helpful. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Nick Moyes:, thank you for your message. Please read the cited sources: they do not refer to "other parts of Europe", they refer to the Kingdom of Sicily (which is mentioned in the article). Borsoka (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Review of the article on phomoxanthone A for the DYK nomination
Hi Borsoka, thank you for taking the time to review the article on phomoxanthone A which I wrote and nominated for WP:DYK. I am sorry that you found the article difficult to read, and I understand that I probably took too much background knowledge for granted. Since I wrote the WP article specifically to make the topic accessible to a wider audience, I would like to improve it in that way. If you could tell me which parts or sentences of the article you found especially problematic, or if you have any general ideas on how the article could be improved, I would be very grateful. Please understand though that the sections on structure and synthesis of the compound are very technical by nature and can hardly be made any more understandable to a wider audience, however I think that these sections are probably only interesting to experts anyway. Regarding the introduction and sections on occurrence, uses and biological activity, however, I think these might be interesting to a greater public and I would be very happy to improve them. Thank you for any comments or advice! Best, Shinryuu (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. The first sentence from the first paragraph: "The phomoxanthones are named after ... their xanthonoid structure"; the expression "xanthoid" is linked to the following sentence: "A xanthonoid is a chemical natural phenolic compound formed from the xanthone backbone."; and "xantone" is linked to an article that I am able to undersand. In the following sentences of the same paragraph, I found the following expressions: dimers, tetrahydroxanthones, homodimer, diacetylated tetrahydroxanthone, isomer, monomer, dimeric tetrahydroxanthone mycotoxins. Sorry, I do not understand them, because they are too technical. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! I understand your concern, and I agree that these expressions are probably not understandable to most non-chemists. However, I think there is no easy way to paraphrase "xanthonoid" or the other terms you mentioned. I agree that the whole sections on properties and synthesis are highly technical, however I believe that this is so by the nature of these sections and cannot be changed easily. Compare, for example, the corresponding sections in the articles on paracetamol or aspirin, which has good article status. From the article on aspirin: "In the (unambiguous) form I, two salicylic molecules form centrosymmetric dimers through the acetyl groups with the (acidic) methyl proton to carbonyl hydrogen bonds" - there is just no simple way to rephrase such sentences more understandably without making them much longer and introducing many of the used terms in the article instead of just wikilinking to them. That being said, do you think the other sections of the article are understandable, especially the introduction and and the sections on use and biological activity? I think that these sections are probably much more interesting to a wider audience. It is definitely possible to make them more understandable, and I would be happy to do so if necessary. Shinryuu (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- The two GAs also contain highly technical parts, but I can understand them, because they are illustrated and put into context, for instance, by molecular formulas. Similarly, if the first sentence from the first paragraph would be a little bit expanded, I could understand its context: "The phomoxanthones are named after ... their xanthonoid (C13H8O2-) structure...". Other technical expressions could also be introduced in a similar way. For instance "dimers (formed from two similar sub-units)". Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I rewrote the section on structure now to briefly explain the technical expressions or wikilink them to articles that do this, and I also added an image of xanthone to make it easier to understand how its structure relates to that of PXA and what "xanthonoid" and "tetrahydroxyxhanthone" mean. Please let me know what you think and if further improvements are necessary. Thanks! Shinryuu (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The two GAs also contain highly technical parts, but I can understand them, because they are illustrated and put into context, for instance, by molecular formulas. Similarly, if the first sentence from the first paragraph would be a little bit expanded, I could understand its context: "The phomoxanthones are named after ... their xanthonoid (C13H8O2-) structure...". Other technical expressions could also be introduced in a similar way. For instance "dimers (formed from two similar sub-units)". Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! I understand your concern, and I agree that these expressions are probably not understandable to most non-chemists. However, I think there is no easy way to paraphrase "xanthonoid" or the other terms you mentioned. I agree that the whole sections on properties and synthesis are highly technical, however I believe that this is so by the nature of these sections and cannot be changed easily. Compare, for example, the corresponding sections in the articles on paracetamol or aspirin, which has good article status. From the article on aspirin: "In the (unambiguous) form I, two salicylic molecules form centrosymmetric dimers through the acetyl groups with the (acidic) methyl proton to carbonyl hydrogen bonds" - there is just no simple way to rephrase such sentences more understandably without making them much longer and introducing many of the used terms in the article instead of just wikilinking to them. That being said, do you think the other sections of the article are understandable, especially the introduction and and the sections on use and biological activity? I think that these sections are probably much more interesting to a wider audience. It is definitely possible to make them more understandable, and I would be happy to do so if necessary. Shinryuu (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. The first sentence from the first paragraph: "The phomoxanthones are named after ... their xanthonoid structure"; the expression "xanthoid" is linked to the following sentence: "A xanthonoid is a chemical natural phenolic compound formed from the xanthone backbone."; and "xantone" is linked to an article that I am able to undersand. In the following sentences of the same paragraph, I found the following expressions: dimers, tetrahydroxanthones, homodimer, diacetylated tetrahydroxanthone, isomer, monomer, dimeric tetrahydroxanthone mycotoxins. Sorry, I do not understand them, because they are too technical. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Transylvanian peasant revolt, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
DYK nomination of Stephen Bocskai
Hello! Your submission of Stephen Bocskai at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! HaEr48 (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Type 4 Chi-To
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Type 4 Chi-To. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Transylvanian Peasant Revolt
It appears that you are dealing with an editor who edits intermittently, and who complains about that article, and maybe others, but does not respond constructively to efforts to improve articles. My suggestion is that you either ignore the complaints or edit the article boldly, and avoid edit-warring, and discuss on the article talk page, and ignore any further complaints. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:, thank you for your message. Your above summary coincides with my experiences :). Yes, I was bold ([1]) and explained my edit on the Talk page ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Sigismund Rákóczi
On 11 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sigismund Rákóczi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Diet of Transylvania elected Sigismund Rákóczi prince in 1607, although he had proposed his former son-in-law to the delegates? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund Rákóczi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sigismund Rákóczi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Edict of Torda
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Edict of Torda you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Edict of Torda
The article Edict of Torda you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Edict of Torda for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Edict of Torda
The article Edict of Torda you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edict of Torda for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Justina Szilágyi
The article Justina Szilágyi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Justina Szilágyi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Hugh of Fauquembergues
On 24 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hugh of Fauquembergues, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an arrow killed Hugh of Fauquembergues, Prince of Galilee, in a skirmish when he was returning from a plundering raid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh of Fauquembergues. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hugh of Fauquembergues), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Integrity Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| In recognition of your honesty and integrity in dealing with disruptive editors Wiczneck (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC) |
Swetoniusz, you should not edit WP, because you were banned from the community. Borsoka (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Neo-Nazism
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Neo-Nazism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Precious two years!
 | |
| Two years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Basketball Federation of Serbia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Raymond II, Count of Tripoli
Hi Borsoka. I stumbled across this article. It is really good. I assume that you will be putting it up for GAN. If not, can I encourage you to? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edits and also for your recommendation. I am thinking of putting it up for GAN, but I need some time. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good. I found it a fascinating read. I hope that you find the time soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edits and also for your recommendation. I am thinking of putting it up for GAN, but I need some time. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
RSN notice
There is a thread concerning your edits at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Raymond II, Count of Tripoli
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raymond II, Count of Tripoli you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Raymond II, Count of Tripoli
The article Raymond II, Count of Tripoli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raymond II, Count of Tripoli for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. It was a pleasure to assess that. If you have any other GANs which need looking at, feel free to give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania copyedit
| Hello, Borsoka. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Miniapolis 23:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
@Miniapolis:, thank you for your comprehensive and bold copyedit. The article significantly improved. Sorry, for the stupid grammatical errors I made. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Flag Day (Australia)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flag Day (Australia). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kazakhstan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kazakhstan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stefan Dragutin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rudnik (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Julius Evola
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julius Evola. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kaloyan of Bulgaria
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kaloyan of Bulgaria you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Charles I of Anjou
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles I of Anjou you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kaloyan of Bulgaria
The article Kaloyan of Bulgaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kaloyan of Bulgaria for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Stateless nation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stateless nation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Stephen I of Hungary scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that I've scheduled Stephen I of Hungary to appear on the main page as today's featured article on 15 August 2018. If you need to make tweaks to the blurb, it is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 15, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, thank you for your nomination. Borsoka (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the article about "the first king of Hungary who is also venerated as a holy king by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ealdgyth, thank you for your nomination. Borsoka (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
John Zápolya article
Hi, the same editor added the same content of Croatia, likewise it happened by John Sigismund Zápolya. It is correct, or also here should be removed as well? Thanks.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC))
Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Shameless Magyarization of Croatian history
House of Ilok → Újlaki family – The present name cannot be verified based on reliable sources. On the other hand a number of academic works published in English support the proposed name. For instance, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology ([3]), Nobility, Land and Service in Medieval Hungary ([4]), John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom ([5]), and Millennium in Central Europe: a history of Hungary ([6]) use the "Újlaki family" form. Borsoka (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
HAVE YOU NO SHAME? You dare edit articles about Croatian history and shamelessly execute this pan-Hungarian Nationalistic thievery? Marko Brkljača (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- BeFOre writing unCIvIl mESSaGes on other editors' talk pages, you should read basic WP policies. How d a r e you write that an editor cannot edit an article? How DaRe you shameLLessly ignore that an article's title should represent the common English usage? (Sorry, but I wanted to demonstrate your unusual style of communication.) Borsoka (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Charles I of Anjou
The article Charles I of Anjou you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles I of Anjou for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:NPOV dispute
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. The thread is Origin of the Romanians Article. Thank you. --Cealicuca (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 14:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
List of longest-living members of the British royal family
- Hi Borsoka! I wanted to inform you that I have finally moved List of longest-living members of the British royal family to the main space. Could you please take a look and let me know if you have any suggestions for me to address or incorporate? As always, I appreciate your subject matter expertise and continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Novum Organum
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Novum Organum. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cleveland, Texas
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cleveland, Texas. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Henry II of Jerusalem
Hi Borsoka, I want to know if you can expand this article or if you have sources about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.176.65.143 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I am not planning to expand it for the time being. I think there are sources about his rule in Jerusalem (For instance, the second volume of Kenneth M. Setton's "A History of the Crusades"), but I do not remember sources about his early life and his rule in Champagne. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Záh Felicián
Szia! I. Károly sikertelen merénylőjéről szeretnék cikket írni, a forrásaim már meg is vannak hozzá. Egy dolgot szeretnék kérni: a vitalapomra tudnád másolni az idevágó Képes Krónika-fejezet szövegét angolul (oldalszámmal stb.)? Előre is köszi. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hát ha lehetséges, akkor az egészet, mert még nem tudom, melyik szövegrészeket kívánom felhasználni. --Norden1990 (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bocsánat, de az túl hosszú. A lustaságom is nagy úr, de még copyright problémákat is okozhat. :) Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Jaj, én azt hittem, sima e-book formátumban van meg a könyv és akkor ctrl+c, ctrl+v és ennyi. Ha ezt tudom, a korábbiakat sem kérem. Megpróbálom holnap a könyvtárból megszerezni a könyvet. Egyébként sajnálom, hogy mostanában kissé háttérbe szorult nálad a magyar vonatkozású cikkek szerkesztése. Ennek van különösebb oka (forráshiány stb.), vagy csak az érdeklődés csappant meg? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bocsánat, de az túl hosszú. A lustaságom is nagy úr, de még copyright problémákat is okozhat. :) Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Hamas
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hamas. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You are being reported
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. 82.17.74.178 (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- I see he has a history in doing this. Skyhighway (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Skyhighway: Yes, the IP seems WP:LTA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2016 in aviation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 in aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Kabar
Hi, Borsoka!
Ra tudnal kerlek nezni a Kabar oldalara?! Bulgarizacion esik at az oldal, viszont forrasokkal is alatamasztja a POV pushingot kedves Bulgarios nevu szerkesztonk. Persze csak ha van idod. Koszonom Fakirbakir (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Szia! Biztos, hogy finomítani kell. Az egész abból adódik, hogy Bíborbanszületett azt írja, a kavarok 3 törzse volt az első a magyar törzsszovetségben, ha harcra került sor. A külföldi történészek jelentős része ezt úgy veszi, ők voltak az uralkodó törzs. A magyarok utalnak rá, hogy inkább segédnépi mivoltukra utal. Ezt a 2 nézetet kell tükröznie a szócikknek. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Koszonom!! Fakirbakir (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Norsemen
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Norsemen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Gabriel Báthory copyedit
| Hello, Borsoka. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Gabriel Báthory at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with GA and all the best, Miniapolis 01:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC) |
map
Ahhoz kepest, hogy egy az egyben a magyar akademiai allaspontot illusztralja az Erdely terkep valakiknek meg ez sem jo. (a Commonsban hozzadobtam egy forrast a terkephez amit te adtal meg es talan hianyolhato, remelem igy jo, ha nem akkor javitom). Fakirbakir (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
ANI
Borsoka,
a user mentioned you in the ANI edit warring, as I see he/she did not warn you...so I do instead, just to know about it...(KIENGIR (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC))
You may check...
Hi, you may check this edit [3].(KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC))
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Borsoka. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
mistaken RFC closure
Hi,
just to inform, you, [4] here a user by mistake misinterpreted Robert Mclenons suggestion, a closed the two maps RFC with "no consensus", although Robert spoke about the 80km long discussion in the NPOV noticeboard. In informed both of them [5], [6] of the mistake. As you were the original nominator, please check if the mistake will be corrected properly. I think because of the so many threads and lenghty discussion such mistakes may happen, as you may see also the same in my answer to Robert regarding WP:ANI/WP:AN3. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC))
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Restructuring_the_article regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Origin of the Romanians. Thank you.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Robert McClenon (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Info
Hi,
I think useless to continue right now...he already violated the imposed disctretionary rules several times, it's result may be expected soon.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
November 2018
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Read Carefully
Borsoka, @Fakirbakir:, that's why I warned both of you I had a sense of something...though as being not a native English speaker, it was hard to interpret and commensurate both admins new editing regulations imposed...now I finally understood....please both of you check carefull DeltaQuad's talk page, the Question/Clarification & One more question (just updated) sections. There are the deatailed analysis of the happenings, I understood properly only at the end...worth to read!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC))
- @KIENGIR:, thank you. Yes, it is hard to understand. Nevertheless, the rule of law is secured if at least those who are authorized to enforce a decree can understand it. (Joke :)) Otherwise, I think, a short break may develop all involved editors' skills to cooperate. Those who are unable to understand this will sooner or later be banned from editing. I have a guess who will be the first. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- You may check Vanjagenije and DeltaQuad's talk pages as you are charged by an editor there. Anyway the whole bludgeoning is boring, Tgeorgescu pinpointed very much what these two editors does not understand regarding Wikipedia...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC))
- Yes, I know. Why should I also be stealing time from the two administrators? Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Do not misunderstand, I did not insist you steal time from anyone. My own experience is, that there is such a mess of happenings that sometimes it is hard to see clear. However, you are right, I've never met any mistake commited by these two admins, I admire them much.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC))
- Yes, I know. Why should I also be stealing time from the two administrators? Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- You may check Vanjagenije and DeltaQuad's talk pages as you are charged by an editor there. Anyway the whole bludgeoning is boring, Tgeorgescu pinpointed very much what these two editors does not understand regarding Wikipedia...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC))
Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Pons, Count of Tripoli
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Pons, Count of Tripoli has been completed.
This sentence - "The Byzantines also persuaded Pons to swear fealty to the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, similarly to his grandfather and father." - in the Minority section is unclear to me. Did you mean "as his grandfather and father had done"? This will need to be clarified.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the GAN.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I changed the sentence in accordance with your suggestion. I highly appreciate your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Joanna
I clap my hands in excitement when I see you working on an article. Thank you for your work on Joanna I of Naples. Surtsicna (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
- Before it's requested, addition, removal, readdition. I read over the talkpage several times. There is no explicit consensus to reinsert comments, and there are particular objections to it being re-added. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad:, I would also like to understand the reasons of my block. I did not revert a single edit. My first edit was in line with discussions on the Talk page (here Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Historic Background section -- Unnecessary and Biased): I deleted most references to the Hungarians and provided a background ([7]). One sentence was deleted from my edit and I accepted it without debate ([8]). My second edit was in line with the discussion (here Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Romanian irredentism). The problems mentioned (the use of the adjective "well-established" and the reference of the reasons of Romania's entering in WWI were addressed) ([9]). Yes, there is a basic problem: should we restructure the article in a way that each fact and their all scholarly interpretations are repeated twice or three times. For the time being, there are only two editors who support this approach. On this specific issue we will never reach a compromise, because the proposal is absurd. Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- The reasons are layed out by the diffs. Your first edit about the sourcing was fine. The second edit, which takes your previously formed sentence, which was removed, and basically puts it out into large paragraph in pieces, but you still reinsert it. The blanket re-addition, hidden in paragraphs, did not have consensus on the talkpage. Iovaniorgovan prefered that you waited. Fakirbakir objected to a sentence. KIENGIR also makes objections that don't seem to be addressed. This is why I issued the block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad:, I think you do not understand the case, so I ping all editors to whom you referred above without pinging them. The text that I inserted was being discussed for a week. @KIENGIR: and @Fakirbakir:'s objections were fully addressed. Fakirbakir quite clearly stated it on the Talk page ([10]). Kiengir wrote you a message on my behalf on your Talk page after you placed me under a ban ([11]), so it is quite strange that you are referring to him. You are actually right, Iovaniorgovan wanted to wait, because he still insists on his proposal to restructure the article in a way that all facts and their interpretations are repeated twice or three times, but otherwise his concerns were addressed. If you think that until his interesting proposal about the restructuring of the article is discussed, the article cannot be edited, please make it clear. Therefore, I ask you to lift the block. I also ask you to undo your revert, unless you make it clear that the article cannot be edited. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Amanda (aka DQ), because you redirected here your answer please allow me to answer here (and I am really motivated by the maximum clarity, as you know me). I again checked the three diffs, but found nothing added repeatedly harming the DS (1RR-per content-unless 1month). Fakirbakir's last message was in the thread: "I agree with your modifications. NPOV, -as it happened" (thus with his reply confirmed his agreement, as Borsoka modified the text in his favor). Regrading me, it is true I did not answer explicitly to Borsoka, though finally I accepted his argumentation. Regarding Iovaniorgivan, true he did have some objections, but what he asked finally - among other things meanwhile the discussion - Borsoka updated the proposed text ("Schramm states that" alike wanted -> "Schramm emphasizes that" was put fairly). Thus, even if you'd argue there was not explicit consensus, after Borsoka's addition if someone would finally NOT agree, one revert would have been possible (that is legal, even by Ad Orientem's restriction who said after one bold edit one revert should be done and after discussion, etc.) Consequently, Borsoka did not broke the DS sanction, and not even Ad Orientem's editing restriction nominally (what you've applied has been originally meant to another editor, where Ad Orientem put personal & individual restrictions to the specific user as per former unblock next to the existing two applied restrictions on the page, except him, all other editors should keep only your DS and Ad Orientem' page restriction).(KIENGIR (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC))
- Both Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca ([12] [13]) were placed under a topic ban relating to the article Origin of the Romanians. So I was sanctioned for ignoring an absurd structural proposal of two topic-banned editors (but otherwise taking into account their suggestions). @DeltaQuad:, I again ask you to lift my ban and undo your revert. Thank you for your understanding. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have much time to reply right now, I'll add more later, replying solely to Borsoka right now. But those users got sanctioned today after your edit and block. So they were still able to contribute to the discussion through that point. You weren't blocked for ignoring the structural proposal. Purely for the discussion that had not come to a consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- DeltaQuad, you referred to three editors to verify your block ([14]). One of the two editors (Fakirbakir) explicitly stated that he agrees with my proposal. An other editor (KIENGIR) defends me above on this Talk page, without stating that I ignored his proposals. So there is a single editor (Iovaniorgovan) to whom you can refer. However, I took into account all his proposals [([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and my edit here shows that Iovaniorgovan's all concerns were addressed [30]). I only ignored his attempt to restructure the article. Sorry, I must ask uninvolved administrators to review the case. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Borsoka got fooled by two provocateurs. In hindsight he/she should have known better, but it is not a major mistake. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- As it was mentioned above I fully agreed with Borsoka's proposed text. Everyone should thank Borsoka for his hard work, unwearying enthusiasm and professional manner. I support the idea that uninvolved admins should take a look at this matter. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I left a notice at WP:AN. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Borsoka got fooled by two provocateurs. In hindsight he/she should have known better, but it is not a major mistake. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- DeltaQuad, you referred to three editors to verify your block ([14]). One of the two editors (Fakirbakir) explicitly stated that he agrees with my proposal. An other editor (KIENGIR) defends me above on this Talk page, without stating that I ignored his proposals. So there is a single editor (Iovaniorgovan) to whom you can refer. However, I took into account all his proposals [([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and my edit here shows that Iovaniorgovan's all concerns were addressed [30]). I only ignored his attempt to restructure the article. Sorry, I must ask uninvolved administrators to review the case. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have much time to reply right now, I'll add more later, replying solely to Borsoka right now. But those users got sanctioned today after your edit and block. So they were still able to contribute to the discussion through that point. You weren't blocked for ignoring the structural proposal. Purely for the discussion that had not come to a consensus. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad:, I think you do not understand the case, so I ping all editors to whom you referred above without pinging them. The text that I inserted was being discussed for a week. @KIENGIR: and @Fakirbakir:'s objections were fully addressed. Fakirbakir quite clearly stated it on the Talk page ([10]). Kiengir wrote you a message on my behalf on your Talk page after you placed me under a ban ([11]), so it is quite strange that you are referring to him. You are actually right, Iovaniorgovan wanted to wait, because he still insists on his proposal to restructure the article in a way that all facts and their interpretations are repeated twice or three times, but otherwise his concerns were addressed. If you think that until his interesting proposal about the restructuring of the article is discussed, the article cannot be edited, please make it clear. Therefore, I ask you to lift the block. I also ask you to undo your revert, unless you make it clear that the article cannot be edited. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The reasons are layed out by the diffs. Your first edit about the sourcing was fine. The second edit, which takes your previously formed sentence, which was removed, and basically puts it out into large paragraph in pieces, but you still reinsert it. The blanket re-addition, hidden in paragraphs, did not have consensus on the talkpage. Iovaniorgovan prefered that you waited. Fakirbakir objected to a sentence. KIENGIR also makes objections that don't seem to be addressed. This is why I issued the block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad:, I would also like to understand the reasons of my block. I did not revert a single edit. My first edit was in line with discussions on the Talk page (here Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Historic Background section -- Unnecessary and Biased): I deleted most references to the Hungarians and provided a background ([7]). One sentence was deleted from my edit and I accepted it without debate ([8]). My second edit was in line with the discussion (here Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Romanian irredentism). The problems mentioned (the use of the adjective "well-established" and the reference of the reasons of Romania's entering in WWI were addressed) ([9]). Yes, there is a basic problem: should we restructure the article in a way that each fact and their all scholarly interpretations are repeated twice or three times. For the time being, there are only two editors who support this approach. On this specific issue we will never reach a compromise, because the proposal is absurd. Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Borsoka (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to WP:AN. My reasons can be read above. Borsoka (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Reducing to time served, this block no longer serves a purpose as it's been explained what the issue was. Fakirbakir I was incorrect on, but as KIENGIR notes above, the other two I had valid points about. Also, post-block agreeing and sanctions do not count. If you wish to make things simpler, you can propose explicit modifications to stuff that was reverted on it's own, not merged into two new paragraphs to get reinserted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad:, thank you for lifting the block. Sorry, I still must say that you do not understand the issue (sorry, for the bold letters, but you tend to use it, so I have to accept this approach). First of all, I did not merge "stuff that was reverted" into "two new paragraphs to get reinserted". You did not realize that the two edits were independent of each other, they were separately discussed on the Talk page and no one claimed that they were related to each other. The article deals with a sensitive issue which can give rise to heated debates. Administrators who are authorized to apply discretionary sanctions should carefully study and understand the issues before placing editors under a ban. You failed to do this. Secondly, KIENGIR does not say what you want to understand. Yes, there was a pending debate about the restructuring of the article, but not about the text. Therefore, I kindly ask you to cancel your sanction against me and undo your revert. Furthermore, I think editing restrictions could also be lifted, because the two editors who stirred up edit wars were banned from the topic. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have to say in advance I appreciate much Amanda and there is nothing against her, since it have been a really complicated issue with many happenings it's been really hard to see clear, as more times it has been proved, we are all humans, not machines...yes, I reflected that even if my or Iovaniorgivan's standpoint "could have been blurry", one bold edit (since it had really not any connection to the past) legally could be inserted and legally reverted once if really disagreement would have been raised. Thus Borsoka's bold addition did not harm neither the DS, nor Ad Orientem's valid & "global" restrictions to the page, which among other things stated roughly "one bold, one revert, then discuss". Thus even w/o of these two restrictions, one bold addition cannot result as well a block also in normal editing conditions. I hope everyone understands it know, I don't know how to phrase it better...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC))
- I am happy that you are happy with her. I am not. The construction of a nuclear reactor would be a complicated issue for me. That is why I would never try to apply sanctions relating to nuclear reactors. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Borsoka, please, do not misunderstand me, I just wanted to make clear that nothing is motivated by any personal issue (an admin mistake hit you hardly in an injust way, I feel completely what you were going through). I've fully defended your case and stood up for you all the time, you know the best I've always considered this block a huge mistake. Reaching an unblock was a success, and I fully agree with you that unless there is not a change of the DS and it's proper interpretation & application, until it is almost pointless to edit the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC))
- I am happy that you are happy with her. I am not. The construction of a nuclear reactor would be a complicated issue for me. That is why I would never try to apply sanctions relating to nuclear reactors. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have to say in advance I appreciate much Amanda and there is nothing against her, since it have been a really complicated issue with many happenings it's been really hard to see clear, as more times it has been proved, we are all humans, not machines...yes, I reflected that even if my or Iovaniorgivan's standpoint "could have been blurry", one bold edit (since it had really not any connection to the past) legally could be inserted and legally reverted once if really disagreement would have been raised. Thus Borsoka's bold addition did not harm neither the DS, nor Ad Orientem's valid & "global" restrictions to the page, which among other things stated roughly "one bold, one revert, then discuss". Thus even w/o of these two restrictions, one bold addition cannot result as well a block also in normal editing conditions. I hope everyone understands it know, I don't know how to phrase it better...(KIENGIR (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC))
- @DeltaQuad:, thank you for lifting the block. Sorry, I still must say that you do not understand the issue (sorry, for the bold letters, but you tend to use it, so I have to accept this approach). First of all, I did not merge "stuff that was reverted" into "two new paragraphs to get reinserted". You did not realize that the two edits were independent of each other, they were separately discussed on the Talk page and no one claimed that they were related to each other. The article deals with a sensitive issue which can give rise to heated debates. Administrators who are authorized to apply discretionary sanctions should carefully study and understand the issues before placing editors under a ban. You failed to do this. Secondly, KIENGIR does not say what you want to understand. Yes, there was a pending debate about the restructuring of the article, but not about the text. Therefore, I kindly ask you to cancel your sanction against me and undo your revert. Furthermore, I think editing restrictions could also be lifted, because the two editors who stirred up edit wars were banned from the topic. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
3RR violations
Your recent editing history at Matthias Corvinus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (Rgvis (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
Christmas
Hi,
I wish you a Merry Christmas!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC))