User talk:Borsoka/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Bogdan Dragoș

Happy New year! You seem to be a gentleman who might be informed of such things so let me ask you a shibboleth. Do you know who Bogdan Dragoș was? Bulgarios (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not know. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Most Moldavian chronicles write that Bogdan Dragoș came to Moldavia from Maramureș in 1359, he is also said to have had a son, or perhaps son in law, called Costea and another called Stefan among others. I recommend reading up on something about him in Hungarian and then perhaps we can sort out together the terrible mess and POV forks on Wikipedia concerning Moldavia's "Founder". Utterly appalling. All the best. Bulgarios (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation. I suggest you should first read reliable sources about Dragoș and Bogdan before editing the articles dedicated to them. Both articles list a number of good sources written in English. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and I thank you for the advice with equal sincerity! ^^ And on the subject of reading, the funny thing about people who live in glass houses is... Not quite good enough yet to write any bluffer's guide. I'll be seeing you around I'm sure since we share common interests. Bulgarios (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Charles I of Anjou you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Charles I of Anjou you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Charles I of Anjou you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania

The article Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania 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:Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Histria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Alba Iulia question

Hi,

please check the recent additon into the Alba Iulia article, among others this new addition caught my attention:

"It was revived after the original Orthodox diocese was Catholicized as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Alba Iulia in the 11th century."

It seems dubious to me, because I don't know that an "original Orthodox diocese would be Catholicized", but the Hungarian King founded something new.

Checking the source, it is written in quite "countinity" manner (insisting everything was before was inevitably Romanian):

"...These discoveries are not only indubitable evidence on the continuity of the Orthodox Romanians in these territories, but also certain proofs of the necessity of some Romanian bishops. After the invasion of Transylvania by the Hungarian Catholic kingdom (11th – 13th centuries) the so-called “counties” (Bihor, Alba, Hunedoara) were set up instead of the old Romanian political units. The same happened to the Romanians’ religious structures; Hungarian Catholic dioceses were set up instead of the Orthodox dioceses. So, once the “county” in Bihor was set up, with the residence in Biharea, a Latin diocese was created instead of the Orthodox one, that would soon be moved to Oradea, where it remained until more recently, which is also confirmed by some of the Hungarian historians. The seat of Alba county was established in Alba Iulia, where a Roman Catholic diocese was created and which still exists today, instead of the Orthodox one."

According to "Marton József. Az erdélyi (gyulafehérvári) egyházmegye története (magyar nyelven). Kolozsvár: Gloria Kiadó (1993)",

before since 952-953 by the invitation of Zombor gyula a Greek priest, Hierotheos already made a missionary actions, but it is not sure whether it was in Gyulafehérvár or Szávaszentdemeter....

Opinion? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC))

Yes, it is an obviously far-stretched scholarly (?) theory. Borsoka (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania

The article Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Please see this AE request. Cealicuca (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must say you are so so so childish. You should read and apply basic WP policies instead of wasting other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Menomorut

Hi,

I'd like to ask your opinion regarding the History of Oradea article. Recently in the history section and as well the timeline section Menomorut is identified and listed as "Principality in a feudal state ruled by Prince Menumorut" (practically two identical sentences in different places). As I recall, in the Principality of Nitra and in the Banate of Severin articles the same problem appeared, should we list only rulers that are verified by contemporary official documents also, or at least to put a "(?)" marker as in the latter article? (anyway, as far as I know, there is not any solid evidence that in Biharea any castle could undoubtedly connected to Menomorut...)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC))

I think we should be neutral, as per WP:NPOV. We could mention that a Hungarian chronicle of debated credibility wrote of a Bulgarian-hearted duke ruling over a local Khazar population around 900, named Menomorut, and we should also mention that Romanian historians regard him as a Romanian ruler ruling over a local Romanian population. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael the Brave

Hi,

the main cause of my edit to avoid the confusion with the common mistaken urban legend than Michael The Brave would unite the three principalities, that he never did (and you certainly know it, that's why I am surprised by your revert). Since a long time, more editors corrected this in many articles to describe it properly as it was, i.e. he ruled the three principalities at the same time. Otherwise, we would support an obviously false assertion that is one of the greatest falsities in the correspondent historiography. Anyway, the question has been already set regarding this by a 2011 consensus in the Michael The Brave article, that means we don't say "he united...etc." but at most we may speak about a "personal union" in case, though we try to avoid any misleading terminology. Please try to find a solution accordingly or accept the common solution I presented.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not understand your above lengthy message about urban legends and more editors. Would you refer to reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I am surpised, shortly I repeat and give you some sources:

1. Unfortunately the urban legend is rendered by romantic nationalism when retrospectively Romanians in a period started to regard him as a unifier (you may chek this in the Michael The Brave article)

2. This falsity was embraced and rendered by the following era's antionalism, including the national-communism, and it spread into many sources so lazily as other Daco-Roman legends, or i.e. identifying all peasant revolts in Transylvania as an ethnic conflict between Hungarians and Romanians (just to tell you about other falsities and urban legends you anyway know)

3. The topic and the question was raised and discussed in 2011 in the Michael The Brave article, and a new consensus was built a referred above.

4. Since then, in all related articles the false and misleading "united" or "union" phrases have been changed to "ruled the pricipalities" or similar (not just by me, but also other editors to fulfill this consensus and avoid falsity)

Please check i.e. ([1]), where is clearly described the problem I referred (anyway I was certain you know this, since you are interested in neutral historical research, and as an expert in medieval history you certainly know that Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia was not unified/united by any means (also Petre Panaitescu or A. D. Xenopol or Boia or any serious historian describe this fairly).(KIENGIR (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, I still do not understand your lengthy message. You modified a text which is based on two reliable sources based on urban legends. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, could you tell what part you don't understand, or in the whole (or my English?)? Do you understand i.e. that Michael the Brave did not unite the three principalities? If I understood correctly your last sentence, why you use sources based on urban legends, instead of facts? Please try us to understand each other, I don't wish to be lengthy, but if you don't see the point...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

The two referred reliable sources clearly say that Michael united the three principalities under his rule. I think it is time to stop this debate. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it says, but you still did not answer my questions. But if we know it is not the case and such did not happen, why you oppose proper close pharaphasing? We are interested in a neutral, factual content (similarly as plenty of reliable sources state that Romanians are the descendant of the Dacians or Daco-Romans, though this hard to grasp, but it is a clear fact Micheal the Brave did not united the principalities, just ruled them at the same time, as you may know, or see it by the source I presented, or the sources in the Michael The Brave article, where this is clearly pinpointed. That's why especially I don't undertand you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Nobody say that Michael united the principalities. Sorry, I stopped discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, if you quit, and I don't know why you are so chilly with me....

"Nobody say that Michael united the principalities" vs. "Michael united the three principalities under his rule"....(the difference is "three" & "under his rule". If I assume - there is not other possibility - the latter you may refer, "united under his rule" may be interpreted as he united them during his reign, or his rule is united over the three in case, though it is misunderstandable at first glance). You should help me to clarify thing to properly understand you. Please, Thank You in advance.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

"Napoleon united France and Italy" is a false statement, "Napoleon united France and Italy under his rule" is a fact. Sorry, I do not like debate personal assumptions against reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you that you changed your mind and answered, so my latter assumption was correct. BTW, you know very well, it has nothing to do with "my personal assumptions", this was a notable issue in 2011, that went even through on the ANI that time, and including with more editors and administrators a consensus was built for clarity and accuracy. That's why I wanted to be sure. I hope noone will misinterpret such statements in the future or misuse them for illegitimate claims.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Viteazul had nothing to do with the "ethnic unity of the Romanians". This is also a fact. You both may have thrown stones at me, but I felt obligated to modify the text in the first paragraph of Michael's page. It was another myth in the lead of course. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not throw stones at you. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Just on me :) (KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Gallery spam

Ok so lets go over all the problems with the unsourced gallery. Lets quote all the protocols for just a case like this

• WP:GALLERY "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." ...."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article"....that links to WP:DUE that says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"....that links to MOS:ACCIM that says "Avoid indiscriminate gallery sections because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display"

So basically we have a unsourced gallery that has images of things not mentioned in the article. Article needs a cleanup again...not more images not related to the text of the article.--Moxy (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read and try to understand the policies that you are quoting above. Borsoka (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

LO I wote it....Not sure how I could write it more clear for you. But will start another RfC on it--Moxy (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi, looks like you have some new anonymous 'friends' from ro.wiki, here: [2], [3], [4] & others. Respectfully,--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I never edit Romanian WP, so any discussion at Romanian WP is out of the scope of my interest. I think you should not use new and new user names at English WP, because it is highly uncivil. You may not know, but google translation from Romanian to Hungarian are often really funny. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

haha, forgive him, Kipcsak :)--82.137.15.182 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are swarming on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I have to mention that I interact with you for the first time and I do not know you. The first message was to alert you to the existence of IPs at Wikipedia in Romanian that make WP:CANVAS about your activity. The activity of IPs is obvious here as well. It is impolite at Romanian Wikipedia to accuse someone without any evidence that it would be sockpuppet. Also it is very uncivil to judge someone's username. I will have to end the discussion.--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Assamese people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assamese people. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Pál Márkházy) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Pál Márkházy.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Very nice article, keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Archbishopric of Moravia

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Archbishopric of Moravia has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your thorough copyedit. I highly appreciate your hard work. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Slavery

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slavery. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pons, Count of Tripoli

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pons, 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pons, Count of Tripoli

The article Pons, Count of Tripoli 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:Pons, Count of Tripoli for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Rogerius mester

Helló! A segítségedet szeretném kérni. Ha jól emlékszem, korábban használtad egyes cikkeknél Rogerius mester Siralmas énekének angol fordítását. Remélem, rendelkezel még a könyvvel. Az lenne a kérdésem, hogy ha van kedved és időd, bemásolnád a vitalapomra a Várad elestére, illetve (főleg) Benedek püspök menekülésére vonatkozó sorokat a megfelelő hivatkozással (fejezet, oldalszám stb.)? Köszönöm, előre is. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pons, Count of Tripoli

The article Pons, Count of Tripoli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pons, 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2019 (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) 04:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Hungarian history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaton (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) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Romania

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Romania. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Jó hülyegyereknek lenni?

Én is tudok makacs agyament szerkesztési háborút indítani. (azaz én is tudok olyan hülye lenni mint te, és mindent kártékonyan kitörölgetni) Folytathatjuk akár végtelenségig. Tényleg, teljesen biztos vagy benne hogy ezt akarod?--Draguler (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You have several times proved that you are unable to make constructive edits. WP is not your platform. You are not entitled to edit WP articles or to enter into conversations on Talk pages. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"constructive edits." You are a newcomer on WP. (You had not edits around 2006) Please do not teach me how WP works. "WP is not your platform." Who are you? Are you the owner of the WP? :))) --Draguler (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No editor owns WP. The community ruled years ago that you were not here to build an encyclopedia. Your comments prove that it was a well-established decision. I only remind you that you should not and your are not allowed to edit. Sorry, I stop debating this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your fantasy is rich, gagyiproli! :)))--Draguler (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:History of India

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of India. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Archbishopric of Moravia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Archbishopric of Moravia 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Timeline of Hungarian history

Hello, Borsoka,

Thanks for creating Timeline of Hungarian history! I edit here too, under the username Nabla and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The whole last 1000 years are missing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Nabla}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nabla (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that the timeline is not complete. I will visit Teahouse to understand the basic principles of editing and I promise that I will make efforts to sign my replies. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The above was an automated message - I am not very experienced using the page curation tool that generated it, so I was not fully aware of the content. And I do not like automated messages much... So, on a personal note, I'll say: The page is fine, except off course that it needs the last 1000 years. As to style, take a look at similar pages, e.g. at Category:Timelines_by_country, to see what other pages look like. I am not used to the Teahouse, but it may be a good place to ask. You may ask me too, at my talk page, though I am busy "out there" so it may take several days until I notice it and reply. As to using talk pages, a good tool there is is the wp:Notifications system, so if you reply to someone, say to me, you may want to call their attention using, for example, {{re|Nabla}}. - Nabla (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Maria of Enghien

Hi - as part of reviewing the page you created about Maria of Enghien, I noticed that there is already an article about her at Mary of Enghien. Normally, I would go through the content and merge the information from each article. In this case, however, it is somewhat complicated because of the sources - the original article is quite detailed, but currently unsourced; your article was shorter, but what was there was well-sourced, and all the sources are books that I don't have access to, so I'm not sure I'd be well-placed to do the merge. For now, I've redirected your title to point towards the pre-existing one, but all of your content is preserved in the article's history - I wonder whether you would be willing to read through Mary of Enghien, add any content that you think is missing, and if possible add your sources to support the assertions in the article? I hope that all makes sense - let me know if there's anything I can do to help you with this, or if you have any questions at all. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, the two ladies are different, Maria died in 1392 or 1393, Mary decades later. Borsoka (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Borsoka - that was a mistake on my part. I saw the almost-identical names, and that both birth dates were in the 1360s, and jumped to a hasty conclusion - if I'd read the articles properly, I'd have seen that they were not the same person. Sorry for the disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I can fully understand your mistake. I think I should place a proper template on the top of both articles, but I cannot find them.  :)

I agree that some sort of 'not to be confused with' template would be a good thing - I'll ask at the Tearoom and see whether anyone has any suggestions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Got an answer - I added {{Distinguish|Example}} tags to each article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santa Claus

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Claus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Archbishopric of Moravia

The article Archbishopric of Moravia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Archbishopric of Moravia 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for János Gerendi

On 3 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article János Gerendi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the Transylvanian nobleman János Gerendi refrained from eating blood and animals that had been strangled, he did not keep all the Old Testament laws? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/János Gerendi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, János Gerendi), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:John R. Bolton

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Magyarország

Hello! Sajnos nem tudom mi a problémád és miért törlöd a szerkesztéseimet. A térképen átírtam a "Kingdoms of Hungary" címkét, amely totálisan értelmetlen, erre megint az van ott. A fővárosok listáját kibővítettem, erre azt is törölted gondolom. Szóval 1783 és 1946 között nem volt fővárosa az országnak a logikad szerint. Továbbá törölted Visegrádot, ahol az Anjou királyok székhelye volt.

Többször leírtam, hogy Lengyelország nem volt Magyarország része sosem, főleg nem a teljes területe, ahogy most szerepel a cikkben.

A beszélt nyelvek között szerepel az olasz és a lengyel, de ezt nem tudom honnan szedted, egyik nemzetiség sem élt nagy számban Magyarországon. A teljesen egyértelmű ószláv nyelvet pedig kihagytad, a szláv nyelvek elkülönülése csak a középkor folyamán ment végbe teljesen.

A latin nyelv mindössze az adminisztráció és a liturgia nyelve volt, ezt nem ártana feltüntetni, mert így olyan minths az emberek beszéltek volna latinul. Továbbá minek az elkülönítés? Beírod hogy a magyar nyelv 1836-tól hivatalos, de a többi beszélt nyelv meg úgy van ott, mintha azokat mindig beszélték volna, de a magyart nem.

Forrást szinte sehol nem használsz, tehát mit is töröltem? Egy helyen volt forrás, hogy a kezdetektől "multiethnic state" volt. Azt javítottam és beszúrtam két hiteles forrást is a cáfolatára, erre törlöd, mert szerinted hitelesebb egy netes forrás, amit pénzért bárki szerkeszthet, tehát kb egy wikipédia 2-re hivatkozol.

Elég szánalmas és silány ebben a formában ez a cikk, de ha neked magyarként ez megfelel.... Kingdom Hungary (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read and apply WP:Sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Héder nemzetség

Szia! Ha nem probléma, ismét szeretnék tőled segítséget kérni. A Héder nemzetségről szándékozok cikket írni, ők a Héderváriak és a Kőszegiek közös ősei. Amennyiben lehetséges, megosztanád a vitalapomon, hogy mit ír a nemzetségről a Képes Krónika és a Kézai-féle gesta hivatalos angol fordításai? Ha jól tudom, a nemzetséget Thuróczi is említi a jövevénynemzetségek között, eltérő származást megadva, de ha esetleg itt nem rendelkezel angol fordítással, akkor az első kettő szövegforrás is bőven elegendő nekem. Előre is köszönöm, kellemes nyarat kívánok! (a short English summary: I intend to create an article about the kindred Héder and I asked Borsoka for his help to provide two official English translations of medieval Latin texts from Hungarian chronicles) --Norden1990 (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Természetesen. Ma vagy holnap lesz időm. Thuróczi fordítása nincs meg nekem. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits on the Baldwin of Bourcq article

Hello,

I just want to say that the information I added to the article on Baldwin II of Jerusalem is available on multiple genealogy platforms and on other articles of wikipedia (I just condensed what was already written on the wiki pages of Baldwin II's ancestors). I don't know if this was the right form of editing the page, but I figured it is relevant since the page said his connection to the Bouillon brothers is unknown. Please feel free to make or suggest any changes to the page. Thank you very much.

With kind regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit, but we are expected to use peer-reviewed (academic) sources to verify all statements in WP articles. Neither genealogy platforms nor Wikipedia are peer-reviewed, so we cannot refer to them. You should find an academic source, or the sentences will be deleted. Best regards, Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

thank you very much for replying, I am doing it right now (editing the page citing academic sources).

with kind regards,

(talk) 16:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: I just edited the article and added 9 academic sources confirming the information I had inserted previously. Please feel free to review it and comment on it. Thank you very much.

Best regards,

I checked two of the books you are allegedly referring to. None of them verify the information, so I have to delete the sentences. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk) 17:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

the sources I am referring to do not provide the exact information I inserted, each of them cite a different generation of Baldwin of Bourcq and the Bouillon brothers' ancestors (if you analyze them together you will also get to this conclusion). I am new to wikipedia and I don't know if this was the right way of doing it, if you still think the information should be deleted that is fine. I just thought it was relevant providing this information. Thank you for commenting and reviewing my edits,

best regards,

(talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand, but we are not here to analyse information and draw our own conclusion as per WP:Synth. Borsoka (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for explaining that to me, as I said I am still not familiar with all the wikipedia guidelines. I would like to ask is there any way of inserting the information presented on each of these sources without drawing any personal conclusions? That is, is there any way of citing each fragment of information (relative to a generation) without implying anything/ leaving it for the reader to take their own conclusions? Like I said, I find this information pertinent but I want to do things the right way and am in need of assistence with my edits (because I am a new editor). Thank you for replying and clarifying things to me. Any help would be highly appreciated.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no way. We are not here to present information based on our research. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: another alternative would be looking for a source listing the ancestors of Baldwin of Bourcq, and another source citing the ancestors of the Bouillon brothers, if they both cite Geberga of Saxony as an ancestor of theirs would that be deemed an acceptable solution? Or would it require a source clarifying this specific relationship between them? Thank you again for answering my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frid.antonia-arlon (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The latter solution may work, especially because two specialists stated that their relationship is not close enough to actually establish it. If you have further questions, please seek assistance at the relevant wikiprojects. (You can find them on the Talk page of the article dedicated to Baldwin II) Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering all my questions, I replied to your message on the tak page of the article. I will indeed look for a source confirming the info I mentioned.

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello there,

I want to let you know I found one source which verifies all the information I had inserted to the article before, you can see more about that on the talk page of the article. I will therefore procceed to edit the page. Thank you very much for your help.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid, you have not found a proper source. Find my explanation of the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Warwick Castle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Warwick Castle. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Shepherd's axe article

Hi, Borsoka!

Would you please look into this article if you have the time. I personally don't think the article's subject is any more Romanian than it is Slovak, Polish, Hungarian etc., but we need references. DF75 (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have information on this subject. However, it is quite probable that a migratory pastoralist population spread the use of this specific tool/weapon among its sedentary neighbors. And Vlachs were the last significant nomadic population in this part of the world. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of most visited museums

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most visited museums. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Albanian-Romanian linguistic relationship, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Istro-Romanian and Aromanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Eastern Romance languages 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. Polyamorph (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Polyamorph:, if you do not understand the core of a debate, you should not place template messages on other editors' Talk page. Borsoka (talk)

At this point the debate is irrelevant. Debates are settled on talk pages, not by revert warring regardless of whoever is right or wrong. You have been warned! Polyamorph (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Polyamorph:, again: if you do not want to dedicate time to understand a debate, do not intervene in it! I expressed my concerns on the article's talk page more than a month ago ([5]) and draw the other editor's attention to the Talk page in the edit summary ([6]). And thereafter you placed this template message on my Talk page..... Furthermore, you reviewed an article whose very title remained unverified for weeks. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm just warning you out of courtesy, but if you don't want to listen that's your choice, you cannot deny you were not aware that revert warring can lead to a block. This applies to both parties involved. Polyamorph (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

No, you intervened in a debate without trying to understand it. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you on my talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, it is YOUR responsibility to resolve the debate without revert warring. Polyamorph (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

YES IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY. ThAT is WhY I INiTiaTED A DISCUSSION ON THE ARTICLE'S TaLK pAGe. But YOU were unable to read. I think we can continue this discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

yes better to explain to the administrators at 3RR. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Borsoka reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: ). Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:EOKA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:EOKA. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Max Blumenthal

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Max Blumenthal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rusyns

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rusyns. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin I of Jerusalem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baldwin I of Jerusalem 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin I of Jerusalem

The article Baldwin I of Jerusalem 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:Baldwin I of Jerusalem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beitar Illit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beitar Illit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kirkland & Ellis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kirkland & Ellis. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

GAR - Baldwin I

I have added to the list of issues now that you are active again. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, Are you still going to complete the work needed for GA? Let me know what' s happening at your end, as the article will probably be failed in a few days' time if I don't hear from you, or if nothing is done on it. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125:, thank you for your patience. I need some more days, because I am really busy in real life now. I think I will be able to complete the task on Saturday. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of terrorist incidents. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin I of Jerusalem

The article Baldwin I of Jerusalem you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Baldwin I of Jerusalem for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Romanian language

Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Sorry that you refuse to take into account the references presented and continue to persist in creating original research content. (Rgvis (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC))

Read your own sources before accusing other editors of OR. Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivan Asen I 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Ez vagy te, ha érzed hogy vesztettél mert nincsenek érveid, azonnal adminokat akarsz

Egészen jól eldiskurálsz addig a pontig amíg vesztésre nem állsz. Az igazság téged hidegen hagy, ha nincsenek érveid referenciáid, akkor azonnal adminokat akarsz. --Noconteos (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Panaszkodj! Még tudod fokozni! Ezen a lapon mindig szívesen látlak. Ígérem, minden kis szösszenetedet elolvasom és igyekszem válaszolni is, mert engem nagyon szórakoztatsz. Cserében eldöntheted, hogy kötözködjek, vagy adjak neked igazat? Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Nem úgy tűnik hogy téged szórakoztat, inkább elkeserít a ténykedésem. Tudod velem szemben eddig minden vitát elvesztettél, mert én mindig találtam elég sok kortárs hivatkozást jó helyekről, a tudomány magas rangú képviselőitől. Erre te nem találtál semmilyen hivatkozást hogy megcáfolj, elkeseredésedben érvelés helyett nekiálltál adminozni. eddig mindig így történt. Mintha óvodában vagy bölcsödében lennénk, ahol az óvónéni a nagynénéd vagy az anyád... Mert ez a hozáállás kb. ezt a szintet képviseli.

Na akkor ezekre válaszolj ha tudsz:

Nem tudok. Nagyon el vagyok keseredve. Megszégyenítettél. Itt ülök és zokogok. Igazad van, mindig anyukámhoz futok, ha valami baj ér. Csak ő tud engem megvédeni. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Elhiszem hogy képtelen vagy rá. Megszégyenítés? Kit tudja, vagy kit érdekel... túl érzelgős vagy. Anyuka = adminok. Megkéred őket hogy admin-isztratív módon segítsenek neked, mert elvesztetted a vitát érvek híján. Tiszta DEDÓS reakció...

Miért nem lehet elismerni, hogy akkora hatalmas különbségek (inkább szakadékoknak nevezném) vannak tradicionális materiális kultúrában Magyarországon (PL: Kunság Versus Dunántúl) mint amekkora Dél és É-Olasz o-ban létezik. Az Olaszok nem szégyenlik ezt. Neked mi a bajod akkor ennek a megemlítésével? Kifejthetnéd.--Noconteos (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ne haragudj, de még nem tértem magamhoz az előző megaláztatásom miatt. Most főleg nem tudok semmit elismerni. A köztünk lévő (tényleg hatalmas) kulturális szakadékok miatt pedig szédülök, ha feléd nézek. Hamarosan összeszedem magam, de ez a tériszony szörnyű. Borsoka (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Cuman ethnic minority existed until around the 1970s

PAGE 28: https://kisebbsegkutato.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/olvasoszoba/intezetikiadvanyok/Regionalis_identitas.pdf

MTA considered the Cumans as a Hungarian speaker group, who have a firm ethnic minority identity (like all other ethnic minorities in Hungary). Only the uniformization of communism could erase this group and their minority identity from Hungary. The socialist urbanization mass population movements erased them in the 1970s. It must be mentioned in this article.

https://kisebbsegkutato.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/olvasoszoba/intezetikiadvanyok/Regionalis_identitas.pdf --Noconteos (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Tradtional Cuman material culture is very different from the Central European Hungarian

The tradtional Cuman material culture is very different from the Central European Hungarian, because their material culture is closer to Eastern European. The only weak link between Cumans and Hungarian culture is that their ancestors learned the Hungarian language. It is a very weak link.

Here is a good article , written by professor Pál Beluszky Alföld Syndrome , go to the English part of the text at page 28. Page 28 exactly describes and clarifies, that the work is concentrated around the Jassic Cuman minority and its very different Eastern European culture.--Noconteos (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria

The article Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria 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:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Henry II of Jerusalem

Hi Borsoka. I was wondering if you have enough sources about him to expand his article. Cheers Kardam (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have some sources. I was thinking of expanding it, but now I am working on other articles. Maybe next year? Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Machiavellianism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machiavellianism. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Worms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria

The article Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivan Asen I 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 CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Split On Machiavellianism

Hi Borsorka,

We are currently discussing a merge of the Machiavellianism article on the talk page, since you showed interest in the discussion, I wanted to notify you. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin II of Jerusalem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Baldwin II of Jerusalem 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Borsoka in a language other than English. At the English-language Wikipedia, we try to use English for all comments. Posting all comments in English makes it easier for other editors to join the conversation and help you. If you cannot avoid using another language, then please provide a translation into English, if you can. If you cannot provide a translation, please go to the list of Wikipedias, look in the list for a Wikipedia that is in your language, and edit there instead of here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Note also that you were talking to the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked editor who has committed abuse over a long period of time. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Oops, you clearly know this. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, please allow me to communicate on this user talk page in any language according to my own preferences. Please also read the guidelines before referring to them, especially their scope. If you want to translate the communication, you can use google translator. If it does not work, I will be more than happy to provide you a translation or short summary. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want any sort of confrontation, but the guidelines simply say when necessary. I know what they say as I'm sure did the editor who created that Twinkle template. "When necessary" refers to occasions when you need to explain things to an editor who doesn't have any or sufficient command of English (and I've seen this interpretation several times at ANI/AN). Doug Weller talk 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I will always use the language according to my preferences on this user talk page. My approach is fully in line with common sense. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The guideline you are referring to is about article talk pages. User talk pages are another matter. Wikipedia:User pages, which deals with user talk pages, does not prescribe us to use exclusively English on user talk pages. This means that, when it comes to user talk pages, we can post comments in whichever language we like. Срдачан поздрав из Европе! Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabriel Báthory

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gabriel Báthory 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 David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:African Americans

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African Americans. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin II of Jerusalem

The article Baldwin II of Jerusalem 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:Baldwin II of Jerusalem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Re-latinization of Romanian

Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. 92.211.162.236 (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please read what edit warring means before posting similar messages. It is you who have so far reverted any edits. Borsoka (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabriel Báthory

The article Gabriel Báthory 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:Gabriel Báthory for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gabriel Báthory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Oirgin of the name "Voicu"

Please check the article Voicu. I kindly ask you to expree your opinion on Talk:Voicu. 86.120.179.60 (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sturmabteilung. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra indivisual reassessment

Principality of Nitra, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. NightBag10 ^(talk) 17:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gabriel Báthory

The article Gabriel Báthory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gabriel Báthory 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 David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Spalatói Tamás

Ha minden igaz, te rendelkezel Spalatói Tamás művének angol nyelvű változatával, legalábbis korábban használtad egyes cikkeknél (pl. II. Béla cikk). Amennyiben így van, az lenne a kérésem, hogy be tudnád-e illeszteni a vitalapomra a megfelelő hivatkozással együtt azt a részt, miután Split újra magyar fennhatóság alá kerül 1180-ban? Igazából az a rész érdekelne, amikor a III. Béla által kijelölt érseket, Pétert (róla írok cikket) nem fogadják el a polgárok magyar származása miatt. Illetve egyáltalán ennek az érseknek a tevékenységéről ír még valamit ez a mű? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Elnézést, nagyon el voltam foglalva, ráadásul éppen van egy kemény vitám egy szerkesztővel, akit nem minősítenék, mert minősíthetetlen lennék. Két magyar származású Péter érseket találtam, az egyikből kalocsai érsek lett, a másik Pannonhalmáról került Spalatóba. Nem találtam olyan részt, amelyik ellenségeskedésről szól. Melyik Pétert másoljam át? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka:: Ne haragudj, erről a kérésről meg is feledkeztem. Arra a Péterre gondoltam, akiből kalocsai érsek lett. Nagyon szépen köszönöm! --Norden1990 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Crusades

Please calm down on the FAC for this article. I will work with you but you need to give me something to work with. The article does stand up against current anglophone academic opinion, I can assure you. It may not be perfect but you are close to vandalising it and breaking its hard won NPOV Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm. You should respect the sources cited in the article. The article is far from neutrality. If you think I am vandalising the article, please do not refrain from reporting me. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine–Ottoman wars

Hello. Thanks for your comments on the Crusades. Do you know anything about the Byzantine–Ottoman wars. I might try to fix it a little. I have no grand aspirations of dragging it into FAC. I just want to clean it up a bit. Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Byzantine–Ottoman wars are out of my scope of interest. My instinct tells me that it is not a possible GA or FA candidate. Borsoka (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

OK then. There are many similar articles, such as The Fall of Constantinople, that need attention. I was never after GA or FA for these articles. I only wanted to make them a little less terrible. If you ever want an extra editor to help with any articles, drop me a line. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think the Crusades article needs a comprehensive review. Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Baldwin II of Jerusalem

The article Baldwin II of Jerusalem you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Baldwin II of Jerusalem for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing populism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing populism. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey Borsoka. I'm deeply sorry to see that you and NBF seem to be at sixes and sevens. I had high hopes that things at Crusades would go well. At any rate... could you please delete your argumentative comment on my talk page? The best thing to do would be to delete it, bury it, and forget about it forever... If you absolutely feel you must bicker with NBF, though (and I wish you wouldn't), please do it on his talk page, not mine. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2:, feel free to delete it. Borsoka (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides; I just don't want arguing on my talk. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lingzhi2:, if you delete it, you are taking sides. You will demostrate that making remarks on other editors without pinging them is a proper way of communication, according to your views. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. Again: feel free to delete it. Borsoka (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

(←) I'll leave it alone then. I am sorry to learn that there seems to be ongoing friction. I hope it can be resolved fruitfully. Cheers... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Brigades

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Brigades. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eighth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I was able to shorten in somewhat by 400+ words, but it is full of essential information which is difficult to exclude. It will be interesting to see what the GA reviewer thinks.

Best of luck with your GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your hard work. Sorry, I spent some days in really remote places, so I have been unable to express my gratitude. Yes, the article is not short. Thank you for your good wishes. Have a nice year-end. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Hong Kong protests. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

POV

Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. - you are continuing to push your own POV, without sourcing or by partially sourcing or by misrepresenting the sources. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, you tell lies above and you know it. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of nicknames of presidents of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Steven Tibble

http://www.crusaderstudies.org.uk/resources/historians/profiles/tibble/index.html

I have never had an academic career. I have worked in advertising and PR for most of my career and am now Communications Director for a large international financial institution [though I would perhaps like to return to academic work in a couple of years time].

I have not been actively researching for many years!

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And his book was published by the Oxford University. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-collaborative behaviour

Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: you are telling lies again. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• No lies here, you are interupting a copyedit with disruptive reversions. You may think there is no need to explain the Mamluks and how they got embedding in Islamic power structures but at FA other reviewers did. I compromised on Middle Eastern state formation although it is relevant but you do not have the grace to compromise yourself. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: your manipulative communication is boring. 1. Mamluks are linked. 2. You ignore a 3rd opinion in order to present information that is not relevant according to specialized literature. Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Impasse?

You and Norfolk have been doing some excellent work together. The fact that you disagree on many areas is making the article better than ever, through healthy debate and iteration.

It looks like the temperature is heating up recently. Can I provide a third opinion on any matters to try to mediate?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for offer. I already sought a 3rd opinion, but the 3rd opinion was ignored. I initiated a formal mediation. If the formal mediation does not help, I will take him to AN asking for a topic ban. Borsoka (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @CaptainEek: I believe you were kind enough to provide the third opinion a few days ago. Unfortunately one side is now claiming that the other side has ignored your views, so the rhetoric is heating up even further. Would you have time to set your views out on the talk page in a little more detail? I think it might help the two editors to talk to you (or me or any other mediator they are willing to listen to). I think their energy and passion for the subject is a great service to the encyclopedia, so I’m keen to help ensure some catharsis and rebuilding of trust between them. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Could you link the page in question? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: [7]. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Count of the Székelys

Mivel pár éve létrehoztad és nagyszerűen bővítetted a Count of the Székelys szócikket, szeretnélek értesíteni, hogy a székelyispáni méltóságról megjelent az első monografikus tudományos feldolgozás: Kordé Zoltán: A székely ispáni méltóság története a kezdetektől 1467-ig. Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 29. Szeged, 2019. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Köszönöm! Meg is veszem. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Revert

You are probably right. I just don't like linking to Kafir unless absolutely necessary. I know its the technical term but where I am from its an insult. Its a big world though.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@AlmostFrancis: thank you. How could we address your concern relating to "Kafir"? Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Consider the concern already addressed. It's the correct word in context. I was just being overly sensitive. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)