User talk:Borsoka/Archive 5

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

GAR

Good article reassessment for Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians has been nominated for a 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. AIRcorn (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thraco-Roman

  • You seem to have some knowledge of the subject, I would suggest you carve out about 10 hours over the next few weeks and do the work, it would be a valuable contribution to human knowledge. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Vladimir III Igorevich

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Vladimir III Igorevich, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://books.google.com/books?id=o9wuVyw5QpgC&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=When+the+Galicians+learnt+that+the+king+had+deserted+them,+they+feared&source=bl&ots=lgk2FBW0l1&sig=w9pu3clndn8L0HH3Ceq_E4EajvM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Y3XkT8CZPILo9ATrjJnyCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=When%20the%20Galicians%20learnt%20that%20the%20king%20had%20deserted%20them%2C%20they%20feared&f=false, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Vladimir III Igorevich saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2012; 14:45 (UTC)

I've additionally tagged Svyatoslav III Igorevich and Roman II Igorevich on the same grounds.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2012; 18:23 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from multiple print sources (see Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bartholomew le Gros (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Split
John I of Pécs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Split
Simon of Kalocsa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Split

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ladislaus Kórógyi

Why Ladislaus instead of László? --Norden1990 (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your argument. But you have to draw the line to when you use the Hungarian form. Note: Bálint Alsáni has Wiki articles in Hungarian form (de, fr, hu, it, no). --Norden1990 (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Liszt's letter

Hi, been trying to find someone to help me translate this 1867 letter from Liszt to a music publisher in Budapest called Laszlo Kugler. It's for the article Henri Gobbi. User:Norden1990 passed me over to you, once he claims he can't speak enough english to translate it. Maybe you could help. Krenakarore TK 19:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tisztelt Uram,

Túlzott szerénysége, mely akadályozta Önt, hogy Pesten létemkor felkeressen, visszatetsző előttem. Kellemes lett volna, ha őszinte dicséretemet - szerzeményeit illetve - személyesen és behatóbban tárgyalhattam volna. Művei elvitázhatatlan tehetségre, finom és józan zeneértelemre mutatnak. Ha kínálkozik alkalom, szívesen és körülményesen fogok a dologhoz tartozó tárgyakról Önnel beszélgetni. Egyelőre fogadja legjobb köszönetemet ide mellékelt leveléért, valamint érdekes és elismerésre méltó szerzeményeiért.

Barátságos tisztelője
Franz Liszt

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voivode of Transylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Florin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Majláth and Emeric Balassa

Are you sure that these two guys served as voivodes until 1541? According to "Markó 2006" they functioned as voivodes until 1540, after they were appointed Captain Generals of Transylvania by the Diet of Segesvár in August 1540. The Hungarian Catholic Lexicon also confirms my source. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

hu:Kategória:Tuva_járásai

Hi Borsoka,

I happened upon the above category on the Hungarian Wikipedia and noticed that some of the Tuvan districts are spelled as a weird application of Russian Cyrillic rules. For example, Тес-Хемский кожуун is the official Russian name. On the English WP we use the official Russian name but do not indicate palatization (see Administrative_divisions_of_the_Tuva_Republic). In Tuvan it is Тес-Хем кожуун (they do not palatize the 'te'). The Hungarian WP has 'Tyesz-hem', with Russian palatization. In that case it should be 'Tyesz-hemskij' since it is a direct transliteration of the Russian official name. Following Tuvan would result in 'Tesz-hem' as a direct transliteration of the Tuvan name. I noticed a similar problem with 'Csegyi-holi járás (Чеди-Хольский кожуун)'. In Tuvan it really is Csedi-hol. Do you know what the policy is on the Hungarian Wikipedia regarding names like this? Is it to transliterate into Hungarian spelling the native Tuvan name or use the Russian pronunciation? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

use of sidebar in articles directly

...is a bad idea. Please make a template for this. If you need help with that, let me know. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

Hungarian Barnstar of National Merit
For all of your excellent work in creating articles about history of Hungary. Wear it with pride. Norden1990 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Prince of Transylvania (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kassa, Torda, Brassó and Principality of Transylvania
Perpetual ispán (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Esterházy
Torda County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Torda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Banate of Mačva

I requested move in the case of Banate of Mačva article. May I ask you to tell your opinion? See: talk page. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Raab, Talk:Napoleonic Wars

Hello! Segítségre lenne szükségem, ez közös ügy: néhányan a győri csata cikkből elakarják távolítani a magyarokra, mint hadviselőfelekre vonatkozó részt, olyan tarthatatlan érvekkel, hogy Magyarország egy tartománya volt a Habsburg Birodalomnak és nem létezett 1809-ben. Az egyik szerkesztő, aki sorozatosan visszaállít, francia, a másik aki azt a kijelentést tette, hogy nem volt magyar különállás a Habsburg Birodalmon belül, román. Mindegyik semmitmondó külföldi véleményekre hivatkozik. A román szerkesztő szerint minden külföldi könyv arról ír, hogy csak osztrákok vettek részt a győri csatában. Doncsecztalk 17:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.101.149 (talk)

Austrian Empire vs Kingdom of Hungary

  • "As far as I understand, the above debate has originated from a statement that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire (the latter being established in 1804). Is there any reliable source stating this?"

If your statement is true (and usually those are :) ) we should take a look at page of Austrian Empire because it treats Kingdom of Hungary as an "organic" part of the realm. Actually there is only one statement "Kingdom of Hungary...constituent land of the Austrian Empire". Maybe it should be corrected. Also, the first sentence of page of Kingdom of Hungary (1538-1867) is perhaps a bit inaccurate.

  • The Kingdom of Hungary between 1538 (1526) and 1867 was part of the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, while outside the Holy Roman Empire, and part of its successor, the Austrian Empire.

Was not it? I am a bit unsure. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Napóleoni háborúk

Szia! Én sajnos rosszul fogalmazok angolul, lehet, hogy valamit nem úgy sikerült leírnom, ahogy akartam. Mindenesetre azt akartam kifejezni, hogy a Pragmatica Sanctio elfogadásának magyar részről a magyar önállóság biztosítása volt a feltétele. Ezért koronázták meg Mária Teréziát külön Magyarország királynőjének is. A Pragmatica Sanctio be nem tartása nem indok arra, hogy az önálló magyar országgyűléssel rendelkező Magyar Királyságot az Osztrák Birodalom részének tekintsék. Remélem, azért sikerül dűlőre jutni az ügyben, a nyilvánvalóan elfogult vitázókkal szemben. Ahogy elnézem, az utoljára hozzászóló amerikai történész is legalább annyira ért Közép-Európa történelméhez, mint annak idején Wilson... Laszlovszky András (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your undo of my citations

Borsoka,

Here's the quote from Creation Myths of the World, page 26:

A similar story to the Buriat one exists in Romania. According to that story, in the beginning, God sent Satan into the primeval depths to find soil with which to begin creating Earth. When Satan finally succeeded in his quest, God made a ball out of the soil and then fell asleep. Satan thought this would be a good time to steal the ball of earth, but every time he touched it, it grew until the waters were displaced. With the help of animals the problem was solved by the creation of rivers and other waterways.

I've left your undos, but I'm afraid I disagree with the assessment you gave in your edit description.

---some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum

Just like Gesta Hungarorum contains a fiction stories and this two chronicles contradict to each other actually. So I think this source is untrusted source.

With regard to the origin of the Hont-Pázmány kindred the two chronicle cannot contradict to each other, because the Gesta Hungarorum written by Anonymous does not refer to the family. Otherwise, all statement in WP is to be made based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont speak "with regard to the origin of the Hunt-Poznany clan" but about the credibility of this document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Stajdl (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

All the same, all statements in WP are to be made based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I can not to agree that Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum is a reliable source, it is only a medieval document based on the oral traditions, written in 13th century, so how can it be certain document?

No, Kézai's Gesta is not a reliable source for WP purposes, I have never stated it, since it is a primary source. However, any statement on it should be made based on a reliable source, that is based on a scholarly work. Borsoka (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, you have claimed that it is reliable source, you have stated it, just look the lines up. So why can not I to add that this document is untrustworthy? And exactly the statement of Hunt - Poznan clan cloud be fiction, because no member from this clan had a german first name.

I am afraid you do not understand the meaning of reliable source for WP purposes. Please read what reliable source means. Please also read WP:OR. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thans for your suggestion and Im sorry for bothering... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Stajdl (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Some years ago neither did I understand the meaning of reliable source and OR. Wellcome to WP. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but Im stil having the same opinion on Hunt Poznan clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.61.2 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Origins of the Romanians

I saw you are removing and adding quite a lot of content in a very liberal fashion. While I am glad you are contributing, I would suggest you mark controversial content, unreferenced content etc with tags and start corresponding conversations in the talk page. Otherwise, given the nature of this article, you will only start another edit war. --Codrin.B (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Attitude towards Dacian fortresses articles

Yes, some of the Dacian fortresses articles are placeholders. As you know, I invited members such as yourself to contribute to them. And yes they lack references, but they are by no means non-notable as you marked them. None of them! You just have to google each one of them. PLENTY of articles and books. Given your recent edits, I am seriously questioning your motives and I am starting to be unable to WP:AGF. If you are not genuinely interested to contribute to WP:DACIA articles as a member, to help them grow, I am politely inviting you to leave the project. Your are pushing radical POVs and changes in way to many places at once, at is obvious what you are doing. Please stop and start a dialog. --Codrin.B (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It there are plenty of articles and books, adding some reliable sources to them will not be a problem. I am afraid it is not my task to search for reliable sources for an article I have not contributed to. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Illyricum, Apulum and Gyula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

On Editing the Origin of the Romanians article

Good job on the editing the Origin of the Romanians article. Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.134.28 (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Geto-Dacian, Agârbiciu and Canabae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Band (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

answer

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Fakirbakir's talk page.
Message added 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MAPS Fakirbakir (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Drava River (925)

Could you please take a look at page of Battle of Drava River (925), you are more experienced in medieval written sources. I cited Curta there, however I am a bit unsure with that topic. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. I try to cheque Constantine VII's work. Borsoka (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you in advance!Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bashkiria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted passage

The text Béla was one of the most powerful rulers of Hungary and he was also one of the most wealthy monarchs of Europe of his age. Béla disposed of the equivalent of 23 tonnes of pure silver per year. This exceeded the income of the French king (estimated at 17 tonnes) and was double the receipts of the English Crown is also present in the intro section here: Béla III of Hungary and here: Hungary#Medieval Hungary 895–1526 (Age of Árpádian kings paragraph)

Considering that you deleted it from Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, you may be interested to check its suitability in those article too 79.117.210.73 (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


lack of knowledge of basic Hungarian history

Have you ever went to Hungarian primary school? "Louis I could not occupy the Kingdom of Naples: is a war ending with a fiasco a success?" Louis defeated the Italian and french army mix of Johan I and occupied the city in many times. It was a military succes, but it was also strategic and political diplomatic misfurtune for Louis.

About second Mongol campaign: "defeated e a s i l y" ???- those who died during the fights are not interesting" It was defeated easily with minimal losses.

"(of course, the first Constitution in the old continent could only be written here; those barbarian Romans and their public law were nothing - komolyan, van valaki, aki ezeket komolyan gondolja???" It was the firs constitution in continental Europe.

All of this things were taught in Hungarian primary schools and history school books. It is very very strange and unbeliveable, because you stated that you were born in Hungary etc....


According to law historian Theodor Mommsen (who received Nobel prize for his monumental works on the Roman Empire) Ancent Rome hadn't any real consititions.

Your edits in Hungarian topics are worse than the edits of romanian slovak serbian banned chauvinists. Despite the serious citations and references, you try to unfold your (often false misleading and lunatic) edits as "unbiased" and "open-minded", but the same (or even worse) anti-hungarian hatred dominated your deeds as the banned chauvinist little-entente editors. I suggest to ask a wiki admin to delete your account.

  • Please feel free to take any proper action. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please react answer the question, before you try to give any suggestion for me. Have you ever went to Hungarian primary or secondary school? (I have doubts) El-em-pés barátom: hülyeségeiddel (és megalapozatlan állításaiddal) gyakran túlteszel még a kitiltott magyarellenes környező országok sovinisztáin is. Annyira alapvető dolgokat nem tudsz, hogy azokat még ált.sulis középsulis tankönyvek anyagából is cáfolni lehet.

    • Please feel free to find reliable sources supporting the statements I deleted. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You dear "deletor" should prove your statements. I remind you, that you were who deleted sentences with references. My statements are facts with sources citations. 1. Hungary was the first state in Continental Europe which had constitution. 2. The second mongol invasion was repelled easily, 3. The Italian campaigns of Louis I of Hungary were successfull in military point of view. And dear szadeszes elempés "friend", I asked a question: Have you ever went to Hungarian primary school or secondary school? Yes/No ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.20.113 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Constitution article may be edifying 79.117.151.41 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Please checque the deleted sentences again: (1) "The Golden Bull of 1222 was the first constitution in Continental Europe." - No citation was added. Otherwise the sentence is wrong because, the Golden Bull was not a constitution, it was a statute law issued by the monarch. Indeed, it became part of the "historical constitution of Hungary" (történeti alkotmány), but it was not the constitution itself. (2) "These improvements were to pay off, in 1284, when Nogai Khan attempted an invasion of the country. In that event, the invasion was defeated easily, as were a number of other minor attacks before and after." - This sentence was seemingly based on Kosztolnyik's work. However, Kosztolnyik does not write of Mongols who were "e a s i l y" defeated on the cited pages. He writes of Hungarians seeking refugee in Transdanubia, of the panic which broke out at Pest when the Mongols arrived there, of the impossibility of serious military resistance against the Mongols in the plains, and finally of the victory of the royal troops over the Mongols in the hills. (3) "Louis led successful military campaigns from Lithuania to Southern Italy and also became the King of Poland in 1370." - No citation was added. Otherwise, Louis lost the Kingdom of Naples at the end of the day. Nevertheless, please feel to add reliable sources to any of the sentences I deleted. As to you personal remarks, please understand that WP is not a forum dedicated to my life and to my views. Therefore, I will not discuss them here. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Kedves gyurcsányista "merjünk kicsik lenni" elvet valló elvtárska. Nem is értem, miért nem saját néped történelmét szerkeszted a magyar nép történelme helyett?

Golden bull is considered as contitutional act, it's one of the most important act of Hungarian historic consitution. I'm a lawyer, and I can't believe that you know better that than my professors (law historians) in ELTE university. (but don't forget your fatal error with roman constitution :)))))))

The mongols led by Nogai, tried to reconquer Hungary in 1284-85, but they suffered catastrophic defeat in Hungary. You try to hide this important event. "merjünk kicsik lenni" elve Sir Henry Hoyle Howorth: History of the Mongols from the 9th to the 19th Century: Part 2 the So-Called Tartars of Russia and Central Asia , Leo de Hartog: Russia and the Mongol yoke: the history of the Russian principalities and the Golden Horde, 1221-1502

"He writes of Hungarians seeking refugee in Transdanubia" hahaha, he wrote about only peasants. Peasants have always try to sseking in wartime. (ezt nevezik CSÚSZTATÁSnak kedves elvtárska)

"Louis lost the Kingdom of Naples at the end of the day." I suggest to read the article of Military campaign. Louis won his battles against Naples, and the Napolitan queen became a refugee. It is an other and different question that he didn't keep the conquest, but that did not belong to the category of campagn. You have serious semantic errors.

You deleted important sentences about Hungarian renassance. "Merjünk kicsik lenni"

Saját néped történetét talán jobban ismered, szerkesszed azt, ne a magyart. Bár annak a népnek nem volt reneszánsza, talán ez frusztrál annyira?


Your other statemet: There were not Royal cities before the 13th century. Wrong again:The legal category of Royal city (and the first royal cities) was born under the rula of Bela III in the 12th century.

"first European constitution—the Constitution of Poland of 3 May 1791" 79.117.140.222 (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to add reliable sources on the statements I deleted. Please read the sentence on Stephen III's grant of privileges to Székesfehérvár in the article (which is based on reliable source). Please try to read books before stating anything on history. Egyébként próbáld meg megérteni, hogy ez az "előbb volt nálunk reneszánsz, mint a lengyeleknél", "II András állította össze a legnagyobb keresztessereget"-mentalitás egyetlen egy dolgot bizonyít: nagyon erős frusztrációt. Én büszke vagyok Magyarország történetére, egyetlen egy más néppel szemben sem érzem kisebbrendűnek a népemet, valamint soha nem kellett saját magamat meggyőzni, hogy milyen jó, hogy magyar vagyok, ezért én annak szükségességét sem érzem, hogy egyfolytában butaságokat írjak a magyarok történetéről, amelyek arról szólnak, hogy a magyarok jobbak voltak ennél, annál, meg amannál. Természetesen elfogadom, hogy azoknak, akiknek a magyar identitása bármilyen okból bizonytalan (például nem olvastak elég könyvet, mivel Walt Disney rajzfilmeken nőttek fel), szükségük van annak erősítésére. Ugyanakkor fontosnak érzem, hogy a személyiségfejlődésük ezen korai szakaszánál se járassák le a nemzetemet az egész világ előtt egy meglehetősen óvodás megközelítéssel (az én apukám erősebb, mint a te apukád, a nagypapámnak szebb kalapja volt mint a tiednek, beeeeeee). Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Megint csúsztatások hamis analógiák "az én apukám erősebb, mint a te apukád", hol volt ilyen hasonlítgatás más népekkel a cikkben? Sehol. Másrészt mivel nem vagy jogász semmi jogi képzettséged sincs, de szerintem történész sem vagy (ilyen diolomád sincsen) nem kellene (alaptalanul) okoskodnod. Te összekevered (hiszen csak 1 laikus vagy) az íratlan és írott (kartális) alkotmány fogalmát. Azí íratlan alkotmány nevével ellentétben nem azt jelenti hogy nincs leírva, hanem több törvény un. "sarkalatos törvényekben" van lefektetve. A kartális alkotmány pedig összegyűjtött egy oklevében kiállított jogi norma. Laikus barátom, ha már a joghoz nem értesz mert neked (ahogy írásaidból látni magas) olvashatnál a témában: Mezey Barna: Magyar jogtörténet. Ez a bevett elfogadott könyv a magyarországi jogi karokon. akademikus tudósok lektorálták ellenőrízték. Nyilván te jobban akarod tudni mint ők... Bér semmiféle vizsgát nem tettél jogtörténetből. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.20.113 (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Esküszöm, te vagy az egyik legszórakoztatóbb editor, akivel valaha találkoztam a WP-n, pedig már néhány típussal összehozott a sors. De most már nincs kedvem ezt folytatni. Ha van forrás, használd, ha nincs, keress. Jó munkát! Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


http://konyvar.hu/mezey-barna/magyar-alkotmanytortenet/ Ez is jogi egyetemeken tankönyv, kedves tanulatlan alacsony származású (szakmunkás szakközepes) szülőktől származó egyszerű barátom: Mezei Barna: Magyar alkotmánytörténet.

Te képtelen vagy elfogadni hogy vesztettél. Nekem érveim referenciáim hivatkozásaim vannak, neked csak az üres oktalan ellenkezés. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.20.113 (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Stubes99, you are a little too cheeky with Borsoka, considering that you are a banned user. Be grateful that Borsoka makes the effort to answer to your sock ip messages 79.117.163.53 (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Said by banned Iaaasi... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.20.113 (talk) 13:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arad and Split (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal question

Considering that you are editing mostly Transylvania-related articles, I am curious if you live or lived in Romania and if you speak Romanian language. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. Thanks in advance 79.117.204.58 (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, but I think that WP is not dedicated to private chats. Just one remark, you may have the impression that I concentrate on Transylvania-related articles, but in fact, as far as I can remember, I mainly contribute to articles connected to the medieval history of Central Europe. Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

primary sources vs modern names

I found an interesting source about "Principality of Hungary" what states that the Jewish statesman Hasdai ibn Shaprut around 960 called the polity "the land of the Hungrin". I have already inserted this info to the article ( though my only concern is I found it only in sources about Jewish people (as Raphael Patai, The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology, Wayne State University Press, 1996, p. 29, ISBN 978-0814325612, I have not found Hungarian sources about that name yet). I know you were not too satisfied with the name of the article because you prefer to use names what were used in primary sources. (as you also did not like the name "Principality of Nitra" because of the same reason). What do you suggest? What name would be suitable for page of "Principality of Hungary"? On the other hand Hungarian historiography likes to use "Magyar Nagyfejedelemség" or "Fejedelemség kora" ("the age of principality", as you see it there is an MTA source about it in the introduction). Moreover contemporary Byzantine sources preferred the "Tourkia" term. Thank you for your answer in advance! Fakirbakir (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really do not know what is the best solution. For me, the form "principality of Hungary" suggests a state, although no real state existed before Stephen I (or Géza). However, for the time being, I am uncertain what would be the proper form. Borsoka (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

South vs North Transylvania

According to this phd [1], there is a significant time difference in connection with first appearance of stable Hungarian settlements between South and North Transylvania. Moreover the directions of the colonization are also different. North Transylvania had stable Hungarian population after 900 as opposed to the valley of river Mures where archaelogocial findings can not prove Hungarian control before 950. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I know, there is a contrast between the regions around the salt mines (where the presence of Hungarian soldiers can be assumed from around 900) on the one hand, and the southern region (where their earliest cemeteries are dated to the second half of the same century). Similar evaluation can be read in Kristó's "Early Transylvania". Even Romanian researchers admit the presence of Hungarians around the salt mines (see Alexandru Madgearu's works on this topic), but they add later dates (because their Romanian voivodes must have been defeated before their principalities were occupied, and a Romanian voivode can only be defeated after a twenty- or fifty-year-long war :)). All the same, it is an interesting topic. Similarly interesting is the question of early medieval fortresses (made of earth and timber) which are attributed to Gelou and his friends by Romanian archaeologists (although none of them can be dated before the 930s). Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Foundation of Moldavia

Edits that are unsourced are "unsourced edits" and maybe original research, but that doesn't make them vandalism. See WP:VANDAL, which explains that only edits that are designed to undermine Wikipedia are called vandalism, and calling good faith but otherwise improper edits "vandalism" is uncivil. It looks like there is an edit war going on, and ramping it up with those kinds of remarks doesn't help and can make the situation worse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladislaus V of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Borsoka/Archive_5"