User talk:Borsoka/Archive 1

Noticeboard
Hi and welcome. I wonder if you are a Hungarian (judging by your contributions, it seems likely) – in that case, you could watchlist Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to add a note there whenever you need help with something Hungary-related. Thanks a lot for your contributions. Cheers, KissL 11:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged Archidiocese of Veszprém into Archdiocese of Veszprém
Hey Borsoka, I've merged two pages you've created since they were duplicate. If you want people to find one page by the name of another you can use redirects, specifically Template:R from misspelling. Anyway, have fun editing Wikipedia! -- StevenDH (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record: Archdiocese of Veszprém moved to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Veszprém, so I changed the redirect target of Archidiocese of Veszprém. Just in case anybody would be confused or so... -- StevenDH (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent articles on the Roman Catholic dioceses in Hungary. I've updated and incorporated them along with others. Thank you very much. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia
Hi, regarding this edit. Could you please provide source? You did not provide any. Which primary source do you mean? At least that edit is badly formatted please correct it and add a reliable source for that citation. For example which book did you use?  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the primary source is Emperor Constantin's De Administrando Imperio. If you think that it is not reliable, please delete the first sentence of the section.Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Slovakia
Please stop inserting inaccurate information and removing sourced information. For sources, see:, .--Svetovid (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, Svetovid is under editing restrictions and should not have reverted you. He also should not have referred to your edit as "vandalism", and for what it's worth, I apologize about that.  Svetovid's account access has been blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
Hi Borsoka, we are currently discussing some disputed issues around articles related to Hungarian-Slovak relations. You are welcome to join in, at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --Elonka 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottokár Prohászka
Hi, in your vote in the proposed naming convention poll you commented that it may not work in e.g. the Ottokár Prohászka article. According to the current proposal, his birth town would be rendered as "Nyitra (Nitra)", since he was born before 1918, and I suppose he was Hungarian (was he?). If he wasn't clearly Hungarian, it could be "Nyitra (Nitra)" or "Nitra (Nyitra)".

But, there are several proposed modifications to the proposal, tagged "A", "B", etc., see under "discussion". If you like, you can comment on these modifications. I think I'll rewrite the poll to a vote about the modifications one of these days. Markussep Talk 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

His name is clearly not Hungarian, he was born in a city predominantly inhabited by Slovaks, and he became the Bishop of Székesfehérvár. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Nicolas Sarkozy hungarian? No, he is French, despite his hungarian name. Was Ottokár Prohászka slovak? No, he was hungarian, a hungarian bishop, a hungarian politician as well, he created the idea of "hungarism" so he was hungarian. And in Nyitra hungarians were in majority at this time. Slovak people think, that everybody is slovak who has slovak or czech name. I'm sorry, but you are not right. Toroko (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pribina
Hi, did you edit this article as an anon with IPs and ?--Svetovid (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Borsoka, could you please explain this edit? You removed what appear to be valid sources from the article, but without giving reasoning for it at the talkpage. We've been working hard lately to reduce these kinds of actions.  In the future, please be careful that whenever you make a controversial edit, that you discuss it at talk.  And be very careful about removing references.   If you cannot provide excellent reasons for why those references are inappropriate, they should be put back right away. --Elonka 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka. Thank you for your note. My concern is that if we refer to a primary source (i.e., to the "Conversio") in the article, we should clearly distinguish between the facts described in the source (i.e., "a certain Priwina" had a possession in Nitrava and he was expelled by Duke Moimir) and their interpretation (e.g., Pribina was the prince of the Principality of Nitrava, where he had a court). Otherwise, we would mislead all the readers of the article who could think that the cited primary source covers all the facts described in the article. If my concern is valid, I am sure we could find a proper way to distinguish between documented facts and their interpretation. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you edit the article History of Slovakia as an anon IP ?--Svetovid (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did. Sorry I forgot to log in. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

--Elonka 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia
Dear Borsoka, thank you very much for your contributions to Great Moravia. I think we have done a lot of work there and the article seems to be more or less stable now. I am happy that our different sources of information did not cause an edit war, but, instead, lead to fruitful collaboration. I believe insistence on citing reliable academic sources and the efficient (and civil) use of the article's talk page made the trick. I hope other editors writing about the Hungarian and Slovak history will learn from our example. It has been a pleasure to work with you. Tankred (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Userpage
Borsoka, would you be willing to create a userpage, at User:Borsoka? I find that it's something that can help increase trust in confrontational situations. Or is there a reason that you would not like to create one? --Elonka 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations
The best way to make sure your changes remain in the article is to add inline citations for every sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:vandalism
Hi Borsoka - I'm sorry about mistaking your edit for vandalism. Please continue with your contributions, Vishnava talk 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re
Hi. Unfortunately I have little time on my hands right now and I'll be quite busy untill the end of August I don't have time to complete a re-organization of the Origins... article. Should you create a subpage to your talk page and start sketching it I may drop from time to time to add stuff. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I tried to send you a message, but you do not have an email address. For the time being, I do not have much time, but we could begin the article. Let's try how it can work, I hope that we can agree on the wording. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Először is 18 vagyok. 2. MIÓTA VOLT SZLOVÁK NEMES???? A CSÁK NEMZETSÉG ELŐDIG MEGY VISSZA!!!!!!!!4 Mi a faszom hogy slovak nobility??, NINCS NEM LÉTEZETT!!! Nem volt nemességük, egy szarházi irigy pásztor nép a legyenelek, rutének és csehek meg német meg persze magyarok keverékei......én csak az igazságot raktam be. és az tény h a honfoglalók hozták be az a kép bizonyítja MIRŐL BESZÉLSZ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aztán a Cseszneky név is eléggé "szlovák".........attól hogy abban a még nem tót helyen uralkodott pl Csák Máté SEMMI KÖZE A SZLOVÁKOKHOZ!!! KIK ŐK???????? HAMISÍTJÁK ITT A TÖRTÉNELEMET VÉGIG.........

Aztán Mátyás Király és román (félig) MI HE????????, Az ilyen hazugságokkal kellene foglalkoznod NEM PEDIG VELEM, aki kiszed tót soviniszta baromságokat............

Üdvözletem.......

The problem
I understand now what the problem was but don't worry about it I'll fix it. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Üdv. Mi a fenének írod vissza Csákhoz, hogy history of slovakia??? Akkor még alig ovltak szlávok, semmi közük nincs hozzá. Tehet arról az a szerencsétlen Csák, hogy 600 évvel később ellopták a földjét a tetves tótok??????? Magyar Királyság olyan volt, de szlovákia sosem volt, se önálló szlovák nemzeti öntudat, csak 48 tól, az is az osztrákok nymására... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I will do my best to contribute. Whatever contributions I will make actually concern the early kingdom, the Legend of St. Gerald and so on. Concerning extremists, let's not talk about that. I've had my share when editing protochronism related articles on ro.wiki. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Maybe we should improve the article on the Gesta before moving to anything else. I also think you should be carefull when making general appreciations of the chronicle. Several aspects of the Gesta are considered quite accurate: the Achtum (Ajtony) episode, for example. The whole story about the descendents of Tuhtum rulling as gyulas in Transylvania, one of which converted to orthodoxy is at least partly confirmed by Byzantine sources and it is descifered in one manner or another even by Hungarian historians. In fact the one part which is completely, firmly and utterly rejected by Hungarian historians is the one concerning the dutchies of Menumorout and Gelou (particularly the latter). In fact, in his Early Transylvania (895-1324) recently translated in Romanian by Imre Paska, Kristo Gyula states that what Anonymus says about the Hungarians themselves can, in general manner, be taken into consideration.

Oh, and yes, one of my ... enthusiast compatriots has been going throug the Korochun article, please take a look. From my point, reverting to the ante-quo article is the best solution. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress material
You removed the nice summary of the Library of Congress, but left there material regarding the same topic, but based on weaker and/or less neutral sources. Squash Racket (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine. You add enough inline citations from reliable sources when writing articles. Please also focus on adding English language references too whenever possible. These are easier to verify for those who don't speak Hungarian. Squash Racket (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)