User talk:Borsoka/Archive 10

Please comment on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael Szilágyi
Helló! Nincs kedved valamikor újraírni ezt a szócikket, akár oly módon, hogy később GA státuszt kaphasson? Lehet, így elkerülhető lehetne az évek óta tartó vandalizálás a különböző fiktív rokoni kapcsolatokról. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * De, már gondolkodtam rajta. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Romanian language
Szia,

valaki nemrég beeditálta - úgy néz ki a saját forrását és eléggé univerzális dolgokat állított arról hogy mely teóriát hogyan is döntötte meg...tele angol hibával és eléggé furcsán kihirdetett "tényekkel". Kicsit finomítottam a dolgon és próbáltam rendberakni, de nekem nem rémlik hogy a Roessler teória azt állítja fixre hogy olyan románok vándoroltak volna be Dunáról északra szükségszerűen, akik biztosan korábban a Dáciai római kolónusok leszármazottja lett volna....kérlek nézz rá hogy ez így rendben van-e, vagy még van-e rajta alakítani való...(mondjuk magunk között szólva, attól hogy a szláv szubsztrátum egyidejűleg később befolyásolta volna a közös román-albán szókincset, abszolút nem következik az hogy a románok őseinek szükségszerűen Dáciából kellett volna lejönniük a Balkánra, sőt, pontosan azt mutathatja hogy eleve a Balkánon, később alakult ki a román nemzet és nem korábban ahogy azt propagálni szeretnék., Te is nézz rá légyszi. Köszönöm.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Ok. Semmi olyat nem állított Roesler, hogy dákorománok össze-vissza vándoroltak volna. Miután az Észak-Balkán 5-600 évig római/kelet-római uralom alatt volt, latin köznyelvvel, nem nagyon volt szükség dákorománokra ahhoz, hogy kialakuljon egy újlatin nyelv. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Köszi, akkor örülök hogy szokás szerint jól rémlett a dolog...akkor viszont a cikket javítani kell, mert a self-published illető konikrétan azt állítja hogy megcáfolta generálisan azt a Roessler teóriát, ami azt asszertálja, hogy a románok Dáciából lejöttek, majd ezer év után visszatértek és az Ázsiából jövő magyarok emiatt állítják azt hogy egy elsőként érkeztek Dácia üres területére (mondjuk ez utóbbi sem így van, hiszen a szlávok részleges jelenléte pl. elfogadott általában)...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Kedves, KIENGIR es Borsoka. Tenyleg at kellene nezni az oldalt. Ki peldaul ez a Cristian Mihail? Mert a megadott forrast nem igazan tudom leellenorni (Cristian Mihail, idem, sec. ed. 2015, p.123). A Romanian language oldala mellett, Mihail megallapitasai megtalalhatoak a History of Romania oldalan is. A szoveg stilusa alapjan nem hiszem, hogy specialistarol beszelunk. ("The Roeslerian Theory propagates", "over the Hungarians (coming from Asia)", "Moreover, the Roeslerian (imigratory) Theory, is annihilated because" etc ) . Ennyit talaltam rola, de szamomra eleg gyanus ez a Cristian, meg az o "kutatasi eredmenyei" a megfogalmazasok alapjan. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Igen, ez a rész egy nagy rakás lókupac. Az egészet le kellene rövidíteni, hiszen van egy külön szócikk a nyelv történetéről, ezért nem szükség nagyon hosszan írni róla ebben a szócikkben. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir, Borsoka, ismét várok 3 napot, ha addig nincs változás, minimum ugyanarra az állapotra hozom a history of romania releváns részt, mint a szóban forgó cikknél tettem. A cikk teljes átnézését részemről sajnos most azonnal nem tudom megtenni, de mindent feljegyzek átnézésre amit kell és időm erőm szerint haladok. Az illető Úr ráadásul ebben a szócikkben bármiféle finomítás nélkül úgy fogalmaz, hogy mindent ellenbizonyított és annihilált, ami eléggé durva és inkább szenvedélyes. Továbbá, még a Kézai ügyben tartozom egy kis helyesbítéssel más ügyben, mivel most utánanéztem eredetiben:


 * Azért írtam Chronicum Hungaricum-ot, mert mintha ez lenne Kézai Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum címlapján, és ez keveredhetett tévedésből a Chronicum Pictummal is...úgyhogy most utánéztem, Kézai egy és ugyanazon munkában, a Gesta Hunnorum és Hugarorumban különbözteti meg a blakokat és a vlachokat. A IV. fejezet 6§-ában van az írás átvételéről való tudósítás, ahol a "Blackis"-t említi. Néhány sorral lejjebb, a következő, 7§-ban a magyar fordítás ez:


 * "Miután pedig Ethele fiai a krimhildi csatában csak hogy nem mind elvesztek, Pannonia tiz esztendeig király nélkűl vala, csak jövevény szlávok, görögök, németek, morvák és oláhok maradván benne, kik Ethele életében neki köznépi szolgálattal szolgálnak vala."


 * -> Megnéztem az eredeti latint, és ebben a mondatban szerepel az "Ulahis", ami egyébként sem feltétlenül románokra utal, hanem Attila idejében bármilyen posztrómai vulgáris latint beszélő, vagy akár kelta ősiségű elemre utalhat. A félreértésözön onnan indult el, hogy 1682-ban Szabó Károly már mind a két terminust "oláh"-nak fordította. Pais Dezső gesta fordításának előszavában is hangsúlyozta hogy a kettő nem ugyanaz, de ezt később kihagyták már a kiadásokból. Úgyhogy emiatt sem bagatellizálnám el a kérdést, tudva azt hogy a források többsége vagy nem törődött ezzel, vagy elnézte, vagy eleve rossz fordításból dolgozott. Még én is csak egy forrást találtam, rá Fakirbakir meg nagynehezen a netről vadászott mégegyet...persze hogy a dákoromanizmus hívei hallani sem akarnak erről...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Coloman, King of Hungary

 * Thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Bolesław III Wrymouth
Borsoka, I just happened to come across the article on Bolesław III Wrymouth. I may be wrong, but isn't the article a little long? Also, I don't understand the inclusion of so much information on the date of death of his mother in the section Bolesław III Wrymouth. Is this another article you might like to improve? – Corinne (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Yes, I agree that the article (including the section you mentioned above) is too detailed. For instance, the last four sections are quite unusual in an article dedicated to the biography of a monarch. I would be happy to edit it, but I cannot read the cited Polish and German books. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Do you know any editor who can read the sources? Shall we copy this discussion to the article's talk page or post a separate comment there? Is there an appropriate tag we can place at the beginning of the article? – Corinne (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think User:Piotrus is from Poland. I think the Talk page of the article is the best place to initiate a discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't have time or will these days to help with that, at least not as far as helping to rewrite the article. I could help with a short quote, or looking up few pieces of specific info. You could try to ask at Wikiepdia:WikiProject Poland talk page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:William McKinley
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William McKinley. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Suckpuppetry and vandalism
Borsoka, changing from time to time your edits on the same subject shows you are a suckpuppet. Borsoka will be investigated for association in order to control in a nationalistic way other nation's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.176.216 (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , please do not refrain from initiating any investigations against me. I understand that your humiliating experiences as an banned editor's "suckpuppet" disturbed you, but you should not assume that all editors are willing to act as a "suckpuppet" as you did. Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I can testify Boroska is a nationalistic suckpuppet too. He is a deceiving snake. Boroska makes Wikipedia a total joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.99.76 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, do not hesitate to report me. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund Báthory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund Ernuszt
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund Ernuszt 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Andrew II of Hungary
Mi a... kellett magadat belemontírozni az Andrew II of Hungary lap szerkesztésébe, miközben még én is szerkesztettem az őstáblát a lapon? Olyan fontos volt azt a vacak és totálisan értelmetlen citation needed linket odabiggyeszetni? Mindennek csak az lett a haszna, hogy létrejött egy szerkesztési konfliktus, én meg a saját szerkesztésem helyett a tiédet mentettem el és így aztán fél napi munkám ment a kukába, mialatt az őstábla kiegészítésével bajlódtam. Most aztán kezdhetem elölről az egészet, ha lesz egyáltalán hozzá kedvem, amit nagyon szépen köszönök. A hivatkozásra (citation) meg egyrészt semmi szükség, mert magukra a linkekre kattintva is ellenőrizhető, hogy az adatok helyesek (amihez neked úgy látszik, hogy még külön kioktatásra is szükséged van), másrészt meg én magam is genealógus vagyok (amit rólad nem hiszem, hogy el lehet mondani) és ezért még tudom is hogy mit csinálok, sőt még szakszerűen is csinálom. Egyébként hogy telnek a napjaid itt a Wikipédián? Szerkesztesz is saját cikkeket vagy csak itt lebzselsz, arra várva, hogy valami új cikkre lecsaphass a tökéletesen inkompetens fabrikátumaiddal? Az a gyanúm, hogy az utóbbi eset az érvényes, mert korábban ezt már velem is eljátszottad. Az ilyen ténykedésnek pedig a wiki szempontjából nem sok az értelme. Ha ez nem megy, legalább azt szeretném kérni, hogy a jövőben nagy ívben került el a szerkesztéseimet, különben tényleg kiérdemled a korábbi jelző szuperlatívuszát. --Szegedi László (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mielőtt megüt a guta, olvasgasd és alkalmazd a következő politikát: WP:NOR. Ha valamilyen információt nem tudsz hivatkozással alátámasztani, az törölve lesz. Ha egy tábla szerkesztése fél napodat veszi igénybe, javasolom, foglalkozz valami mással. Borsoka (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Milyen információt te szuperlatívusz??? Rá tudsz kattintani egy ostoba linkre? Ha igen akkor összeadhatod, hogy 1+1=2, vagyis ha valakinek az apja ez meg ez, az anyja meg ez meg ez, és ráadásul ez még a Wikipédián is ott van az orrod előtt (ha rákattintasz a linkre), akkor milyen "citation needed" szükségeltetik még itt??? Kérdem én??? Kell itt idézgetni, meg valamit alátámasztgatni??? Neked lehet, hogy ilyenre még ezek után is szükséged van, amihez gratulálok. Akkor meg miért nem tetted oda a sablont az őstábla minden egyes olyan neve mellé, amit korábban valaki más szerkesztett? Számodra talán azokat is alá kellene támasztani idézetekkel. Egyébként van még bőven ehhez hasonló őstábla a wikin. Azokat is szépen fel lehet cimkézni. Nyugodtan foglalkozz tehát mások munkájának a romba döntésével, ha máshoz úgysem értesz. Én meg ugyanolyan nyugodtan foglalkozom a nekem tetsző őstábla (nem pedig "tábla") szerkesztésével, akár fél napot is, ha úgy tartja a kedvem. Ha fél napot vesz igénybe, akkor annyit fordítok rá. Ebből is látszik, hogy nekem még ehhez is van türelmem és nemcsak mindenféle összecsapott információval dolgozom, hanem ellenőrzöm is a forrásaimat, mindenféle "citation needed" nélkül is. Ha ugyanis én valamit felteszek a wikire, az valóban hiteles, mert én olyasmivel foglalkozom, amihez értek is, amit nem lehet mindenkiről elmondani.--Szegedi László (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nem akarlak elkeseríteni, de a fél napos munkád semmit sem fog érni, mert, összhangban a hivatkozott WP politikával, törölni fogom az összes olyan információt, amelyet nem tudsz megfelelő hivatkozással alátámasztani. Nyilvánvalóan nem tudod, de a WP szócikkei nem minősülnek megbízható forrásnak a WP szempontjából, ezért felesleges ide-oda kattintgatni. Ha pedig vannak forrásaid, nincs más teendőd, mint hivatkozni rájuk. Borsoka (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Én meg majd felhívom a figyelmét valaki másnak a túlbuzgó ténykedésedre, meg arra, hogy gyenge vagy elemi matematikából.--Szegedi László (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Még egyszer felhívom a figyelmed arra, hogy használj megbízható forrásokat szerkesztés közben, emert ennek hiányában előbb-utóbb minden szerkesztésed törölve lesz. Egyébként nyilvánvaló, hogy a veled folytatott kommunikáció felesleges időtöltés, úgyhogy abbahagyom. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Veled is fölösleges, mert én meg csak hiteles forrásokkal dolgozom, ami meg nyilvánvaló, ezért semmi sem lesz törölve.--Szegedi László (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Laszlo, Andrew II of Hungary oldala "good article" statusban van, kar probalkozni rendes forrasmegjeloles nelkul. Ha nem tudnad nem kis munka volt Borsoka reszerol a kozepkori magyar tortenelemmel foglalkozo oldalak tobbsegenek letrehozasa/felfejlesztese itt az angol Wikin. Inkabb koszonetet kellene mondanod neki ezert az irdatlan mennyisegu munkaert. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Kaliman I of Bulgaria, Peter II of Bulgaria
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.(talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , please try to be serious and remember that you have broken the three revert rule. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund Báthory
The article Sigismund Báthory you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sigismund Báthory 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad links fixed by Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * and, thank you for your messages. Could you inform me about the reasons of the failure of the nomination? On the relevant pages, I do not see any reasoning. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Legobot made that edit, not me. I haven't even really started to review your article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hahót
Szia! A segítségedet szeretném kérni. Az elmúlt hetekben a Hahót (vagy Buzád) nemzetség jelentős és kevésbé jelentős tagjainak szócikkeit készítettem el. Ha jól emlékszem korábbi szerkesztéseid okán, a birtokodban van a Képes Krónika angol fordítása. A műben egy fejezet a Hahót (ott: Buzád) nemzetségről szól. Nagy kérés lenne, ha a Hahold I Hahót (a nemzetség őse) szócikkben közzéteszed ezt a részt idézet-sablonnal? Nekem a KK megvan magyarul, de ha már van "hivatalos" angol fordítás, jó lenne azt használni. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Remélem, eltaláltam, melyik részre gondoltál. Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Igen, erre gondoltam, nagyon szépen köszönöm! --Norden1990 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund Ernuszt
The article Sigismund Ernuszt 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:Sigismund Ernuszt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Operation Léa
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Léa. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sigismund Ernuszt
The article Sigismund Ernuszt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sigismund Ernuszt 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Came here to thank you for help
Greetings.

Thank you for not starting a pointless edit-war and correcting my English. Despite living in another country, I'm a Magyar too :)

Have a good day friend.HiddenUserNameisTaken (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Kérdés
Szia,

pontosan melyik krónikára gondoltál, amit Torda talk-page-n említettél? Csak kiváncsi vagyok...Üdv(KIENGIR (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC))
 * Legalább kettő van. Az egyik a Cantacuzino Chronicle, amely arról, szól, hogy a románok Szörénynél keltek át a Dunán, mielőtt egy részük Magyarországon ("magyar földön") telepedett volna le. A másik a Moldo-Russian Chronicle, amelyik azt meséli el, hogy a magyar "László király" (akit általában IV. Lászlóként azonosítanak) hívta be a máramarosi románok őseit. Más krónikák azt mondják, hogy a románokat "László király" sógora, a bizánci császár küldte Magyarországra, mert meg akart szabadulni a birodalmában lévő gonosztevőktől. Végül még a 18. században is azt mondták a románokról, hogy "jöttmentek", akiket csak "a közjólét kedvéért" engedtek be Erdélybe - ez ellen tiltakozott a "Supplex Libellus Valachorum", mondván, hogy valójában a románok az őslakosok. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nagyon köszönöm, én meg úgy tudom a Lászlósat hogy a bizánci császár az ő kérésére küldi a Vlachokat az Ibar folyó mellől a tatárok ellen, de mivel nem akartak hazamenni, a király Máramarosba telepítette őket. Az első kimaradt, úgyhogy jó hogy megkérdeztem.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of Bohemond IV of Antioch
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bohemond IV of Antioch 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael I of Wallachia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael I of Wallachia 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Bohemond IV of Antioch
Also, I placed this article within "Royalty and nobility" at Good articles/History, because I wasn't sure the subject qualified as a monarch. If you think the article should be placed within "Monarchy" instead, feel free to change my placement. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bohemond IV of Antioch
The article Bohemond IV of Antioch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew Báthory
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Justice Mission
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael I of Wallachia
The article Michael I of Wallachia 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:Michael I of Wallachia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael I of Wallachia
The article Michael I of Wallachia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michael I of Wallachia 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
I found one last thing - as soon as you get it adjusted I will complete my Review. Shearonink (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew Báthory
The article Andrew Báthory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Andrew Báthory
Hello! Your submission of Andrew Báthory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Monument of States
Would you be available to come back and finish the review on Template:Did you know nominations/Monument of States? — Maile (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Báthory
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Tnank you for your message and kind words. Have a nice day. And I am grateful to the members of the WP:Guild of copyeditors, because without their assistance I had almost no chance to promote articles to GA status. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Listen up moron
Do you really have a problem with the "| 900 || || || A German bound collection of maps from 1826 shows a map from the year 900 that contains the words "Wahalen oder Rumumy" and presents five statal unions on the territory which stretched from Pannonia to the Dnieper river. " reference, or are you just some jealous hungarian that does not want to face the reality that the above statement is true?


 * Please read WP:Source. The source verify the above claim is not a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Go back to your own country if you don't like Romanian hospitality.


 * I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, with regards to Movses Khorenatsi, I was merely translating information from the Romanian version of this article, which, also, did not have a citation. You should have provided a link to verify your claim, not just state it, regardless of how true or false it was.

Until you have proof that the above did not exist, do NOT remove it. That is Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:FD9E:B7DC:64E3:8CB2 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In mainstream scholarship is it a well-known fact, that deceased scholars rarely write geographies. The 5th-century Khorenatsi was not exceptional: he did not write of 9th-century states in present-day Romania. If you read modern literature, you will also find that the reference to the "Balak country" can be found in works written in the "first centuries of the second millenium" . Please also read WP:Verification - editors who write something are required to verify it. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I can testify too that Boroska is a Hungarian Nationalist bastard. Nothing he says can be trusted. He makes Wikipedia a cesspool of false information to serve his Hungarian Nationalistic agenda.
 * If my understanding is correct, you say that deceased scholars sometimes write their thoughts. Interesting. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also
Why is it that you have a problem with: "| 610-641 || || || During the reign of Heraclius, refugees from the Danube regions, Pannonia, Dacia, and Dardania sought safety in Thessalonica. "?

No primary source? Really? Since when does everything that doesn't have a primary source get taken off of Wikipedia?

Isn't that one of the points of the citation needed tag?

A primary source will most likely be found in the future, as, this article has barely started to become good, as, before I started working on it, there was pretty much NOTHING here.

A bit more respect for Romanian history please.

Or are you jealous that someone is finally compiling a timeline of it so as to dispel hungarian lies about Romanian's lack of rights to be there?

Read your own history. It isn't Romanians that migrated to Europe from Asia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:FD9E:B7DC:64E3:8CB2 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please try to remain civil. Yes, you are right, Romanians did not come form Asia. They migrated from the Balkans to Central Europe. Please read WP:Sources: we should verify all claims we want to present in WP. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Szörényi Bánság
Hi, (I'll speak English as per admin agreement :) ), I checked in more places, and "Szörényi Bánság" with capital initial is the proper name, not with little "s". Please explain what is the reason for using "szörényi bánság", instead of "Szörényi Bánság", since this is name on an entity, not necessarily a deminuitive form of a location, where the "i" suffix would elimninate the capital. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Korai magyar történeti lexikon. As far as I know, it was never the official name of a political entity. It is an artificial form. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've found an interesting book recently, I don't know if you know this work: . Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Yes. It is little bit out of date. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Michael I of Wallachia
&mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy-edit of Count of the Székelys

 * , thank you for your comprehensive and thorough copyedit. I highly appreciate your hard work and I am really grateful, because I will be soon able to nominate the article to GA. I would only like to ask you to rethink the use of two expressions in the article (vassal and tenants-in-chief), because none of them could be verified by reliable sources. The counts were not vassals (that is they did not receive a land grant in exchange for an obligation to provide military services to their lords), but they were royal officials who enjoyed certain revenues. The position of the counts of the Székelys in Hungary was not similar to the status of the counts of Anjou, Champagne, Toulouse in France. The latter held large domains and their sons inherited their domains when they died. However, the counts of the Székelys could dismissed any time by the monarch and their sons were never entitled to success them in the office. I also made a change here: . I would like to say that the process of unification lasted for decades: first one of the two or three counts was also one of the two or three voivodes, later the voivodes were costumarily also made counts, and finally always the voivode was made count. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're of course welcome to change such terms back, especially if supported by sources. I was mainly objecting to the term "directly subjected", which I changed to "direct subjects", and then evidently went too far in equating the counts' position with medieval tenantry. Do your sources actually use the original wording that I found clumsy? My Britannica, under "Transylvania"—which should closely follow the wording of the 11th edition, which is online—characterizes both the Saxons and the "Szeklers" as "free, self-governing communities under the king", but doesn't mention the counts as leaders of the Szeklers. That was just about all I had to consult, since most if not all your citations are for offline sources. So I was guessing, perhaps too much. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above message. I modified both sentences: and.

DYK for Sigismund Báthory
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vlad II Dracul
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vlad II Dracul 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 SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vlad II Dracul
The article Vlad II Dracul 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:Vlad II Dracul for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fucking, Austria
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fucking, Austria. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vlad II Dracul
The article Vlad II Dracul you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vlad II Dracul 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 SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catalan Countries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminding me the anniversary. Have a nice year! :) Borsoka (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edict of Torda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Sigismund and University of Prague. 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) 10:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop vandalising Romanian pages
Your Wikipedia page says you strive to maintain neutrality on this site. But instead of maintaining neutrality, you delete historical content of Romanian pages, just because you are Hungarian. No wonder other people have already told you such things (ex. Listen up you moron). I don't care if you hate Romania, just stay away from our pages that have nothing to do with you. If you consider Moldavia a historical region of Hungary, then go ahead and write this on Hungarian pages. But stay away from OUR pages. Maintain neutrality, don't vandalise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueMapper (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not hate Romanian people. I will not stay away from any pages. Please read and apply WP:Civility. Please also use the article Talk page and provide reliable sources to verify your claims when editing an article as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's cristal clear you hate on them. Why are you not editing other pages like Ukraine? You only care about Romania. As I said, historical region doesn't mean it is part of the country. I made two categories FOR YOU, so that you stop editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueMapper (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) No, I do not hate anybody. (2) I sometimes edit pages about Ukraine. (3) Please try to find reliable sources to verify your edits as per WP:NOR. (4) Please stop edit warring because it may have serious consequences for you. Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

It's easily recognisable that you hate on them, but we'll just let it go. My question is what's your problem? Why did you delete my edits even after I ADDED SOURCES? Anyway, for many of these regions, it is KNOWN anyway that they have to do with Romania and they are historical regions, but still, I've added sources so that you stop deleting my edits that say nothing more than the truth. They're all regions that were part of Romania (or Romanian countries) or had/have a Romanian population. Yet even with the sources you delete them. "' Why? "' TheBlueMapper (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

You know what? I will just create a new Wikipedia page called "regions that have to do with Romania, but were not part of Romania", like there is on the Romanian wikipedia. If I do it like this, there will be no reason for you to also remove them from there. BUT, you will have to let me add Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, Southern Dobruja, Transnistria and Hertza to the historical regions' page, because they were all part of Romania, so you can't say that THEY are not historical regions of Romania. I will of course add sources for every region. Is it ok like this? Can we end it? TheBlueMapper (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) You did not provide references to reliables sources, because Wikipedia articles and their clones are not regarded as such for Wikipedia purposes . (2) If you found reliable sources which verify that the subject "regions that have to do with Romania, but were not part of Romania" is notable, you could create such an article. I suggest you should read basic Wikipedia policies, including WP:Notability before creating articles, because an article which does not meet the criteria of notability will be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I will do it then. But, as I said, Bessarabia, N. Bukovina, S. Dobruja, Hertza and Transnistria will then have to be added to the historical regions' page. I will of course add references for all of them. TheBlueMapper (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is not a single piece of information that should be added to any article if that piece of information cannot be verified. Please understand, WP cannot be edited based on un baseless irredentist claims. Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I can testify too that Boroska is a Hungarian Nationalist bastard. Nothing he says can be trusted. He makes Wikipedia a cesspool of false information to serve his Hungarian Nationalistic agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.99.76 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot. If you could, you should report me on the relevant page which is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you for your kind words. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

House of Ilok
I have reverted all the changes you did to Ilok/Iločki/Újlaki family. Please do not move pages without discussion or consensus. The reason why these pages are named the way they are (English language) is exactly for the reason to avoid dispute in naming. Do not create disputes where there aren't any. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Before reverting changes, please read WP:Name. Please also take into account the following list: . Borsoka (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am going to ask you again...discuss first...do not move pages and do not rename them...it borders of WP:OR. If you want to move it then ask for a WP:3O. Follow procedure please...you understand that I do not agree with your move until we get a full discussion? Do you understand how Wikipedia works? Those articles aren't your personal property. Shokatz (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am going to ask you again: please read and apply WP:Name. An editor's personal view is rarely used as an argument when editing WP articles, as per WP:NOR. If you think that the version "House of Ilok" is more common than the form "Újlaki family" in reliable sources published in English, please list the relevant reliable sources. I agree, the article is not our personal property. That is why articles can only be edited in accordance with the rules of our community, including WP:NOR and WP:Name. Please apply them, instead of making unilateral actions. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually mate it is what you need to do. If you believe some name is prevalent in the English language then it is you who lists the sources and starts the WP:RfM process. What you did there is nothing but POV pushing and WP:OR. Shokatz (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The House of Lacković is another - and a lot worse - case, where a clearly ethnic Hungarian family appears in English wiki with their Croatian name. --Norden1990 (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "ethnic Hungarian family" when we speak about medieval noble families. You have numerous cases of these families having multiple "ethnic" identities...families like Zrinski, Zapolya, etc. In fact if we want to be completely technically correct that family in question is in fact "ethnically" German and moved to Transylvania, Hungary and Croatia...and assimilated/adopted those identities over time. Applying modern terms of "ethnic" to these families is meaningless. Shokatz (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop hating on Romania and trying to change history
So because of your xenophobic propaganda, my new page has been removed. You wanted the page to be deleted without giving any ARGUMENTS, which means you have started a war. This only made you look funny, because that's what you've told ME to do: give sources and arguments. Well, this time, YOU did NOT do it. You know VERY WELL that these regions have to do with Romania, but you are just a mad hungarian who can't accept history and thinks that Transylvania, a region that is Latin-Dacian (aka Romanian) since 106 AD, belongs to you :)))) You are so funny. What a moron. As I said, no wonder others have attacked you before. And please don't comment crap like instead of a personal attack.... You know very well why I am attacking you, idiot. I am sorry for insulting you, but you are just a troll who wants to change history. GIVE ARGUMEEEENTS!!! DON'T START AN EDIT WAR! :)))))))))))))))))))) LMAO — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueMapper (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * You should read basic policies of WP before editing. For instance, WP articles are not regarded reliable sources for WP purposes. Furthermore, if you are unable to verify the existence of the subject of "Regions that have to do with Romania, but were not part of it" with reference to academic works, the article about that subject will be deleted, as I mentioned you a couple of days ago . Please try to avoid personal attacks because you will be again banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So because of your hate towards Romania, my new page has been removed...thanks. At least on the Romanian wikipedia we know the truth and we have that page. TheBlueMapper (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm just gonna stop this pointless thing...at least I've partially won the so-called war, by managing to add regions like Bessarabia. For some reason you are still strongly against the other ones, even though you know very well they have to do with Romania...you didn't give me one single argument why they don't. TheBlueMapper (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit my Talk page. I do not need to give you a single argument. It is you who should find reliable sources to verify your claims. Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes you do...such things don't even need sources. Saying that Aromanians, Timoc Valley, Megleno-Romanians etc. don't have to do with Romania is like saying the Szekelys don't have to do with Hungarians. And sorry for attacking you like that, I was in a bad mood. TheBlueMapper (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So yeah, I see you have stopped saying anything. Anyway, I am thinking of re-creating that page and adding WP sources like books. Please, be honest and stop saying things like Vlachs don't have to do with Romania. That's the place where they migrated from, and they are Romanians, you can't say they don't have to do with Romania. As I said, it's like saying Szekelys don't have to do with Hungary. TheBlueMapper (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Before starting a new article, I suggest you should study basic WP policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:Notability. Articles which are not fully in line those guidelines will be deleted. If you need further assistance, I suggest you should seek it on a relevant project page. For instance, from members of the Romanian wikiproject. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wahhabi sack of Karbala. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

History of Transylvania
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.103.61 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, remember edits by sock puppets of banned editors are not covered by the rule that you are referring to above. If you wanted to edit WP, you should initiate the lift of your ban. Borsoka (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen III of Moldavia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stephen III of Moldavia 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 SpartaN -- SpartaN (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen III of Moldavia
The article Stephen III of Moldavia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stephen III of Moldavia 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 SpartaN -- SpartaN (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hermán
A Hahótok után ismét a segítségedre lenne szükségem. Be tudnád másolni a vitalapomra Képes Krónika angolra fordított szövegrészletét a Hermán (vagy Hermann) nemzetséget illetően? Fáradozásodat, illetve a Lackfi névmódosítást támogató szavazatodat ezúton is köszönöm. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Köszi szépen. Még egy kérésem van: valamennyit Kézai is közöl a nemzetségről. Esetleg annak az angol fordítását (Veszprémy László, ha minden igaz) is be tudnád másolni a vitalapomra? Ha minden igaz, az is csak egy sor lesz. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Köszi. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jewish diaspora. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Vice-voivode of Transylvania
Helló! A listát mindenképp befejezem (1526-ig legalábbis), de magáról a posztról szakirodalmam nincs. Ha lesz időd, nem tudnád kiegészíteni néhány mondattal a cikket (hatáskör, honor, kinevezés, vajda-alvajda viszony stb.)? Remélem, azért a Golden Bull of 1222 cikket is folytatod majd, mert az egyik legfontosabb cikk a magyar középkoron belül, és már régóta ráfért a tatarozás (ezúton is köszönöm az eddigieket). --Norden1990 (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Gratulálok a cikkhez. Igyekszem, de nyáron kevesebb időm van. Egyébként az alvajdákról tényleg nem nagyon van szakirodalom. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for openion
Article Legitimacy (criminal law) has been requested to be moved to Legitimacy (law) requesting your openion at Talk:Legitimacy_(criminal_law)

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Italy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Italy. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigismund Rákóczi
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Sigismund Rákóczi has been completed.

A couple of points:

In the Childhood section two birth dates are mentioned. In the second paragraph, this sentence appears – "Sigismund was first mentioned in his father's charter on 22 December 1550." If this is the case, it makes Trócsányi‘s assertion that Sigismund was born in 1554 wrong.

I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to put this - "Historian Zsolt Trócsányi refuted Csulyak's report, saying that Sigismund's career shows that he must have been born around 1554.[4] Philologist András Szabó emphasizes that Csulyak was a highly reliable author." - in a footnote and then combine what’s left of the first and second paragraphs into one?

Or leave it out altogether since in the Career section, it states he fought in the siege of Tokjaz in 1565, which, if Csulyak is to be believed, made him 11 years old at the time! (15 seems barely plausible.)

In the Magnate section this sentence appears: "He also employed Orthodox priests for his Rusyn serfs, although his relationship with the Orthodox bishops of Munkács was tense." Why was the relationship tense? Needs an explanation.

Also: "He announced that he wanted to renounce on 12 March 1590, but his successor, Bálint Prépostváry, was only appointed on 15 July 1591." What did he wish to renounce – was it his captaincy of the fort of Eger?

Once these minor issues are taken care of, I think the article will be in good shape.

Good luck with the GAN.

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your thorough and comprehensive copyedit, and also for your above suggestions. I modified the text. I would be grateful if you could check my edits, especially the following: and . Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome. I have had a look at these, and the other edits you have made, and they look fine. All the best.Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

idegenszerű Alföldicusok
Eloször is meg kellene határozni mit értünk "etnikai magyar" fogalma alatt.

A válasz kézenfekvo, azokat a honfoglalástól a tatárjárás idopontjáig élo emberek közösségének a leszármazottait akik már akkor anyanyelvként magyarul beszéltek. Azaz a maréknyi honfoglalók által itt talált helyi, majd a keresztény királyság tatárjárásáig megérkezett populációk magyarul beszélo elegyét. (ebbe tehát már a jász-kunok nem férnek bele.) Ezek az emberek - a régi királyság magyar ajkú lakói- származásuk alapján genetikai kutatások szerint a mai dél-németek és NY-i szláv népek között találhatóak a genetikai skálán.

Nem szabadna azt a hibát elkövetni, hogy mindenkit automatikusan magyarnak tekintünk aki Magyarországon lakik vagy született, és állampolgársága van. Ismerem a fából faskarika közhelyet: AZ a magyar aki magyarnak vallja (mondja) magát. (tudjátok, mint a kabát és a zokni, ma esz veszem fel holnap pedig azt, ahogy kedvem tartja lppen) Ez logikailag nem más mint Magyarság etnikai létének tagadása.

Attól, hogy még egy kis országban élünk (Trianon után) nem kell feltétlenül minden itt élő populációt a szó szorosabb értelmében un. "etnikai magyarnak" tekinteni. Gondolok itt a a törzsökös sokadik generációs brutálisan kevert bel-pesti populációra, az igencsak fura egzotikus idegenszerű kinézettel rendelkezo jász neo-kun területekre, szerb hajdúságra, Békés és Nyírség, Miskolc és környéke Nógrád szlovákjaira, az oszmán hadjáratok idején és utána bakáni menekültekkel erősen elkeveredett dél-alföldiekre, NY-magyarországi szlovénokra horvátokra svábokra stb... Nehéz megemészteni sokaknak, de az Alföld egyes tanyasi régiói a magyar Közép-Európai kultúrától gyökeresen eltérő elmaradott K-Európai / balkáni civilizációba tartozik a történelmi fejlodés modellje alapján, egyetlen kulturális kapocs velük pedig hogy a helyiek ősei is megtanulták a magyarok nyelvét az újkorban. A különbségek akkorák az alföld egyes régiói (tanyavilág) és a standard közép-európai magyar kultúra között, hogy már nemcsak egy másik kultúráról, hanem egy másik civilizációról is beszélhetünk. Errol lehet tájékozódni ebben az egyetemi tankönyvben: http://tet.rkk.hu/index.php/TeT/article/view/98/195

Ha valakit a Duna-Tisza köze és a kunság népessége érdekel (román szerb szlovák albán migrációk, és a kunok kiirtása) olvassátok ezt a cikket a török hódoltság résztől: https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok

Az Alföld a legkevésbé etnikailag magyar terület, a síkság miatt itt volt a legnagyobb a tatár és török genocidium aránya is. Rengeteg balkáni és keleti nép jött keveredett. Mondhatjuk, hogy őseik a magyarság sorstragédiáinak haszonélvezoi, azaz Muhi és Mohács nélkül őseik nem vándorolhattak volna be Magyarországra. Képletesen ők Batu és Szulejmán "unokái". Természetesen ők nem tehetnek errol, ezen írás nem is hibáztatja oket ezért. Az írás azért született hogy végre rendet lehessen tenni sötét fejekben.--Alföldi-korcsok (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nem vagy te régiesen csak "cigányformának" nevezett alak?
Az un. "cigányforma" egy nagyon régi 18.századi magyar gúnyszó a NEM CIGÁNY származású, de sötét pigmentációval (fekete haj szem sárgás bõr) rendelkezõ emberekre. Én nem fogalmazok olyan durván mint a régi magyarok, én csak "balkáni kinézetû"-nek hívom az ilyen embereket. Manapság már szinte nem lehet / NEM ILDOMOS használni a kifejezést, mert a török hódoltság kora után rengeteg ilyen sötét kinézetû migránsoktól származó emberke él hazánkban, ennek oka pedig a török hódoltság korabeli és az utána következo idegen bevándorlás drasztikus növekedése. A közhiedelemmel ellenben a Török hódoltság korában törökök szinte alig éltek az országban, még a török erõdök népessége is szinte kizárólag délszláv nevû volt. Ilyen sötétebb bevándorlók PL: a Kelet-Szlovákok (un. Szlovjákok) elég sötétek voltak a kárpáti oláh törzsekkel való keveredés miatt, vagy balkáni délszláv eredet: Hódoltság korabeli Szerb és Albán hatás a dél Alföldön, tiszántúli román hatás, D-Dunántúlon horvát hatás határhoz közeli helyeken, osztrák határnál Vendekkel való keveredés is okoz átlagnál nagyobb mértékû sötét pigmentációt. Egy szó mint száz, ma már sajnos elég nagy arányú a magyar populációban a sötét pigmentációval, régi magyar nyelvben csak "cigányfomának" csúfolt, és valljuk be gyakran fura iudegen (balkáni) kinézetû emberke. --Alföldi-korcsok (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Óh, megint itt vagy, hogy rázd a pici kis sipkádat, grimaszolj és köpködj! Add ki nyugodtan, ami benned van! Ezen a vitalapon bármikor szívesen látott vendég leszel. Kérlek, próbálj meg egy kicsit a helyesírásra koncentrálni, mert így nem tudom őszintén kisebbrendűnek érezni magam, bármennyire igyekszem. Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ki is lehetsz valójában? Egy angliai gazdasági migráns, aki itthon éhen halt volna. Alacsony felvi pontszámok miatt csak valami kis 'bőőőcsész' karra jutottál be. Mindegy is, ez neked nagy teljesítmény, ha primitív tanulatlan proletár és paraszt őseiddel veted össze. Egy-egy elveszített vita után - ha már nincsenek érveid sem - hívhatod az adminokat. Egy kis adminisztrációs beavatkozás még megmenthet, ha már az eszed nem elég. Tisztára úgy viselkedsz mint az oviban.

Miért nem lehet kimondani, hogy az alföldiek (Különösen a Tisza mente és Duna-Tisza köze) kelet-európai típusú szociális társadalmi gazdasági kulturális fejlődése alapvetően eltér a standard közép-európai magyar kultúrától? Olaszországban az olaszok számára nem szégyen, és ami fontosabb : nem tabu annak a ténynek emlegetése, hogy komoly különbségek vannak Észak és Dél között. Számodra vajon miért fájó a "Hungarians" cikkben?--Alföldi-korcsok (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Add csak ki! Semmi ne zavarjon! Tiéd ez a vitalap. Jó ez a biztató hozzáállás, vagy inkább kötözködjek veled? Ugyan éppen két érdekes szócikket bővítek, és nyaralni készülök, de igyekszem reagálni. Van egy ismerősöm, aki nem hiszi el, hogy a Föld gömbölyű. Vele is el tudok beszélgetni erről a témáról, anélkül, hogy kinevetném. Téged sem foglak. Borsoka (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dehogy, itt arról van szó, hogy neked nincsenek érveid. Bebizonyítottam a könyv segítségével, hogy az alföldiek kelet-európai civilizációhoz tartoznak, velük tehát csak nyelvi közösség áll fenn. Erre az elvesztett vita után mire vetemedtél? Ja hívtad az ovónénit (alias admin), gondolván ha nem megy ésszel, akkor majd megy erővel. Ezen az undorító proli mentalitáson az sem változtat, hogy nyaralni mész, meg az sem hogy (állítólag) nem vagy ideges. Annyi elég volt számomra, mikor logikus érvelés híján vesztedet érezted, ideges lettél, és azonnal hívtad az admint..... A proli családodtól örökölt mentalitás kopik ki a leglassabban (márha kikophat belőled egyáltalán)--Alföldi-korcsok (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bár az anyai nemesi ágat én 1608-ig vissza tudom vezetni a családfámon, a sváb polgári ágat is legalább a 19.sz. elejéig, így "prolinak" korántsem vagyok mondható, ennek ellenére most én is "hívtam az óvónénit". Nincs szükség itt ilyen trollokra, akik évek óta nem tettek hozzá semmit a projekthez, és megjelenésük csak ütőkártyát ad az úgymond más nációhoz tartozó, nacionalista alapon szerkesztő user-ek kezébe. --Norden1990 (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Mégis honnan tudod hogy én mennyit szerkesztettem, amikor majdnem minden cikkhez kreálok egy új nicket. Honnan veszitek hogy ti többet szerkesztettetek? Borsoka 2008-ban lett csak wikis, én 2006 óta szerkesztek itt különböző neveken. Nem hinném hogy nálam többet szerkesztett. Már akkor a Google Books-on kerestem referenciákat, amikor ti még nem is tudtátok használni a könyvkeresőt. JA, és ráadásul nem szaros adjunktusok és docensek referenciáit használtam (amiből minden országban Dunát lehet rekeszteni) hanem rendes egyetemi tanárokét. Szerintem ez a proli/paraszt sarjadék anno nem tudott bejutni a jogi karra, ezért az alacsonyabb pontszámú bőőőőőőcsísz karra ment. Itthon nem ment jól a sora -szülei nagyszülei primitív emberek voltak szakmunkás-tahók és/vagy alföldi paraszt/pásztorok leszármazottai - és kiment angliába gazdasági migránsként a nagyobb fizetésért. Sohasem lett volna képes elvégezni a jogi kart és a közgáz egyetemet. Dióhéjban ez Borsoka élettörténete.

Miért ne lehetne a Hungarians cikkbe belevenni, hogy az alföldiek balkáni származásúak a genetikai kutatások alapján? Miért ne lehetne belevenni pár alföldi balkáni eredetű népszokást? PL: lföldön a szerbeknél románoknál bolgároknál is divat volt, hogy a csecsemőik száját pálinkával kenegették ha sírtak, és attól mindig elaludtak. Vagy, pl: rábeszélték a család idősebb „hasznavehetetlennek” tartott tagjait az öngyilkosságra. Kereshetek hozzá komoly referenciákat is :)))

Alföld...mi jut eszetekbe róla a ronda lélekölően unalmas tájon kívül? Tradicionális társadalmi gazdasági infrastrukturális elmaradottságán kívül? az Árvácska c. regény világa, Móricz Zsigmond: Barbárok c. novellája, Brummog a bőgő asszony lett a lányból.... lenne itt bőven miről beszélni az alföldiekkel kapcsolatban.--Alsóbbrendű alföldiek (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ne haragudj, nem mindig tudok reagálni gondolataidra, de ez ne tartson vissza, hogy írj. Mindig örömmel olvasom a soraidat. Borsoka (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Mégis honnan tudod hogy én mennyit szerkesztettem..." - Bocsánat, de én a szerkesztések minőségére, és nem a számára utaltam. Ami tény, hogy Borsoka működésének köszönhetően végre a középkori magyar királyaink cikkeinek úgy 95%-a kitűnő állapotban van, nem is beszélve számtalan más hiánypótló szerkesztéseiről, mint a honfoglalás, vagy épp legutóbb az 1437-es erdélyi felkelés. Amellett, hogy végre az olyan érzékeny témáknál is sikerült kiküszöbölni az állandó etnikai cicaharcot, mint a Hunyadi család vagy a Gesta Hungarorum. Ezzel szemben a te szerkesztésid nagy része vagy visszavonásra került, vagy láthatatlan (pedig én aztán majd' az összes magyar történelem tematikájú cikket figyelőlistámra tettem). --Norden1990 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Szerkesztések minősége? Borsoka Magyarországgal kapcsolatban csak nagyon szűk témakörben szerkeszt. A királyos cikkek kapcsán erre a "három könyves" azaz három könyvből dolgozó munkáira gondolsz? Ne röhögtess! "95%-a kitűnő állapotban van," A cikkek nem tematizáltak hanem ömlesztett szerkesztésűek, nagyon gyakran a tartalom nincsen összhangban a cikk alszekcióinak címeivel, és amikor ezzel kritizálják Borsikát, akkor azzal jön, hogy nem lehet jobban csinálni. (Tehát az ömlesztett tematizálatlan szöveg számára a szerkesztés egyedüli kivitelezhetősége és csúcsa). Mindegyik hordozza a gyurcsányi "merjünk kicsik lenni" elvet, azaz el kell hallgatni a sikereket még akkor is ha bizonyíthatóak, hogy lehetőleg ne sértsük szomszédaink "érzékenységét". Mintha a Kádári idők köszönnének vissza. "olyan érzékeny témáknál is sikerült kiküszöbölni az állandó etnikai cicaharcot" Nézzed meg a vitalap szerkesztések zömét, és meglátod hogy sok esetben Borsoka inkább meghátrált, nem csapott le magas labdákat sem hivatkozásokkal (Némelyikhez pedig csak egy gyors Google Book search kellett volna). Meghátrálással igen könnyű békét teremteni.--Cigányforma WOG alföldiek (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Megtisztelsz, hogy ennyit foglalkozol velem, mert én még attól is rettegek, hogy kicsi legyek. Nagyon felnézek rád amiért már évek óta olyan változatosan tudod hibáimat a fejemre olvasni: hol Gyurcsányra hivatkozol, hol a három könyvemre, hol a proli/zsellér őseimre. Finoman megérezted, hogy ez az én világom, és lelepleztél ország-világ előtt! Borsoka (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transylvanian peasant revolt
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Transylvanian peasant revolt 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Count of the Székelys
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Count of the Székelys you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Béla of Macsó
Ezt a cikket te hoztad létre jó régen, ezért hozzád fordulok. A herceg halálánál ezt írtad: "In November, the members of Henry Kőszegi’s retinue killed Béla (who was the young king’s closest adult male relative at that time) following a sharp dispute." - Én úgy tudom, hogy Kőszegi saját kezűleg, egyedül kaszabolta le Bélát. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Utánanézek. Nekem is az rémlik, hogy Kőszegi ölte meg, de valahonnan jönnie kellett ennek az infonak is. :) Borsoka (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , Zsoldos Attila a következőt írja: "Rosztiszláv és Anna fiát, a macsói Béla herceget isasuzegi vezértársa, a Prágából visszatérő Héder nembéli (kőszegi) Henrik emberei öltsék meg 1272. novemberében a királyi udvarban egy szóváltás során." (Zsoldos op cit., p. 132.) Az Annales SS. Udalrici et Afrae Augestenses az egyik hivatkozási forrás Zsoldosnál, de modern történetírókat is idéz. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Köszi, hogy utánanéztél. Mindenesetre így sem volt egy szép cselekedet. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * :) :) :) :) Rosszcsont volt ez a Kőszegi! Borsoka (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Random thanksies
Thanksies for still being around after all these years and creating the great content you create. Dahn (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Borsoka (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen III of Moldavia
Alex ShihTalk 12:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lifta
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lifta. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Humphrey IV of Toron
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Humphrey IV of Toron has been completed.

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

Good luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your hard work. I made a little modification . Have a nice month! Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome Borsoka. These changes do improve provide better clarity for the reader. Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Holy Crown of Hungary
Hello, Borsoka – Since making a few copy-edits a while ago to Holy Crown of Hungary, I've kept it on my watch list. I was puzzled when I saw a "citation needed" tag removed in . It seems to me that the article in general, and the section on the Cross, are under-sourced, so the removal of the tag seems counter-productive. Also, I wonder about the edit just previous to this one. The change to the category does not seem to make sense. You know more about this than I do, so I'll leave it up to you. – Corinne (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored the cn tag. I think the category is not problematic (although it may be superfluous). Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

flags
I'm sorry the way you were treated. It is what it is. I wanted to ask you if you could explain to me what I asked here. You could answer here so we don't 'disturb'. thx. --Cei Trei (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. It is really sad that such an intelligent editor treats everything at a personal level and thinks that all edits are made to attack him. He must have had terrible experiences during his life. All the same, the article is being improved and it is the main point. Sorry, I have no knowledge about flags and coat-of-arms. Borsoka (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen III of Moldavia
I'm the editor that passed the article and I feel bad now that I didn't properly vet the sources first. I don't know much about Romanian history and should really have left it to someone who might have known the authors better enough to have pointed his reliability out. I usually just stick to Roman history where I do recognize such authors. I'm glad at least somebody spotted it. SpartaN (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your message. Yes, unfortunatelly,, a Romanian editor, allowed us to waste our time in referring to unreliable authors . He only shared his information about them with me during a content debate. Sorry for wasting your time, but I could never imagine that historians publish together with people who deny Holocaust. Borsoka (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Standstill agreement (India)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Edict of Torda
Hello, Borsoka – Another excellent article! I'm learning a lot from your articles. I just wanted to mention a few things:

1) I wonder if you want to link "magnate" to House of Magnates. In the article, this word is used with a slightly different meaning from the way it is commonly understood in the U.S., which is a wealthy, successful businessman, so the link would help.

2) I remember reading early in the article a mention of Lutheranism and Calvinism (or Lutherans and Calvinists), and soon after that something like Lutheranism/Lutherans and Reformed, and only later realizing that Reformed meant Calvinism. In fact you explicitly define it later in the article. But now I can't find it. Perhaps you will be able to find it. Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you again for your excellent copyedit. I changed the word magnate, and modified the text to clarify that the Reformed and Calvinist Churches are the same and the one . Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits look good. I wonder, though, whether it is important to say that Stephen Báthory was wealthy. Weren't most noblemen wealthy when compared to the rest of the citizenry? If Báthory was extraordinarily wealthy, and that is important to mention, perhaps use "extraordinarily wealthy", or "immensely wealthy". If his wealth was not particularly important in his selection, perhaps his selection was due more to his being unusually powerful among the noblemen. If that is the case, perhaps use "powerful nobleman". If that was not particularly important, perhaps leave out the adjective altogether. (Of course, it's important to reflect what the sources say.) – Corinne (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Powerful is the best adjective. (By the way, in Hungary, nobles made up 5% of the population, so there were thousands of poor, sometime peniless, noblemen. Stephen Báthory was the wealthiest lord in the eastern territories of Hungary.) Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * O.K. Thank you for explaining. – Corinne (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rideau Hall
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rideau Hall. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second Korean War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Second Korean War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, I'd like to congratulate you, you seem to be doing well here on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honved2018 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Exodus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Exodus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Kálmán halicsi király
Mivel korábban részben bővítetted a IV. Béla öcséről szóló szócikket, ezért értesítelek, hogy a napokban megjelent az életét feldolgozó első modern monográfia. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Köszönöm! Borsoka (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hungarian noblemen named Stephen in the 1450s
Hi! I wonder if you can help me identify an historic person. The 16th century Venetian chronicler Marcantonio Erizzo wrote that in 1451 a daughter of King Thomas of Bosnia married a Hungarian nobleman named Stephen, who deputized the Hungarian king. Her sister married the same year. Who could this Stephen be? Surtsicna (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know. The palatine, the voivode of Transylvania and the bans were the officials who could be described as the king's deputy, but I have no information that a nobleman named Stephen held any of these offices in 1451. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In 1451 the throne was occupied by Ladislaus V, an underage king, so I thought the deputy might have been a member of the regency council. None of the seven "Captains in Chief" named in the article about Ladislaus was called Stephen, however. Was one of the original seven replaced? Or could it simply have been a powerful (and unmarried) magnate named Stephen? Ping me if someone comes to mind. Surtsicna (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No regency council existed in the early 1450s. John Hunyadi was the sole regent. Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alternative for Germany. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Poland
Removing sourced information is an act of vandalism. The result of your actions is lower quality of the article. Great job! Arre you happy? Swetoniusz (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please use the article's Talk page instead of making empty declarations. Borsoka (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also continuing at User talk:EdJohnston. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulle massacre
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulle massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eustace Grenier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascalon ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Eustace_Grenier check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Eustace_Grenier?client=notify 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) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Guillaume de Beaujeu
Hi Borsoka, you know about the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar in Holy Land. There is little information about him on Wikipedia. Oh, I forgot, thanks for expand the article Raymond III of Tripoli. 190.233.179.140 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your above message. Sorry, I do not have sources about Beaujeu. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transylvanian peasant revolt
The article Transylvanian peasant revolt 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:Transylvanian peasant revolt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kpalion -- Kpalion (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Turkey
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your Unethical Tactics of Making Edits Vlad the Impaler
Boroska, I saw what you did there on the page for Vlad the Impaler. You left the information about Vlad the Impaler's true name for a few months, and then when you though nobody was watching you removed the information. You didn't even follow proper protocol by mentioning what you were removing or why. Anybody who is clear-minded and honest knows what you are doing, you have a clear conflict of interest as you are Hungarian (and very likely a nationalist) and therefore you want to wipe all references to Vlad the Impaler's true identity from Wikipedia. Shame on you Boroska. Frankly, sir, you are a bastard and I hope you'll get your ass kicked for this one day. You are very unethical and you have no business making edits anywhere, even on an internet forum like Wikipedia calling itself an "encyclopedia." It is phonies and frauds like you that make all serious, true academics hesitant from using Wikipedia for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.99.76 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please learn the meaning of the "citation needed" template. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Boroska is a Hungarian Nationalist Making Edits to Serve His Hungarian Nationalist Agenda
Boroksa is a lying bastard who frequently edits the pages of historical figures from countries that he does not like because he is a Hungarian Nationalist and Neo-Facist. How on Earth did he ever get to be an moderator? Wikipedia ia a joke for giving him any powers. Boroska makes Wikipedia a cesspool of false information to serve his Hungarian Nationalistic agenda.
 * If you think my edits serve Neo-Facist propaganda or they made WP a "cesspool of false information to serve" Hungarian nationalism, plese do not hesitate to report me on the relevant Talk page (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks
My recommendation would be not to respond to such attacks. Blocking is often employed when such attacks are made. I would recommend you delete and/or not respond. See wp:no personal attacks regarding policy. If it happens again, I would recommend making a complaint on wp:ANI. The offender would likely be quickly blocked and your page protected. You can also request protection at wp:RfPP just add a new request at the bottom of the "increase" list and mention "personal attacks". Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do not want him to be blocked for personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The anon was blocked. Is there a reason that you didn't want him blocked? Personal attacks are a significant problem on Wikipedia and it often gets out of hand and makes life very unpleasant. In my opinion, more wp:civility is sorely needed. If you wish, I could fire-up my abuse-bot and send you abusive emails? Just kidding. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please wp:ping me if you want to continue this chat. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transylvanian peasant revolt
The article Transylvanian peasant revolt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Transylvanian peasant revolt 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 Kpalion -- Kpalion (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Transylvanian peasant revolt
I completed the DYK review, and did not want to hold it up over the following phrases, which I don't understand: "before attacking the Kolozsmonostor Abbey and forcing the abbot to flee, according to the abbot's charter." I'm not sure that that is supposed to mean. Another states: "On the contrary, the cooperation of the Hungarian and Vlach commoners during the rebellion is well-documented.[80] For instance, the first compromise between the rebels and the noblemen mentioned that "both the Hungarians and the Vlachs living near castles" had been required to pay the tithes after their swines and bees." Please clarify that. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 7&6=thirteen, thank you for your review. I hope I fixed the above problems . Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Better. But what does "to pay the tithes after their swines and bees" mean? Surely they aren't paying tithes to swine and bees? I don't get the relationship at all. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 10:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 7&6=thirteen, thank you for your clarification. Maybe it is better now . Borsoka (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I had heard of taxes on windows, but I was unaware of taxes on swine and bees. If you have it or need it, they will tax it!  Thanks for fixing that.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Limes
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Limes. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Your recent editing history at Transylvanian peasant revolt shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , please remember that "Removal of clear copyright violations" is exempt from the edit-warring policy. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've responded to the discussion on the RFPP report you made. If you have questions, let me know.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Arpad family
Hello Borsoka! First I would like to congratulate you for your effort to expand all articles about the royal family of Hungary from the first times, I'm sure it's a difficult task (I must say that because it's being a difficult task translate everything to Portuguese). But trying to instigate you to continue the work, what do you say about Liüntika, Bulcsú and some other Hungarian nobles from the Arpads? The main line of sucessors it's pretty well, but some sideline articles need expansion and clarification. I don't know if you already knew, but from now on the Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire is open for free on the official site ([degruyter.com/view/db/pmbz here]) and there you can find all entries to hungarian and slavic people mentioned in the Byzantine sources, even some that are only mentioned on the Byzantine sources (this one, for instance).--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and for the link. Yes, I have been working on articles about the Árpáds. However, sometimes I need some break. :) The lifes of Liüntika and (the non-Árpád) Bulcsú are quite purely documented. I will try to read some academic works about them. may also help us. He must have a nice library dedicated to medieval Hungarian biographies. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess your previously used studies and books are appropriate to the articles Liüntika and Bulcsú (I also suggest to expand Levedi). The bibliography should represent the views of mainstream medievalists: Györffy, Kristó, Szabados, Róna-Tas (in addition to the narrations of chronicles). Historian István Herényi wrote two studies about Bulcsú: this and this. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Transylvanian peasant revolt
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Hungary
I call your attention to the request for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Hungary. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Current members of the United States Senate. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alice of Champagne
Hello You reverted an edit I boldly made here yesterday; I've opened a discussion here if you wish to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you made it boldly, but without providing a proper reference to a reliable source. So I boldly reverted it. Borsoka (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Coloman of Halych
Még egy 2017-es tanulmány Kálmán hercegről:. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Covering important historical information regarding the Origin Of The Romanians due to Hungarian bias
I kindly ask you to stop removing my edits on this subject, the sentence i wrote regarding Keza's chronicle is backed by 4 reliable sources, 2 of them hungarian even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheianu (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) Please use the talk page of the relevant article. (2) I did not remove your edits. I only moved the text to its proper place in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

And that place is...? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Scheianu (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Origin of the Romanians, under subsection "Simon of Kéza" . Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buffalo, New York
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buffalo, New York. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Best Wishes
Dear Borsoka,

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, thanks for all the high quality editing and care about history! (KIENGIR (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC))
 * Thank you. I also wish you a Happy New Year. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

First language of the Angevins of Naples
What was it? Charles I "normally wrote in Old French", but "adapted swiftly" to Occitan. Most of the lords were Provencal and the local vernacular was more similar to Occitan than French. So did Charles I's immediate heirs (Charles II, Robert, Joanna I) speak French or Occitan? Or possibly a local vernacular? Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I do not have information on this issue. I only guess that they spoke several languages. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2017

 * Thank you for your kind words and for the Wikichevrons. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)