User talk:Borsoka/Archive 14

Historians of the Crusades
Clearly the title is a problem, hopefully the content isn't. As you are probably aware, I was under considerable pressure to cut the size of the "Later historians..." article, to the point where some were just splitting pieces off without coordination. So the article in question was spun off last week and, still need to cut more, the section on Travelers was moved there a couple of days ago.

I'm not 100% sure of what you are questioning, but it think it is why are they called historians. That's probably a bad word, as most aren't, and maybe sources is a better word. I can point you to a number of Crusades compilations that identify that pilgrimages, archaeology, geography, etc., are sources for Crusader histories. The first places that triggered my interest in them were the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Crusades (Bibliography and Sources), the bibliography in Setton's six-volume set and the Routledge Companion to the Crusades. This article hasn't gelled yet as the major pieces were just put together.

As to your specific questions on Michaël Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and Ahmad ibn Rustah, here's what I have: Eytzinger, referenced by Titus Tobler; Origen, in Chapter II of Volume I of Setton, Eusebius in PPTS, ibn Rustah in Ency Iranica by C. E. Bosworth.

I think the title is wrong, but I'm not sure how to right it. They are all part of the auxiliary sciences of history, but that doesn't make a very good title. I open to suggestions for titles, structure and content. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. Yes the title is misleading. My concern is that I do not see any references to the crusades in the sources cited in the article to verify Eytzinger, Origen, Eusebius, Ibn Rusta, etc. in a list about the sources of the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Long Campaign
Hi Borsoka. I was reading about John Hunyadi in Wikipedia and I found some doubts. What the Long Campaign is? When I try to read about it, it redirects to Crusade of Varna. According to the article of John Hunyadi, the Long Campaign was military campaign against the Ottomans organized by the Kingdom of Hungary and Poland and it was launched on April 1443. On the other hand, in the Crusade of Varna, which took place on October 1443, participated not only the Kingdom of Hungary, but also participated other Christian countries. So, why the Long Campaign is merged into the Crusade of Varna if they are different campaigns? Furthermore, it is said that the Long Campaign was successful and the Crusade of Varna was unsuccessful. Could you solve that doubt? Greetings Kardam (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume they are two separate campaigns. The success of the Long Campaign made the Crusade of Varna possible. Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:New York City Police Department&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Helpful site
Search for books on this site. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Yes, it looks helpful. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs
Thank you for your recent articles, including Reformation in the Kingdom of Hungary, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the positive sentiment on the talk page of the damned earlier. All the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aimery of Cyprus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aimery of Cyprus 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) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tripoli
Hello and thanks for fixing Alice of Champagne. I was 90% sure that it was Lebanon but I don't know the topic and couldn't find any evidence. I've fixed most of the cases myself but had to tag several more. If you can help with any then that would be appreciated: Abaqa Khan, Antisemitism in Turkey, Ayyubid dynasty, Balian of Arsuf, Battle of al-Sannabra, Dr. Dahesh, Freemasonry in Ghana, George Azar, Great Plague of Marseille, Helvis of Ibelin, History of Jerusalem, House of Lusignan, Mongol Empire, Pisa. Thanks, Certes (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed all but two. In two or three cases, the word referred to the County of Tripoli. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Szekely language
You oppose the idea of Szekely language? Why? It has its own script and it's a language. Magysze (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Read and apply WP:NOR and refer to reliable source when stating anything in WP. Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources there are plenty.



It does have a writing yes? Magysze (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You should only refer to some reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources speak about Szekely people, you don't recognize Szekely people? Magysze (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page and refer to reliable sources mentioning the term "Szekely language". Sorry, I will ignore your remarks here. Borsoka (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You said "And most modern Hungarians descended from Slavic and Germanic ancestors." Really? Do you have any source for that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Any if you didn't ever heard about Szekely language is because you don't speak it.

Do you recognize Szekely identity as different from Hungarian or not? This is the question. It shows what kind of Hungarian you are. Magysze (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Use the article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, pls be respectful to Szekely people. It was enough you tried to push your language. Now, Szekely identity apart of Hungarian have to be restored. Magysze (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Admit you have some Anti-Szekely sentiment, admit it. I see your edits, you can't support me because I said I am proud Szekely. Magysze (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

my ethnicity
My ethnicity shouldn't be of concern for you. Are you a harasser? Or do you have some problems with Szekely people ethnicity? Magysze (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody's ethnicity is a concern for me. It was you who have changed your ethnicity several times. Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Inflation of Csango
Since they are 2.165 in the census in 1992 why appears 40,000 now? Is it like the same lie that Hungary has more than 10 million people, when actually has less? But you love to lie? You do like to inflate the numbers right? Have no sense of reality. Magysze (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Szeklers - "special race" of Hungarians
All the scholars, travelers, leaders who crossed the Romanian space found the uniqueness of the Szeklers, as well as the Saxons (another element of colonization), Catholic implants in the Romanian environment.

Catholicized by the Hungarians, accepted as allies, as a medieval "nation", the descendants of the Avars continued to be, ethnically, something else. Because, apart from the runes (which the Romans, their teachers, had given up at the time of the adoption of Slavonic, as the liturgical language and the Cyrillic alphabet), the Szeklers continued to have their own language, dress and customs, still visible in the twentieth century. XVI, on the verge of extinction in the XVII-XIX centuries and which only some elders still remember today, in the Ciuc area, so effective was the Hungarianization process, supported primarily by the church, both Catholic and, later, the reformed one. The fact that they still call themselves Szeklers today, however, attests to the persistence of the consciousness of a fundamental difference from the Hungarian population, of a distinct original ethnicity.

In the 16th century, although at first sight "language, like all customs" brought them closer to the Hungarians (Georg Reicherstorffer), the well-known Paduan physician Francesco della Valle (? -1545) could not help but notice that "I am still a barbarian nation. "other" than the Hungarians. A deep connoisseur of Transylvanian realities, the great humanist scholar Antonius Verantius (Anton Verancsics) (1504-1578) concluded, following an objective analysis, that the Szeklers "differ from the Hungarians in almost all their customs, laws and way of life; religion, and it does not resemble in any way, even as a language, when they speak in the image of their ancestors.

Along the same lines, Nicolae Romanul (Nicolaus Olahus) (1493-1568), his contemporary, noticed in the Szeklers subject to the Hungarian offensive that they still had "some words of their own." Humanist scholars unanimously defined them as men made for war, a "nation of cruel men" (P. Ranzanus), "harsh and fierce, as if born for battle" (Georg Reichertorffer), with "hardened and warrior people" (Stefan Brodarics), which motivated the long-standing resistance to Hungarianization and the preservation of the privileges that the Hungarian royalty and great nobility were forced to permanently recognize.

Practically, until late in the modern era, intertwining their history with that of the native and majority Romanians in Transylvania, opposing the offensive of the royalty of the Hungarian magnates and the Saxon patricians, the Szeklers enjoyed "laws and customs quite different from others. ", dividing among themselves" their inheritances and services on tribes and tribes "(A. Possevino). Used exclusively in military service, they retained their status as free men, still living "according to their laws and morals" (Georg Reichertorffer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy on Szekely language
You can help this article to develop it. Magysze (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh you did edit war before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borsoka&diff=208472043&oldid=208456006 Magysze (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aimery of Cyprus
The article Aimery of Cyprus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aimery of Cyprus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

3RR, stop deleting my edits
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_the_Brave&diff=next&oldid=1006753205 stop deleting my edits. Magysze (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets are not defended by WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do ask to be checked. So, live with it. Magysze (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy on Szekely language" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Controversy on Szekely language. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 16 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. KIENGIR (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

region/fiefdom
Hi Boroska, since I have seen you tend to act neutrally in past discussions regarding various topics, I'm happy to accept the wording you prefer in the great region/fiefdom scandal. I've answered your post on the talkpage with the text from the source that specifically uses the wording "regions", to me it seems clear but Kiengir disagrees. I really can't be bothered with an RfC, so whatever you think follows policy I'll go with. If you prefer not to get involved, and given the nature of me and Kiengir's past interactions, I would fully understand that, drop me a line so I can relist it for a 3rd opinion.

All the best.

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Boroska, just double checking, am I correct in interpreting your comment as a preference for "fiefdom" in the text? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers, changed it now. Have a good one. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Union of Bulgaria and Romania
Hello Borsoka, some time ago you participated in the peer review of this article. I since nominated it to FA and now it is in danger of being archived as it has been opened for too much time (my fault). It would be a great help if you participate again to avoid its closure, although of course you can not do it you're busy or can't do it. Thanks in advance. Super  Ψ   Dro  09:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon. I am really busy in real life now, so I have no time for a review. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, no problem then. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hi,

regarding this, whether ot not is sourced, can we say it's true/accurate? (in contrast(?)/accordance with Old Church Slavonic)? Thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC))
 * I do not know. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:List of military disasters and &#32; Talk:Demographics of Eritrea on "History and geography" request for comments. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Nobility
Hello:

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

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

Unfortunately the final section, Unofficial nobility, is a problem because most of the citations used are "dead links". You will need to find replacement citations or remove those sentences that rely upon the links in question before you submit it for assessment as a Good Article.

Best of luck with the GAN when you get to it.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William of Villehardouin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Negroponte.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Denis, son of Ampud
Hello! I plan to write the article of Denis, son of Ampud in the coming days and weeks (you had created a stub long time ago). If I remember correctly, you own the official English translation of Master Roger's Carmen Miserabile. If so, I would like to ask for your help. I need the passage (and of course exact referenc data, chapter, page number etc.) where the master mentions the blinding of Denis (within the chapter where the master discusses the years before the Mongol invasion, what may have been the reason for the defeat of the Hungarians). I want to include it as a quote in the article because it is the only contemporary source that mentions the fate of Denis after the death of his lord Andrew II. I hope you can help me.
 * P.s. There are some new English language volumes about medieval Hungary that may be of interest to you. The Economy of Medieval Hungary (2018, Brill) and the Arpadiana series, for instance L. Pósán: Hungary and the Teutonic Order in the Middle Ages. Best regards, --Norden1990 (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Szervusz. Here you can see the relevant part . It is quite short. Thank you for your message about the books. I ordered some. Borsoka (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Norden1990 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, "about a 11th-century Salian emperor best known for his "Walk to Canossa". He is also one of the best known German monarchs, because his conflict with Pope Gregory VII gave rise to the Investiture Controversy."! See my talk for 2 DYK in company ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank for your support for Mary Shelley appearing a second time. I liked yesterday's Main page, with 4 bolded names I brought there, all in memory: the TFA, the pictured DYK (Alfred Biolek), and two under Recent deaths, Siegfried Matthus and Teresa Żylis-Gara. August harvest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Xi Jinping&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Karácsony's English
We have a debate whether Gergely Karácsony's language skills merit a line ih his biography, regarding the latest events in Hungary... And can origo.hu and Magyar Nemzet be qualified as only pure evil propaganda?

Please join in, I appreciate your balanced point of view, things getting heated there...

gergely karácsonys language skills...
We are debating on the talk page, please join in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.77.195.200 (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Issues in Stefan Lazarević
Hi, Borsoka. I look to you becuase you have fixed articles about medieval serbian rulers and even some of them are good articles. So, could you fix it up some day? The current edition of this article is a translation from the Serbian Wikipedia, where it is a Featured Article. However, it has few references in the Serbian Wikipedia. In English Wikipedia it is not written well and also is unreferenced. Also, it looks that is no neutral. These are the issues that this articles has. Best 190.233.181.220 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Yes, the article could be improved. For the time being, I am concentrating on other articles, but Stefan Lazarević is within my scope of interest. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice, RfC: Azov Battalion
Good evening, I would like to notify you that a new RfC on Azov Battalion has just started. I am sending you the message because you participated in the 2015 RfC and the topic might be of interest to you. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Coloman, Bishop of Győr
Hello, I just created a short article on Coloman, Bishop of Győr, son of Károly Róbert—the problem is that much of it relies on a rather old source. Since you added the details on Coloman to Charles I of Hungary back in 2014 I'd be very grateful if you could have a look and, if possible, verify/insert details from the Korai magyar történeti lexikon, which you referenced there, since I don't have access to it. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. The WP article new presents the facts about Coloman's life fully in line with the article in Korai magyar történeti lexikon. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I always enjoy when you pretend that it is me who is involved in edit warring: when I leave you a 3rr-warning in edit summary you always put this message on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The core content policies are not criteria for the admissibility of an article.
Your comments in Talk:Crusading suggest that you believe that the core content policies of WP are criteria for the admissibility of an article. This is a fundamentally mistaken view. I can argue against this view in many ways. Historically, it has always been the case that the core policies were not concerned by the admissibility of subject. In fact, the founders of WP did not believe that admissibility of a subject could be an issue. It was sufficient that contributors agreed on a subject. It is also well known that, though the core policies are essentially the same over all language versions of Wikipedia (especially Neutral point of view is non-negotiable in all versions), the rules for admissibility of subjects vary a lot among these versions. Consider also this excerpt of the guidelines for admissibility of articles in the English Wikipedia, which says that the core policies are for the content, whereas the notability guidelines are the admissibility of a subject: If you read the guidelines, you will also notice this key sentence (emphasis is mine): "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.  This says that it does not matter that there is no source that has exactly the same scope as the article. You will also notice that sentences such as "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article" and "We require editors to use their judgment about how to organize subjects so that we have neither long, bloated articles nor articles so narrow that they cannot be properly developed" explain clearly that we must use our judgment, just like the founders of Wikipedia originally thought. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I ping you for your information. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * please answer my questions on the article's Talk page before sharing your understanding of our policies: what are the subtopics, etc? I suggest we should continue this discussion on the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion would not fit at all in the Crusading talk page. An article's talk page is not the place to discuss WP policies. What I did here is exactly what is recommended in this case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not want to discuss WP policies in a group of arbitrarily selected editors. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was for your own information. If you keep showing a misunderstanding of the policies in a problematic manner, we will indeed move this discussion at a higher level. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do it. Borsoka (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a game that we play. It will take our precious time and the time of other non involved editors. So, we must try to resolve the issue in a simple manner using the guidelines mentioned above. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be grateful if you stop commenting this issue on my Talk page. We can discuss any issue on the relevant Talk pages. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor
You can now nominate Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor for TFA if you wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Catlemur submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Editor Borsoka for his extensive contribution to the coverage of Medieval European history on WP, most notably that of Hungary. Borsoka has produced three FAs and over 50 GAs, not to mention dozens of other well referenced articles. I feel like I don't have to write much as the quality and quantity of his content contributions speak for themselves.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   11:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

thank you for the nomination. This was a real and pleasant surprise. thank you for the wonderful personalized barnstar. Yes, you know me: I am of an other tribe of monsters. :) Borsoka (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:B-segment&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 August, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page if one has been posted. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message and also for drafting the present blurb. Borsoka (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Later Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

revert war
Your recent editing history at Romani people in Hungary shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Check your irredentistic anti=semitic and Jobbik party statements before you look in the mirror. Are you now ashame of yourself? You can admit you hate the slovakian, you hate the roma people from Hungary, you hate the serbians, you hate the romanians, you hate all. You are just a irredentist, anti-semitic hungarian sock of Kiengir.
 * If I had made anti-semitic, irredentistic and "Jobbik party" statements I should ashame myself. I do not hate anybody or any nation. Please do not revert my messages on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Later Roman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:North Africa&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

William of Villehardouin
Hello:

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

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. There are several "citation needed" tags that will need to be dealt with before the GAR.

Best of luck with the GAN when you get to it..

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for your thorough and comprehensive review. Now, I am busy in real life, but I will address your concerns in a couple of days. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hungarian nobility
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hungarian nobility 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) 16:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Count of the Székelys
Previously, you tried unsuccessfully to obtain Zoltán Kordé's monograph on the history of the dignity. It has now been made available free of charge to everyone in the database of the University of Szeged, see here. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Köszönöm. Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Boleslaus, bishop of Vác and naming conventions
Greetings. How is the naming convention/consensus on historical places in this topic? Since my edit of using the oldest recorded names apparently wasnt good enough. If I remmeber correctly, the guidelines say to use the most common/relevant name for the period. Otherwise, the most relevant ones, by which other people can find the places, seems most valid. IE. using modern official names for Slovak/Hungarian villages respectively. Is there something I am not aware of? Hrdina Impéria (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can read the specific naming convention here. Editors adopted and have applied it for more than a decade. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will read it. I only ever found generic guidelines while looking for them. Edit: So by the rules, I guess hungarian names are fine. Should Slovak ones be added in parentheses though where applicable, so people know the lands are now in different countries? Hrdina Impéria (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Baia‎
Hello

I noticed that you thanked me for my edit regarding the Battle of Baia‎, I appreciate that. If you are available, I invite you, as a very experienced editor, to present your point of view at Talk:Battle_of_Baia, where the same topic is discussed. 77wonders (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion
Dear Borsoka! Would you please provide us with a Third Party Opinion? We have edit warring on the Hungarian Spectrum and Kim Lane Scheppele articles. The Talk pages talk for themselves. Thanks.--176.77.136.98 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

History of Transylvania POV
Hi, considering this edit on the history of Transylvania: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=1061364738&oldid=1061345300

How would you like me to edit it to be less POV and comply to a neutral point of view?

I will take the removed edits in listed order: Name of Transylvania, how would you consider rewording it? Aurel Ioan Pop and Fedinand Lot's take on romanization, how can it be reworded in a more netural way? Gesta Hungarorum, I don't consider it a POV problem as its a quote from the actual book. The 1288 and spring of 1291 events I don't consider them POV, which parts appears POV to you? Same as the structure of the estates in the 13th and 14th centuries. And the Romanians loss of their estate status.

If you have the sources in question, could you please provide a neutral point of view verison of the removed paragraphs? or if you don't, edit my paragraphs in a way you feel will achieve a more neutral tone?

Thank you TheGoldAge (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your undo on the History of Transylvania as I believe a more productive thing to do is to rewrite the paragraphs in a way we can both agree are neutral than to remove them altogether. Feel free to edit them as you see fit and we can work from there. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)