User talk:Borsoka/Archive 2

Romania in the Early Middle Ages
We get edit conflicts if we edit simultaneously. I just got one when I tried a second edit. In such cases we lose the results of each one's tedeous work. Hence I will let you go first and will not edit for several hours. cheers, Dc76\talk 10:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina
Hi, I am having a report on Rjecina again, because he is accusing me of socketpupets and falsifies historical articles on Wikipedia. I see that you are active on Wikipedia and also interested in history. Please, could you leave a comment on my report on what your take is on this issue. I would really appreciate it. See link to report on my talk page. Thanks.--Bizso (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hi, Borsoka. I'm asking you to please stop the "obvious vandalism" edit summaries. Read WP:VAN and only use this edit summary when it's valid. See a recent block partly because of that wrong edit summary ("you incorrectly labeled his edits as vandalism"). This is a good faith request, I don't want you to have problems with a random admin who doesn't know anything about you, only judges you based on a recent edit summary. Suggestion: use "rv. unconstructive edits" or something similar instead. Squash Racket (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

About Coloman's mother
Coloman-Current revision as of 16:27, 16 March 2009 by Borsoka: "It is a brand new theory. Yes, his mother's name was probably Sofia, but she was not Croatian."

Brand new theory?? There is no theory here.. His mother's name was Sofia and she was sister of croatian king Dmitar Zvonimir. Does it matter was she Hungarian, Croatian or maybe Jew? That sounds little nationalistic... --Dvatel (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason is
Hi Borsoka. The reason is that he was the King of Hungary, he was not the king of Croatia because it was part of Hungary, but i think you knew this. Toroko (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Borsoka. Thanks for the answer. First i have to say, that i have no problem with Slovak or Croatian people, i don't want to argue with anybody, i hate arguing. What you said, i respect, and i always wrote that Croatia had autonomy, led by a ban, and later they had an own parliament. And i alwys wrote "King of Croatia" in the titles. But it was just a title, and the hungarian king was the king of the Kingdom of Hungary, there were no separate kingdoms. I think every problem should be fixed, so this is the reason, why i did what i did. Toroko (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * His concerns are partially valid. There is a debate going on among historians over the true nature of Hungary-Croatia relations. See articles Pacta conventa (Croatia) and Croatia in personal union with Hungary and the many academic, English references listed for details. Squash Racket (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I respect their feelings. But i always want to be consequent, and because of that i see and follow those habits, which are here in wikipedia. For example look at the Czech( Bohemian kings). They are mentioned as "King of Bohemia" and rhis is the right mentioning. Bohemia conssited of Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia and Czech Silesia. So if i should write " King of hungary, king of Croatia, King of Damlmatia, ... then Czechs should write: "king of Bohemia, king of Moravia, etc. But they wrote it absolutely correctly, so they wrote "King of Bohemia". Because the hole was Bohemia, so they did the right thing. This is the same about Hungary. The ruler was only "King of Hungary", the other was just titles, territories within Hungary like in Bohemia. So i took a lot of time to show the correct titles and the correct denomination of the ruler, in order to respect everybody's feelings, follow the wiki habits, and edit well. But thanks for the observation. Toroko (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Borsoka. The Hungarian kings were only "King of Hungary". They were no kings of Croatia. Whether you accept it or not. I gave English reliable, sources. Look, probably you are Slovak, so maybe you don't like Hungarians. I said earlier, i have no problem with you, and any other Slovaks. I don't want to argue with you. Even if you hate us, just because we are Hungarians. It was quite underhand that you peeped about me, whithout i knew it. But i don't care about it. I didn't delete any Croatian sources, i deleted only what was not true, so there is no problem. If you hate Hungarians, you can do, if you hate me, just do it, but he was only, the King of Hungary, there is no question about it, only in Croatia, and only in the mind of some Croatian, who can't bear what happened earlier, lots of hunderds of years ago. Nobody can change the history, because it has already happened. It is very ugly not to bear it and try to do something against it. This is my last sentence. Toroko (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians
Hey. Just to let you know I put this good article nominee on hold; there's just a few things that need fixing. Should be a GA upon completion of these. Wizardman 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Szia!
Remélem beszéled a magyar nyelvet, de ha nem akkor természetesen lefordítom neked angolra a következőket.

Szóval csak annyi lenne, hogy már egy ideje szemmel tartom a magyar vonatkozású szerkesztéseidet (köztük a keleti szomszédunk eredetével foglalkozót, ugye érted :) és pusztán gratulálni szeretnék kitartó és igényes munkáidhoz. Ez utóbbi is nagyszerű! Ha esetleg szükséged lenne segítségre ne habozz, írj bátran. Üdv,-- B@xter 9 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there. I have noted you have made many large expansions to articles related to the Origin of Romanians. First I would like to say I appreciate your dedication to add more information to WP. Second, I would like to make two observations related to many of your edits. You removed most interpretations that fit Anonymous' Gesta. My first observation is: 1) not everything that fits with Gesta should be a priori assumed to come from Gesta. You seem to make such conclusions very often. 2) While Gesta's interpretation is just a view, it is a legitimate view, and IMHO should not be simply removed, but properly attributed instead. Roesler's theory is also just a view, but is kept as a view, not removed every time. Otherwise texts tend to simply say "my view is correct, other views are wrong." Undoubtedly, some interpretations are more accepted by historians than others (Origine of Romanians from Romanized Dacians over Roesler's Theory, Gesta's incorrectness over Gesta's correctness), but deleting concurrent interpretations leads nowhere constructive. Thank you very much if you could, please, consider adjusted the edits you made/make in this sense. Dc76\talk 12:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dc76! I received your email, and thank you for it. But, unfortunatelly, it is not clear for me. Would you, please, specify what are my edits you referred to. Sorry, I cannot remember that I made any edits in connection with the article Gesta Ungarorum, but I may be wrong. Or I misunderstood your email. Regards Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Dacia
Thank you for you response. I wanted to provide some materials that would help to clarify. I agree with your point of view Blurall (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)