User talk:Borsoka/Archive 3

Hungary-related articles
I just wish you would be similarly interested in improving History of Hungary articles. Some of them are begging for a rewrite/proper references. Happy New Year in case I'm not late with that. Squash Racket (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I have been collecting books on the history of Hungary written in English; so sooner or later, I will continue to edit those articles as well. For the time being, sincerely, I am more interested in editing articles in connection with the history of the Rus' principalities, Cilician Armenia and Romania - and I managed to buy some really good books on these topics. Happy New Year for you and for yours, as well. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

your reverts on Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians article
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Criztu (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Criztu, thank you for your note on my Talk page. I agree with you that any of the solutions you suggest in order to avoid edit warring is acceptable. I think if both of us had used reliable sources without faking their content, this situation would not have developed so far. Please note that the three revert rule does not apply to obvious vandalism. And pretending that an editor uses reliable sources but he/she falsifies its content is pure vandalism. Borsoka (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A "harc" :)
Szia!

Látom Te is belenyúltál rendesen... Én ezt már végigjátszottam vele Románia vitalapján, (érdemes lenne elolvasnod) amikor egy másik felhasználóval egyszerűen kitörölt jó pár angol forrással megjelölt részt, és semmi esetre se akarta felfogni a lényeget (wiki szab.: POV, OR, RS, PRIMARY). Az adminok + leszarják az egészet (én is írtam nekik).-- B@xter 9 10:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Notification
You might be interested in this: Editor assistance/Requests-- B@xter 9 12:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stibor of Stiboricz

 * Greetings,


 * I saw Your contribution on Stibor of Stiboricz and was wondering if You have time to help me in this subject. Im writing the article about tthe Clan of Ostoja where Stibor of Stiboricz and his family is granted quite a lot of space. I also have some more information about Stibor and Im interested to find out what is in slovakian and hungarian sources. Polish sources, except Sroka are quite poor and I cant read slovakian or hungarian. You might be able to check some info in the books?


 * Also, I would like to improve the article on Stibor of Stiboricz and I wonder if we could do that together! Because You started the article, I find myself obligated to tell You about my intensions but I also would be really happy to work with You in this! :) I think that we could improve this great article to be really outstanding one!


 * I saw that the picture in the article was gone because of copyright problems, I add one of Beckov in teh article. Hope You dont mind!


 * I look forward to receive You answer on this matter!

Best regards,

Camdan (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Magyar Katolikus Lexikon Fakirbakir (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello

Taking into consideration your very good knowledge of Romanian-Hungarian relations during the Middle Ages, I would ask you to express your opinion regarding Janos Hunyadi's ethnic origin and about the way the problem is presented in the wikipedia article. Thanks in advance (79.117.193.149 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

Thanks a lot for your edits at John Hunyadi, I want to ask you only one thing: what do you think about the following paragraph:

"The Hunyadi family are a Hungarian[4] noble family — according to most sources — of Romanian[5][6][7] origin. There are also alternative researches suggesting Cuman[8] or Slavic[9][10][11] descendance. According to H. Munro Chadwick John Hunyadi was presumably ethnic Hungarian,[12] Lonnie Johnson thinks he was a member of the lesser Hungarian nobility of Transylvania.[13] Other researchers affirm that the overwhelming evidence supports the view that he indeed was not Magyar.[14] According to Hugh Seton-Watson "the ethnical origin of Hunyadi may be left to the chauvinist historians of Budapest and Bucharest to fight out between them, but the historical fact is that both Hunyadi and his son considered themselves Hungarians."[15]

Others simply refer to the obscurity surrounding the ethnic origins.[16][17]"

I think that there is paid too much attention on some theories that are only Fringe Theories.(79.117.151.26 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC))


 * I appreciate your work at John Hunyadi article and I want to consult you about the reliability of the book The growth of literature, Volume 2 By H. Munro Chadwick, Nora Kershaw Chadwick (a book about literature, not about history), where it is stated that Hunyadi "was presumably a Magyar". (79.117.154.94 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC))


 * Another remark: In the article it is affirmed: Vojk was described as being of Vlach descent by medieval chroniclers[18] and the majority of modern historians[19][20][21][22][23] although there are others[who?] who think he was of ethnic Hungarian origin[12]
 * I think this text is not correct: The sentence is about Vojk, which is referred in medieval documents as John's father, while source 12 (Chadwick, H. Munro) tells that Hunyadi himself (and not Vojk) was "presumably a Magyar". So it is a mistake here, because we don't even know if Chadwick supposes that Janos's father is Vojk or somebody else (e.g King Sigismund ,according to the legend)(79.117.195.226 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Pierre Lascalopier
Hello...I don't understand very clear what is wrong with the quote from Pierre Lascalopier. It is referred for example in The making of the Romanian unitary national state 1918, Ştefan Pascu, 1988, which is a secondary source

And what is the additional interpretation = OR? Are you talking about the equalization between "romanechte" and româneşte(Romanian)? The connection seems obvious for me...(79.117.138.55 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC))


 * moved discussion to article talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.166.157 (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A visszaállításod
Hi. Hát egy kis (rövid!) eredeti idézet itt-ott nem érdekes? És még épp az angolnyelvű wikiben, amelyik a leg jobb. Ráadásul, az első forrás még sem a... másodlagos forrás (tehát Makkai, Kristó, Gyóni stb.) hanem a Schwandtner, Endlicher (stb.) könyvek, tehát a forrásgyűjtések és az oklevéltárkiadások, sőt az eredeti krónika ill. oklevél, ha már ezekből szedünk idézeteket. Nem csak szerintem épp így lenne helyes, és mét ott ahol oly sok vita létezik. (Ezzen kivül: van jó fordítás, van gyenge fordítás is. Pld. Rubruck. A Nibelung-ének angol fordításából nem látható, hogy németül azok versek, hősi eposz. Stb. Felraktam volna egy idézetet a Stájerországi Ottokár rímes krónikájából, viz. "a Kroissenbrunn csata" és IV. Béla. Jó, hogy abba hagytam, mi?). Üdv. - Ralsog Iref (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Your articles
I believe that both of Foundation of Wallachia and Foundation of Moldavia are really good articles. I think you should submit them at wp:GAN. Let me know if you need any help with that. Also, while Origin of the Romanians is a really well-resourced article, I think it could benefit from submitting it for a peer review. Nergaal (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * for peer reviews it is simple: add at the beginning of the talk page the text  , then select the topic (probably history), then leave a text for the reviewers, and then wait for a week or more. check wp:PR for full details.
 * for good article nominations it is slightly more tricky: add  , then add the name of the article in the appropriate section at wp:GAN. Then wait (sometimes for over a month) for a reviewer.
 * eventually, when the articles become very well polished and "among wikipedia's best", you may even aim for a featured article status. This one though is a loooot more stringent. The upside though is that at that point is eligible to appear on the main page for a day.

Reference query in History of Slovakia
Hi. It's a bit of a blast from the past, sorry, but I've raised a small query here: Talk:History_of_Slovakia about an edit which was originally yours. If you had time to pop along and take a quick look I'd be most grateful ... but if not, please don't worry as it is not exactly a major issue! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification?
What should I clarify? It is an exact quote from an academic source... what is the contradiction? (79.117.139.14 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Please read the edit summary. What are the "oldest extant documents"? Borsoka (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care... do you want to compile an academic source? Are you more authorized than a university historian?(79.117.139.14 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC))
 * PS I can't find in the article The statement of N Olahus, can you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.139.14 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please use the talk page on Origin of the Romanians. Sorry, it was not Nicholaus Oláh but Anton Verancsics who wrote after 1549 that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations - Szeklers, Hungarians and Saxons. I should add the Romanians too, who, even though they easily equal the others in number, have no liberties..." Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (2005); History of Romania: Compendium; Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4. pages 303-304 Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek -Ortodox churches in Hungary in 1054
Hi Borsoka! We have a debate about Hungary (among others) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png Would you be so kind as to help us? If you have time and mood, of course. Thank you! Fakirbakir (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We can not decide whether Greek-Orthodox church was a significant or marginal element in Transylvania (and Southern Hungary, Pannonia) at the time of the East-West Schism. We know the presence of the Orthodox church. It is fact. If it was significant i would correct the map.(blue-orange stripes in Southern Hungary and Transylvania). However Kingdom of Hungary was a 'western' Christian state. I have a similar problem with Raguza. I think it was under Croatian control at 1054, I would like to repair its the borders as well. You are expert and have a lot of knowledges about Transylvania, Romania in connection with middle ages. Neutrality is really important in this case. What do you think about it?Fakirbakir (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. Here is a good summary about churches of St Stephen's Hungary. I tried to find source about Tihany what I mentioned on the debate page. Now I have some doubts in reference to religions in Pannonia in the 11th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just wondering, according to this source Andrew I was Eastern Orthodox. Is it true? His name was Andrew the Catholic. I am really confused.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I need to reassess my point of view. That dissertation seems well established and contains good sources. Where can we presume Orthodox presence and population in Kingdom of Hungary in the middle of the 11th century?Fakirbakir (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foundation of Wallachia
The article Foundation 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Foundation of Wallachia for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support! Looking forward to collaborate. --Codrinb (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for your support! I created the 1st draft of the WikiProject Dacia. I used WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome as an example since it is similar in purpose and scope, with a nice layout. Please feel free to provide any feedback. Looking forward to collaborate! And Happy Holidays!--Codrinb (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation
I'd like to invite you to participate at this discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Lords/Barons of Armenian Cilicia
Category:Lords/Barons of Armenian Cilicia, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)