User talk:Borsoka/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Basarab article

That's it, I'm submitting you to ANI. I've tried countless times to reason with you and it's impossible. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Borsoka reported by User:Boyar Bran (Result: ). Thank you. —Bran (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read our policies before taking editors to ANI. Borsoka (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lorrain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Basarab the First

Hello, the one to be doing personal research input right now is you! All I've said is that his name may be coming from the daco-thracian substrate from the area. I've cited a book written by a renowned historian and linguist Sorin Paliga. Until you get a degree in the matter and publish a book yourself, I don't think you are fit to contest his work! Maybe you are anti-romanian or anti-autochtony, maybe you are now revealing the political bias of Wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe you are spreading a fringe theory. Marginal views are ignored by our community. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It seems like you didn't take the time to actually research what I'm saying. A literally PhD linguist and historian is marginal to you? Are you daft? Please go and bother someone else and leave my edits alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW Just because a theory doesn't currently have popularity, that's enough for you to nullify it? That's dogmatic thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.207.251 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this is a basic WP policy: WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Borsoka. I've seen that once again you've took interest in editing my contribution. I'd like to point out to you that the modern Romanian language does indeed have a Daco-Thracian substrate, fact agreed upon by all universities in this country and abroad. There's no reason to put a undue weight tag there... As for the rest of the tags, I'll leave them there until we reach a consenus in the talk page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, "Daco-Thracian" may be the substrate language of Romanian. Or, it is also a possibility, that early medieval Romanians borrowed a specific pastoralist vocabulary from Proto-Albanian and this specific vocabulary is described now as heritage of a supposed substrate language. Both views are mentioned in international scholarly literature. 2. Romanian also borrowed words from Slavic and Turkic languages, from Hungarian, from Western Romance languages. If you understand Hungarian, you certainly realize that the name "Basarab" is extremly similar to two Hungarian words ("to make love" in slang and "Arab"). Could we assume that the name is of Hungarian origin based on this similarity? No, because similarity does not make a connection. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not the nicest of assumptions, but you could nullify in the same manner the cuman theory, which is also based on such connections. The Proto-Albanian language may have also derived from a Thracian idiom, hence some similarities between our languages. Your derogatory way of using "pastoralist vocabulary" shows me that you may have indeed a visible adversion to Romanians. Keep going like that and you'll also find your way into ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyar Bran (talk • contribs) 02:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the Cumans dominated the Pontic steppes just decades before Basarab's birth and Cumans made up a significant part of the population of the Golden Horde in the 14th century. Making a connection between a language widely spoken in the region in the 12th-14th century and the name of a ruler born in the 13th century is quite logical. However, making connection between a ruler's birth and a language spoken in the region more than a millenium before his birth is a fringe theory. Sorry, but I think my Talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue. Please use the article's Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Place of authentication

Sajnálattal láttam, hogy copyvio miatt törölve lett a hiteleshelyekről szóló cikk itt, az angol wikin. Ez igen szomorú, mert egy jól használható cikk volt. A jelenlegi csonkot nincs kedved kibővíteni? Mégiscsak a Magyar Királyság egyik legfontosabb intézményrendszeréről van szó. Sajnos az én angolom ilyen jogi témához már kevés. Ha esetleg lenne kedved/időd, a régi cikket lementettem, így arra lehet támaszkodni, szívesen elküldöm. A magyar változat a megadott bibliográfián túl impozáns listát tartalmaz a téma szakirodalmáról. Ha van rá igény, ezek beszerzésében esetleg tudok segíteni. Tényleg a cikk fontossága miatt kérek ilyet. Válaszod várva, üdvözlettel, --Norden1990 (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hát, igen, régi bűnök árnya messzire elér. Még ifjú voltam és bohó. :) Előbb-utóbb nekilátok, kibővítem, de most éppen más témákra koncentrálok. Ha jól látom, a magyar szócikk forrásainak többsége elérhető Arcanum-on. Azt veszem észre, kevesebben vagyunk. Nem jó ez. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sajnos én is ezt tapasztalom. Mostanában én sem vagyok túl aktív, bár a 2019-es mérlegem így sem rossz, sok régóta tervezett bővítésre és létrehozásra sikerült sort kerítenem. Most azt látom, magyar történelem témában szinte alig történik valami előrelépés, ami sajnálatos, mert ezzel szemben a történettudomány aktivitása az elmúlt években láthatóan fellendült. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Topic of interest

I am not asking you to chime in there -- that could look like canvassing -- but I was curious as to what your thoughts are on the current convo on Talk:Romance peoples. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Sorry, I have only limited knowledge on the topic. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond III, Count of Tripoli

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raymond III, Count of Tripoli 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond III, Count of Tripoli

The article Raymond III, Count of Tripoli 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:Raymond III, Count of Tripoli for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Your deletions

Borsoka, why are you deleting my addition to the continuity theory section? It’s a perfectly accurate and cited addition in the relevant place. I could have expanded in the individual scenarios document by document, case by case, but I kept it short. Beriboe (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not deleting. I deleted it once. It contains OR. I will edit it to properly summarize Pop's (continuity) views. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Boril of Bulgaria

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild og Copy Editors of the article Boril of Bulgaria has been completed.

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

Please check my wording in the Uprising section. I changed "The exact circumstances of the movement are uncertain, because a Hungarian royal charter, which was issued in 1250, preserved to "suppressed" which I think was your intended meaning.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I modified the above text ([1]). Could you check it? Thank you for your assistance. I highly appreciate your work. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I've had a look and made a minor edit. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theodore I Laskaris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Theodore I Laskaris

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Theodore I Laskaris has been completed.

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

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your assistance. I am grateful to you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: You're very welcome. Cheers! Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Gervase of Bazoches

Thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem; good luck with your planned GA nomination. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Balian of Ibelin

Hi Borsoka, let me congratulate you for your Contributions about the Crusades, but I Wonder if you have references about Balian of Ibelin, the defender of Jerusalén. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.195.165 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I have some material on him. He was a quite important personality of his age, so most books about the crusades mention him. Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 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 Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

The article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 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:Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

The article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 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 Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Raymond III, Count of Tripoli

The article Raymond III, Count of Tripoli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raymond III, Count of Tripoli 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Coloman of Galicia

Hi Borsoka, I want to know what was the title of Coloman of Galicia en Szepes. There is no mention about his title in that place. He was a lord, a count, a prince or a duke in Szepes. Could you answer my doubt? Greetings Kardam (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, he bore no specific title. He continued to be styled as king (of Galicia) till the end of his life. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Vlachs

Hi,

see the recent edits in the article....do you know when the Hellenic Chronicle was written? A user added it, but did not place in any time...I found so far in the source it was not written contemporarily the time of Attila...could you look on it please? (recently an orphan section)

No, I have never read of it. I assume it must be a late chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore I Laskaris

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodore I Laskaris 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gervase of Bazoches

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gervase of Bazoches 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gervase of Bazoches

The article Gervase of Bazoches you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gervase of Bazoches 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology

I am completely sorry for the assumptions I made against you a few days ago over the Hungarian issues in the coronavirus political impact article. Not only are you not obviously biased towards the government, but you sourcing has proven your commitment to neutrality. I apologize for lumping you in with Balkan nationalists and anything you want to say is justified. Jon698 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Taking into account that Hungary is located in Central Europe, I could only be a Central European nationalist. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Central European nationalist then? Alright, this was noted. This explains a lot on what is happening... Bran (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

For people who cannot understand context. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hungary government emergency powers

The article you linked literally says "as there is no specific deadline for the special mandate, it will last until the government determines its end." (translated by Google). If you continue to put this disinformation up, you will be reported to admins, who are taking covid-19 related topics very seriously (WP:GS/COVID19) Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Please also translate the following text as well:"Az Országgyűlés felhatalmazta a kormányt, hogy a veszélyhelyzetben az alaptörvény vonatkozó bekezdése szerinti rendeleteinek hatályát a veszélyhelyzet megszűnéséig meghosszabbítsa. A Ház a veszélyhelyzet megszűnését megelőzően ezt a felhatalmazását visszavonhatja." Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore I Laskaris

The article Theodore I Laskaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodore I Laskaris 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boril of Bulgaria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boril of Bulgaria 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Proto vs. Common

Hi, the former Proto-Romanian article has been renamed to Common Romanian, argued as it is not a reconstruction. The Proto-language article's lead definiton contains reconstruction as a possibility, while in the definiton section is says it is compulsory....what is your opinion, in spite of these or the relevance or usage, is this rename ok (along with the addition (inaccurately) to the lead regarding Proto-Romanian)?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC))

So far I have been convinced that a "proto-language" and a "common language" are one and the same. I think the editor who moved the page should be approached on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:,

Please convince us/react to our concern/approach...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

Note: more informative response below the dividing line

I don't feel strongly about this. People use the prefix "proto-" differently, for either the hypothetical ancestral language or for the reconstruction of that language. I made this move while adding {{infobox proto-language}} to the reconstructed proto-language articles. Proto-Romanian didn't seem to qualify, as AFAICT it's not a reconstruction. If "Proto-Romanian" and "Common Romanian" are the same thing, then for the sake of consistency I thought it better to place the article under the name "Common Romanian".

Bickerton, writing on "protolanguage" (meaning the precursor to human language) in the ELL2 (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics), says, It is essential to distinguish the term 'protolanguage' from the protolanguages reconstructed for the various language families of the world, e.g., Proto-Indo-European or Nostratic. These, if they existed, would be full-fledged human languages with a time depth of thousands ... of years, implying that "protolanguage" in this situation means a reconstruction.

The ELL2 article on Romanian doesn't use either term, saying only, This early Romanian soon (perhaps as early as the 10th century) began to split, first into four dialects which later tended to become languages in their own right.

Graham Mallinson, in the Rumanian chapter of Harris & Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages (Routledge Family Series), speaks of "Balkan Romance". The intro by Harris includes Dalmatian in that, so Balkan Romance is Dalmatian plus Rumanian, but doesn't posit a common Romanian apart from Dalmatian.

So I don't see a particular dominant convention. The phrase "Common Romanian" is self-explanatory, while "Proto-Romanian", like "Proto-Romance", will suggest to many readers a reconstruction. I think "Common Romanian" is therefor the better title, but it doesn't matter all that much as long as we're clear in the lead what the article is about. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Brown & Miller's dictionary (CUP 2018) defines "proto language" as,

In historical linguistics the reconstructed, or hypothetical, ancestor of a family of known languages.

Crystal's dictionary (Blackwell 2008) defines "proto-" as,

A prefix used in historical linguistics to refer to a linguistic form or state of a language said to be the ancestor of attested forms/languages, e.g. Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Romance

Bussmann's dictionary (Routledge 2006) defines "proto-language" as,

Term indicating an early stage of a language or language family that is not historically attested but rather reconstructed through the comparative method (e.g. Indo-European).

Matthews' dictionary (OUP 2003) defines "protolanguage" as,

An unattested language from which a group of attested languages are taken to be historically derived. Thus Proto-Indo-European is the protolanguage posited as a source for all the Indo-European languages, Proto-Germanic the source for English and the other Germanic languages, and so on.

How well those definitions capture actual usage I don't know, but they suggest there's at least an implication that a protolanguage is a reconstruction, though the term may also be used for the actual historical ancestor. I've seen other sources state categorically (like Bussmann does above) that a protolanguage is not actually a language, but the reconstruction of a language, but unfortunately I don't remember where else I saw that. And of course it's very common for people to take e.g. reconstructed PIE as an actual language, posit actual people who spoke it, etc., even though that's all quite speculative. But, in the end, IMO "Proto-Romanian" has implications that may be misleading for people, while "Common Romanian" does not (though of course it may have other misleading implications I haven't though of). — kwami (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Okay, I think this is perhaps a more informative source to consider: Frederick Browning Agard (1984) A Course in Romance Linguistics, volume 2.[2]

Part One is "From the Romance languages up: Phonological reconstruction", and chapter 2 is "The reconstruction of Proto-Romance". Part Two is "From Latin down: Phonological changes", and chapter 1 is "The Latin language becomes the Common Romance language". Section 1.9 is "Equating Proto-Romance with Common Romance".

At the title of Part Two chapter 1 there is a footnote, explaining the term "Common Romance", and this is on p. 60, as follows (italics in the original):

As applied to what had become by present criteria new language, this new label [Common Romance] quite properly supersedes not only the imprecise and much-abused term 'Vulgar Latin', but also Hall's preferred term 'Popular Latin' and, indeed, Agard's (1976) 'Imperial Latin'. ... As for the term 'Proto-Romance', which must be kept fully distinct from Common Romance, it refers simply to the common source of all Romance languages as reconstructed by the comparative method, and therefore should be reserved for use in a different fram of reference. The fact remains that all the grammatical features for which the comparative method does not show evidence—e.g. the phoneme h or a six-case nominal system—need not be ascribed to Common Romance as we define it. Proto-Romance and Common Romance are, in this sense, the two faces of one and the same coin.

If we follow this model, then Common Romanian would be the actual language ancestral to the modern Romanian languages, which like Common Romance / Vulgar Latin we have some attestation for. I believe that is the topic of our article. Proto-Romanian would then be the reconstruction of this language. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:, thank you for your above remarks. My concerns are the following: 1. Proto-Romanian/Common Romanian is not attested. It is reconstructed based on the four variants of Romanian (Daco-Romanian, Istro-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian); 2. A quick google search suggests that the term Proto-Romanian is more common in the context of the article ([3]) than Common Romanian ([4]). Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka,

This seems rather like "Proto-Norse", which is simultaneously minimally attested and reconstructed.

At least, after the intro, the only content of our article is about its attestation. That's not the format for a reconstructed proto-language. And there is nothing in the article about an actual reconstruction.

So, if our article is supposed to be about reconstructed Proto-Romanian, then it needs to be rewritten to actually cover that topic. If, on the other hand, it's supposed to be about the actual Common Romanian ancestral to the modern languages, then it seems adequate. Given its contents, and assuming we agree on using the terms "proto" and "common" as Agard does, then I think it needs to remain at Common Romanian. Of course, we could expand it to cover both topics, in which case "proto" should probably take precedence, since a lot can be reconstructed but very very little is attested.

I don't see how you conclude from those google searches that "Proto-Romanian" is more common than "Common Romanian", and both searches returned inappropriate hits. We do have sources like Dindelegan & Maiden (2013) The Grammar of Romanian who say, "The oldest Romanian period (also known as Common Romanian, Proto-Romanian, Primitive Romanian) is the period prior to the separation of the four Romanian dialects" -- in other words, that they're synonyms -- beside those who make a distinction. And even if we can determine which is more common, do we decide based on blind statistics, or on what is appropriate for WP?

I'll ask someone who commented on Proto-Norse for their opinion. — kwami (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is similar. As far as I know, Proto-Romanian is not attested at all. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved the discussion to the article's Talk page. Please continue the discussion there, to enable other editors' to join us. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boril of Bulgaria

The article Boril of Bulgaria 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:Boril of Bulgaria for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Boril of Bulgaria

The article Boril of Bulgaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boril of Bulgaria 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your incredible effort in helping to perfect Marcian. Thank you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Soli (region)

Hi,

about the last two recent edits in the page, you think they are ok? Thanks for the check!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC))

I have not much information on the history of Só in this period. Fine should be checked. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Peter II of Bulgaria

Hello:

The copy edit you requested of the article Peter II of Bulgaria has been completed.

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

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your thorough copyedit. I highly appreciate your assistance. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Geza of Hungary

I would like to tell me what was wrong to the changes I did to the family tree, so I can be better next time. Thank you. Aris de Methymna (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

We do not know the names of his daughters. We should not name them. Borsoka (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why revert

Why revert diff? It was a perfectly good update. —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I still do not understand the reasons of your edit. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, Did you follow the link provided in my short summary? Did you read the content there? Are you comfortable with what ref=harv means? —¿philoserf? (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Yes, but lengthy texts rarely help to understand edits. 2. Up to this point, ref=harv have worked well. 3. Do you know that you can raise further questions instead of explaining your reasons, but I will ignore them? :) Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, ref=harv are the default. Thus the maintenance category. I am removing the setting which has no negative effect. I does cleanup the maintenance backlog. The person who reverts is responsible for understanding why they revert.

I am now done. I am moving on. There are so very many reference and citation errors and warnings to clear up. —¿philoserf? (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Please also remember that editors who make edits are required to explain it without demanding other editors' time to read lengthy texts. Borsoka (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, that is what my edit summary did. It was more thorough than most I see. Your revert for instance was an edit. It had the default edit summary. No reason. —¿philoserf? (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tax authorities would gladly employ you if you think an average editor can understand your edit summary. My edit summary was a question mark. And you answered it by raising a series of questions above. WP is not an immigration authority. Sorry, I will not discuss this issue with you. All the same, I am grateful for you for fixing the problem. Borsoka (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Borsoka, Okay. Truce. you got me to laugh. have a great day. —¿philoserf? (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert this text with super refernces?

Romania in the Middle Ages section.

Unlike the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia, medieval Transylvania was not a separate Land of Hungary, however it was an administratively distinct and integral part of medieval Kingdom of Hungary.

"We do not write what was not"

This is not a real reasoning.

All encclopedias contain negative statements , denials of some common misconceptions/stereotypes, because it is also spread of knowledge what encyclopedias were made. --Liltrender (talk) 17:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a real reasoning. Please remember you are not allowed to edit articles because you were banned from the community. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Running out of reasons ? Deny the stereotypes can be found in the printed versions of Britannica, Broickhaus and Larousse encyclopedias. Óvónéni ments meg a sarkokba állított gonosztól?--Liltrender (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You can always entertain me. I especially love when you list renowned encyclopedias. Sorry, now I do not have time to continue this discussion. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It was just an argumentum ad hominem, due to the lack of reasoning. Until you cannot provide a rational reason, I will neglect your claims.--Liltrender (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Theodore II Laskaris

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Theodore II Laskaris has been completed.

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

I have added a "Clarifrication" tag to one sentence in the Illness and death section as I was unsure what the sentence was trying to convey.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive and thorough review. Sorry for the typos. I should have been more focused on spelling. I hope I clarified the mysterious sentence ([5]). Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: You're very welcome. The clarification looks good. Stay safe. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore II Laskaris

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodore II Laskaris 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Vlad II Dracul

Hello, I think you wrote the article by Vlad II Dracul. You wrote that you were born before 1395. Can we give this a source? When did he say he was born, 1394, or 1393? --Thothr_(talk) 17:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I am slightly younger than 625. :) The cited source says: "We know very little of [Vlad Dracul]'s early life beyond the fact that he was born sometimes before 1395 in Wallachia." (Florescu, Radu R.; McNally, Raymond T. (1989). Dracula, Prince of Many Faces: His Life and his Times. Back Bay Books. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-316-28656-5.) Borsoka (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am doing the same article on Turkish Wikipedia (II. Vlad). --Thothr_(talk) 13:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Moldova

Hi,

see the recent edits. Regarding the Viking mention, the source I cannot retrieve, regarding Andronikos, as far as I know when Béla III won over him, took many Vlachs from the surrounding territories of today's Sofia and settled them in Szeben and Fogaras Counties then...it is not clear to me where he claims Vlach territories exactly, or how those "Vlachs" were named by him...Please look on it, Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC))

Sorry, I do not fully understand your above message. Rodfos was killed by Blakumen who may have been Vlachs and may have lived in Moldova, but this is only PoV. Andronikos was captured by Vlachs somewhere to the north of the Lower Danube - likely in Moldova. Borsoka (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Crusader states

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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

All I was doing is correcting a couple of inaccuracies and copy editing your EFL Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are so boringly hilarious. Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter II of Bulgaria

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Peter II of Bulgaria 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Peter II of Bulgaria

The article Peter II of Bulgaria you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Peter II of Bulgaria 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 No Great Shaker -- No Great Shaker (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status" and then do it all over again! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conrad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi, I just saw that the article about Henry IV which I had the pleasure of GA-reviewing a while ago has made it to FA status. Wow, great work! I really enjoyed reading and reviewing the article back in March and think it's great that such an important article has made it to FA. A pleasure to see. I'm impressed by your dedication to producing high quality content here. Keep up the good work! Yakikaki (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Humphrey and Isabella

Hi, thanks for reverting my edit, I was remiss. --Pagony (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

A big "thank you" for your work on Theodore I Laskaris and Theodore II Laskaris! Really comprehensive and well-written articles, as usual. Dare I hope that you will continue with some other Byzantine emperors? If you want any help or sources, just leave me a message. --Constantine ✍ 13:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for your proposal. Yes, I am planning to edit more articles about the Byzantine emperors or their wives. The Byzantine Empire was one of the most successful realms of world history. The Byzantines survived concentrated external attacks and the loss of their core territories several times. Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dhola Post 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Category :Remarried royal consorts

Hi, If you don't like a category, the approach is NOT to empty all the contents, but to take it to Cfd. Not everyone is likely to agree with your personal opinion that it is not defining. I have reverted all your changes. Feel free to take it to Cfd. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, I did NOT empty any category. Would you explain your above message? If you refer to this edit ([6]), would you explain me why a reigning queen who most likely did not remarry should be included in the category? Borsoka (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see you know where I got your name. Of course using an edit summary would have explained your objection. All the examples I looked at were just removed because the whole idea of the category was disliked. Johnbod (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There was a question mark in the edit summary. As far as I know it means that I do not understand something. Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present) 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Szapolyaiak

Mivel korábban elkezdted kibővíteni a John Zápolya cikket, ezért ajánlom a figyelmedbe az MTA BTK TTI új köteteit, amelyek a mohácsi csata kutatásának keretében jelennek meg. Egy elfeledett magyar királyi dinasztia: a Szapolyaiak, illetve Isabella Jagiellon, Queen of Hungary. A következő hetekben már elérhető lesz a könyvesboltokban. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hú, de jó! Köszönöm. Képzeld, a székelyispánokról szóló új könyvet, amit még tavaly ajánlottál, nem tudtam megszerezni. Mondjuk, már kb. fél éve nem kerestem rá. Itt az ideje, hogy megint rákeressek. Borsoka (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Én megvettem annak idején. A Kello-nál elvileg kapható. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You should read what your message means before posting it. Borsoka (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

John Hunyadi

Hi Borsoka. I wonder if you could improve this article because there are some parts that need to be polished, especially in the introduction and the legacy. As you edited many articles related with History of Hungary, I ask you if could check it. It is an interesting article and I consider that it could be a good article, but there are some mistakes that need to be solved. Greetings Kardam (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. It is a good idea. :) Borsoka (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Lydda and Ramla has been nominated for deletion

Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Lydda and Ramla has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Category:Lordship of Botrun has been nominated for merging

Category:Lordship of Botrun has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for GAN difficulties

Hey Borsoka,

Just wanted to apologize for failing to finish the GA review; I should have let you know earlier that I didn't think I would be able to finish it in a reasonable time and let someone else take it. Sorry again. Sincerely, -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• No problem. We all have our own life and our real life responsabilities. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Pons, Count of Tripoli

The article cites "Lewis 2006" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo and should be "Lewis 2017"? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Pons, Count of Tripoli

Hi Borsoka, Pons, Count of Tripoli has harv ref errors in refs 5, 91 and 93 but I'm not sure what the correct publications are (not sure if they have the right author or year) would you be able to assist? Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Theodore II Laskaris

I have reviewed the article and promoted it. Good work. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodore II Laskaris

The article Theodore II Laskaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodore II Laskaris 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Category talk:Communism 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 :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please stop disruptive editings that are clearly against Wikipedia's policy. See WP:Source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You do not understand how our community works. I did not want to have you banned, but you have had yourself banned from our community. Borsoka (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

If you didn't want to have me banned, you could have been decent enough to explain me what I'm doing wrong, if that is the case. But you simply stated "you misunderstood our policy" when "our policy" is very clear and I quoted you that policy. And when I asked you what you meant you were silent. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained it to you on the relevant Talk page. Please do not send me messages, because you can explain your case at the relevant notice board. Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What you explained me in the relevant Talk page was "you misunderstood our policy", that could hardly be called an explaination. LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I will ignore your messages on this issue on my Talk page. Please explain your arguments at the relevant notice board. Borsoka (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Dragutin

Hello:

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

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

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC) @Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your thorough copyedit. Yes, the article looks like a GA now. I highly appreciate your assistance. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stefan Dragutin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stefan Dragutin 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Seven captains in chief of the Kingdom of Hungary

Hi Borsoka. Do you know who the Captains in Chief were?

In 1445, seven nobles were chose to rule the Kingdom of Hungary in the name of the young king Ladislaus the Posthumous, however only John Hunyadi is mentioned, but there is no information about the rest even in Hungarian Wikipedia. Although they rule for only one year, I want to know if they played a role on Hungarian history. Greetings Kardam (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they all were influential noblemen or military leaders: Nicholas of Ilok, John Hunyadi, George Rozgonyi, John Jiskra of Brandýs, Emeric Bebek, Michael Ország and Pancrace Szentmiklósi. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information Borsoka. Greetings Kardam (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stefan Dragutin

The article Stefan Dragutin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stefan Dragutin 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your hard work on Stefan Dragutin, I appreciate it. I look forward to your future works. Maybe Stefan Konstantin would be interesting for you? Congratulations! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A map

Hi Borsoka. I uploaded a new map called CharlesofAnjouempire.png. Let me know if it is correct. Greetings.Kardam (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Captain in Chief of Hungarian Kingdom

Hi Borsoka. I would like to create this article. However, I couldn’t find information about it in Spanish language and also in English language to create it. Please, could you create a brief information about this article? I know that you are busy now, but could you do it?

Also, I want to know what is title in Hungarian language for this article. Greetings Kardam (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It is an excellent idea, although English (and Hungarian) literature is limited. I found quickly the following sources:

• Engel, Pál (2001). The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. I.B. Tauris Publishers. p. 288. ISBN 1-86064-061-3.
• Mureşanu, Camil (2001). John Hunyadi: Defender of Christendom. The Center for Romanian Studies. p. 116. ISBN 973-9432-18-2.
• Cartledge, Bryan (2011). The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary. C. Hurst & Co. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-84904-112-6.

The Hungarian title is főkapitány. Borsoka (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit War

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bran (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You do not understand the very concept of edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Taken from your talk page: "Taking into account that Hungary is located in Central Europe, I could only be a Central European nationalist. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)". Your reasons are clear. Ok you Central European Nationalist, please tell me, how aren't you also edit warrring? Please wait for the issue to be resolved into ANI before making further modifications. Note that you've used your three reverts for today! Bran (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning of basic text. Neither do you understand what context means. Finally, you have not heard of irony. Borsoka (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Borsoka! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Section titles of an article's talk page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles I of Anjou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alphonse of Toulouse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vassal status of Moldavia

Hi,

a question. See ([7]), see this ([8]), and recently this ([9]). I don't see the relation with Poland necessarily appropriately expressed, with exact timeline as before, maybe I miss something (the recent version would suggest earlier 1514 Poland would be exlcuded)? Thank you for your time.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

I remember that the Moldavian voivodes did homage to the Polish kings several times, but I cannot remember the exact circumstances. The following article is a good source for the early history of Moldavia: Deletant, Dennis (1986). "Moldavia between Hungary and Poland, 1347–1412". The Slavonic and East European Review. 64 (2): 189–211.. Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you,

recently I could directly access this link ([10]), please affirm if this exraction from the books covers the issue, or I'd need to gather the whole book..(KIENGIR (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

I may not understand your above remark. Yes, it is the article and it covers Polish-Moldavian relations from 1347 to 1412. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Eadwald

Many thanks for your review, Borsoka. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Crusader States

If I was able to be of help than I am glad. If you have a new question or wish to pursue part of the original question, of course that is your right, but it is likely better to move on. Enjoy your editing :) Springnuts (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmas

Dear Borsoka,

I wish you a Merry Christmas and thanks for your ever precious work in our community. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

BÚÉK

Helló! Nagyon király lett a magyarországi reformációról szóló szócikked! Sikerekben gazdag, vírusmentes és boldog új évet kívánok neked! --Norden1990 (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)