Hi Borsoka. Is it truth that John Hunyadi was short and he learnt how to read and write until his last years?

I was reading in German Wikipedia about John Hunyadi and it says that he learnt to write and read when he was Old. Also, it mentions that he couldn't write well in Latin language. Please, could you solve that doubt in the article in English. Cheers--190.234.57.65 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no information about these details of his life. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement 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 23:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Francisco Franco 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 20:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are looking for a new project, I have an idea. The subject ticks your interests in Hungary, HRE, and Sicily. Constance of Aragon. I wanted to do it, but I am rather disappointed in the English language coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your idea. Yes, she is an interesting subject. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

One thing I noticed that I was not able to resolve was the years in the footnote: "Many historians write that these events happened in 1242, because Conrad II reached the age of majority at fifteen, according to the laws of Jerusalem. However, evidence conclusively proves that these events actually took place in 1242 (the year when he reached the age of majority, according to Sicilian laws). Thomas of Acerra, for instance, left Acerra for the Holy Land in 1242." Should one or more of the years be different from 1242?

Thank you for your thorough and comprehensive copyedit and also for your query above. I fixed the problem (the first year was 1243). Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The article Hungarian nobility you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hungarian nobility 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 SpartaN -- SpartaN (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Francisco Franco 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 00:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Evening Borsoka I'm contacting you to ask why you reversed my edit back from Arbuz to Árbóc. Sadly I cannot access the book used as a source. But the first mention of the name is in the Chronicon Dubense, listed in latin as "Arbuz". Its meaning is watermelon. Maybe we could add (sic) to the quote? Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibby01 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your query. WP is clearly biased towards secondary reliable sources so we could add the Latin version of the name if a secondary source verifies it. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sayyid dynasty 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 23:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you reverted my edits on the page John Hunyadi without explaining why, so I thought I should go through the changes I made and the reasoning behind them.

First of all, as you probably already know, the part about the family's "Wallachian ancestry" has been removed from the lead in the article about the Hunyadi family as per WP:EVASION. The sock puppet account, Bruhsmillah, also actively edited Hunyadi's page before getting banned, although he/she was not the one who initially added this info to the lead.

As per MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity [...] should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." In this case, Hunyadi's origin is not at all a defining factor of his notability, so I do not see any reason why it should be included in the lead. The issue is already thoroughly discussed in the paragraph about his childhood in a completely adequate and satisfactory way.

Secondly, I removed the wikilink from "Hungarian" as per MOS:OL, but I do not think this needs any futher explanation.

At last, when rewording the sentence, I changed wikilinks to avoid redirects and made it clearly visible which link gets you where, in accordance with the Manual of Style. E.g. hiding "Hunyadi family" behind the word "ancestry" is not too felicitous.

I – of course – will not restore my edits without reaching a consensus first, but I would like to know where I was (or was not) wrong, as this is the first time someone reverted the changes I had made on a page about a historical figure.

Thank you for your reply in advance! :) – Zsovar3 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is to be presented in accordance with the main text. He Wallachian origin is quite relevant. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not at all say that it was not relevant, but that it does not contribute to Hunyadi's notability. Relevance means that something should be included in the article, notability means that it should be in the lead. Ethnicity is a very sensitive and abstruse topic, that is why it generally should not be included in the opening paragraph. To avoid disruptive editing, which Hunyadi's page has unfortunately seen a lot of, I do not think that an exception should be made. I would be very thankful, if you could provide me another article where this decision had been made, so that I can understand this issue more. Zsovar3 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could mention your concerns on the article's talk page. By the way, his ethnicity is not mentioned in the lead. Borsoka (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I knew that you were going to jump onto this. :) I did not state that it is his ethnicity that is included in the lead in this case. With personal issues (e.g. an editing mistake) I always try to seek help and guidance from more experienced users, so that I can become a more useful contributor day by day, that is the reason why I decided to leave a message directly on your talk page. But anyway, I do not see the end of this discussion, my aspirations clearly did not succeed this time. As a leave-taking, I have to thank you for keeping an eye on Hungary-related history articles. I will try to do the same from time to time. Zsovar3 (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Helló! I would like to inform you that the first monograph on the Golden Bull is published, scheduled for the 800th anniversary, also in English. I find this useful information for you. Reference data for the English version:

• Zsoldos, Attila (2022). The Golden Bull of Hungary. Arpadiana IX., Research Centre for the Humanities. ISBN 978-963-416-305-3.

It will be available in bookstores in the coming weeks and months. For the 800th anniversary, it would be good to upgrade and expand this important article, Golden Bull of 1222, don't you think? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. You are right we should improve it. Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In case you think I was revenge editing here, no I clicked on your userpage and found the article and got drawn in. Its very good, but could use with some condencing of refs..ie claim 1[1] claim 2[1], should be claim1 claim 2[1]. If you see what I mean (very late here so might not be making sense!) Ceoil (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not think that is why I thanked your edit. All articles can be improved. So again thank you for your edits and suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Great. Am reading through and may tweak a bit more, but of course you are free to revert and no milk spilled. Ceoil (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you mind giving a pass through Corp Naomh when you get a chance. For phrasing and etc. You can be blunt; I can take the hits. Realise its undercooked and only nearing PR, but hints and steering would be good. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I could review phrasing and my knowledge about its subject is extremly limited. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

However its surely within, as you have been (loudly) claiming, within your era of expertise (incl broad tracks of 100-1200 European history. I'm disappointed if otherwise and at at this reaction. Ceoil (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for disappointing you but I must loudly repeat that my knowledge about the article's subject is below average. I have to accept my own limits. Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of people on the Middle ages article would be surprised to hear this (you gave the impression you know all), given your stubborn and off-putting hubris there. But fine. Can you let me know the limits of your knowledge, so please, so can judge. Also, thanks for nothing. Ceoil (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, people often have wrong impressions about each other. Sorry, I will not list the limits of my knowledge because it would be time consuming. I prefer editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sushi725 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive and thorough copyedit. Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Crusading movement 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.
You know not to do this, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is WP:TAGBOMBING and it is not a productive step to take. If there are issues with the article text, you should take it up on the talk page, not keep reverting. What is and what is not a copyright violation can also be disputable: sometimes, there just aren't ten thousand different ways to say the same thing. Anyways, without taking any position in all of this, I strongly recommend you keep it to the talk page, unless you want somebody else to report you for edit-warring. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your note. I do not fully agree with it, but I accept your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

After an other editor also noticed the many cases of close paraphrasing, original research and original synthesis in the article, and the main contributor to the article is convinced that he is not responsible for them ([1]), @RandomCanadian: you may want to help him to address those issues without tag bombing. For example, you can review the whole article and compare its sentences with the (allegedly) cited sources during the peer review process as the main contributor has always been suggesting. Good luck! Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look when I have more time to dedicate to such complex matters, as currently I`m rather busy IRL (nearly end of university term, exams and papers and what not...) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We say "I wish your hands and legs broke" on these occasions. I guess this is a kind of superstition: those who wish you good luck before an exam or opening night may raise the jeolousy of bad spirits against you. :)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that Re-latinization of Romanian means language contact or is it rather part of the broad history of the Romanian language at Template: Romanian language?
Quote: Language contact occurs when speakers of two or more languages or varieties interact and influence each other. Is this the case with Re-latinization? Leader31 (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but I assume it has a broader meaning than language contact. Borsoka (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article William of Villehardouin 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) 08:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I've nominated Nadezhda Alliluyeva for FAC. As you had participated in the Peer Review, I wanted to see if you'd like to give it a second review at this time, and if so any comments would be much appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I will comment in a couple of days. I am sure it is prepared for a FAC. Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of coups and coup attempts 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 01:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello Borsoka. I understand you have some knowledge of Hungarian matters, and you were around in the old days when socking by User:Iaaasi was discussed. Just now, an administrator of the Romanian Wikipedia, User:Kun Kipcsak, has reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi proposinging the name of User:Mestter as a Iaaasi sock. Do you have any opinion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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 04:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lion Capital of Ashoka 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 07:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palgrave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charan 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 07:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Can I have your opinion on what is going on in the Viktor Orbán article? Ltbuni (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not know. He is a quite controversial figure with quite controversial views, therefore people tend to edit the article about him based on their emotions. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II 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 04:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Could you check the newly created Zoltán of Transylvania article? I think it contradicts with other articles, such as Voivode of Transylvania. Norden1990 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it contradicts, but fairly presents the topic. A chronicle claims that Zoltan of Transylvania was the first voivode, but modern scholars do not accept this claim. Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mercedes-Benz TN 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 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. You reverted my edit with the reason that Kosztin is not a reliable source. I'm not questioning your decision, but Kosztin himself cited another source for his statement. Can I put back what I wrote with this source instead?: https://mtda.hu/books/tamas_lajos_romaiak_romanok_es_olahok_Optimized.pdf

If this is still not reliable, can I put back only the Regestrum Varadiense part which you didn't criticise? Gyalu22 (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should not refer to pre-war sources in this article. As far as I can remember the sentence about the Regestrum Varadiense was not verified with a citation to a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The article William of Villehardouin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:William of Villehardouin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II 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 18:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography 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 19:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka!

I am very familiar with the Hungarian chronicles, I did this edit according to my best knowledge regarding the original text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=1111709253&oldid=1111704524

I see, you reverted, could you tell me which part was wrong?

For example:

I think this text is incorrect which was rewritten by recently by this edit:

"Simon of Kéza's later Hungarian chronicle described the Romanians as "the shepherds and husbandmen of the Romans"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=1061335517&oldid=1061333479

I rewrote in this format which I think it is more correct when I read the original text, because the original text does not say at all "husbandmen of the Romans":

"Simon of Kéza's later Hungarian chronicle described the Vlachs (''Blackis'') as "shepherds and serfs"

Please check the original Latin text and Hungarian translation:

http://mek.oszk.hu/02200/02249/02249.htm

"Pannoniae, Pamfiliae, Macedoniae, Dalmatiae et Frigiae ciuitates, que crebris spoliis et obsidionibus, per Hunos erant fatigatae, natali solo derelicto in Apuliam per mare Adriaticum de Ethela, licentia impetrata, transierunt, Blackis, qui ipsorum fuere Pastores et coloni, remanentibus sponte in Pannonia."

"Pannonia, Pamfilia, Macedonia, Dalmatia és Frigia városai, mellyeket a húnok gyakor rablásokkal és megszállásokkal zaklattak, Ethelétől szabadságot nyervén, szülöttjök földét oda hagyva, az Adriai tengeren át Apuliá-ba költözének, az oláhok, kik pásztoraik és jobbágyaik voltak, önkényt Pannoniában maradván." OrionNimrod (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

We do not need to and we cannot translate the original Latin text if a reliable translation exist. Furthermore, we cannot change the text of a quote from a reliable translation. Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I linked you the reliable Hungarian translation, and you can see there is no "husbandmen of the Romans" text, and this recent edit have put these extra words, so this is the incorrect edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=1111709253&oldid=1111704524 OrionNimrod (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, you cannot challenge a reliable English translation ([2]) by referring to an old (although reliable) Hungarian translation. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to share me that English text! I searched that part and I see this "shepherds and husbandmen" and I do not see the text in that reliable English translation "husbandmen of the Romans", so I think it is still incorrect that recently edit with this "Roman" exentsion. Because the text say they were "their" shepherd, and "their" means "Huns" in that sentence. Please read:

https://books.google.hu/books?id=a72xT1YubqAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=hu&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=shepherds%20and%20husbandmen&f=false OrionNimrod (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Good morning!

Around 1 AM today user Aristeus01 edited Transylvania several times removing needed reliable sources, and contesting the internationally (and in Romania mainly) accepted explanation for the etymology of Ardeal with fringe sources (of course not putting back the tag). To avoid an edit war between me and him, can I ask you to reorganize things in the chapter, maybe he won't fight you? Gyalu22 (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. You should discuss issues relating to an article on the article's Talk page. You can also seek external inputs through the relevant wikiprojects. Borsoka (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I would appreciate, however, if you would make the decision in the new talk section in case we can't reach one. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka,

I see you reverted my edit refering that this is friinge, but this is not fringe, this is the exact text what I can read in the referenced academic source, please read check yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=0&oldid=1113080468

Please read the marked Romanian academic lingusts source, page 235-236:

https://documente.bcucluj.ro/web/bibdigit/periodice/anuarulinstitutuluideistorienationala/1923/BCUCLUJ_FP_BALP_42_1923_002_001.pdf

"Cei mai de seamă filologi şi istorici ai noştri susţin aşa dar fără deosebire că Ardeal ne-a venit din ungureşte. Şi lucrul s'a. petrecut în adevăr aşa."

“Our greatest philologists and historians maintain that Ardeal came to us from Hungarian. And the fact is, it really did.” OrionNimrod (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In 1924. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing. Specifically, tendentious editing well in excess, possibly simply WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 04:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: may I ask you to choose an alternative reasoning for blocking me? You have not referred to a single case of tendentious editing so far. Neutrality is quite important for me. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I think I was quite clear. You've willfully ignored my warning, repeatedly, to the extent that I deemed your approach thusly. You are free to launch an unblock appeal, however, with whatever reasoning you see fit (though I recommend you review WP:GAB closely first). El_C 04:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Borsoka (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is the first time I am appealing a block for almost 15 years. My reason is that I would like to understand what was the actual reason of my blocking. Is this a highly uncivil request? Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, knowing El C from admin work, I can say that when he is firm, as firm as he is above, there is no doubt that he will enforce what he says he will enforce. Those who trifle with that, as you seem to have, do so at their peril.

And second, after looking at the AN/I I need no further convincing. Maybe tendentious isn't quite the right word, but ... obtuse? Yeah, that's it. You should be in the dictionary next to it. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@El C and Daniel Case: thank you very much for this experience. I am proud that I am a member of a community where judicious administrators enforce what they say. Also thank you for the nice and short adjective "obtuse". I will be using it instead of the uncivil expression "You obviously do not understand..." for which I was warned. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Context matters, Borsoka. Which is the difference between the facetious and the sincere; the purposefully obtuse and the genuinely confused; the browbeating and the collaborative. I'm sorry to say, but it is to your discredit that what ought to have ended with a mere warning, became... all of this. I'd like you to take the following week to reflect, truly reflect, about the following: the topic area in dispute is subject to the WP:ARBEE sanctions regime. You could face a topic ban from that entire area of study, indefinitely, if, once the block expires, you continue to act un-collaboratively. Believe it or not, I personally don't want you to fail. That would not be a mark of my being right in having sanctioned you as a problem user or whatever. On the contrary, it'd be a mark that I, too, had failed. Failed to bring the matter to some sort of resolution — you being out of the picture would not be that. But I get the cards that I'm dealt.

A key part of my warning which you continued overlooking, over and over, is that there are relatively straight-forward ways to bring in outside input to content disputes, especially when these mostly involve two people (avenues like 3rd opinion, etc.). And that dispassionate discourse doesn't need patronizing rhetoric repeatedly interspersed, because it never helps, it is always superfluous to the substance of whatever is being discussed, and that, ultimately, it serves as a form of attrition against content opponents. As for that entire thing about me saying that more descriptive edit summaries than ones containing a single word (I said "per se.") would be better, which for some reason you viewed in error as excluding that example word itself — you need to let that go. Your continued misreading there was and remains a distraction.

I, therefore, urge you to take the long view. The warning you were originally given by myself was not particularly severe in nature. Your reaction to it, however, not only became intractable, but also exhibited a fundamental lack of understanding of how the English Wikipedia works. Like, asking me, the WP:UNINVOLVED admin, for academic sources, something one would expect from a new user, not a 15-year veteran. So, I hope some or all of this ends up resonating with you, and that you'd be able to put all this unpleasantness behind you. Thanks in advance for reading. El_C 14:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bosorka: in a "Randy in Boise" situation it might seem hard to keep one's cool. But it's the only right thing to do, because there are many wrong ways to be right. Remember: WP is a community, there are a lot of knowledgeable editors out there who will chime in if you seek input e.g. via WT:LANG, even at the risk that people will not agree with you in every detail. And don't antagonize people like El_C who are here to safeguard a healthy discourse environment. Many good potential editors shun WP because of ubiquitous strongmanship. In any case, the ANI thread has triggered my interest in what's going on in Substrate_in_Romanian, so it won't remain a two-editor dispute. –Austronesier (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please be careful. Sooner or later you will be taken to ANI, and you will be warned without having a chance to express your views beforehead for using words like "fringe" in edit summaries and explaining them only in the Talk page. We are developing a collaborative environment, so administrators are required to menace editors with new and new sanctions each day or call them obtuse. Borsoka (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You've had ample time to express your views, but you continue to scoff at any attempt at reconciliation, from anyone. So I will leave you to it, as there's nothing else to be said. El_C 08:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm shocked to see you've been blocked for a week. It's interesting that some useful and committed editors are punished in this way, while the activities of clearly destructive editors imbued with nationalist sentiments are tolerated. I hope this unfairness doesn't put you off Wikipedia and you come back after a week. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong. Two judicious administrators have concluded after fair and thorough investigations that I am guilty in tendentious editing or I am obtuse. Now I am in Purgatory where I am being trained to be more collaborative through a series of conciliatory threats. For me, wikipedia is an interesting social experience. It could still develop into a high level encyclopedia but it could also end as a playground for overage cosplayers playing a role that they could never play outside this artificial environment. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate Norden1990's sentiment. I hope you will continue to work here on Wikipedia. I have seen your work and it is very good. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I will continue to work. I enjoy editing and such unexpected interludes are always entertaining. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Your articles are an enormous contribution to Wikipedia, and their thoroughness is first-rate. Aza24 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. You are really kind. Most of us are here to improve even if there are exceptions. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Please change your vote to Keep or Delete for the sake of consistency. RF354 (talk) 11:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As per user Rgvis' suggestion in the talk page I proposed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Re-latinization of Romanian - Wikipedia. Please see discussion page.Aristeus01 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your message. I already voted. This message does not cancel your canvassing. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the Romanian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, you deleted the "Avars called Hungarians" part from History of Transylvania with the explanation that "And the Magyars were frequently mentioned as Huns, Scythians or Dacians, while the Romanians were at least once mentioned as Dacians - these anachronistic ethonyms do not prove any continuity."

I'm not here to question that, as I agree with you, but I've never heard of any source calling the Romanians "Dacians". So just for curiosity, can I ask for a link? Gyalu22 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The 11th-century Kekaumenos ([3]) associated the Vlachs with the Dacians (although he wrote that their Urheimat had been located to the south of the Danube, in the Diocese of Dacia). Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

...and as far as I know saying them to live where the Serbs, also associating them with the Bessoi.

I remember now, thanks. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka,

I have remarks regarding these edits, you said "fringe theory"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=1118981684&oldid=1118945450

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&diff=1118981939&oldid=1118981684

Could I ask you, did you follow the latest researches in the topic?

I think the genetic results cannot be "fringe", this is the most modern genetic study which was published a very respectable international science journal:

The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians:

Published: May 25, 2022

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1

In the previous months also all mainstream Hungarians journals referred these researches:

https://index.hu/techtud/2022/06/04/hun-avar-magyar-eredettortenet-honfoglalas-nepvandorlas-genetika-genom/

https://magyarnemzet.hu/kultura/2022/05/feny-derult-a-hunok-avarok-es-honfoglalo-magyarok-szarmazasara

https://magyarjelen.hu/bakay-kornel-munkassaganak-eredmenyei-igazolodtak-be/

https://mki.gov.hu/en/hirek-en/sajto-en/avars-in-hungarian

https://mki.gov.hu/hu/videok-hu/mediaszereplesek-hu/a-magyarsagkutato-intezet-azon-dolgozik-hogy-fenyt-deritsen-valodi-szarmazasunkra

A lot of academic sources from historians:

http://real.mtak.hu/46728/1/Szabados_2016_Mesterhazy_75_kotet_u.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/36486693

http://real.mtak.hu/20927/1/Szokekotet_angol_u_085622.294918.pdf

https://www.academia.edu/44520614

https://www.oktatas.hu/pub_bin/dload/kozoktatas/uj_kozneveles/2022_01/UKN_2201_21_A_magyarsag_szarmazasa.pdf

https://rubicon.hu/cikkek/almostol-szent-istvanig

https://mnytud.arts.unideb.hu/tananyag/tortszocl/laszlo_gyula_a_kettos_honfoglalas.pdf

https://mek.oszk.hu/03700/03764/03764.pdf

https://mek.oszk.hu/21500/21580/pdf/21580_01.pdf

https://mek.oszk.hu/21500/21580/pdf/21580_02.pdf

https://mek.oszk.hu/21500/21580/pdf/21580_03.pdf

http://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/eprint/111/1/2002_szabados_gyorgy.pdf

László, Gyula: Magyars, Their Life and Civilisation. Budapest, 1996.

Szádeczky-Kardoss Samu: A Kárpát-medence IX. századi történetének néhány forrásáról. Megjegyzések az Einhard-féle Nagy Károly-életrajz 15. fejezetéhez. Róna-Tas András szerk.: Szegedi Bölcsészműhely ’82. Szeged, 1983. 191–210.

Szádeczky-Kardoss Samu: Még egyszer Regino és a korabeli magyarság. Lőrinczy Gábor szerk.: Az Alföld a 9. században. Szeged, 1993. 227–236.

Olajos Terézia: A IX. századi avar történelem görög nyelvű forrásai. (Szegedi Középkortörténeti Könyvtár 16.) Szeged, 2001.

Olajos Terézia: Az avar továbbélés kérdéséről. Erdei Gyöngyi – Nagy Balázs szerk.: Változatok a történelemre. Tanulmányok Székely György tiszteletére. Budapest, 2004. 111–118. (Monumenta Historica Budapestiensia XIV.) Elérhető innen: https://mek.oszk.hu/09300/09311/09311.pdf

Olajos Terézia: Bizánci mozaikok. Avarok, szlávok, bolgárok, magyarok. Válogatott tanulmányok. Szeged, 2012. Ebből különösen Olajos Terézia: Adalékok a (H)ung(a)ri(i) népnév és a késői avarkori etnikum történetéhez. Antik Tanulmányok 16 (1969). 87–90. Ennek az első megjelenése elérhető innen: http://real-j.mtak.hu/4616/

Olajos Terézia: A Kárpát-medencei onogurok történetéhez. Balogh Elemér – Homoki-Nagy Mária (szerk.): Ünnepi kötet Dr. Blazovich László egyetemi tanár 70. születésnapjára. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis. Acta Juridica et Politica. Tomus LXXV. Szeged, 521–532. Elérhető innen: http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/30669/

Szabados György: A magyarok bejövetelének hadtörténeti szempontú újraértékelése. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények 123 (2010). 215–235. Elérhető innen: https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00018/00049/pdf/EPA00018_hadtortenelmi_2010_1-2_215-235.pdf

Szabados György: Avar pusztalakók és birodalmi nagymorvák. A 9. századi Kárpát-medence politikai és ethnikai viszonyairól. Kiss P. Attila – Piti Ferenc – Szabados György szerk.: Középkortörténeti tanulmányok 7. A VII. Medievisztikai PhD-konferencia (Szeged, 2011. június 1–3.) előadásai. Szeged, 2012. 219–235. Elérhető innen: http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/65341/

Szabados György: Identitásformák és hagyományok. Sudár Balázs – Szentpéteri József – Petkes Zsolt – Lezsák Gabriella – Zsidai Zsuzsanna szerk.: Magyar őstörténet. Tudomány és hagyományőrzés. Budapest, 2014. 289–305. (Vásáry István – Fodor Pál szerk.: MTA BTK MŐT Kiadványok 1.) Elérhető innen: http://real.mtak.hu/21160/1/Szabados_2014_MOT_konftanulmany_u_212017.86198.pdf

Szabados György: „Termékeny bizonytalanság” – Észrevételek a „kettős honfoglalás” elméletéről. Acta Historica CXXXVIII. Szeged, 2015. 3–15. Elérhető innen: http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/36577/

Szabados György: Mítoszok és történetek Álmosról és Árpádról. Hubbes László – Povedák István szerk.: Már a múlt sem a régi… Az új magyar mitológia multidiszciplináris elemzése. Szeged, 2015. 84–96. Elérhető innen: http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/67327/

Szabados, György: Magyar – Naming Persons, Places, Communities. Hungarian Historical Review 7 (2018)/1. 82–97. Elérhető innen: https://epa.oszk.hu/02400/02460/00023/pdf/EPA02460_hungarian_historical_review_2018_01_082-097.pdf OrionNimrod (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you quote text suggesting "Genetic continuity was detected between Avars and Hungarian conquerors"? Please also explain what it means: were there Avars who migrated to the east to return as Hungarian conquerors? Furthermore, the genetic continuity between Avars, local Slavs and Hungarians is not a surprise because it is quite obvious that the conquerors mixed with the local population. What do we want to emphasize when writing about "continuity"? Do these sources specifically refer to the survival of the Avars in Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you known about something this guy Ciubăr Vodă? Who is he? It is clear for me that he was a member of the Csupor family, which originated from the Monoszló clan. But who is this family member? As I see, Romanian historiography (or at least Nicolae Iorga) has no idea about the existence of a Hungarian noble family with that name and considers Csupor a personal name Norden1990 (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have no knowledge of him. His name must have been recorded in a Moldavian chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

On 5 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Avar Wars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Avar Wars, disease killed 90 per cent of Charlemagne's horses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Avar Wars. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Avar Wars), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,430 views (452.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mehdi Abrishamchi 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 14:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka,

I see you removed this quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1000–1301)&diff=1121672564&oldid=1113935293

The quote came from a secondary source, not from a primary, from modern academic historian: Szabados György: 9–12. Századi magyarok életmódjáról – amit az írott kútfőkből kiolvasni lehet és amit nem. Hága Tamara Katalin – Kolozsi Barbara – Nagy Emese Gyöngyvér szerk.: Sötét idők hétköznapjai. Debrecen, 2022. 365–382. (Tempora Obscura 5.)

Could you check it?

https://www.academia.edu/75449243

Even the article has many old quotes in blue boxes:

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

Also in a lot of wiki pages I see a lot of old quotes, which are I think good thing to describe the situation, of course some relevant, not quoting the full old books. When we read modern history books, those books also has many relevant old quotes.

Could you explain me to understand, why some quotes is good to publish and some is not good to publish? Thanks for your answer! OrionNimrod (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

1. First of all, it is not a reliable English translation. 2. Secondly, it is out of context in the article. It is not connected to the main text. 3. There are too many quotes in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Agree, indeed this is my translation, so it is not official. But I think it was connected to the text, the previous sentence refered to this author what he was at the court of King Géza II. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka,

I know you are a very experienced and great Wikipedia user, so I would like to understand the things to learn how to use wikipedia and make useful edits.

I have a question about this revert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coloman,_King_of_Hungary&diff=1122524743&oldid=1122259786

I rewrote this "[r]arely did Hungarians suffer such slaughter as in this battle" to this: "The bloodshed there was so great that the Hungarians rarely suffered such a great defeat"

Which is quite similar, so there is no debate between us. By the way I do not understand what does mean "[r]arely", why the "r" alphabet in a cage.

I used the text from the Bánlaky book (Military history of the Hungarian nation)

https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0004/216.html

"Oly nagy volt ott a vérontás, hogy ritkán szenvedtek a magyarok oly nagy vereséget, mint ezúttal."

Hungarian Chronicon Pictum write this:

https://mek.oszk.hu/10600/10642/10642.htm

"Oly nagy vereség volt ez, hogy ritkán szenvedtek a magyarok ekkora vereséget."

The marked source also refer to Hungarian historians, and refering to the Chronicon Pictum

(Kristó|Makk|1996|p=142, The Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle'' (ch. 145.104), p. 132.)

Or do you think the text was copied from the reliable English translation, that is why you kept that? Do you have that English book? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I would rather say I am a quite enthusiastic editor. :) Yes, the text was copied from the English translation and we should prefer a reliable translation to our own interpretation of the text. This is especially true if our interpretation is based on the Hungarian translation of the Latin text. Yes, I have the English translation of the text. The alphabet "r" is in a cage because the quoted text contains a capital letter "R". Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Borsoka,

I see from your User page that you speak Hungarian and you are interested in history. I also saw that you have done editing on the Hungarian nobility article so you might have the expertise I'm looking for.

Today, I came across Draft:House of Monok. I have some suspicions that it is a hoax article...but it also could be an article on a subject that is missing on Wikipedia! All of the editing of this editor has been on this subject and as an admin who works in Draft space, in the past I've come across drafts written by people trying to establish the noble origins of their ancestors so that is where my mind went. But I know little about the world of European nobility. The draft relies a lot on archived pages from http://www.monok.hu/ which seems to be the town of Monok's website but the site hasn't been updated in quite a few years so I'm not sure how reliable it is. Any way, if you could just look this draft article and give me a quick opinion on whether it rings true, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thank you, in advance! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that modern peer reviewed scholarly works exist. I think nobility itself does not verify nobility, especially because nobility made up about 5% percent of Hungary's population. Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Be aware that your recent edits are being discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard. Giray Altay (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Giray Altay (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Fascist (insult) 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 21:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Borsoka!

I think the Knez (Vlach leader) stub you created back in 2018 meets good reasons for merging with Knyaz.

1. Knyaz is the same word as knez and they are used as versions of each other in the very start of the bigger article.
2. The Knyaz article lists the regions where this title was used: Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Poland-Lithuania, etc. "Wallachia and Moldavia" would certainly fit there.
3. Knez (Vlach leader) is about the same size as the chapters I previously talked about in Knyaz. It doesn't have enough content, only the meaning of the term in short and the terminology, having all the three sources, is in need to be cut and pasted in Knyaz#Etymology. Reliable sources don't have enough coverage on it. I don't know how much are Pop and Rábik reliable, but altogether these sources don't give enough data on the subject.
4. (Context.) As these terms are practically the same, the history, origin, and wider terminology, found in Knyaz would be needed to fully understand knez and kenez.

I'm looking to discuss this on your talk page first, and I'll only take this proposal to the article's talk page if there's need. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The root of the terms are the same, but the concept is quite different. While knyazes were mainly heads of state or a wider region, the Vlach knezes were settlers who became the hereditary leaders of the colonists they brought to Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Knyaz has had many types of uses, the term was also used to designate chieftains of smaller Slavic communities, particularly Ruthenian who were also settlers in Hungary. Keneziatuses existed outside Hungary, in the Danubian Principalities and throughout the Balkans too. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you refer to reliable sources published in English mentioning medieval Vlach leader as knyazes? Could you refer to reliable sources presenting the princes of Kievan Rus', the Polish-Lithuanian aristocracy of Rurikid or Gediminid stock and the Vlach chieftains together? Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Knyaz article uses the terms synonymously. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary too. The Britannica Encyclopaedia too. Tertiary sources.

But reading your requests, hát jól feladtad a leckét. For now, only one source I skim through from comes to mind that would be useful:

One can deduce this not only from the explicit evidence provided by medieval documents but also from the fact that the titles of such Vlach officials were of Slavic origin (knez, vojvoda, etc.) and they were a way of projecting medieval Slavic political and administrative ideas and concepts on Vlach societies. The Vlachs’ social structures and legal frames within which they functioned were largely shaped according to the Slavic institutional logic, as Vlachs themselves did not have large-scale political and/or social institutions they could have reproduced on their own... Marko Pijovic: Late Medieval Vlachs in the Western Balkans, page 85

Milos Lukovic: Zakon Vlahom; Self-Government Institutions of Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Livestock Breeders and Stefan Staretu: Medieval name and ethnicity, for instance mention the Slavic counterparts in relation to the Vlach ones, but I don't know how are they going to bring this discussion forward.

(Didn't write down the full titles, tell me if you need them to find the papers.)

To be honest, I don't understand why you are requesting me to line up sources for what you wrote. Smaller communal leaders among Vlachs were known as as knezes, kenezes. What does this change? I've listed 4 good reasons for merge. There's also no stub for vojvoda, it's voivode. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, we do not edit WP based on WP articles; therefore, the existence of an article about knyazes do not verify that the article about Vlach knezes should be merged into it (especially, because Vlach leaders are not mentioned as knyazes in reliable English sources). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary refers to Serbian rulers without mentioning the Rurikid princes of Kievan Rus, the Lithuanian aristocrats bearing the title knyaz or Vlach knezes in the same article. If reliable sources do not mix these rulers, aristocrats and chieftains, WP should not mix them either. Yes, the title is of clearly Slavic origin, but neither does it verify a merger. Should we merge all articles about cities named Cordova in the USA into one large article just because their name is identical? The article about the Vlach chieftains is verified, no further verification is needed to keep it. On the other hand, you want to merge it into another article, so you should verify the rationality of your proposal. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've listed 4 good reasons for merge. I haven't said we should do that because the title is of Slavic origin. See #Reasons for merger. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think none of them is valid in WP environment. You can propose a merge on the Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why I first contacted you, the creator of the stub, to know if my arguments would be valid at least. Why not? Gyalu22 (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to explain it above: these knyazes/knezes are not presented together in reliable sources, so we should not present them in the same article either. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

They are presented together, given their structural (not only linguistical) connection. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on stalking, canvassing, and harassing. Thank you.--Giray Altay (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Charles I of Anjou article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 7, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 7 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for removing that original research from that article. I have been busy dealing with family Christmas party plans. Having to coordinate four kids and their spouses and six grandkids schedules is serious work. Stay safe! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I can imagine. :) Merry Christmas. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Giray Altay (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists 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 13:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran 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 09:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you think this woman's great-great-grandfather is the reason for her notability, much less deserves explicit mention in the lead of her article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. The reference to her great-great-grandfather is absolutely unnecesary and out-of-context. Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)