The article Ladislaus IV of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ladislaus IV of Hungary 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 Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joan II of Navarre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tudela. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Köszi a segítséget. Legalább azt írtad volna, hogy "Bocsi, nincs időm". Azóta archiváltad az üzenetemet. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mi bajod? Mire kellett volna válaszolnom? Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Még tavaly írtam a vitalapodra, többször is, de nem válaszoltál. A Géza szakaszban. De ha nem vetted észre, akkor ne vedd magadra. Lálálá9999 (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Elnézést, úgy éreztem, hogy válaszoltam a kérdéseidre. Elolvasva továbbra is úgy tűnik, hogy kérdés nem maradt megválaszolatlanul. Mindenesetre, szerintem, ne várd, hogy mindig minden üzenetedre választ kapsz. Nagyjából úgy működik, mint egy munkahelyi levelezés. Akinek nem tetszik valami, szól. Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A bazilikás felvetésemre gondolok. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, in which style of English is the article on the Árpád dynasty written? If it is written in British English, then perhaps this edit and the one previous to it should be reverted. I believe the editor changed it from British English spelling to American English spelling. Corinne (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot answer your question. I cannot differentiate British and American English. Borsoka (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a notification involving you at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Eurocentral (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Sigismund Zápolya, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pest and Tata. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

See comments at Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary#Some concerns following a GOCE copy-edit on January 29, 2016 and User talk:Corinne#Mary, Queen of Hungary. Corinne (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emily Dickinson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Sigismund Zápolya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Látom, tervezed bővíteni a Szapolyai János szócikket is. Itt van pár elég friss tanulmány, amelyek esetleg hasznosak lehetnek a cikk megírásához: [1], [2], [3] --Norden1990 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Még valami: [4] ehhez mit szólsz? Eszerint lehetett Corvin Jánosnak a két ismert gyermeke mellett egy harmadik, Mátyás nevű is, aki azonban pár hónaposan meghalt. Szerinted meg lehetne ezt említeni a Hunyadi family szócikkben? --Norden1990 (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Köszönet. Persze, szerintem érdemes lenne megemlíteni. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:British Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, I just saw that numerous tags were added to the beginning of the article on the Waldensians. You have more experience writing and improving articles than I do, and you seem to have knowledge of European history, so I wondered if you could take a look at the tags and the article and see whether you think the tags are justified. (I think I copy-edited this article a year or more ago, but that was just copy-editing; I'm not the best judge of leads.) If you think the tags are justified and the article needs work, if you have time, perhaps you'd like to work on it. If you would then like me to check the writing, punctuation, etc., just let me know. If you think the tags are unwarranted (unnecessary), perhaps you could either remove them or leave a comment. Corinne (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Sorry, I am not an expert in the field of Waldensianism. Nevertheless, I try to read the article on Saturday. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ditinili reported by User:Borsoka (Result: ). This doesn't appear to be actionable at present. I hope that the war does not continue because there's already a large number of reverts on each side. When there are only two parties in an edit war and the matter is brought to admins, it may happen that both parties will be blocked. You might consider opening an WP:RFC or use WP:DR. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for your message, although I do not clearly understand it. Would you show my "large number of reverts"? I attempted to react on his remarks, following his demands for separate tags and explanations, but he continously reverted my edits. If my understanding is correct, WP:3RR does not apply to all editors. How could I be admitted to this group of privileged editors? Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

When two editors go back and forth for several days, seemingly reverting one another, I don't see how you can find one of them more guilty of edit warring. Are all of your reverts 'good' while his are 'bad'? In your complaint at WP:AN3 you seemed to be asking the admins to judge who was more correct. You want us to say who is more 'provincial and dogmatic.' We are not likely to judge content matters. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, no, I would only like to understand the rules of WP. Your words suggest that an editor who tries to react on the explanations of an other editor is as guilty as an editor who reverts edits without reacting the other editor's words and explanations. If my understanding is correct, in the future I should revert his edits twice without reacting his explanations and then open an WP:RfC or WP:DR. This sounds strange, but I can accept any rules. Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:EW is not clear to you. We count reverts, we don't review them for quality, unless the matter falls under WP:3RRNO. Another admin might have just counted the reverts and blocked both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, OK, I understand that you say that I must be grateful because administrators can make judgements based on counting of reverts. Thank you for your grace. In the future, I will revert his edits twice without reading his messages or reacting to them and after two reverts I will open an RfC or DR. Sincerely, this is much easier for me. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, it's a bad idea to "revert my edits without reading or reacting to them". This is far from any constructive criticism or collaborative approach.

POV templates can be removed whenever "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." It means, and I really suggest it, you should focus on proper explanation of tags and their correct usage instead of offending me and raising various incidents on admin noticeboards. Ditinili (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

(1) Please refrain from writing of constructive criticism and collaborative approach, because the very ideas are alien to you. (2) I highly appreciate believers, but I do not like talking with sectarians and I do not want to convince a sectarian to accept that he is a dogmatic. Consequently, I do not want to communicate with you, especially on this page. Borsoka (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

:-) Ok. Ditinili (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_of_Croatia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voivode_of_Transylvania "The Voivode of Transylvania (German: Vojwode von Siebenbürgen,[1] Hungarian: erdélyi vajda,[1][2] Latin: voivoda Transsylvaniae,[1][2] Romanian: voievodul Transilvaniei)[3] was the highest-ranking official in Transylvania within the Kingdom of Hungary from the 12th century to the 16th century. Appointed by the monarchs, the voivodes – themselves also the heads or ispáns of Fehér County – were the superiors of the ispáns of all the other counties in the province." https://www.google.hu/search?q=m%C3%A1ty%C3%A1s+kir%C3%A1ly+t%C3%A9rk%C3%A9p&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjskeuGqYPLAhVBoSwKHS26BIQQ_AUICCgC&biw=1366&bih=621#imgrc=7JaAxENWG2Y1YM%3A ?? Borsoka (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Penny. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Szia! Miért vontad vissza a szerkesztésemet a Solomon, King of Hungary cikkben? Üdv. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Mert egy évszázadokkal később készült kép, amely öregen ábrázol egy fiatalon meghalt uralkodót, nem tűnik jónak. Borsoka (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nem ábrázolja öregen, csak olyan az ábrázolási technika, és ott az a fránya szakáll... egyébként a Képes krónika miniatúrája is hasonlóan lékből kapott. A Thuróczi-féle ábrázoláson viszont legalább egyedül szerepel a király. —Lálálá9999 (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Csak az a fránya szakáll és az az ábrázolási technika öreggé teszi a fiatalon elhúnyt királyt. Zavaró. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Eddig minden vitánkat elvesztetted, egyetlen gyurcsányi érved volt csupán - miután bebizonyítottam tévedéseidet - a "merjünk kicsik lenni" .

Ezt is garantálom hogy elveszíted! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthias_Corvinus#Map

FÉNYHOZÓ barátod--84.2.169.162 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ne haragudj, de nincs időm tanulmányozni végtelen bölcsességedet, te legyőzhetetlen, változatos szókincsű, kiszámíthatatlan gondolkodású hőse az internetnek, mert nagyon sok proligyűlésre kell mennem a héten. Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banat in the Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladislaus V of Hungary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of state leaders in 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=bRZaCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA12&dq=romanians+nomad+vlach+-romani+-gypsy&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikreS0gsDLAhUsEJoKHVa7B884ChDoAQgrMAI#v=onepage&q=romanians%20nomad%20vlach%20-romani%20-gypsy&f=false

Ethnicity and Ethnic Conflict in the Post-Communist World -PAGE: 12

That curious minority, the Vlachs of the Balkans, for example, were on the face of it Romanians ('Wallachians') but in fact the name was also applied to Slavs who shared the same pastoral, nomadic life as the Romanian shepherds.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xoww453NVQMC&pg=PA128&dq=romanians+nomad+vlach+-romani+-gypsy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikreS0gsDLAhUsEJoKHVa7B884ChDoAQhYMAg#v=onepage&q=romanians%20nomad%20vlach%20-romani%20-gypsy&f=false Collective Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the Macedonian Question - PAGE: 128

"The Vlachs are mainly pastoral nomads dispersed among the states of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Romania. Since they are Orthodox Christians, they have mostly become part of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox ..."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WDRzBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA309&dq=%22nomadic+vlachs%22+-roma+-gypsy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP2KihoMDLAhWnZpoKHc0qBrwQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=%22nomadic%20vlachs%22%20-roma%20-gypsy&f=false Roumen Daskalov, ‎Alexander Vezenkov - 2015: Entangled Histories of the Balkans - Volume Three: Shared Pasts, Disputed Legacies PAGE: 309

"Zlatarski adds an a priori statement that the very thought of an uprising could occur only to Bulgarian local notables or voivods, not to the nomadic Vlachs, who he says were at a low level of cultural development"

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kpEc8ltyqnUC&pg=PA408&dq=nomadic+wallachians++-romani+-gypsy+-roma&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiunZGSicDLAhUqCZoKHWckBsAQ6AEIRTAG#v=onepage&q=nomadic%20wallachians%20%20-romani%20-gypsy%20-roma&f=false

Rob Humphreys, ‎Susie Lunt, ‎Tim Nollen - 2002 : Rough Guide to the Czech & Slovak Republics - Page 408

"Wallachian culture As far as anybody can make out, the Wallachs or Vlachs were semi-nomadic sheep and goat farmers who settled the mountainous areas of eastern Moravia and western Slovakia in the fifteenth century."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YXwUAQAAIAAJ&q=%22wallachians+were%22+nomadic&dq=%22wallachians+were%22+nomadic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuw6y1l8DLAhWlNJoKHREED8gQ6AEILzAE Marek Koter, ‎Krystian Heffner - 1999 : Multicultural regions and cities - Page 164

"Nomadic shepherds from the Balkan Peninsula (Wallachians) were moving along the bow of the Carpathians in search of new pastures. "

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=108MAQAAMAAJ&q=%22wallachian+people%22+nomadic&dq=%22wallachian+people%22+nomadic&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcoez8l8DLAhWqA5oKHcdnCLgQ6AEIHDAA

Marek S. Szczepański Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, Jan 1, 1997 - Ethnic Minorities & Ethnic Majority: Sociological Studies of Ethnic Relations in Poland -PAGE: 325 "They were just the Wallachian people (nomadic tribes from the present Romania) from who contemporary Lemks descended; it should be testified by both the elements of material culture, similarities of customs and languages"

https://books.google.com/books?id=owY4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=into+Walachia+and+continued+their+pastoral+and+semi-nomadic+life+in+Transylvania+and+the+Carpathian+Mountains.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8x-avo8DLAhWkdpoKHVjzArQQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=into%20Walachia%20and%20continued%20their%20pastoral%20and%20semi-nomadic%20life%20in%20Transylvania%20and%20the%20Carpathian%20Mountains.&f=false

Normal J. G. Pounds - 1976 -  : An Historical Geography of Europe 450 B.C.-A.D. 1330, Part 1330 -PAGE: 251

"The chief importance of the Vlachs lies, however, in the possible relationship to the Romanians. ... Ages, crossed the Danube into Walachia and continued their pastoral and semi-nomadic life in Transylvania and the Carpathian Mountains."

--Cézárocskácska (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC) I would appreciate if you stop using my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John of Brienne may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 1208 envoys came from the [[Holy Land]] to ask [[Philip II of France to select one of his barons as husband to the heiress and ruler of the [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John of Brienne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charles I of Hungary 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 Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Glad (duke) 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Charles I of Hungary 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:Charles I of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Glad (duke) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Glad (duke) 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:YouTube. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work at John of Brienne. Now I won't need to buy Perry's book!

I just created Hungarian raid in Spain (942). It's been sitting in a file on my computer for a while, so it probably needs work. I do not have access to most of the Hungarian sources I list in the bibliography and even if I did I couldn't read them. I bring it to your attention since it includes a link to Glad (duke), which you created. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Actually, there are many assumptions in Perry's book that are not mentioned in the article. :) Are you sure that Glad should be linked in that article? Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Györffy (1994), pp. 99–100: "A similar explanation can be adduced for the name of the sixth leader G.rud or G.rod. In my view, it ought to be searched for in large areas in which no quarters of Hungarian chieftains are known from the lists of chieftains. Accordingly, in 1984 I placed the leader Glad or Galád registered by Anonymus, possibly of the second generation after Arpád, into the region of the rivers Maros–Temes... Though Anonymus's Gesta calls Glad an enemy chieftain found in this region and defeated by the settling Hungarians, he is at the same time named as the ancestor of the Hungarian chieftain Ajtony... The fact that tradition recalled the land of [sic] Alpár and Galad as leaders of defeated countries proves that after 942 a new reshuffling of power took place." —Srnec (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Györffy's reading of the names (Alpár, stb) can be described as quite minority POVs (Györffy could not read Arabic). All the same, Györffy was a leading historian in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary, Queen of Hungary 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Sigismund Zápolya 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alice of Champagne, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tyre, Eschive d'Ibelin and Bishop of Acre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have completed my review. Since I am participating in GA Cup and the first round ends today (29 March), I urge you to address the issues today only. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Charles I of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charles I of Hungary 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 Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Mary, Queen of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary, Queen of Hungary 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The article John Sigismund Zápolya you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Sigismund Zápolya 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Humphrey IV of Toron

added a link pointing to Tyre

Isabella I of Jerusalem

added a link pointing to Tyre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

HI Borsoka,

I work on french wikipedia but I saw you created Emeric Zápolya's article 2 years ago. You mentionned some sources about him. I would like to know : is there in your sources some references about vice-palatin rank, specialy about someone named Pal Perneszy, husband of Orsolya Zápolya who was the sister/cousin of Emeric Zápolya.

In the sources you mentionned, is vice-palatin rank or Pal Perneszy are quoted ?

Thanks for your help.

Laszlo (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, according to a source, [András Kubinyi: A Szapolyaiak és familiárisaik (szervitoraik)], Pálné Perneszy (Mrs. Pál Perneszy), neé Orsolya, was related to Emeric Zápolya. However, Pál Perneszy is not mentioned as vice-palatine in that source. Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The article was well written to begin with, so was not difficult to copy-edit. I just have two questions:

1) The last sentence of the first paragraph in the section War of the Antiochene Succession#Raymond-Roupen in Antioch needs fixing. I think there is something missing, but I don't know what:

• During Leo's absence, Kaykaus I from captured the Armenian forts to the north of the Taurus Mountains.

2) Regarding the word "commune", before reading this article, I hadn't known that communes existed this early in the Middle Ages, or medieval period, so I learned something new. I notice that you have capitalized it, and I'm wondering why. Normally, we would capitalize a noun like this if it was the actual name of an organization. Otherwise, it would be lower-case. Since I didn't know whether it was the actual name, I refrained from changing them all to lower-case. I think, though, at the very least, when you first mention the term, and say "X created a commune", it should be in lower-case, not capitalized. Well, that's all.  – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I highly appreciat your bold and thorough copyedit. I am really grateful for it to you. I modified the above sentence, deleting "from" from it, and changed Commune to commune (in the sources cited, both forms are used). Have a nice day! Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

On 10 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles I of Hungary, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles I of Hungary (pictured) could "promote a daughter to a son" to entitle her to inherit her father's estates? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles I of Hungary. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that (despite my very minor complaint) I really appreciate the work you've done on early Hungarian history. Thanks. I'm hoping to expand the articles some of the articles on 19th-century Hungarian history when I have time, and your writing will be an excellent example to follow! —Nizolan ^(talk) 12:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, there are many interesting or potentially interesting articles of 19th-century history which should be expanded. I hope you will have time to do it. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Raynald of Châtillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ascalon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

On 12 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Sigismund Zápolya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Sigismund Zápolya, the only Unitarian monarch in history, was the first Prince of Transylvania? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Sigismund Zápolya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bohemond III of Antioch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bohemond III of Antioch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You can expand this article like Raynald of Chatillon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:1B8A:9029:D94A:CDC3:996D:C990 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting. Unfortunatelly, for the time being, I do not have enough sources to do it. Maybe a few months later. Borsoka (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tamils. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) 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 LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

history and royalty articles

Thank you for your tireless efforts to write quality articles related to European history, royalty and nobility. This may have come late, but has only become better deserved, for you are an awesome Wikipedian!

Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I try to do my best. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like you could expand this article because you like the history of the Crusades. A greeting and good luck Kardam (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I am planning to expand it in a few months. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bohemond II of Antioch may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of Hauteville]], became the ruler of Antioch.{{sfn|Runciman|1989|p=51}}{{sfn|Norwich|1992|p=304)}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Mary, Queen of Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ooty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

On 10 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary, Queen of Hungary, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mary, Queen of Hungary (pictured) regained the throne after her mother, Elizabeth of Bosnia, invited Charles III of Naples to his death in 1386? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary, Queen of Hungary. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mary, Queen of Hungary), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

>Miniapolis, thank you for your bold and thorough copy edit. I made some minor changes. I would be grateful if you could look at them. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Only had time for a quick look, but your changes have improved the article. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 13:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The article Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301) 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 LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Szia! Nagyon jó lett a cikk, hatalmas hiányt pótolsz ezekkel a magyar életrajzokkal. Csak egy hiányérzetem van. Magyarországon E. Zs. neve mindenképp arról ismert, hogy amikor lecsukták, részletesen igyekezett bizonyítani, hogy nem sikkasztott, így 1494-95-re vonatkozóan teljes összeírást végzett (röviden: itt). Ez azért fontos, mert ez az összeírás túlzás nélkül a legfontosabb forrása a magyar középkori demográfia- és gazdaságtörténetnek (innen tudható pl. hogy körülbelül hányan élhettek Magyarországon Mohács előtt és milyen volt az etnikai összetétel). Ezt mindenképp jó lenne szerepeltetni. Nem tudom van-e erre angol forrás (elég lenne egy-két sor), de ha jól emlékszem Markó L. szintén említi, de ha mégsem, itt van ez. Csak azért írom ezt, mert véleményem szerint a cikk így válik teljessé. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading and copy-editing Raynald of Châtillon. I found no major problems, just a lot of small ones, which I fixed. I just have a few minor concerns:

1) I see you used the word bailli several times, and put it into italics. I assume it is a foreign word. However, it is not linked, so a reader unfamiliar with the word would have no easy way to learn what it means. Can you either link it to an article or section of an article that would explain it or provide a brief explanation?

2) I saw you used the spelling "Moslim" several times. Each time I came across it I changed it to "Muslim". However, there is another spelling of the word, and that is "Moslem". I think "Muslim" is more common. I just thought I'd mention the other spelling in case you preferred it.

3) In case you hadn't seen it, I just wanted to point out that there is a "citation needed" tag (not placed by me) at the name at the end of the block quote in Raynald of Châtillon#Capture and execution.

4) In the third paragraph in Raynald of Châtillon#Lord of Oultrejordain, I saw you had "the royal army launched a defeat". That didn't sound right to me, so I changed it to "the royal army launched an attack...leading to his defeat" (I think it's clear enough that "his" refers to "Saladin's", but if you don't, we can fix that). However, later in the article, in Raynald of Châtillon#Capture and execution, you have "Saladin launched a crushing defeat on the crusader army". I didn't change that one since it sounded better, but I'm still not sure whether it is correct. Is that correct, "launched a defeat"? If it is, I suppose you could change the first one back to the way it was. I just didn't remember hearing that before.  – Corinne (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, thank your for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your work for our community. Sorry, I do not understand your last remarks (No. 4.). What is sure, in 1177, Saladin was defeated by the crusaders, but in 1187, Saladin annihilated the crusaders' army. :) Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Rothorpe Can you help here? Is "launch a defeat" correct usage?  – Corinne (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Poetically perhaps, but not encyclopedically, especially if there's an 'on' after it. As you suggested, it's an attack on someone that leads to their defeat. Rothorpe (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Borsoka, I just wanted to say that I am enjoying your work on Raynald of Chatillon, John of Brienne, and other crusade-related articles. I always wanted to expand/reference them over the years, but I just ran out of time. I'm not sure if I can start the Good Article review on it (since I made lots of edits, long long ago), but I'll try to do another round of proofreading. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. I would be glad if you had time to improve the articles. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many villages were named after a profession in the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, indicating that the villagers were required to render a specific service to their lords? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

On 26 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sigismund Ernuszt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sigismund Ernuszt, Bishop of Pécs, was accused of embezzlement in 1496, and murdered for his wealth in 1505? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund Ernuszt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sigismund Ernuszt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Borsoka! About your AN/EW report about the IP at Hungarians: IMO "warning" someone in an edit summary doesn't count. Not everyone reads edit summaries; some people don't even know they exist. In the future if you want to make a solid, credible EW allegation, it's best if you have warned them at their talk page, and have a link to prove it. Just a word to the wise. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

On 28 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John I Ernuszt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Ernuszt, who was born into a Jewish family in Vienna, was buried in a chapel dedicated to the Holy Virgin in Buda? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John I Ernuszt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John I Ernuszt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christopher Báthory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

On 1 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Christopher Báthory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Christopher Báthory, Voivode of Transylvania, was buried almost two years after his death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Báthory. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Christopher Báthory), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 12:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_%281000%E2%80%931301%29/GA1#Comments

Cumans were not really assimilated, they got a medieval version of reserve area like Native American Indians in the USA, and they got some medieval privileges, which they could only in their reserve area, the so-called Kunság. Cumans were decimated by Christian and Hungarian forces during the Ottoman wars. They were sytsematically replaced by Serbian Albanian and Romanian migrants during the Ottoman wars, this colonization was supported by the Ottomans. Moreover Cumans did not survive the Great Turkish war, they were exterminated in the 1680s by the Crimean Tatars ( the ally of Ottomans) and Habsburg and Hungarian forces. After the Ottoman wars, a mixed pan-balkan population and newly arrived Hungarian population started to claim the rights and privileges of the former "cumania" (Hungarian Kunság) reserve area (the rights of the extinct ancient Cuman population). Cumans had the right for free election of judges, free election of clergymen, they were free from taxes, they were also free from the power of feudal landlords and feudal taxation and they can avoid of manorialism and the serf/ villein status, they have right for land ownership. Thus the newly migrated population started to call themselves as cumans, to get the privileges of the extinct cuman people in Cumania/Kunság area. Later the descendants of the migrant population believed that they were the real descendants of ancient Cumans. Here is a good article about Cumans in Hungary, you can use the Google Transltor. http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.49.45 (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ajtony 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Ajtony you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ajtony 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John of Brienne 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The article John of Brienne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John of Brienne 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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.

Are you kidding? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

On 13 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ajtony, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to the Long Life of Saint Gerard, the tongue of Ajtony was cut out after his death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ajtony. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ajtony), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 12:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sigismund Báthory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raynald of Châtillon 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constance of Antioch 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Egyszer nem vagyok itt (az EB miatt), és persze, hogy akkor jön egy hozzá nem értő szerkesztő, hogy szabálytalan címátmozgatással szétcs*sszen mindent (főleg hogy két esetben is volt egy szabályosan lefolytatott átnevezési kérvény...) Visszaneveztem mindent, de nem tudom, hogy nem-e lesz gond az illetővel a továbbiakban. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Raynald of Châtillon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raynald of Châtillon 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The article Constance of Antioch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constance of Antioch 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Historiography on Carlism during the Francoist era. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moses Székely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article War of the Antiochene Succession 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Szia, az világos hogy a wikin konszenzusként a Pressburg az elfogadott angol referencia megfelelő, azonban az a kérdésem, hogy a Habsburg affiliáció előtt hogyan hívták az angolok a várost? Nyilvánvalóan csak azért tettem oda, mert a korábbi időkben volt, de most már kiváncsi vagyok...(KIENGIR (talk))(21:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC))

Sajnos gőzöm nincs erről. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The article War of the Antiochene Succession you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:War of the Antiochene Succession 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

On 2 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Raynald of Châtillon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Raynald of Châtillon (execution pictured) was described as a "monstrous infidel and terrible oppressor" by Baha ad-Din ibn Shaddad in his biography of Saladin? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Raynald of Châtillon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Raynald of Châtillon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

On 2 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constance of Antioch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Constance of Antioch was kidnapped to be married at the age of nine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constance of Antioch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constance of Antioch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

On 3 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John of Brienne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John of Brienne, who lost the Kingdom of Jerusalem to his son-in-law in 1225, won the Latin Empire of Constantinople as his other son-in-law's co-ruler in 1229? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John of Brienne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John of Brienne), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Levant. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

New hook. Substantial editing. I think all of your remaining issues have been addressed. Did you mean a new review or a new reviewer? Would welcome you back. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Our article says he is called (or called himself?) Bela V as king of Hungary. I cannot find this in a reliable source. Since you are knowledgeable about medieval Hungarian history, I was wondering if you could shed any light on this. I know his predecessor, Wenceslaus, actually used "Ladislaus" as his regnal name, so it is not implausible to me. Srnec (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know the source of this assumption. In Hungary, we always refer to him as "Otto". Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moses Székely, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brassó. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

On 14 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article War of the Antiochene Succession, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the War of the Antiochene Succession "came to a rather unspectacular end" in 1219? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/War of the Antiochene Succession. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, War of the Antiochene Succession), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Székely people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Onogur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Pax85, thank you for your copy edit. I made some minor changes. I would be grateful if you could cheque them. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Sorry for that slip up on line 97 (leaving in the extra words about the age). Again, a good article. Thank you! -Pax Verbum 03:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Szia, kialakulóban van egy finomabb hangvételű vita a cikk talk-page-én, egy jóindulatú ausztrál úr nem érti hogy miért félrevezető olyat beidézni, hogy Magyarországnak területi követelése lett volna Horvátországgal szemben....elég csak az utolsó szekció megfelelő részébe beleolvasnod, kérlek nézz rá és lépj fel ha kell a történelemi hűség iránt, azért mert egy angolszász szerző nem érti a pontos helyzetet, nem jelenti azt azt hogy egy olyan forrást ne lehessen eltávolítani szabályosan, ami valótlant állít...Köszönöm (KIENGIR (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC))

Elnézést, de nem igazán ismerem a 20. század történtet. Szerintem jelzőkön ritkán érdemes vitatkozni, ha az elhagyásuk nélkül is érthető a szöveg. Keresni kellene reliable sources-t, hogy érvelni lehessen. Borsoka (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Jó de képzeld el, annak tagadására keressek RS-t ami nem létezett? Hacsak nem egy széleskörben elterjedt urban legendrőlvan szó, ki cáfolna olyat ami meg sem történt? Szóval ez nem olyan egyszerű. Azonban konszenzus nélkül nem hagyhat kinnt olyat, amivel valaki nem értett egyet. Azért ne add fel teljesen (KIENGIR (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)).

Igen. Mivel reliable source-szal szemben csak reliable source-ra lehet hivatkozni, ez a helyzet. Azt javasolom, hogy ha vitába keveredsz, soha ne a saját gondolataidat oszd meg a vitapartnereddel (mivel azoknak gyakorlatilag nulla a jelentősége egy vitában a WP szerkesztése közben), hanem hivatkozz egy reliable source-ra, ellenkező esetben esélyed sincs, hogy úgy módosuljon a szócikk, ahogyan te szeretnéd. Ha jól sejtem, arra kellene egy reliable source, hogy Muraköz nem volt a történelmi Horvátország része. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Látom már volt esemény az oldalon, még nem néztem meg, tudom hogy az igazság itt nem számít, főleg az arra alapozott saját gondolatok, de a hülyeség néha kiborít - azért néha Téged is felhúztak, bár sokkal tapasztaltabb vagy mint én -, azonban a konszenzus szabályai szerint ha egy szerkezsztéssel nem értesz egyet és ezt időben jelzed, akkor ha nem egyeztek meg, le kell vennie, ez a status quo ante szabály. Hát ugye itt Muravidék, Muraköz meg a Baranyának azon része érintett ami a folyó felett van, ami ma Horvátország része. Egyébként szerintem azt is elég lenne beidézni, hogy Horthy nem fogadta el Hitler felajánlását Horvátországra nézve, de mindjárt nézem is mi történt...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

Nem, engem nem húztak fel. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

És a "breeding elephants" vagy hasonló a románokkal folytatott vitában? Mindegy, ha nem is húztak fel, hatalmasat derültem rajta, nagyon eltaláltad :) (KIENGIR (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC))

Nagyon köszönöm a segítségedet és a szakszerű mediálást, észrevettem hogy az adott lehetőségeken belül mindent megtettél az objektivitásért. Egyébként is nagyra értékelem és tisztelem a Wikipedián a közreműködéseidet, szerkesztéseid színvonalát! Üdv(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC))

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bohemond II of Antioch 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for all the work you put into the John of Brienne, Raynald of Châtillon, princes of Antioch, and other Crusades related articles. I was wondering, do you have any future plans to expand any other Crusader articles, such as the kings of Jerusalem or other important figures? --Clovane (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Yes, I am planning to continue the work, but now I am working on an article about an other subject. I also need to wait for some books on the crusades I have just bought. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Can you tell me what crusades articles you plan to be working on? --Clovane (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Bohemond II of Antioch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bohemond II of Antioch 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Christopher Báthory 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alice of Champagne 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Christopher Báthory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Christopher Báthory 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. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A relatively fast review, the article didn't need much to put it up to the GA standard, a few copy-edits by myself to deal with duplication of links and a couple typo's but other than that, the GOCE editors did the rest for prose issues. I also amended the images as necessary. Other than that, all it took was to check the writing against a couple sources (I could only access the one so had to AGF) to confirm that the article met OR and Copyright criteria. Excellent work in bringing the article up to the GA standard. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

On 5 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bohemond II of Antioch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the head of Bohemond II of Antioch was embalmed and sent to Al-Mustarshid, the Abbasid caliph? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bohemond II of Antioch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bohemond II of Antioch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 01:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Alice of Champagne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Alice of Champagne 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 Mr rnddude -- Mr rnddude (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Székely people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dersim massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alice of Champagne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alice of Champagne claimed the Kingdom of Jerusalem, because its infant king, Conrad, had failed to take possession of it within a year and a day after the death of his mother? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alice of Champagne. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alice of Champagne), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eritrea. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Also see User talk:Jonesey95#Bohemond III of Antioch.  – Corinne (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Székely people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Eritrea's geographical naming". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 September 2016.

The request for formal mediation concerning Eritrea's geographical naming, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Origin of the Székelys. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Székelys#Origins. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Székelys#Origins – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cabayi (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that editors are entitled to attribution for their edits, and that a cut-and-paste move in the way you've done it robs previous editors of credit for their work. At the least you should use {{Copied}} to provide a link to the history of the article. Cabayi (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Cabayi, your style shows that you obviously have not been on Wikipedia long enough. Please read the article's edit history. If you think that my contribution should be twice mentioned, please do not refrain from adding the template (that I actually do not know and do not want to know, because I do not want to copy other editors' texts). Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alexander the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Valamit ki kellene találnunk, mert a címek pontosan gyakran sem földrajzilag, sem időrendben nem egyeztethetők össze. Szükséges volna talán még a szöveg tartalmi változtatás nélküli restrukturálása is, ami tehát kényelmes lenne, mivel nem kell újrafogalmazni egyetlen mondatot sem hozzá. Van valamilyen ötleted? Ez a Henry V cikk lehetne egy aranystandard..., ugyanis fantasztikusan logikus és jó a struktúrája. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_of_England Válaszod előre is köszönöm!Enginerfactories (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the above suggestions could be debated on the relevant Talk page. Henry V is not a GA, so I think we should not follow it. (I think Henry V could not be promoted to GA for quite obvious reasons). Borsoka (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A szocialista körökben népszerű Engel Pál történelem és könyvtár szakos tanárit végzett az ELTE-én 4 év alatt ami egy főiskola volt. Magasabb szintű végzettsége NINCSEN, tudományos fokozatai sincsenek, tehát tényszerűen csak egy könyvtárosról beszélhetünk, aki általános iskolásokat oktathatna modern korunkban a végzettsége alapján. (Igen, bizony ez a nagy helyzet) Ne feledjük, a Kádár rendszerben MTA tagok között politikai okok miatt gyakran találunk szép számmal olyan történészeket is, akiknek akár hiányzott középiskolai végzettségük is, ezek az alakok még egyetemeken is oktathattak, bármiféle tudományos vizsgák és képesítés nélkül. Hála Istennek, koruknál fogva már kihaltak az ilyen politikai karriert befutó végzettség nélküli önjelölt "tudósok". Ilyen a kapitalista nyugati országokban ekkoriban egész egyszerűen elképzelhetetlen lett volna. Jellemző Engel politikai pálfordulása, MSZMP tagsága után rögtön MDF támogatóvá szimpatizánssá vált, ahogy látta hogy változnak a szelek. Engel nemcsak hogy nem történész , nem SZAKTÖRTÉNÉSZ (azaz hadtörténész). Ellenben Andrew Rawsonnak van tudományos fokozata, méghozzá szaktörténész: hadtörténész. Honnan veszed, hogy "populáris történelmet ír csak? Ja értem már, elhamarkodottan gyorsan megnézted, hogy nagyszámú könyveinek szép nagy színes borítójuk van és hasra-ütve egyszerűen ráfogtad hogy "popular history"? Inkább talán látnod kellene a rá való hivatkozásokat referenciákat a más komoly történelmi munkákban, és majd csak utána ítélkezni. Másrészről Rawson forrásmunkái között megtalálod az EGYETLEN angol nyelvű Nagy Lajos hadjáratairól háborúiról íródott HADTÖRTÉNETI munkát, ami is említi az 1342-es Havasalföldi hódító hadjáratot: Norman Housley, 'King Louis the Great of Hungary and the Crusades 1342-1382.' 64.oldal.Enginerfactories (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Engelről: soha nem volt MSZMP-tag (ezért lett "csak" könyvtáros, és kellett dolgoznia a postán), másrészt munkái ma a magyar középkorkutatás nélkülözhetetlen alapművei (különösen az archontológiai adattára, amely még nemzetközi nagydíjat is nyert, és egész Közép-Európa medievisztikai kutatótársadalma forgatja). --Norden1990 (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Nem kell mentegetni mondvacsinált indokokkal. Az még nem változtat azon a tényen, hogy csak egy főiskolai oklevéllel bíró könyvtáros végzettsége volt, és manapság általános iskolásokat oktathatna csak legálisan. Hála a kommunizmusnak meg kádárnak még ilyen alakok is lehettek akadémikusok. Meg kell ismételnem, ilyen végzettséggel a korbeli nyugaton maradt volna a könyvtárban, de még a magyar rendszerváltás után sem tudott volna elkezdeni egy karriert. Igen, ő az MSZMP tagja volt, ezen még az sem változtat, hogy MDF kormánnyal rokonszenvezett a rendszerváltás után.Enginerfactories (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Olvasgasd Rawson könyveit nyugodtan, hiszen te bizonyára elhiszed, hogy Lajos 1342-ben hűbéresévé tette Havasalföldet és Moldáviát (ahogy ő írja 138. oldalon). Mindenesetre javasolom, hogy olvasd el Kristó Gyultól Az Anjou kor háborúi című monográfiát, amely teljesen egyértelművé teszi, hogy Lajos nem foglalta el Havasalföldet 1342-ben, mert ebben az évben Lajos a szerbek ellen harcolt (saját szavai szerint). Borsoka (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Sigismund Ernuszt has been completed.

Normally in an article about a person their surname is used. I have substituted Ernuszt wherever Sigismund was used which is more formal.

In the section "Matthias Corvinus’ advisor", the phrase "...borrowed 1000 gold florins to Matthias's queen, Beatrice of Naples." appeared. I have made the assumption that he borrowed this amount from the queen. If, in fact, he loaned her the florins you’ll have to fix the sentence. In either case a reason for the loan would be a useful clarification.

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

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Twofingered Typist, thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your work. It was Sigismund who gave the money to the queen, so I changed the text. I also made a minor change in connection with his father (because his father only started his career as a money collector). If you have time, please check my edits. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything looks fine to me. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. Borsoka (talk) 05:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Szia,

igazából valamennyire egységesíteni szeretném a dolgokat, sok helyen abszolút elfajzott a nevek használata, és az adott kortárs nevek szabályosan használhatóak. (Egyfelől előfordulhat a hogy a falu mostani román nevek akkor nem az volt, stb.) Egyes felvidéki vármegyéknél már a szlovák neveit is folyamatosan felsorolták, holott az nem is volt hivatalos, egyfelől az infoboxban benne van, szinte teljesen olvashatalanná teszi a cikket, meg akkor az összes többi nevet is fel lehetne sorolni. Szóval nem célom semminek az eltűntetése, de legyenek a cikkek következetesek. Egyébként ha figyelemmel kísérsz, ezek mellett sok durva hibát is kijavítok, mindig amihez éppen erőm van, mostanában egyszerűbb cikkeket választok és végigmegyek a vármegyéken, aztán jön majd a többi is. Bármilyen észrevételedet szívesen veszem, de kérlek ne az edit logban beszéljük meg elsősorban, ezért még talán nem kell egy új szeckiót nyitni a talk page-n, és az edit logban amúgy sem lehet ezt megbeszélni feltétlenül, nyugodtan zargass az oldalamon kisebb horderejű dolgokkal is. Köszönöm, Üdv(KIENGIR (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Van egyfajta megegyezéses álláspont: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Naming convention. Nem értem, miért baj, ha egyes felvidéki vármegyéknél fel van sorolva a szlovák név. Ezek szerint most el kellene hagyni a magyar neveket? A konkrét esetben pedig nem értem, miért baj, ha egy folyó román neve is szerepel. Szerintem az elnevezések tekintetében egészen kellemes status quo kezdett kialakulni, amelyet felesleges bolygatni. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Egyetértek, mindkét nevet fel kell tüntetni. Régen rengeteg konfliktus volt ebből, de sikerült elérni egy bizonyos konszenzust a szélsőséges elemek/szerkesztők eltűnésével. Kár lenne ezt most felborítani. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka,

félreértesz, nem vitattam azt az állapotot amit visszaállítottál, de azok a vármegyék amikről beszélünk már nem léteznek, és csakis a Magyar Királyságban léteztek, így a szlovák nevük nem releváns (kivéve ha olyanról van szó, ami most is létezik, pl. Liptov County). Úgyhogy nincs összeköttetés a magyar nevek elhagyásával, ugye ami kortárs és akkori magyar, ott szerepelhet kizárólag (célszerűen linkkel a jelenkori névvel), vagy minimum első helyen a magyar név, és soha nem hagyom el a jelenkori neveket olyan esetben - azaz minimum referálom, amikor egy ma is létező városról van szó, de ismétlem itt már nem létező dolgokról van szó és van referencia a jelenkori névre, ráadásul a szlovák mellett az össze szerepel az infoboxban. Tordát illetően nincs bajom, elfogadom a jelenlegi állapotot.

@Norden1990:,

olvasd el fentebb, Te is félreértesz, az összes már nem létező régi vármegyénél annyira túlsúlyban voltak a modern nevek hogy még egy rendes magyar várra sem lehetett ráismerni, de még egy településre is, majdnem hogy kisebbségi komplexusos módon voltak megírva a cikkek, ott is erőltetve első helyen kizárólag olyan neveket, amik akkor nem is léteztek vagy nem voltak hivatalosak, miközben a magyar, az akkori hivatalos fel sem volt tűntetve, így a revertálásodat az Árva megyét illetően nem értem, szerintem hirtelen felindulásból, elhamarkodottan tetted, hiszen így egy magyar név sem szerepel ami nem helyes. Úgyhogy kössünk kompromisszumot, a ma is létező településneveknél első helyen feltűntetjük a magyart, utána a szlovákot, de a megyéknél ne ragaszkodj hozzájuk, mert ezzel az erővel a latint, a németet, stb. is ugyanolyan súllyal lehetne megjeleníteni, felesleges, azok a megyék csakis a Magyar Királyságban léteztek. Természetesen Liptó-nál, amit egybe van forrasztva a mostani Liptov megyével, már ez nem áll. Köszönöm megértésedet, egyébként már évek óta követem a "contemporary naming conventions", számtalan szerkesztéssel, még soha egyetlenegy konfliktusosnak nevezhető eset sem volt, pedig sok a román cikk is benne. Úgyhogy nem kell félni, de mielőtt bármit revertálnátok, beszéljük meg előtte, nehogy tévedésből félreértsük a szándékot. Egyébként hasonlóan Borsokához, a Te szerkesztéseidet is nagyra becsülöm, hasonlóan hasznos tagja vagy a Wikipediának, nekem nem célom semmit sem felborítani, de nagyon sok dolgok kell még helyre tenni, és ezt ti is tudjátok. Csak azért mert olykor Fakirbakirral belenyúlunk szenzitívebb témákba és ezért sok nemtelen támadást kapunk, ettől még fenn kell tartanunk egy bizonyos színvonalat, és folytatnunk kell, egyébként a nemtelen támadó már csak egy lépésre van a blokktól.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Mivel ezek a megyék ma tejes mértékben Szlovákia területén vannak, ráadásul a nemzetközi szakirodalom jelentős része a mai nevén használja ezeket a közigazgatási egységeket (amelynek természetesen én sem örülök), ezért a szlovák nevek szerepeltetése szerintem indokolt. Nyilván a magyar kerüljön az első helyre. Jó néhány éve még az is előfordult, hogy az adott cikkben nem derült ki, hogy az a város/vár/tájegység/megye stb. 1920 előtt bizony a Magyar Királysághoz tartozott. Ma már jobb a helyzet azért, de korántsem kielégítő. Középkori témában én is rengeteg cikket írtam, ott minden esetben a magyar nevet adtam meg, zárójelben pedig a mai szlovák, román stb. megfelelőt. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Norden1990:,

Vedd észre hogy attól még hogy ma Szlovákia területén van, attól még ez a megye már nem létezik és Csehszlovákiában/Szlovákiában közigazgatásilag soha nem is létezett (a kivételről már beszéltünk, hiszen ott a régi és a jelenlegi egyazon szócikkbe van gyúrva), így én ezért nem látom indokoltnak. Ha egyetértesz, egyezünk meg abban hogy ha valaki kifogást emelne és egyértelműen bizonyítja hogy az angol szakirodalom a korábbi, csak a Magyar Királyságban létezett megyéket valóban szlovák névvel azonosítja (ami egyébként is elvi hibás lenne, de tegyük fel), akkor visszatesszük! A középkori témákban írt cikkeket illetően észrevettem azt amire utaltál, nagyon helyes, csak így tovább!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Változatlanul nem értem, hogy miért baj az, ha egy szlovák többségű/lakosságú területen a szlovák név is fel van tüntetve. Általában nehezen értem meg, ha valaki a magyar/szlovák/román/... név törlését úgy éli meg, mintha ezzel a wp javításához járulna hozzá. Nagyon el szeretném kerülni, hogy a konszenzus felrúgása miatt a wp-n töltött idő jelentős részét azzal kelljen tölteni, hogy magyar neveket restaurálgatok. Öszintén szólva, nem néztem meg az érintett megyékkel kapcsolatos szerkesztéseid, ezért azokat nem tudom megítélni ilyen szempontból, de minden olyan szerkesztést, amely törli a földrajzi terület nevének a helyi lakosság vagy a helyi lakosság jelentős része nyelvén való feltüntetését, erőteljesen ellenzek. Tapasztalataim szerint azok a szerkesztők, akiknek elsődleges tevékenysége valamilyen nyelvű név törlése a "következetesség" jegyében, előbb-utóbb kihullanak a közösségből. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Akkor ismét elmagyarázom, hogy félreértesz. NEM törlök neveket (és nem is ez az elsődleges tevékenységem, enyire ismerhetnél már) olyan értelemben ahogy Te azt állítod hiszen a referencia megmarad a most létező névre, és amit csináltam semmilyen módon nincs a konszenzusos Wiki konvenciók ellen, illetve soha nem volt ebből semmi komoly konfliktus. A javítást illetően nem erre utaltam, hanem nagyon sok más logikátlan, következetlen állításra, vagy a hibás történelmi állításokra, kronológiakeverésre, illetve helytelen, történelemhamisító állításokra, és ezek ellen már sokat tettem az elmúlt években (persze tapasztalatod alapján Te még ennél is sokkal de sokkal többet). Nem rúgtam fel semmilyen konszenzust, sőt ellenben az ott foglaltakat követem.

Egyébként a beszélgetést Norden az én oldalamon folytatta és egymást nem félreértve, megértettük egymást. Tehát, olyan esetben, amikor az adott cikk egy olyan kortárs entitásról szól, ami csak csak és kizárólag akkor létezett, akkor megengedett a magyar név feltüntetésre refernciával az eredeti névre (akár a referált név explicit kiírása nélkül is). Természetesen, ha az adott cikkben utalás van a jelenkori állapotra, akkor ott már ez nem áll és az adott jelenkori név mellé lehet adott esetben feltüntetni a magyart. Ennek megítélése függ a kontextustól, adott esetben az akkori hivatalos adminisztrációról vagy egyéb körülményektől amihez azért megfelelő történelmi tudás szükséges. Ismétlem, eddig ezt helyesen követve soha nem volt ebből semmi komoly probléma, és sok ilyen szerkesztésemet Te is láttad a középkort illetően, gond nélkül el lett fogadva hiszen mások is ezt követik, egyszer kiszedted a Pozsonyt mert a Pressburg egy elfogadott referencia az angol Wikipédián, nem is vitatkoztam de ha van magyar vonatkozása az ügynek a Pozsony is kírható. Végül, megnyugtathatlak, Norden figyeli a szerkesztéseimet, és vele is szorosan együttműködök a jövőben ahogy Veled is, a Magyar Királyságot illető vármegyéknél, a vármegye nevére való referálást illetően a magyar tökéletesen elég (referenciával a cikkre), hiszen azok a megyék csakis ott és akkor léteztek magyar hivatalos névvel, így ezekben az esetekben hacsak nem követelik meg, nem szükséges egyéb nevek felsorolása, hiszen pl. a szlováknak nincs nagyobb relevanciája a németnél, latinnál, stb. emellett az infoboxban benne van az összes név, a szlovákkal egyetemben. Természetesen ha egy településről vagy városról van szó, a jövőben explicit kitérek a jelenkori névre akkor is ha éppen nem releváns - illetve mág akkor is ha a konszenzus nem követeli meg - a Te kérésedet is figyelembe véve. Ha megnézel pl. egyéb cikkeket régi magyar városokról, Norden is panaszkodott hogy szinte rájuk sem lehetett ismerni. Hidd el, én/mi jobban betartjuk ezt a konszenzust, mint bárki más, attól meg ne félj hogy neveket kell javítgatnod, al elmúlt öt évben sem kellett, pedig nagyon sokat csináltam, és elsődlegesen bekerültek azok a magyar nevek ott ahol az releváns, mert hiába a konszenzus, nem szeretik feltüntetni(KIENGIR (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aimery of Cyprus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grand master, Ascalon and Tyre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Mivel szerkesztéseid során sokszor forgatod Zsoldos és Engel kézikönyveit, szeretnélek értesíteni, hogy a napokban megjelent a Magyarország világi archontológiája 1458–1526 c. könyv (legalábbis az első kötet, amely a méltóságviselők adatait tartalmazza, elvileg még két kötet várható). Így most már teljessé vált a középkori tisztviselők névsora 1000-től egészen 1848-ig. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Köszönöm. Már meg is akartam venni, de nem volt a libriben. Na, majd megrendelem.Borsoka (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Szia Borsoka, nem vagyok nyelvesz, nem ertek hozza, csak veletlenul eszrevettem a hasonlosagot "Baranya" es a volga-bulgar/Kazar "Baranjar" kozott. Van errol a hasonlosagrol barmilyen szakirodalom? Fekete Magyarok? Fakirbakir (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Nem tudom. A Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára szerint a név feltehetően az első ispán nevét őrzi Baranya elnevezése. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Koszonom.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You just asked someone to cite that Amaury is the French form of Amalric. If it is not, why is he "wrongly" called Amaury? Srnec (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Hill proved and subsequent authors accepted that the correct English version of his name is Aimery. If this version of his name (Amaury) is used in books published in English, why do we need to say that it is the French version of his name. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It isn't the French version of his name. It is the French version of Amalric, which wasn't his name. That's why we need to clarify that it is not an alternative or mistaken spelling of Aimery, but a perfectly correct rendering (from French) of a different name, Amalric, which has been mistakenly attached to Aimery. I don't care much how this is done, but it should be done for clarity. Right now it is not clear in the article why Amaury is incorrect (because it comes from Amalricus, not Aimericus—in fact Hugh III of Cyprus had a son named each). Srnec (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your concern. You are trying to add a piece of information (which is not highly relevant) without referring to a reliable source. We know that his actual name was Aimery, consequently other names used in books published in English cannot be correct. We do not need to say anything more based on our own research. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Many sources treat Aimery and Amaury as equivalent. It is relevant to explain why they are not. Srnec (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And can you cite a reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For Amaury being the French form of Amalric? There are many. Britannica's article on Amalric II, for one that is relevant. Srnec (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry, I do not understand if "there are many" why was the above long discussion necessary: that was my only question. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nem tudom hasznat lehet e venni ennek a dolognak de igazan elgondolkoztato hogy a mult szazad kozepeig nem volt az ortodox egyhaznak roman szentje. ( Leustean, Orthodoxy and the Cold War, Religion and political power in Romania 1947—65 p. 95) Ez a teny, erositheti a szlav dominanciat, hatast a roman tortenelemben, ethnogenezisben? Talan hasznaveheto info. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Nem biztos, hogy a szláv hatás miatt. Én inkább a görögre tippelek. A moldáviai és havasalföldi egyházak erőteljesen görög hatás alatt álltak, és nem valószínű, hogy a görög főpapok román szenteket akartak kreálni, mert számukra furcsák voltak a román szokások (például, a sok szerető, a fattyak nagy száma). Amikor valamikor a 90-es években "román" szenteket avattak, egy csomó ókeresztény "dák" mártirt találtak (természetesen Nagy István vajda és néhány későbbi püspök mellett). Érdekes lehet egy olyan államegyház hívének lenni, amelyet még közvetlenül irányítanak éppen aktuális világi ideológiák: Románia, Oroszország, Svédország, Nagy-Britannia ... Borsoka (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vlad the Impaler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladislaus V of Hungary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dan II of Wallachia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael I. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Bohemond IV of Antioch has been completed.

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

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Szia,

legutóbbi értkezésünkkor - Nordent is beleértve - az volt a kérés hogy egymás esetleges revertálása előtt egyeztessünk. Abban megállapodtunk hogy az angol nyelvet illetően Pressburg a megfelelő megnevezés, de vannak olyan cikkek illetve olyan helyzetek, ahol viszont szintén wiki naming conventions szabályként/konszenzusként a kortárs nevek hazsnálhatóak. A Kingdom of Hungary cikk egy erősen magyar vonatkozású cikk, továbbá Pozsony már akkor főváros volt amikor a német nem is volt hivatalos nyelv, stb. tehát itt a Pozsony használata megengedett! Azért nem soroltam volna fel a többi megfelelőt, hiszen ez egy összefoglaló táblázat, és már bocsánat de Magyarország fővárosának annak hivatalos magyar megnevezését - mert ugye ilyen esetekben szintén más konvenció miatt nem a latint használjuk - szabad használni! A Temesvárt sem írjuk át Timisoara-ra a WP:English miatt!! Mivel itt a két naming convention is fennáll, ez esetben, gond nélkül lehet a Pozsony javára dönteni, mert mint magyar főváros szerepel és annak volt hivatalos nem német és nem angol megfelelője. Ha nagyon kötöd az ebet a karóhoz akkor legyen "Pozsony/Pressburg" - mint a főcikkben - de itt a Pozsony megnevezés mellőzése nevetséges lenne, eddig is benn volt a cikkben és senkinek sem volt baja vele....légyszíves alkalmazd valamelyik megoldást, köszi! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC))

(1) Nem emlékszem semmilyen megállapodásra. Ezzel szemben arra emlékszem, hogy már jeleztem, hogy a névháborút kifejezetten károsnak és feleslegesnek tartom. (2) Nem a magyar nevet adtad meg, hanem az angol nevet törölted. Mellesleg, egy táblázatben feltüntetni az összes névformát meglehetősen nevetséges lenne. (3) Olvad el, légyszíves, a WP:English című politikát. Pressburg a megszokott 1920 előtti angol neve a városnak. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) Olvasd vissza kérlek, kérés volt, és így is írtam most is. Tovább, nincs semmilyen "névháború", nem is értelek miért írsz ilyet, én sosem kezdeményeztem ilyet, mindig a wiki politika szerint jártam el (2) Nem nézted meg figyelmesen mi történt az oldalon, a kérdéses szerkesztés előtt is a Pozsony volt kinn, valaki kb. egy napja átírta indoklás nélkül, én csak visszaállítottam az oldalt az eredeti állapotra. Én is azt mondtam arra hogy nevetséges amire most Te is mondod (3) Ismerem a politikát, illetve a megszokott angol nevet illetően egyetértünk, nem is értem miért ismételted ezt meg

P.S. Kérlek vedd figyelembe amit írtam, tekintve hogy a magyar fővárosnak magyar a kortárs hivatalos neve, nem angol, ebben az esetben a magyar szerepelhet, és ezt szintén garantálja a kortárs nevek használatára kötött ősrégi konszenzus, amint minden oldalon működik és megszokott és számtalanszor találkoztunk vele. Ebben az esetben a contemporary names politika felülírja a WP:English-t, de ki is egészítheti. Én maximálisan tisztellek és hiperintelligensnek tartalak, azonban úgy látom kissé prejudikáltan állsz a dologhoz, kicsit úgy tűnik mintha abból amit írtam az előbb, semmi nem jött volna át. De ha nem tudunk megállapodni, akkor egyszerűen állítsuk vissza az oldalt arra az állapotra, ahogy volt. Egyébként 2014 októbere óta változatlan a főváros lista ahol Pozsony szerepelt.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC))

(1) Elnézést, de a személyre szabott szerkesztési politikák meglehetősen idegenek a WP-tól. Az "undo" egy megszokott módja a WP szerkesztésének, ha nem értesz egyet egy másik szerkesztő valamelyik módosításával. (2) Valóban előítéletes vagyok a névváltoztatásokkal kapcsolatban, ezért elnézést kérek. Kifejezetten zavarnak az olyan névváltozások, amelyeket semmi nem indokol. (2) Pressburg a megszokott angol neve Pozsonynak a kérdéses időszakban. Gondolod, hogy egy magyar nyelvű szócikkben Bécsre Wien-ként, a 2016-os Pozsonyra Bratislava-ként kellene hivatkozni? A konszenzus alapja, hogy minden esetben a megszokott angol alakot kell előnyben részesíteni. (3) Történetesen, Pressburg megfelel annak a névalaknak is, amelyet a város lakosainak túlnyomó többsége használt a kérdéses időszakban (habár nem ellenőriztem, de eléggé biztos vagyok abban, hogy még a XX. század elején is német volt a város lakosai relatív többségének anyanyelve). Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) Nagyon sok nehezen eldönthető esetet figyeltem meg a WP:English-el és a contemporaray naming conventions't illetően, és úgy érzem eddig minden rendben volt. Nincs bajom an undo-dal, de ellenfeleink örülnek és már más oldalakon, ezen felbúzdulva - úgyhogy nincs köze és távolról sem hasonlít a mostani esethez már elkezdték a magyar neveket eltávolítani, figyelmen kívül hagyva a contemporary naming conventions-t a szinén ugyanarra hivatkozva, és ezzel újabb provokációs hullámot indítanak el...ezért kértem hogy revertálás előtt egyeztessünk privátban, nem másért. (2) Ok, meg van bocsájtva, de Te is érzed hogy két évig nem zavart a Pozsony, valaki átírja pedig minden város - ismétlem Temesvár is - magyarul van, és egy szem város átkerül nem magyarra...még a végén átírják a WP:English-re hivatkozva Timisoara-ra...Magyarország fővűrosa kontextusban a magyar lehet az első helyen...az érvelésedet a Wien, Bratislava ügyben elfogadom, mint ahogy a (3) pontban leírtakat is. Azonban tartom, hogy habár Pozsony volt főváros abban az időszakban is amikor német volt a hivatalos Magyarországon, de előtte is hosszú ideig, és valahogy - tekintve hogy az összes tőbbi főváros is magyarul van kiírva - egy magyar fővárosnak dukál a magyar név. Ez ügyben nem teszek több erőfeszítést, de kiváncsi vagyok @Fakirbakir: és @Norden1990: véleményére is, aztán amiben hárman egyetértetek, azt el fogom fogadni. Azonban arra ügyelni kell, hogy a magyaroat folyamatosan kompromitáló elemek ezt ne használjék fel arra, hogy ennek ürügyén a magyar neveket mindenhonnal eltávolítsák, ahol egyébként vitán felül szerepelhetnek (ugye, holnapra kiderül hogy szlovák barátunk komolyan gondolta-e, vagy Fakirbakir oldala után a mostani beszélgetésünket is örömmel olvassa és dörzsöli kezeit hogy hogyan tehetne keresztbe, ha nem így lenne ezúton is elnézést kérek tőle, de kicsit túl gyanús hogy Borsokával beszélek és 48 óra múlva a WP:Englishre hivatkozva egyszer csak a magyar neveknek annyi egy olyan oldalon ahol első helyen gond nélkül szerepelhetnek).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

Kiváncsi vagyok, hogy melyek azok az oldalak, ahol "ellenfeleink" éppen buzognak és távolítgatják a magyar neveket, mert eddig nem tapasztaltam, hogy bármiféle ellenfeleim lennének, de szeretném megismerni őket. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Az angolok valoban Pressburgot hasznaltak leginkabb 1920 elott, igy WP:English lep hatalyba. Pozsony, Presporok, nem volt annyira jellemzo. Azon telepulesek ahol nincs elterjedt angol valtozata a telepules nevenek 1920 elott a magyar vagy nemet valtozat kerul elore (vagy eppen a latin) az eppen aktualis "eroviszonyoknak" megfeleloen. 1526 elott viszont mindenkeppen a magyar (vagy a latin) forma az elsodleges, velemenyem szerint. A nevek megfelelo hasznalata sajnos veget nem ero vitakat szul, mert nezopont kerdese...... A latin formaval is ovatosan kell banni, mert sok szerkeszto azzal indokolja a hasznalatat, hogy a latin nyelv volt a kozepkorban a hivatalos nyelve Magyarorszagnak. Ez ebben a formaban bizony hamis, mivel, bar az oktatas es az adminisztracio nyelve tobbnyire latin volt, sehol sem allitottak, hogy a hivatalos nyelve az orszagnak latin. Sot a nagy tobbseg nem is tudott latinul... Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Borsoka, a humorodat és a higgadságodat is tisztelem, azonban ahogy én tapasztaltam belefutottál egy párba, sőt a mostani esetet nézve az illetővel Te és Fakirbakir is egy térkép ügyében jó hosszan vitáztatok, persze a szlovák fél mellett még több román fél is csatlakozott, végül Fakirbakir térképe eltűnt általuk, végigolvastam az egészet talán egy-két hónapja. Egyébként egy magyar vármegyénél történt, de már bevontam egy adminisztrátort akik korrektül, jóindulattal viszonyul az ügyhöz úgyhogy a szlovák szerkesztő abbahagyta a revertálást és kénytelen a talk page-en konszenzust kötni velem, ez épül most. Egyébként meg épp a History of Transylvania-n leszedetett egy román fél egy OR-nak vélt dolgot, amivel ti is foglalkoztatok, a románok által félrefordított Verancsics Antal idézetet illetően, bár van forrásom rá, ez most nem annyira kardinális, bár az összes nemzetközi referencia átvette Pascu 60%-os hamisítását, a lényeg hogy Lupu becslése benne van forrással, de ezzel lesz még ügy, de majd később más oldalakkal egybevetve, van még elég teendő. Fakirbakir, ok, nem Pozsonyozok akkor többet, ha véletlenül még is, majd kijavítotok :) Egyetértek a továbbiakkal, a latinnal kapcsolatban csak néhány IP cím meg magyarellenes elem hivatkozik erre, csakis azért hogy a magyar neveket eltüntessék, holott más országoknál, népeknél ez nem érdekli őket, hiszen Európa nagy részén latin vagy szláv volt az adminisztráció, ráadásul a középkori adminisztráció, ahogy utaltál is rá abszolút nem hasonlítható össze az újkor hivatalos nyelv státuszával. A német, angol, francia, spanyol, román neveket is simán használják a középkort illetően, mekkora poén lenne ha pl. a románok akarnák akkor ők egy román nevet sem használhatnának 1622-ig majdnem biztosan, hanem csak szlávul/cirillül írhatnának le bármit is bizonyos időszakokban :) Szóval ez a latinos dolgot már nem lehet elsütni, többször próbálták, de nem fognak sikerrel járni.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

Verancsics felreforditasanak ugyere en is emlekszem, eleg "vicces". Kniezsa terkepet, most ellenoriztem en is, valoban eltuntettek az angol wikirol, ugyhogy ezzel kapcsolatban lesz egy ket lepesem nemsokara. Bezzeg az Anonymus elkepzelese szerinti 10. szazadi Magyarorszag terkep el es virul.......Fakirbakir (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Nem szurom be Kniezsa terkepet a Magyar Kiralysag 1301-ig oldalaba, mert egyes "kedves" "allhatatos" editorok egybol lehuznak a good article minositeset az oldalnak....Kedves Borsoka es Kiengir, ha van otletetek hol tudnank hasznalni a terkepet. ami nem okoz problemat, azt szivesen vennem. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Kedves Fakirbakir, sajnos meg kell szoknunk - annak ellenére hogy ennek semmi köze a Wikipediához - és ki tudja hogy 200 év elég lesz-e, sajnos mindig is fel kell készülni arra hogy egyesek minden vélt valós lehetőséget, szabályt fel fognak használni arra, hogy a magyarokat/magyar ügyeket támadják, ezért is kell kulturált keretek között összefogni, hiszen az abszolút érdekorientált lobbicsoport szerű működést én is elvetem, de ha minimálisan nem tesszük meg azt amit más csoportok megtesznek, ha nem állunk ki a valós és helyes,de mindenképpen legalább objektív történelemszemlélet mellett - és nem azért mert magyarok vagyunk és magunk felé húznánk - akkor mindig azt fogják hinni hogy bármit megtehetnek velünk. Azért Te is tapasztalhattad hogy számtalan mocskos és igaztalan támadást kaptam az elmúlt években, persze a rutintalanságom nehezítette a helyzetemet, de most már kb. 4-5 nagyobb incidens megnyerése után már be sem próbálkoznak a szokásos dolgokkal, holott a legalattomosabb módszereket is bevetették hogy kompromittáljanak, letiltsanak, stb. A kitartás is fontos, Nélküled, Borsoka vagy Norden nélkül - Körtefa talán nagyon elfoglalt az utóbbi időben, hiányzik is - talán katasztrofális lenne a helyzet. Persze sokszor ezt a többségében angolszász adminisztrátorok nem mindig fogják fel vagy veszik észre a azt a fajta kelet-közép európai vagy balkáni mentalitásban rejlő trükköket, amihez ide kéne születni és felnőni hogy megértsék. Sőt magyar adminisztrátorról nem is tudok, talán egyszer végignéztem a listát és egy Pengo nevezető ausztráliai magyart találtam, egyszer írtam is Neki, de úgy tűnik talán egy éve nem lépett be amikor néztem. Kicsit olyan ez mint a sportdiplomácia, gyengék vagyunk, pedig mi nem elferdítésre, hanem balanszra használnák ezt.

Térkép ügyben Borsoka százszor profibb tanácsot tud adni mint én, olvastam hogy hihetetlen profizmussal védte a dolgot a román-szlovák "jóindulattal" szemben, és talán nem is nyert az ellenfél, minimum döntetlenen zárult a legutóbbi csörte ha nem nyerésre, sőt ahogy ellenőriztem, talán a térkép is ott maradt a vita után egy ideig, de egy szerkesztésáradat közepette a szlovák imádónk szépen valamire hivatkozva leszedte, aztán úgy maradt a dolog....szerintem kérdezd meg Nordent meg Körtefát, aztán Borsokával négyen döntsétek el, én támogatok minden megoldást. Esetleg a későbbiekben ha gond lenne, egy korrekt munkakapcsolatot kezdtem kialakítani egy történelemtanár adminisztrátorral, szerintem Ő vitás esetben totálisan korrekten tudna dönteni vagy segíteni, eddig ezt tapasztaltam vele kapcsolatban.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, leköteleznél, ha az ilyen típusú beszélgetéseket valamelyik másik lapon folytatnád. Kezdem egyrészt Bizáncban, másrészt egy trónok harca részben érezni magam. Én jobban érzem magam a jelenlegi valóságban. Borsoka (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nem ismerem a Trónok Harcát :), sajnos a jelenlegi valóságban is benne van a régmúlt, de természetesen kérésedet tiszteletben tartom.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC))

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

On 31 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dan III of Wallachia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Vlad Dracula forced Dan III of Wallachia to dig his own grave? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dan III of Wallachia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dan III of Wallachia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Female genital mutilation. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem of the ancestry chart, what issue can you see from it? George6VI (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOR Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

However, you can look up any articles about a historical figure, do you think those are also need citations? If you say the ancestry of Ladislaus need citations while other 7,000+ needn't, I doubt. George6VI (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above message. I do not say, other 7,000+ do not need citations. Borsoka (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's quite obvious. Elizabeth II, Juan Carlos I, Albert II of Belgium, Margrethe II of Denmark... if the citation is so important, then why such issue doesn't exist in these articles at all? George6VI (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)°

I still do not understand your message. Could you refer to the relevant WP policy saying that those charts are not covered by WP:NOR? Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

These charts just link the ancestry of a person, especially when his/her descent is certain, just like extending "parents" to "grandparents"; those articles are also sure have ample sources to prove this. How can it be an original research? If so, it's the problem of the usage of the template Ahnentafel, not simply a problem of the article. And so, I'm transforming the format just like the most common type of an ancestry charts. (Example: Elizabeth II#Ancestry, if you think it's against NOR, then remove that out of that Elizabeth II article) George6VI (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

WP articles are only collection of words that can be linked to other articles. This fact does not mean that we can ignore WP:NOR. Sorry, I do not want to edit the article about Elizabeth II. Please stop your original research. Borsoka (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Bosorka, you said that the ancestry is against NOR policy, then why don't you allow me to use {{Or}} instead? It is apparently not from a source, but a collection of ancestral relations (as seen those articles I told you), so it matches the defintion of Original Research. - George6VI (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Because one can verify the chart with references to reliable sources. See, for instance, the chart in the article Andrew III of Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Szia!!! Mi van ezzel a Blacorum lappal? Ki jelölte törlésre? Már kifejtettem a véleményemet a lap vitaoldalán. Remélem, ennyi elég lesz ahhoz, hogy a kérdés lekerüljön a napirendről. És azt is remélem, hogy a szerkesztői oldaladon hangoztatott alláspontod, miszerint a semlegességre törekszel, nem azt jelenti, hogy itt is az egyoldalú román vélemény fog érvényesülni, amely egyébként ebben a kérdésben is tarthatatlan. Ha pedig valamiféle admin is vagy, azt is jó volna elintézni, hogy a lap tetejéről lekerüljön az a sok tendenciózus (valószínűleg román) sablon, mely a román érdekeknek felel meg, mint hogy: "may need to be rewritten", "has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality", "factual accuracy is disputed", "needs attention from an expert in WikiProject Romania" (egyébként mi közük van ehhez a románoknak). Ennyi elvadult sablont egy cikken én még nem is láttam. Ha lenne még több efféle sablon, bizonyára azokat is mind odabiggyesztették volna. Úgy látszik, hogy valakinek nagyon csípi a szemét, meg a történelmi koncepcióját, meg a másféle vélemény is. Ha valami sérti a "semlegességet", akkor ez az. Ezek a sablonok ugyanis egyáltalán nem semlegesek. Egyszerűen le akarnak söpörni az asztalról egy olyan információt, amelyre forrásokkal is rendelkezünk. A cikkben ilyen történelmi források vannak felsorolva, egy megjegyzéssel egyetemben arról, hogy a blakok nemcsak vlachok lehetnek. Van ilyen vélemény is, meg olyan is, hogy a vlach pásztorok képesek voltak rovásírást kiötölni maguknak, miközben az orthodox vallásuk miatt a papjaik közül az a kevés írástudó is legfeljebb csak az orthodox írást (glagolika, cirillika) ismerhette.--Szegedi László (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A teória "fringe", a szócikk borzalmas. Borsoka (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Te a három turkológiai, nyelvészeti meg történészi diplomáddal Rásonyi, meg a többi vezető tudós helyett bizonyára szakértő módon meg tudod ítélni a "teória" fringe vagy mi voltát, ha már megfelelő magyar szót sem tudsz a minősítéshez találni. Miután pedig megítélted, nyilvánvaló, hogy a szócikk is "borzalmas". A Wikipédia többek között ezért kezd egy facebookos vitacsoporttá válni. Inkább kérjük meg a románokat, hogy fogalmazzák át úgy, hogy számodra sem legyen "borzalmas". Ők pedig majd itt is tovább terjeszthetik a dákoromán elméletüket, meg az efféle badarságaikat, noha Réthy már 1890-ben kimutatta, hogy ők valójában romanizált albánok, akik az Ochrid-tavak környékéről származnak és nem Erdélyben romanizált dákok. Ajánlom neked is, hogy ismerkedj meg a tényekkel. Ha ragaszkodsz a "semlegességedhez", akkor első lépésben az efféle badarságok kiiktatásán kellene iparkodnod.--Szegedi László (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you deleted important historical references from the article. May I ask why did you delete the reference to William Rubruck. He is one of the most important sources about the Blacs. It seems that you are not comfortable with the subject. I understand that it is a controversial subject but I tried all my best to present it in a civil manner. I didn't hide the fact that many historians identify the Blacs with the Vlachs. But I think that in order to have a clear discussion about the subject we should be able to present the other sides opinion as well. There are scholars who do not identify the Blacs with the Vlachs. If you guys always delete the historical references than how can one judge if we should keep the article or not. Basically it is vandalism what you are doing because historical references are what they are. They are not some kind of an opinion only. Of course historical sources can be right or wrong but that is not for you to decide, just by deleting them. Thanks for listening. Arpabogar (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR, especially WP:PRIMARY. Rubruck's work is a primary source. Borsoka (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I read the WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. I didn't do any interpretations of the historical sources, they were just presented as is. " A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." quoting from WP:PRIMARY. So I think the Historical References have a place in this article, please do not delete them and don't have your own biases about the article until the topic is clearly discussed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arpabogar (talk • contribs) 03:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

You present those primary sources in order to substantiate a claim that "Blacorum" were a Turkic-speaking population, without verify this claim by a reference to a scholarly work. The practise clearly contradicts to WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion only. The article is clearly about a theory supported by a well known turkologist and other authors and which states that the Blac people could have been Turkic people. The Historical References were there to see that there are sources which mention the blacs. They were presented as is, if there was an interpretation, then a secondary source was given. You are obviously not fair. So please leave the Historical References alone. They are what they are. To be able to talk about the subject in a fair matter the sources must be able to be presented. Please keep the rules yourself!157.52.7.104 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not answer your messages on this Talk page. I do not want to discuss the same topic on multiple pages. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bohemond III of Antioch 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 BlackJack -- BlackJack (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collegiate School (New York City). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The article Bohemond III of Antioch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bohemond III of Antioch 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 BlackJack -- BlackJack (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Borsoka. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should ignore Eurocentral's nonconstructive, polemic rants, stop engaging him and report his IPs if it's possible. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree. My experience is that administrative measures do not stop this kind of editors, so other approaches have to be applied. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Nem tudom, hogy megszerezted-e már az új archontológia-könyvet, de ott sok esetben eltérő dátumok szerepelnek az 1458-1526 közötti vajdák terminusait illetően. Lehetséges, hogy majd korrigálni kell a táblázatot. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Még nem vettem meg, mert nem találtam a könyvesboltokban. Majdnem biztos, hogy módosítani kell a táblázatot. Van egy gyanúm, hogy Markó munkája tartalmaz egy csomó nyomdahibát is. Ráadásul az új könyv kétség kívül a legújabb kutatásokra épül. :) Hol vetted? Én bookline-on is néztem, de csak előjegyezhető. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Markó műve nem nyomdahibás, csak sok esetben mára már elavult, 19. századi vagy 20. sz. eleji archontológiai listákat vesz alapul. A maga nemében azonban nem rossz munka, lévén, hogy ismeretterjesztő, és nem tudományos igényű könyvről van szó. A könyvet egyébként az ELTE BTK jegyzetboltjában vettem meg (Múzeum krt., főépület, alagsor). --Norden1990 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:California. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Látom, el kezdted bővíteni Bocskai szócikkét (itt megjegyzem, hogy megfontolandó a cikk átnevezése is). Amennyiben lesz "Legacy" alfejezet vagy valami hasonló, akkor mindenképp érdemes az utóbbi évek új megközelítését is közölni: [5]. Pálffy Géza némiképp vitatja azt a 19. sz-i romantikus Bocskai-képet, amelyet aztán a kommunista rezsim is tovább táplált. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Igen, mindenképpen át kell nevezni, csak a mozgatás nem olyan egyszerű, majd adminisztrátori segítség kell. Köszönet a cikkért, mert egy Legacy alfejezetet terveztem. A G. Etényi-Horn-Szabó könyv szintén nagyon jó. Az egyik legjobb életrajz, amit valaha olvastam. Egy dolog a zavaró, hogy nem használnak lábjegyzeteket. Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

On 9 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bohemond III of Antioch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the third wife of Bohemond III of Antioch was described as a witch by William of Tyre, and as a whore by Michael the Syrian? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bohemond III of Antioch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bohemond III of Antioch), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold war (general term). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Borsoka -- Thanks again for the barnstar! I'm just curious why you posted the request for a peer review before I had completed the copy-edit you requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I was about three-quarters of the way through, and just took a break, which I indicated in my last edit summary. I will work on it now.  – Corinne (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. I noticed that you removed the GOCE tag (I did not read your edit summary). I read your edits, and I concluded that you had finished the work. Sincerelly, I was surprised that you finished it within such a short time and I was proud that my English had improved. :) You know I am not a native speaker, so I cannot decide whether the article should still be improved. Do you think the peer review would prevent you from continuing your copyedit? I would be really sad. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, but it could cause some confusion if both were happening at the same time. I have just finished copy-editing the article. I have only one question, something I couldn't figure out. Let me place the GOCE template first. Then I'll explain.

The last sentence of the second paragraph of the section Vlad the Impaler#Third rule is:

• The relationship between the Transylvanian Saxons and Basarab remained tense, and they gave shelter to his opponents during the following months.

You'll see that I slightly re-worded the first half of the sentence, but I don't think that changes the fact that the pronoun "they" at the beginning of the second half of the sentence is ambiguous. Can you substitute a noun for that pronoun so that it will be clear who gave shelter to his opponents?

Thank you. I added "Saxons". Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That is definitely an improvement. I wonder, since several names are mentioned previous to this sentence, whether it would be clearer if you also substituted a name for "his" in the phrase "gave shelter to his opponents". Whose opponents? Basarab's opponents or Vlad's opponents?

Also, is the fact that the Saxons gave shelter to [---]'s opponents the reason for the tense relationship? If it is, you might consider changing the structure of the sentence from "and the Saxons gave shelter" to "..., with the Saxons giving shelter". If it is not the only or main reason for the tense relationship, then I would leave it as it is.  – Corinne (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I moved the sentence. It may make it clear. Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the first paragraph of the section Vlad the Impaler#National hero, you had a link, "Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia". Since I knew it should be an en-dash instead of a hyphen, I changed it to an en-dash, but when I previewed it, it was a red link whereas before it had been a blue link. So in another browser window, I clicked on that blue link, and it led to an article with a completely different title that had not been part of the blue link even in edit mode, so it must have been a re-direct. So, I added the title of the article to the link, with "Metropolitan of Ungro–Wallachia" (with the en-dash) after a pipe. If you don't want the link to lead to that article, you'll need to work on this.  – Corinne (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It is OK, I think. Borsoka (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you moved the sentence about the tense relationship to earlier in the paragraph. I think that was a good edit. The sentence makes more sense there. However, I still think you should use a name (in the possessive case, with apostrophe s) instead of "his", in "his opponents". There are a couple of other names there, so "his" is ambiguous. Is it "Vlad's opponents"?  – Corinne (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hogyan fordítanád le ezt a szakkifejezést angolra? Lehet, hogy te már találkoztál valamelyik angol nyelvű szakkönyvben egy megfelelő fordítással, nekem eddig elkerültem a figyelmemet. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nem találkoztam még vele. Engel alapján úgy tűnik, hogy simán "forest": "In Hungary, as in England, a forest was a well-defined district wchich comprised both the land (open territory as well as woodland) and all those who inhabited it." (Engel 2001, p. 80). Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Royal forest? --Norden1990 (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jónak tűnik. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Szia,

szerinted mi lenne a megfelelő angol megnevezés erre? Ha van több alternatíva amiből választhatunk, az is nagyon jól jönne...egyelőre "Hátszeg district" vagy "District of Hátszeg", vagy "Land of Hațeg" alternatívákat találtam...Köszönöm (KIENGIR (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

A History of Transylvania azt írja, "District of Hátszeg". Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This dispute has been closed as no violation but I'm alerting both parties to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for your message. I would be grateful if you clarified what was the mistake I made. Borsoka (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No mistake on your part is implied. But the other party was due for an alert and in a case like this it was only fair to notify both. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the above clarification. Borsoka (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Andrew Báthory has been completed.

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

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)