Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

Dear Borsoka,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your fifteen-year participation! - Gyalu22 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Charles I of Anjou, introduced (in 2020): "This article is about a 13th-century French royal prince who established a powerful Mediterranean empire before his and his retainers abuse of power led to a popular revolt, known as the Sicilian Vespers. He is also the founder of a powerful dynasty, with members ruling southern Italy, Greece and vast lands in Central and Eastern Europe in the 13th and 14th centuries."! - Happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I saw you have a history with Noconteos on the Cuman wiki page. Did he join community and later get banned? Is it possible to join this community? I'm relatively new to wiki editing.

~ Gibby01 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I hope you will enjoy this community experience as I do. Sorry, I do not remember Noconteos but he seems to have been a sockpuppet of a banned user with whom I had some debates on wikipages. Which community do you want to join? Borsoka (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patarenes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why you do this? Do you have something with slavic language? Those words you can find in dictionary, and yet you just errase them. If slavic origin word Blato is albanian, also albanian Zjar is direct borowed from slavic žar, and yet those words can stand and other not. Also bulgarian word Bor can stand there and you cant make it right and write slavic bcz all slavs call bor same ot breza, bereza.. i give many words that south slavs use stil, and gotmany derivated words from them, and on some places they are better to describe word thst is reconstructed but yet you push Lith, Lat alb why? Do you want truth or you just doing your job that you got paid for..? Rrgnuti (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you refer to this edit: [1]. I explained my edit in the edit summary WP:NOR. That means we are not here to share our own thoughts with the community but to present a summary of scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These arent my thoughts, all words are still used in language. Also, you or who wrote didnt give prof for example word balta in albanian, i know albanian language, rooth bal if for forehead (balli), so how is there sense to be same as mud? Balta word in albanian is loan word, and how to be objectivw and use many loan words here. Also, all words that i posted arent loan words in any south slavic languages. So, if i did wrong in summary you can ask or infor me, and not to errase all without actualy cheeking it. Also i think many words that we got can cotribute to understand better history, not to decline all that you think its personal opinion. For some words in this table i didnt find match in my language or other south slavic so this is all true without fabrications. How this page can be true when i who know s. Slavic languages can contribute and also see mistakes there, like zjar, balto, also tym (is smouke, you give fog, and fog is mjegull loan word from prob slavic), and many other mistakes, can you cheek this that i write. Also for albanian you got more mistakes like diferent words or loans, and you miss some places where albanian word is most close to word you decifer here... Rrgnuti (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Látom, sokat dolgoztál a Coloman of Galicia cikken, és megvannak a forrásaid is. Nekem nincsenek. Volna kedved a magyar cikkbe is átvinni ezt az információt a forrásokkal? hu:Kálmán herceg. Nekem nagy kedvencem, de nincsenek ilyen könyveim. Bináris (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Nem igazán. Nem tervezem, hogy a magyar WP-n is közreműködjek. Borsoka (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nem mellesleg még az angol változat is - jóindulattal - félkész állapotban van. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valóban, elég kevés benne a muhi csata. Bináris (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you introduced an sfn reference to "Bánó 2004" in this edit to Hungarian nobility. Unfortunately you did not define the reference, so nobody can look it up and the article is added to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could fix it that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you got the Charles I of Anjou article to FA status. Granted it was in 2021, but would you happen to recall any information concerning any mention of a Pierre Charlot in the capacity as chancellor for Charles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not remember him. I checked the indices in Dunbabin's and Runciman's works and they do not list him. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I figured it was a long shot. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the Romanians article where I'd like to add:
According to Encyclopædia Britannica from the arrival of the Huns in the 5th century until the emergence of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the 14th century, the Romanian people virtually disappeared from written history.^[1]
Do you have other references that confirm this statement? Apparently there are Byzantine and Arabic sources contradicting this. RF354 (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Arab sources do not contradict this (only certain historians try to associate uncertain people living somewhere in Eastern and Southeastern Europe with Vlachs living in the lands now forming Romania). Byzantine sources indeed refer to Vlachs of the Balkans from the 10th century and Vlachs living in the lands to the north of the Danube from the late 12th century. Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your swift response, so we may leave out Britannica's quote. RF354 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, why is the file with the link for "From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271–895); The Hungarian–Slav Period (895–1172) chapter 6: "Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule" wrong? What is a good link for reading the book online if this is wrong? Why did you add back 11th century when in chapter 6: "Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule" it clearly talks about Balkan Latins/Vlachs under Bulgar Rule (that covered the territory of Romania today) in the 8th and 9th centuries. It even cites historian István Bóna that Hungarians quote so much...Also in History of Transylvania Volume 1: Introduction to the English Edition it clearly says that writing the book was politically motivated: "Official policy turned virulently nationalistic in the Ceauşescu era. The above-noted theories and biases became firmly entrenched, and political as well as administrative measures were applied to repress the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. Hungary's persevered in its policy of accommodation, but hopes dimmed regarding its effectiveness. The growing stream of biased interpretations from Romanian historians impelled scholars in Hungary to emerge from their officially-sanctioned silence. In the late 1970s, the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences rose to the challenge. The result was the three-volume Erdély története (History of Transylvania), published in 1986." So it's just as biased as Romanian communist historians of that time period...But he still wrote 8th-9thth centuries instead of 11th century. Ninhursag3 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]