Archives

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

I'm aware of the delay to this copy-edit and will be prompting Lamercer to start on it if no action occurs in 24 hrs. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have also been thinking of asking him/her. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an update. If there's no response or editing in seven days I'll strike his acceptance. Cheers and HNY, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck Lamercer's acceptance and the request is now open again. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your action. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I took up your copy edit request at the WP:GOCE page for this article. While working on the lede, I noticed a slight oddity. His birthdate is given as being either 990 or 1009. It was then mentioned that he or his father married a sister of King Stephen. Is this paradox due to a lack of available sourcing? Blackmane (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind. I see that this is clarified in the later section. Blackmane (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article isn't very long, I've done a first pass ce and I've noted that you've made a few follow up edits. Could you have a read over and see if it all stands up as you're more familiar with the material? I've moved a few things around to shorten it up a bit without losing the meaning (at least to my eyes) but you might see it differently. Regards Blackmane (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blackmane, I highly appreciate your bold copyedit. I made some minor changes. If you do not agree any of them, please feel free to revert it. Now I can start a GAN. Thank for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coloman, King of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coloman, King of Hungary 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:

• to the throne are unknown, but he was only crowned in early 1096. He granted the so-called "[[Duchy (Kingdom of Hungary)|duchy"{{mdash}}one-third of the [[Kingdom of Hungary]]{{mdash}}to Álmos.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen II of Hungary 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:

• occupied the [[Syrmia|Szerémség]]. In the same year, he nominated Saul, the son of his sister, [[[[Sophia (Coloman of Hungary's daughter)|Sophia]] as his heir.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, just a quick note to ask you not to remove completed requests from the GOCE requests page without archiving them, as [1]. Thank you for telling us about the copy-edit to the article; I'll check out what's happened and archive it or leave it accordingly. In future though, if you don't want to archive it, please mark the request done and add a note with the name of the user who copy-edited it so we can archive the request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thanks. Borsoka (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline hasn't signed up for the January drive and isn't claiming credits for her work, and I don't think her copy-edit—although helpful—wasn't rigorous enough to bring the article to GA status, so I'm going to return it to the list. In the meantime I've hidden your request for Solomon of Hungary until one of your other requests is completed. If any of those are completed before we can archive and remove it, just remove the text between <!-- and --> from the request and leave an edit summary. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your action. Actually I really appreciate Evangeline's work, but I am not a native speaker of English. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok; I've hidden the request and amended my text above. Of course you may remove your request(s) at any time. I you do remove them, we prefer an explanation so we know nothing strange is happening (vandalism etc). I re-listed Béla I of Hungary because it's usual for copy-editors to mark requests done, not requesters, and I wasn't sure what Evangeline's intent was in leaving the request. Sorry for any misinterpretations on my behalf. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now unhidden your new request. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy request as I don't feel that it is a 'blatant' hoax. That criterion applies to things like 'Elvis is alive and playing nightly in Josef Stalin's bar on Mars'. Something that requires more specialised knowledge should go to AfD. Speedy is for admins to make decisions based on clear cut stuff. Looking into Google, I have seen a source quoted backing the article's statements. This may be unreliable. I would suggest that you take the article to AfD and place your evidence on the table there for a consensus to be reached. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Coloman, King of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Split

Stephen II of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Split

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dacians. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afro-Eurasian, would you specify why do you think that I made disruptive edits? I am afraid that your edits - the deletion of template messages without properly fixing the issues they mar - can easily be described as a distruptive behaviour. Borsoka (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka. I noticed that you constantly revert my edits and throw around inline templates left and right, even though there are sources to support the claims. It seems as though you are not trying to improve the article, and that you are not familiar with Wikipedia policy. I also took note that you are Hungarian, so I am not sure what your position on the article is. Perhaps we can communicate what needs to be improved with the article rather than revert and delete. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, that reverting and deleting is not the best solution. My concerns are marked in the article. If any of them is unclear, please use the article's Talk page. Just one remark, I think referring to other editors' nationality is not the best approach. As far as I know, no WP policy makes mention of it, therefore it is unrelevant in this context. Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to know that we have an agreement. P.S. I am aware that there is no WP policy that makes mention of it; however, I am also aware that Hungarians in general are not too fond of Romanians, thus, Romanian history. I am not making assumptions, for all I know you could be of Romanian/Dacian descent, but it seemed odd that an Hungarian editor was, or at least what seemed to be, disrupting the article. Either way, I look forward to finding a solution. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you specify which of my edits qualify as distruptive? Why do you think that you approach (deleting template messages instead of fixing the problems they mark) contributed to the improvement of the article? Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I'm sure you've noticed, almost every sentence you tagged has a proper source at the end, therefore it shouldn't need further explanation. It's a source - you can't add something unless it's in the source given. The specification needed tag is fine because I agree with it. However, as of now, the article is fine, and tomorrow I will work on the tags by adding what is required. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the tags require further citation. The tags refer to specifically marked weasel words or mark the necesity of further clarification. Please read WP:Weasel before editing the article, because you seem to be unfamiliar with this specific policy of our community. Borsoka (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with WP:Weasel. You haven't marked any weasel words. I thought we were finally at an understanding... It would also help if you would find reliable sources to improve whatever it is you are wanting, since you are the one adding the tags. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you think that you are familiar with WP:weasel, but you are not. That is why I suggest you should read it. If thereafter you read more carefully the template messages in the article, you will find that there are several weasel words ("it is generally proposed...", "the Dacians are generally considered...") in the text. Moreover, please also study my edits more carefully: it was me who modified some sentence in order to be fully in line with the cited work (e. g. Oltean's book) and to avoid copyvio. Would you refer an edit by you which was based on a reliable source? I may be wrong, but as far as I can remember you have so far only deleted template messages. Borsoka (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I provided a source for The name Daci, or "Dacians" is a collective ethnonym.[31] under the Etymology section. Aside from removing the templates (which I apologize), I have done rewording and plan on providing more sources soon. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I came across as rude or unpleasant, I just want to make sure that articles related to Dacia stay clean and bias-free. I come across many users who are anti-Romanian and anti-Dacian and get away with pushing POV nonsense and hate into some articles, such as this one. Again, I apologize, and I want to improve these articles, not mess them up. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good work. Borsoka (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Borsoka. I am unable to read this source. Would you mind telling me how I can go about reading page 261? Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea. Borsoka (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. However, I would like to mention that the modern Icelandic word for "Africa" is "Afríka", so I don't understand how "Blokumannaland" could even be an option. I don't find any mentions of Africa when searching that term either. In fact, I found the opposite. I find many mentions of Wallachia, yet none of Africa. Here's one source I found that makes no mention of Africa, only Wallachia. Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highly appreciate your original research. If you publish it in reliable source, you can use it when editing the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Béla II of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Arad and Pomeranians

Géza II of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arad

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Géza II of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tolna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fajsz 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 Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The review is ready. Please see Talk:Fajsz/GA1. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samuel Aba, King 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 Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fajsz 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:Fajsz for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Samuel Aba, King 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:Samuel Aba, King of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eremburga of Mortain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. KJ ^{click here} 05:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem? All you have been doing is remove content based on your prejudice, add unnecessary tags, and act like you are superior to me. And when things don't go your way, you add a bunch of nonsense into the article like you did here. Yes, I am rather new to Wikipedia. Yes, I may not know every policy (neither do you). And yes, sometimes I mess up (you do too). However, you are not, I repeat, not, helping any of these articles. Instead of seeking deletion of an article or removal of content, try helping by finding sources to improve the article. The level of anti-Latin, anti-Romanian, and anti-Dacian prejudice you have is incredible. You are making it hard for me to actually improve Wikipedia when all you do is constantly revert, delete, etc. I can't even get some time to find proper sources because you keep deleting! Also, you speak to me like I am mentally challenged... I am a native speaker of English, while you are not. So please, don't think that I am speaking negatively to you. I just want peace and for these articles to be improved. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I suggested you should read WP:NOR. Finding reliable sources in order to substantiate claims made by other editors is not my task. If you want to improve articles, do not remove template messages. Borsoka (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fajsz you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fajsz for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Madalibi, I highly appreciate your hard work. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been a GA candidate for too long! I'm glad I could help! Madalibi (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Latin Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CambridgeBayWeather, I do not understand your above message. I was not involved in edit war: (1) I did not only revert other editor's edit, but took into account their messages on the Talk page and modified the article, in accordance to them; (2) I initiated the protection of the page. Would you please clarify which of my actions qualify as edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective you were in an edit war. See here and here f0r example. I also warned the other editor. I have replied on my talk page to your request. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CambridgeBayWeather, thank for your answer. Although I do not fully agree with you, I am a law-abiding citizen. :) Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Romania in Antiquity, Borsoka!

Wikipedia editor Jennie Matthews 97 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice start,

To reply, leave a comment on Jennie Matthews 97's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

The article Samuel Aba, King of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Samuel Aba, King of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Madalibi -- Madalibi (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romania in Antiquity, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cos, Battle of Tapae and Ister (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, would you mind if I nominated Samuel Aba, King of Hungary for DYK? — Maile (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nomination. Borsoka (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edits. I wonder, Category:Wikipedia naming conventions has nothing specific for Hungary. Maybe because it isn't needed. But do you know if there is something somewhere in any other MOS guideline? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not know. Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be an easy thing to make one. Just some simple guidelines.

Could you help out on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi#14_February_2014 please. I can see it's the same sock, but I'm not familiar with the content issues. In ictu oculi (talk)

I do not remember Iaaasi. User:Norden1990 may assist you. Borsoka (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Hungarian Barnstar of National Merit
	I believe you deserve this for your outstanding contribution to Hungarian-related articles, and for all your Good Articles! Cheers, Original European (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]