Archives

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Menumorut 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka! I saw that You are interested in Hungarian History, especially in the Middle Ages. Here is a book of János Bollók,prof of Latin language, translator of many medieval texts. Hope You find it useful: http://honlap.eotvos.elte.hu/uploads/documents/kiadvanyok/Philologia_Nostra_beliv.pdf

--Ltbuni (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ltbuni, thank you. I am sure I can use some of the articles (especially about Anonymus and the saints of the Árpád dynasty). BUÉK. Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kedves kontár barátunk, hivatkozásaidból tudjuk hogy te csak egy "2-3 könyves" szerkesztő vagy. Ráadásul csak pár külföldi "ismeretterjesztő" szintű könyvet használsz referenciaként, nem pedig valódi specializált szakkönyveket tankönyveket melyeket egyetemi oktatás során alkalmaznak történész hallgatók számára. (talán nem nagyon férhetsz hozzá a google books-on tankönyvekhez :))) Bár ezért nem hibáztathatlak.

Egyik kedvenced Az Engel Pali könyve. Róla tudni kell hogy egy főiskolai oklevelet szerzett ELTE történelem-könyvtár szakán, ami elvileg általános iskolások tanítására volt elegendő. Ettől magasabb képzettséget soha nem szerzett. Ilyen is csak a szocializmusban fordulhatott elő hogy egy autodidakta történészt akadémikussá koronáznak, ez egy nyugati országban elképzelhetetlen lett volna képzettség tudományos fokozatok vizsgák letétele megszerzése nélkül.

Látod belekontárkodtál a "Hungarian prehistory" cikkbe. Ez egy gyorsan változó képlékeny téme, ne használjad olyan történészek műveit akik 2000-es évek előtt írták könyveiket, mivel számos elméletet már megdöntött a genetika (pl: nagycsalád elmélet megdőlt) , a fosszíliákból kinyert haplocsoportok is mást mutatnak mint a korábbi feltételezések. Megdöntötték a magyarok jurtában élésének elméletét is.--Wurtler (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Óh, már megint itt vagy. Örülök, mert az üzeneteid mindig nagyon szórakoztatóak. Kérlek, ne fogd vissza magad. Oszd meg velem végtelen bölcsességedet, hogy ne maradjak ennyire buta, elmaradott. Mellesleg, javaslom, hogy olvasgasd ezt. Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megosztanám szívesen bölcsességemet, de az sajnos évekig tartana (míg népiesen szólva "kikupálnálak"), lévén proletár vagy paraszt leszrmazott vagy. De most térjünk a tárgyra:

Kedves három-könyves barátom, mi a fenének törölted ki az I. Károly cikkből az adók fajtáit? Mégis mi a **** bajod van velük? (Az új gazdaságpolitika részre gondolok). Nem törölgetni kellene a listát, hanem ha nem tetszik (mert tudsz attól jobbat, részletesebbet is) akkor kibővíteni a felsorolást.--31.46.83.250 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olvasgasd a szócikk szerkesztéstörténetét. Nem én töröltem ki az adók fajtáit. Viszont előbb-utóbb kitöröltem volna. Ahhoz, hogy megértsd ennek az okát, el kell olvasnod néhány WP politikát. A WP politikák olyan közösségi szabályok, amelyeket minden szerkesztőnek célszerű ismernie, mert egyébként úgy jár, ahogy te szoktál járni: eleinte kiröhögnek, majd amikor már unalmassá válik, hogy állandóan ismételgeted a szokásos marhaságaidat, elzavarnak. E WP politikák közül a legfontosabb a következő: WP:NOR. Ez arról szól, hogy nem csak úgy beleírogatunk a nagyvilágba, hanem hivatkozást is adunk minden egyes mondatunkhoz, mégpedig mindig úgynevezett megbízható forrásra kell hivatkoznunk. Ha már elolvastad és megértetted a két említett fontos WP politikát, folytathatjuk a párbeszédet. Kérlek, szánjál az elolvasásukra legalább 3 napot, mivel számodra nehezen érthető lesz a szövegük. Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ne légy már butuska proletár származék barátom! Sosem írtam marhaságot wikin. Ahogy ez a lista sem marhaság. (Te vagy barátaid törölték ki a hivatkozást onnan. ) A lista ismeretlen számodra (ami simple fact minden Magyarországon tanult embernek). Felvetődik a kérdés: Jártál te valaha magyar általános suliba? vagy gimibe?

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis I of Hungary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kingdom of Poland and Banate. 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) 09:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Menumorut you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Menumorut 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emeric, 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Emeric, 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:Emeric, King of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Emeric, King of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emeric, King 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Béla III 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ladislaus III 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis I of Hungary 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) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kedves "három könyves" barátom. Gondolom te nem érettsgiztél Magyarországon, hiszen akkor tudhatnád: a kötelező érettségi tételek között szerepel a Károly Róbert gazdasági reformjai és új adónemei. (Általános iskolai töri könyveknek is tananyaga).

Angol nyelven tett Magyar történelem vizsga tételekre felkészítő:

http://www.doksi.hu/get.php?order=DisplayPreview&lid=12800&p=4&user_lang=en

http://erettsegizz.com/tortenelem/anjou-kings-charles-robert/

Magyar nyelvű Magyar töri érettségi tételekre felkészítő anyagokban :

http://www.muszakikiado.hu/files/Letoltesek/kidolgozott_tetelek_emelt_szintu_tortenelem_szobeli_erettsegihez_1fejezet_vizjel.pdf

http://www.antiskola.eu/hu/beszamolo-beszamolok-puskak/12464-anjou-reformok

http://dezs.extra.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=920

http://eduline.hu/segedanyagtalalatok/letolt/4167

http://erettsegi.org/az-erett-feudalizmus-magyarorszagon-a-xiv-szazadban/

Azon három csupán az "általános ismeretterjesztő" (bárki is írja azokat) kategóriába tartozó könyvből igényes szerkesztő nem írhat cikkeket. Ha végigolvastad azokat a könyveket amire hivatkozol, rájöhettél volna hogy még egy Magyar érettségin is részletesebben követelnek történelemből témákat. Egy emeltszintű vagy régebben központi érettséginek nevezett vizsgát sem lehetne ezen könyvek segítségével lerakni. Valójában történelem iránt érdeklődő külföldieknek készültek, nem tudományos szintű, hanem általános ismeretterjesztő jelleggel. Arra jók csupán hogy az olvasója (aki lehet történész is de nem MAgyarország a szakterülete) "képbe legyen" valamennyire Magyarországgal kapcsolatban.--84.0.217.108 (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olvasd már el a szócikket figyelmesen: szerepel benne a bányabérre és a kapuadóra történő hivatkozás. Szintén olvasd el, mit jelent az, hogy "reliable source". Ne haragudj, nem lehet komolyan venni azt, aki azon a szinten van, hogy az interneten összebogarászott cikkekből tanulja a történelmet. Borsoka (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miért kellene komolyan venni ismeretterjesztő színvonalon álló / terjedelmű könyveket, amiből egy töri érettségi felkészülésre sem elgendő? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mivel megbízható forrásnak minősülnek a wikipedia szempontjai szerint. Ennyire egyszerű. Nem akarlak nagyon sokkolni, de a történelem érettségi ugyan fontos dolog, de önmagában nem mérvadó 2015-ben. Majd te is rájössz erre, ha túl leszel az érettségin. Ha Jóska Pista összeállít egy (szerinte) a történelem érettségire felkészítő, leegyszerrűsített irományt, majd azt elhelyezi a világhálón, ez nem jelenti azt, hogy az iromány alkalmassá vált arra, hogy hivatkozzunk rá, amikor a wikipediát szerkesztjük. Javasolom, hogy menj el egy közkönyvtárba, meséld el a könyvtáros néninek/bácsinak, hogy szeretnéd a wikipediát szerkeszteni. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy segíteni fog neked, és ajánl valamilyen egyszerű, olvasmányos könyvet. Ne ijedj meg, ha folyamatos szöveg lesz benne, nem csak tárgyszavak, felsorolások - ez már majdnem biztos jele annak, hogy megbízható forrásra akadtál. Figyeld meg, néhány nap után akár több oldalnyi tömör szöveget is el tudsz olvasni fáradság nélkül, és ha sokat gyakorlod, még emlékezni is fogsz arra, mit olvastál. Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kedves Három könyves barátom! Senki sem akart érettségi felkészítőket referenciaként beszúrni a szövegbe. Egy központi érettségihez (most emeltszintű) töriből többet kell tudni mint ami ilyen rövid ismeretterjesztő könyvekben (fizikailag) elférhet. Megismétlem, talán így megérted: Arra jók csupán hogy az olvasója (aki lehet történész is de nem MAgyarország a szakterülete) "képbe legyen" valamennyire Magyarországgal kapcsolatban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nem értem. Ha nem akarsz hivatkozni érettségi felkészítőkre, milyen célból helyezted el a fenti, érettségi felkészítőkre vonatkozó hivatkozásokat ezen a lapon? Személyes véleményed egyes történészekről esetleg érdekes lehet a kis pajtásaid számára, de a wikipedia szempontjából érdektelen. Megismétlem: amíg egy könyv megbízható forrásnak számít a wikipedia szempontjából, használható és hivatkozható. Ha úgy gondolod, hogy valamelyik általam hivatkozott könyv nem felel meg a megbízható forrás fogalmának, akkor itt indíthatsz egy vitát ebben a témakörben. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Az egyetemi történészképzésről ne is beszéljünk (gondolom történelemből egyetemen sosem vizsgáztál, és nem vagy történész sem), hiszen ott részletesen oktatott tantárgyanként komolyabb egyetemi tankönyvek vannak. Mikor látod be végre hogy ismeretterjesztő könyvek nem elég professzionálisak márcsak általános voltuk, (PLegy egész ország vagy korszak történetét próbálják vázolni) és terjedelmük miatt sem lehetnek azok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Már megint kényszeresen ismételgeted a saját gondolataidat. Tényleg csak egy üggyel tudsz foglalkozni, kizárólag egy ügy körül keringsz, csak egy ügyed van: megpróbálod bizonygatni, hogy azok a források, amelyeket minden más szerkesztő megbízhatónak tart, valójában nem megbízhatóak, és ezzel kapcsolatban üres kinyilatkoztatásokat teszel. Természetesen bármikor bármilyen egyetemi tankönyvet felhasználhatsz a wikipedia szerkesztése közben, feltéve, hogy hivatkozol rá (szerző, cím, kiadás éve, kiadó, ISBN és oldalszám). Itt megtanulhatod, hogyan lehet a felhasznált forrásokra hivatkozni. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanultál földrajzot? Olvassad el Wars in the Balkans (1358–1370) és The Neapolitan campaigns szekciók szövegeinek többsége nem is abban a régiókban történtek meg, így félrevezető még a címük is. JAvaslom hogy tisztítsd meg, gondold át a struktúrát, legyenek összhangban a szekció -címekkel. Tudom munka lenne egy következetes gondos szövegátcsoportosítás, deha trollkodni volt energiád, akkor erre is illendő volna hogy legyen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Olvasd el még egyszer a "The Neapolitan campaigns" részt, figyelmesen. Szerintem meg fogsz lepődni. (2) Mi lenne szerinted a megfelelő cím a "Wars in the Balkans" helyett? (3) Célszerű lenne, ha a szócikk vitalapján tennél javaslatokat, hogy minden érintett szerkesztő hozzá tudjon szólni. Tudod, ez lenne a civilizált (=helyes, normál emberek körében szokásos) megközelítés. A stílusodról nyilvánvalóan nem tehetsz. Ne félj, ha valaki emiatt kezdene kötözködni veled, igyekezlek megvédeni. De valószínűleg a szerkesztők túlnyomó többsége megértéssel viszonyul majd hozzád. (4) Próbálj konkrét javaslatokat tenni (a szócikk vitalapján): ezt és ezt kellene módosítani, ezért és ezért. Meg kell értened, hogy a wikipedia egy emberi közösség, mindenféle furcsa szabályokkal, amelyeket be kell tartani. Ha valaki nem tartja be a szabályt, akkor valamilyen jogkövetkezménnyel (=büntetés) kell számolnia. Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ladislaus the Posthumous page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Béla III of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Béla III 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ladislaus III of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ladislaus III 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nincs Hungarian Renaissance cikk , pedig még a horvátoknak is van saját reneszánsz cikkük az angol wikin.--Buzicezarka (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Írjál. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HAbsburgs lost the control over most of Austria. Why do you repeat the lower Austria term? Mert a 3 könyves műveltségbe már nem fér bele?, vagy nem említette neked az autodidakta Engel Pali bácsi (aki még törtész képzésben sem részesült, és jó "szocialista módra" vizsgák tudományos címek megszerzése nélkül nélkül akadémikus lett? Ellenben a pártgyűléseket bezzeg az iskolapad helyett sűrűn látogatta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzicezarka (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOR and WP:Source. Próbálj már meg normális szerkesztő módjára viselkedni: olvass, hivatkozz, és ne össze-vissza írkálj mindenfélét a világhálón összegyűjtögetett érettségi felkészítőidből. Ha pedig nem tudod, mi a különbség Austria és az Archduchy of Austria között, akkor ne használd ezeket a fogalmakat. Értem én, hogy a te kis világodban nem elég, ha Mátyás Lower Austriát hódítja meg, ha van egy Archduchy of Austria is, de ettől még utána nézhetnél a fogalmak közötti különbségnek mielőtt nekiesel egy szócikknek. Borsoka (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevetséges hogy ki akarsz oktatni a wiki használatából engemet aki már 2006 óta szerkeszt itt az n+1 álnéven. Ugyan már, nézz rá a térképre Mátyás halála után. Hiába veszek elő neked oxford university press könyveket akadémikus szerzőktől, mivel az nem fér bele a "3könyves univerzumodba". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.218.25 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Még mindig nem érted. Teszek még egy próbát: Stájerország nem része és nem volt része az Osztrák Főhercegségnek. (2) Sajnos, 9 év alatt nem sikerült elsajátítanod a WP alapvető szabályait, de én nem adom fel. Lehet, hogy neked tetszik, hogy már évek óta az az egyetlen szereped ebben a közösségben, hogy össze-vissza köpködsz és grimaszolsz a kis csörgősipkádban mások mulattatására, de ebből ki lehet nőni. (3) Próbálkozz, hátha nem kapok szívszélhűdést, ha el kell olvasnom egy Oxford University Press kiadványt. Lehet, hogy már az akadémikusokról is hallottam. Borsoka (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corvinus cikkben a kitiltott dákóromán "jási" barátod revertált éppen téged.

Próbáld meg aláírni az üzeneteidet. Érdekes, hogy a civilizálatlan viselkedés miatt kitiltott szerkesztők mindig megtalálnak. Már feltűnt, hogy te vagy az egyetlen közöttük, aki azt állítja magáról, hogy magyar. A többiek mind a délkeleti régióból érkeztek. Őszintén szólva, nem tartom túlzottan fontosnak a kis lelki társad által törölt részt: én csak azért nyúltam hozzá, mivel te előtte belerondítottál a szövegbe, és ki kellett javítani. Ha majd valaki fontosnak tartja, visszaírja. By the way, do you use google translator when communicating in Hungarian? Sometimes your sentences remind me to Priscus of Panium's report of "Zerkon, the Moorish dwarf" whose words "were a confused jumble of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic" [1]. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... for the kind words on WT:GOCE/REQ (I hadn't been watching it :-)). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ladislaus 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Béla III 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! Constantine ✍ 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ladislaus 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:Ladislaus I of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ladislaus I of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ladislaus 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bolokhoveni 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bolokhoveni 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:Bolokhoveni for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bolokhoveni you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bolokhoveni 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2015 (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 links pointing to the disambiguation pages Imperial Diet and Crema (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) 09:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka!, I really enjoy your improve in the article of King Ladislaus of Hungary and Bohemia. I hope could meade my improves in the same level that you!...Congratulations! Aldebaran69 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldebaran69, thank you for your kind words. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mary, Queen 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:

• {{sfn|Fügedi|1986|pp=103-104}} Qeen Elizabeth and Nicholas Garay decided to get rid of Charles.{{sfn|Engel|2001|p=198}{{sfn|Fügedi|1986|p=106}}{{sfn|Csukovits|2012|p=121}} They persuaded [[
• 1991|p=157}} The wounded King Charles was carried to [[Visegrád]] where he died on 24 February.{{sfn|Engel|2001|p=198}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ladislaus I 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! Pgallert (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foundation of Moldavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarai (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) 08:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left a couple of {{clarify}} tags and corresponding comments for you to look at. Thanks! --Biblioworm 21:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioworm, thank you for your thorough copyedit. I tried to clarify the issues you marked and made some minor changes. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Talk:Boris Kalamanos, thanks for you repliy on my short review, but although would continue the discussion here or somewhere else, asked at WP:ANI for removal or re-arrangement of comments because it's useless making new section or replying to each other when ignoring and editing his comments won't help anyhow to stop this...--Crovata (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am pretty sure that he will be banned from WP within a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time this days to respond you; (1) shouldn't WikiProject Greece, Poland, Ukraine be removed from the talk page? (2) yes, as far I read the 18th century source and 19-20th century historians somehow did identify Ban Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos because of the similarity of their names. What's interesting that while we don't know Ban Borić past we do of Boris Kalamanos, and yet Boris Kalamanos cite took part in the campaign of the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos against the Kingdom of Hungary, and during the campaign he led an army pillaging the southern parts of the kingdom (around 1150). He is believed to have died by 1154, in exile., while in that exact year Borić cite As the Hungarian crown's domination over Bosnia grew, Borić became its supporter and was by 1154 made a Hungarian Viceroy of Bosnia and instated with the title of Ban of the newly created Banate of Bosnia ... Borić is mentioned for the first time in 1154, during the Byzantine-Hungarian War. As a Hungarian vassal, he took part, alongside a Bohemian detachment, in the attack on Byzantine-held Braničevo. He had assisted Palatine Beloš in the attack. Byzantine Emperor Manuel I dispatched a squadron of troops towards Belgrade, to cross the river Sava and chase the Hungarian army, but it was defeated.

There exist interesting connection, so as said, it's plausible, but needs further research for confirmation (3) as far the modern historiography, I have not yet researched what's their view, so if find this week or two will reply more in detail on article talk page. Mostly didn't had time because as was engaded in the discussion about Ban Borić, remembered that in sandbox for over a year had saved revision about the Ban (title). I don't know what to do with this revision (which still has to be edited) and asked for User:F. Blaschke opinion, but I don't think he read and understood the point in the discussion over a year ago (or wasn't interested). So if you have time, would like to hear your opinion on my latest reply, was it active in discussion or your's or mine talk page. Thanks.--Crovata (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. If there was a theory in the 17th-19th centuries we could mention it. However, it cannot be mentioned as a fact, because it was only a scholarly POV. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to your effort and great work at Boris Kalamanos article! Would note that I'm losing hope to find modern historiography source which mentions and discuss this scholarly POV. Will contact Zoupan if has any other further information on this issue, and perhaps we could bring all this quotes together again and finally conclude the discussion. Must say, as my editors pov, although this year 1154 looks interesting, it is doubtful (if it's true, then it opens whole new door and need for explanation) that Kalamanos who was all his life fighting against Hungarian throne to suddenly under the name Borić became very close to the respective throne. It is quite unbelievable. Would note this article, on Wikipedia with ultra-nationalist oriented ideology.--Crovata (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foundation of Moldavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mureș (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) 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew II 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you have any information on Kisa (chieftain)?--Zoupan 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not have. Actually, I am pretty sure that I have not read of him. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boris Kalamanos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leopold III of Austria (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) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Andrew II 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:Andrew II of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hungarians 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 get 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. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J^♯m, I suggest you to check the revision history again. User:Borsoka violated nothing. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Andrew II of Hungary to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 09:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Andrew II of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew II 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary.
Message added 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — ₳aron 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, I am currently working on the Georgian printing press history and a person who did play his role there is mentioned a person with a name Mikhai Ishtvanovich who happened to be a Hungarian. What I wanted to know is how exactly his name and surname is written originally in Hungarian language (I think it should be a Hungarian surname) so maybe as you're a native Hungarian could you help with this issue here? Thanks. Jaqeli 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaqeli, he was born in Wallachia, according to a source that I found (Haiman György: Tótfalusi grúz betűinek nyomában). The original (Romanian) form of his name was Mihai Iștvanovici, which proves that Mihai's father or other patrilinear ancestor was ethnic Hungarian (because István is the Hungarian form of the name Stephen), but Mihai was an Orthodox priest. He worked in Transylvania and Wallachia before moving to Georgia. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've just created Mihai Iștvanovici. Maybe you could add some more info there from your Hungarian sources? Jaqeli 09:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kuber page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary.
Message added 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey need your help again lol  — ₳aron 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Szia Borsoka. Szeretnék a figyelmedbe ajánlani egy weboldalt, amin dolgozom: http://l3-po.org/. Az angol nyelvű wikipedia-t lehet vele grafikusan felderíteni. Egyszerűen kattints a Go gombra, majd pedig a megjelenő személyekre bal, illetve jobb egérgombbal. A lényege, hogy történelmi személyiségek családfáját lehet vele felderíteni. Még bőven fejlesztés alatt áll, de már pár funkció elérhető. További lelkes wikipedia szerkesztést kívánok:), Iván — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeitclean (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arad County (former), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lipova (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) 08:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hungarian prehistory 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 User:llywrch (llywrch (User talk:llywrch -- {{subst:user0|User=llywrch]] ([[User talk:llywrch}} 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka,

If Theodora of Wallachia's name is unknown, then where did "Theodora" come from? Her article does not say anything about unknown names. --Biblioworm 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioworm, first of all thank you for your edits. I do not know why she is mentioned as Theodora in that article "Theodora of Wallachia", because none of the academic works cited in the article "Basarab I of Wallachia" name her. On 16th February 2015, I added a "citation needed" template to her name [2], but no reliable source was provided. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Basarab I of Wallachia 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Basarab I of Wallachia 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:Basarab I of Wallachia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Basarab I of Wallachia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the charter of the Kremsmünster Abbey, according the latest source by Agusti Alemany (2009) which deals with the title origin (see title origin and etymology on the article Župa), is written "Tassilo is said to have granted the monastery a group (decania) of ("Slovene") Slavs, headed by the chieftains (actores) Taliup and Sparuna, whose abode lies beneath the boundaries reported under oath by the župan Physso (infra terminum manent que coniurauit ille iopan qui uocatur Physso)". There is no mention of Avars or iopan Physso being Avar dignitary. Scholars even considered that Physso is Slavish *Byšъ like in the name *Pribyslavъ (Georg Holzer, Namenkundliche Aufsätze, 2008). It is controversal to cite a singular scholar POV as a fact, which is as it is by their (Engel and Róna-Tas) own POV, or perhaps ideological tradition in Hungarian historiography (I assume that the Avars association is pointed out as the Avars probably incorporated some remnants of the Huns horde, from whose leader Attila the royal Hungarian family proclaimed their descent, rather than the existence of Slavic chieftains in the vague boundaries.) Furthermore, the older scholars assumption that the title župan is of Avar origin still is just a guess as there's no concrete and clear evidence for its Avar origin.--Crovata (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Is there a reliable source that states that "iupan" was a Slavic dignitary or the source only says that his name is of Slavic origin. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source that proves iopan Physso was Slavic, even less Avar dignitary, as there's no concrete evidence to make such a conclusion. Alemany and many other scholars have a neutral standpoint about whose Physso political dignitary, and like the source by Georg Holzer where's noted the consideration of his name being of Slavic origin, the etymological and political origin of both the title iopan and Physso fall into the category of mere scholars considerations. What scholar considerations until now proved is that the title župan is completely undertermined in the sources related to the Avars, and its Avar origin. On what evidence Engel and Róna-Tas base such a conclusion (geo-political evidence to consider Physso an Avar dignitary in 777) I am sincerely interested in, but as I said, it looks to me nothing more than faulty personal scholars POV, or ideological tradition in the Hungarian historiography.--Crovata (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Róna-Tas is a reliable source. It may be a scholarly POV, it may be a faulty personal POV, but it was published in an academic book. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of what you currently said? That Róna-Tas is a reliable source while Alemany and many other reliable academic scholars are not reliable? What kind of criteria and neutrality is this? Since when one scholars POV has bigger WP:WEIGHT than the POV generally accepted by the majority of scholars? The note it was an Avar dignitary must be removed. Why are you making an issue of such a simple edit?--Crovata (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what I wrote. You obviously did not read it because you were commenting your own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just what are you talking about? What kind of a multiple GA nomination editor discusses like this? I remember a case not so long ago when constructively worked together and came to a conclusion. You currently neither constructively discuss, neither cite the Róna-Tas POV, at least to make me personally see what are his arguments as am interested and edit the topic, compared to the most relevant academic scholars cites you can find in the Župa article. An academic book per see doesn't mean anything if the scholar claims something that is not widely accepted. When the readers see such a statement will take it as true, and when will go to the etymology and origin of the Župa article will read that is completely undetermined among Avars. What Róna-Tas claim is not a fact, yet personal scientific consideration and needs to be treated as such, for example The term župan was first recorded in the charter of foundation of the Kremsmünster Abbey, according Róna-Tas as the title of an Avar dignitary.--Crovata (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above discussion again. You may not know what constructivness means. You have several times informed me of your assumptions and feelings but you have not answered my first question: is there a reliable source that states that the dignitary mentioned in the charter was not an Avar official? Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please without underestimating. I already answered your first question, August Alemany (2009) and Georg Holzer (2008) do not mention iopan Physso being an Avar official, which means according them was not an Avar official. Peter Štih (2010) [3] in detail wrote about the role of župa and župan, and part of it can be read on pg. 187-188 "Physso – according to Kronsteiner an abbreviated form or nick- name (hypocoristic) for Pribislav – acted as the tribal leader of a locally settled group of Slavs and cooperated as their legally binding representative in the incorporation of their land and people into the monastery’s property. Physso’s importance may be compared with the account of Constantine Porphyrogenitus from around the mid 10th century that the Dalmatian and other Slavs had no archontes but župani – elders, and this may be understood as if they held the position of patriarchal chiefs." Note that the statement Their origin is still something of an enigma although a majority tends to believe that župan is an originally non-Slavic name and institution and that the Slavs adopted it by way of the Avars is quite outdated for the time of its release, even by the authors work, as by the majority he cited older works, and scholars like Walter Pohl, who by the influence of Kroinsteiner, overestimated the Avar influence, while the author itself already in 1995 highly critized Kroinsteiner loose considerations concluding that "the name is certainly not of Avar origin, and does not mean that the župans were Avars" (transl). For the Avar lordship over Slavs see [4]. This is just a short digression on the whole origin issue, more about that can be read in the related article.--Crovata (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. If you had read my edit summary, you could have add Štih's POV to the article days ago [5]. Instead you shared your views and assumptions with the community on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to your review. Is there something more needed to be done in the article?--Nvvchar. 02:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- Is one of the books on archeological findings you need Istavan Fodor's In Search of a New Homeland? If so, I have a copy at hand & would be happy to share any information from it you might need for this article. -- llywrch (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Kumanovo shootings. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Upstate New York. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Géza II 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka! Just wrote up my latest comments to this nomination. Have a look, & hope we can work out these last few points so it can be promoted to GA status. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After all this time, Hungarian prehistory has at last passed! Congrats! 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. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Borsoka, I wanted to ask are you available to leave some comments or vote on Master of Puppets, an FA nominee of mine. The nomination page is here. Judging by your profile, I guess you're more into history topics, but since I'm having trouble finding reviewers on my nomination, your input would be much appreciated. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Géza II 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:Géza II of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Géza II of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Géza II 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Newfound River. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stephen V 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen V 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:Stephen V of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ladislaus I of Hungary/archive1, this is a reminder that you are not supposed to open another FAC within two weeks of having one archived. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen V of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stephen V 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my congratulations for that honor! -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Pax85's talk page.
Message added 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Pax Verbum 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I have replied once more. :) Cheers! -Pax Verbum 16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned some wonderful tidbits about the history of the the monarchy in Hungary these past few days. Thank you! Please let me know if there is anything else I can help out with. -Pax Verbum 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for the barnstar. Always happy to help. :) -Pax Verbum 05:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen V of Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to inform you that my unblock request was accepted, I got a second chance to fix my previous errors. If you have question or need help, cooperation, something else, please feel free to write me. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walashma dynasty. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha majd lesz időd, kedved és késztetésed, ránéznél a Koppány szócikkre? Jelenlegi állapotában botrányos (olyanokat állít, hogy Géza fejedelem testvére, Szt. István nagybátyja illetve Szt. László nagyapja volt, arról nem is beszélve, hogy 998-as csatákat részletez, amikor Koppányunk valószínűleg már 997-ben 4 darabban csüngött a Megyer törzsterületek határvárosainak kapuin). Most már szinte minden Árpád-házi férfiúról nagyszerű cikkek vannak neked köszönhetően, a hiányzókon túl egyedül Koppány és Levedi (bár utóbbi nem Árpád-házi) szócikke "stub". [Abstract for English-speaking readers: "Koppány" article is terrible quality and I asked Borsoka to improve it]. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koppány, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somogy (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) 09:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found this very recent work, maybe it will be useful for your future edits.--Norden1990 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, it will surely be useful. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I changed a little article about this prince. [6] It is a problem that cited authors which was writing in English didn't know the Polish literature about this topic. In my opinion Kuczyński (his article was published in 1935 and then included in 1965 in the book with his old articles, which I cited) is right, but I hope my version is neutral. In the article about George we should also use works of Jan Tęgowski, the best Polish specialist in Lithuanian genealogy, and Janusz Kurtyka, the best Polish specialist in medieval Podolia. Regards, Kmicic (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome. My only concern is the use of weasel words. Borsoka (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure [7]? Codex Suprasliensis is from 11th Century. I suppose that right could be latopis of Suprasl, which is from 15th Century. If in your source is really Codes Suprasliensis, it means that is a very poor source. Kmicic (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. The cited source (Knoll) writes: "This chronicle, printed in Latin-letter transliteration by I. Danilowicz, Latopisiec litewski i Kronika ruska (Vilno, 1827), is actually based on only one of five manuscripts which bear this title. The Codex suprasliensis formed the basis of Danilowicz's edition, but the other four (Akademia, Krasinski, Raczynski, and Bychova codices) are very similar, and for this period almost identical." Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archbishopric of Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pepin (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) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment at Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager#RfC: Should the table of contents an chapter summaries be included?. However your comment "Because you have not added, but you "will add" a secondary source. :)" is not sufficient. If you do not think the addition of the summary of contents is WP:OR, could you express explicitly the withdrawal of your previous comment? I will not add contents not in the source. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Kerlés, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Torda and Apulum (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) 09:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How in the De Administrando Imperio from the 10th Century could be mentioned the battle which happened in 1068? Kmicic (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the whole article, besides two sentences, isn't about the battle, but it is about Pechenegs. Kmicic (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the time being. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian needs to be updated with some IPs.--Zoupan 03:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Újabb tanulmányok a nádor cikkhez, amelyek esetleg hasznosak lehetnek: C. Tóth: Az ország nádora, A nádori cikkelyek keltezése, Nádorváltás 1458-ban, főleg az első lehet érdekes. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illetve itt megtalálható Szőcs további tanulmányai a témában. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Még egy utolsó: Tanulmány a 289-es laptól, letölthető, Zsoldos POV az interregnumi zűrzavarról a nádorokat illetően, ezt talán Szőcs is feldolgozza a monográfiájában. Itt egy másik: III. András korabeli nádorokról, a cím hasonló, de a két tanulmány teljesen más. No, elnézést, most már leállok, de ezeket mindenképp meg akartam még itt osztani. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Elizabeth of Bosnia has been a Good Article for five years. It was nominated for FA few years ago and I think I have fixed all the issues brought up during the review. I would nevertheless greatly appreciate it if you could pay some attention to the article. I've seen the magic you've done with related articles, most of all Mary, Queen of Hungary. That article appears to contain information more relevant to Elizabeth, which the latter lacks. Unfortunatly, I don't speak Hungarian, so I am limited to English and Serbo-Croatian sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]