Archives

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

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helló! Nincs kedved valamikor újraírni ezt a szócikket, akár oly módon, hogy később GA státuszt kaphasson? Lehet, így elkerülhető lehetne az évek óta tartó vandalizálás a különböző fiktív rokoni kapcsolatokról. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De, már gondolkodtam rajta. :) Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szia,

valaki nemrég beeditálta - úgy néz ki a saját forrását és eléggé univerzális dolgokat állított arról hogy mely teóriát hogyan is döntötte meg...tele angol hibával és eléggé furcsán kihirdetett "tényekkel". Kicsit finomítottam a dolgon és próbáltam rendberakni, de nekem nem rémlik hogy a Roessler teória azt állítja fixre hogy olyan románok vándoroltak volna be Dunáról északra szükségszerűen, akik biztosan korábban a Dáciai római kolónusok leszármazottja lett volna....kérlek nézz rá hogy ez így rendben van-e, vagy még van-e rajta alakítani való...(mondjuk magunk között szólva, attól hogy a szláv szubsztrátum egyidejűleg később befolyásolta volna a közös román-albán szókincset, abszolút nem következik az hogy a románok őseinek szükségszerűen Dáciából kellett volna lejönniük a Balkánra, sőt, pontosan azt mutathatja hogy eleve a Balkánon, később alakult ki a román nemzet és nem korábban ahogy azt propagálni szeretnék. @Fakirbakir:, Te is nézz rá légyszi. Köszönöm.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Ok. Semmi olyat nem állított Roesler, hogy dákorománok össze-vissza vándoroltak volna. Miután az Észak-Balkán 5-600 évig római/kelet-római uralom alatt volt, latin köznyelvvel, nem nagyon volt szükség dákorománokra ahhoz, hogy kialakuljon egy újlatin nyelv. Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Köszi, akkor örülök hogy szokás szerint jól rémlett a dolog...akkor viszont a cikket javítani kell, mert a self-published illető konikrétan azt állítja hogy megcáfolta generálisan azt a Roessler teóriát, ami azt asszertálja, hogy a románok Dáciából lejöttek, majd ezer év után visszatértek és az Ázsiából jövő magyarok emiatt állítják azt hogy egy elsőként érkeztek Dácia üres területére (mondjuk ez utóbbi sem így van, hiszen a szlávok részleges jelenléte pl. elfogadott általában)...(KIENGIR (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Kedves, KIENGIR es Borsoka. Tenyleg at kellene nezni az oldalt. Ki peldaul ez a Cristian Mihail? Mert a megadott forrast nem igazan tudom leellenorni (Cristian Mihail, idem, sec. ed. 2015, p.123). A Romanian language oldala mellett, Mihail megallapitasai megtalalhatoak a History of Romania oldalan is. A szoveg stilusa alapjan nem hiszem, hogy specialistarol beszelunk. ("The Roeslerian Theory propagates", "over the Hungarians (coming from Asia)", "Moreover, the Roeslerian (imigratory) Theory, is annihilated because" etc ) . Ennyit talaltam rola[1], de szamomra eleg gyanus ez a Cristian, meg az o "kutatasi eredmenyei" a megfogalmazasok alapjan. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igen, ez a rész egy nagy rakás lókupac. Az egészet le kellene rövidíteni, hiszen van egy külön szócikk a nyelv történetéről, ezért nem szükség nagyon hosszan írni róla ebben a szócikkben. Borsoka (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir, Borsoka, ismét várok 3 napot, ha addig nincs változás, minimum ugyanarra az állapotra hozom a history of romania releváns részt, mint a szóban forgó cikknél tettem. A cikk teljes átnézését részemről sajnos most azonnal nem tudom megtenni, de mindent feljegyzek átnézésre amit kell és időm erőm szerint haladok. Az illető Úr ráadásul ebben a szócikkben bármiféle finomítás nélkül úgy fogalmaz, hogy mindent ellenbizonyított és annihilált, ami eléggé durva és inkább szenvedélyes. Továbbá, még a Kézai ügyben tartozom egy kis helyesbítéssel más ügyben, mivel most utánanéztem eredetiben:

Azért írtam Chronicum Hungaricum-ot, mert mintha ez lenne Kézai Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum címlapján, és ez keveredhetett tévedésből a Chronicum Pictummal is...úgyhogy most utánéztem, Kézai egy és ugyanazon munkában, a Gesta Hunnorum és Hugarorumban különbözteti meg a blakokat és a vlachokat. A IV. fejezet 6§-ában van az írás átvételéről való tudósítás, ahol a "Blackis"-t említi. Néhány sorral lejjebb, a következő, 7§-ban a magyar fordítás ez:

"Miután pedig Ethele fiai a krimhildi csatában csak hogy nem mind elvesztek, Pannonia tiz esztendeig király nélkűl vala, csak jövevény szlávok, görögök, németek, morvák és oláhok maradván benne, kik Ethele életében neki köznépi szolgálattal szolgálnak vala."

-> Megnéztem az eredeti latint, és ebben a mondatban szerepel az "Ulahis", ami egyébként sem feltétlenül románokra utal, hanem Attila idejében bármilyen posztrómai vulgáris latint beszélő, vagy akár kelta ősiségű elemre utalhat. A félreértésözön onnan indult el, hogy 1682-ban Szabó Károly már mind a két terminust "oláh"-nak fordította. Pais Dezső gesta fordításának előszavában is hangsúlyozta hogy a kettő nem ugyanaz, de ezt később kihagyták már a kiadásokból. Úgyhogy emiatt sem bagatellizálnám el a kérdést, tudva azt hogy a források többsége vagy nem törődött ezzel, vagy elnézte, vagy eleve rossz fordításból dolgozott. Még én is csak egy forrást találtam, rá Fakirbakir meg nagynehezen a netről vadászott mégegyet...persze hogy a dákoromanizmus hívei hallani sem akarnak erről...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kfar Ahim. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, I just happened to come across the article on Bolesław III Wrymouth. I may be wrong, but isn't the article a little long? Also, I don't understand the inclusion of so much information on the date of death of his mother in the section Bolesław III Wrymouth#Birth of Bolesław. Name and nickname. Is this another article you might like to improve?  – Corinne (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Yes, I agree that the article (including the section you mentioned above) is too detailed. For instance, the last four sections are quite unusual in an article dedicated to the biography of a monarch. I would be happy to edit it, but I cannot read the cited Polish and German books. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Do you know any editor who can read the sources? Shall we copy this discussion to the article's talk page or post a separate comment there? Is there an appropriate tag we can place at the beginning of the article?  – Corinne (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Piotrus is from Poland. I think the Talk page of the article is the best place to initiate a discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I don't have time or will these days to help with that, at least not as far as helping to rewrite the article. I could help with a short quote, or looking up few pieces of specific info. You could try to ask at Wikiepdia:WikiProject Poland talk page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:William McKinley. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, changing from time to time your edits on the same subject shows you are a suckpuppet. Borsoka will be investigated for association in order to control in a nationalistic way other nation's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.176.216 (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentral, please do not refrain from initiating any investigations against me. I understand that your humiliating experiences as an banned editor's "suckpuppet" disturbed you, but you should not assume that all editors are willing to act as a "suckpuppet" as you did. Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund Báthory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sigismund Ernuszt 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) 04:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mi a... kellett magadat belemontírozni az Andrew II of Hungary lap szerkesztésébe, miközben még én is szerkesztettem az őstáblát a lapon? Olyan fontos volt azt a vacak és totálisan értelmetlen citation needed linket odabiggyeszetni? Mindennek csak az lett a haszna, hogy létrejött egy szerkesztési konfliktus, én meg a saját szerkesztésem helyett a tiédet mentettem el és így aztán fél napi munkám ment a kukába, mialatt az őstábla kiegészítésével bajlódtam. Most aztán kezdhetem elölről az egészet, ha lesz egyáltalán hozzá kedvem, amit nagyon szépen köszönök. A hivatkozásra (citation) meg egyrészt semmi szükség, mert magukra a linkekre kattintva is ellenőrizhető, hogy az adatok helyesek (amihez neked úgy látszik, hogy még külön kioktatásra is szükséged van), másrészt meg én magam is genealógus vagyok (amit rólad nem hiszem, hogy el lehet mondani) és ezért még tudom is hogy mit csinálok, sőt még szakszerűen is csinálom. Egyébként hogy telnek a napjaid itt a Wikipédián? Szerkesztesz is saját cikkeket vagy csak itt lebzselsz, arra várva, hogy valami új cikkre lecsaphass a tökéletesen inkompetens fabrikátumaiddal? Az a gyanúm, hogy az utóbbi eset az érvényes, mert korábban ezt már velem is eljátszottad. Az ilyen ténykedésnek pedig a wiki szempontjából nem sok az értelme. Ha ez nem megy, legalább azt szeretném kérni, hogy a jövőben nagy ívben került el a szerkesztéseimet, különben tényleg kiérdemled a korábbi jelző szuperlatívuszát. --Szegedi László (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mielőtt megüt a guta, olvasgasd és alkalmazd a következő politikát: WP:NOR. Ha valamilyen információt nem tudsz hivatkozással alátámasztani, az törölve lesz. Ha egy tábla szerkesztése fél napodat veszi igénybe, javasolom, foglalkozz valami mással. Borsoka (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milyen információt te szuperlatívusz??? Rá tudsz kattintani egy ostoba linkre? Ha igen akkor összeadhatod, hogy 1+1=2, vagyis ha valakinek az apja ez meg ez, az anyja meg ez meg ez, és ráadásul ez még a Wikipédián is ott van az orrod előtt (ha rákattintasz a linkre), akkor milyen "citation needed" szükségeltetik még itt??? Kérdem én??? Kell itt idézgetni, meg valamit alátámasztgatni??? Neked lehet, hogy ilyenre még ezek után is szükséged van, amihez gratulálok. Akkor meg miért nem tetted oda a sablont az őstábla minden egyes olyan neve mellé, amit korábban valaki más szerkesztett? Számodra talán azokat is alá kellene támasztani idézetekkel. Egyébként van még bőven ehhez hasonló őstábla a wikin. Azokat is szépen fel lehet cimkézni. Nyugodtan foglalkozz tehát mások munkájának a romba döntésével, ha máshoz úgysem értesz. Én meg ugyanolyan nyugodtan foglalkozom a nekem tetsző őstábla (nem pedig "tábla") szerkesztésével, akár fél napot is, ha úgy tartja a kedvem. Ha fél napot vesz igénybe, akkor annyit fordítok rá. Ebből is látszik, hogy nekem még ehhez is van türelmem és nemcsak mindenféle összecsapott információval dolgozom, hanem ellenőrzöm is a forrásaimat, mindenféle "citation needed" nélkül is. Ha ugyanis én valamit felteszek a wikire, az valóban hiteles, mert én olyasmivel foglalkozom, amihez értek is, amit nem lehet mindenkiről elmondani.--Szegedi László (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nem akarlak elkeseríteni, de a fél napos munkád semmit sem fog érni, mert, összhangban a hivatkozott WP politikával, törölni fogom az összes olyan információt, amelyet nem tudsz megfelelő hivatkozással alátámasztani. Nyilvánvalóan nem tudod, de a WP szócikkei nem minősülnek megbízható forrásnak a WP szempontjából, ezért felesleges ide-oda kattintgatni. Ha pedig vannak forrásaid, nincs más teendőd, mint hivatkozni rájuk. Borsoka (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Én meg majd felhívom a figyelmét valaki másnak a túlbuzgó ténykedésedre, meg arra, hogy gyenge vagy elemi matematikából.--Szegedi László (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Még egyszer felhívom a figyelmed arra, hogy használj megbízható forrásokat szerkesztés közben, emert ennek hiányában előbb-utóbb minden szerkesztésed törölve lesz. Egyébként nyilvánvaló, hogy a veled folytatott kommunikáció felesleges időtöltés, úgyhogy abbahagyom. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veled is fölösleges, mert én meg csak hiteles forrásokkal dolgozom, ami meg nyilvánvaló, ezért semmi sem lesz törölve.--Szegedi László (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laszlo, Andrew II of Hungary oldala "good article" statusban van, kar probalkozni rendes forrasmegjeloles nelkul. Ha nem tudnad nem kis munka volt Borsoka reszerol a kozepkori magyar tortenelemmel foglalkozo oldalak tobbsegenek letrehozasa/felfejlesztese itt az angol Wikin. Inkabb koszonetet kellene mondanod neki ezert az irdatlan mennyisegu munkaert. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.(talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kandi, please try to be serious and remember that you have broken the three revert rule. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sigismund Báthory you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sigismund Báthory for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad links fixed by Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sturmvogel 66 and Redrose64, thank you for your messages. Could you inform me about the reasons of the failure of the nomination? On the relevant pages, I do not see any reasoning. Borsoka (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legobot made that edit, not me. I haven't even really started to review your article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! A segítségedet szeretném kérni. Az elmúlt hetekben a Hahót (vagy Buzád) nemzetség jelentős és kevésbé jelentős tagjainak szócikkeit készítettem el. Ha jól emlékszem korábbi szerkesztéseid okán, a birtokodban van a Képes Krónika angol fordítása. A műben egy fejezet a Hahót (ott: Buzád) nemzetségről szól. Nagy kérés lenne, ha a Hahold I Hahót (a nemzetség őse) szócikkben közzéteszed ezt a részt idézet-sablonnal? Nekem a KK megvan magyarul, de ha már van "hivatalos" angol fordítás, jó lenne azt használni. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remélem, eltaláltam, melyik részre gondoltál. Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Igen, erre gondoltam, nagyon szépen köszönöm! --Norden1990 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sigismund Ernuszt 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:Sigismund Ernuszt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Operation Léa. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sigismund Ernuszt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sigismund Ernuszt 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) 22:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings.

Thank you for not starting a pointless edit-war and correcting my English. Despite living in another country, I'm a Magyar too :)

Have a good day friend.HiddenUserNameisTaken (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Army (Poland). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Szia,

pontosan melyik krónikára gondoltál, amit Torda talk-page-n említettél? Csak kiváncsi vagyok...Üdv(KIENGIR (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Legalább kettő van. Az egyik a Cantacuzino Chronicle, amely arról, szól, hogy a románok Szörénynél keltek át a Dunán, mielőtt egy részük Magyarországon ("magyar földön") telepedett volna le. A másik a Moldo-Russian Chronicle, amelyik azt meséli el, hogy a magyar "László király" (akit általában IV. Lászlóként azonosítanak) hívta be a máramarosi románok őseit. Más krónikák azt mondják, hogy a románokat "László király" sógora, a bizánci császár küldte Magyarországra, mert meg akart szabadulni a birodalmában lévő gonosztevőktől. Végül még a 18. században is azt mondták a románokról, hogy "jöttmentek", akiket csak "a közjólét kedvéért" engedtek be Erdélybe - ez ellen tiltakozott a "Supplex Libellus Valachorum", mondván, hogy valójában a románok az őslakosok. Borsoka (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nagyon köszönöm, én meg úgy tudom a Lászlósat hogy a bizánci császár az ő kérésére küldi a Vlachokat az Ibar folyó mellől a tatárok ellen, de mivel nem akartak hazamenni, a király Máramarosba telepítette őket. Az első kimaradt, úgyhogy jó hogy megkérdeztem.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bohemond IV of Antioch you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch/GA1.
Message added 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I placed this article within "Royalty and nobility" at Wikipedia:Good articles/History, because I wasn't sure the subject qualified as a monarch. If you think the article should be placed within "Monarchy" instead, feel free to change my placement. Shearonink (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bohemond IV of Antioch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bohemond IV of Antioch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew Báthory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:International Justice Mission. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michael 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:Michael I of Wallachia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michael I of Wallachia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michael 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 Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Talk:Andrew Báthory/GA1.
Message added 02:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I found one last thing - as soon as you get it adjusted I will complete my Review. Shearonink (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Andrew Báthory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew Báthory for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Andrew Báthory 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! Andrew D. (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be available to come back and finish the review on Template:Did you know nominations/Monument of States? — Maile (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Báthory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the severed head of Andrew Báthory, Prince of Transylvania, was sewn back on? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Báthory. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Andrew Báthory), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For your work in FA/GA throughout the years, here is this barnstar. I came across your page after reading through Andrew Báthory, which you promoted to GA and DYK. Great job! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 13:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tnank you for your message and kind words. Have a nice day. And I am grateful to the members of the WP:Guild of copyeditors, because without their assistance I had almost no chance to promote articles to GA status. Borsoka (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really have a problem with the "| 900 || || || A German bound collection of maps from 1826 shows a map from the year 900 that contains the words "Wahalen oder Rumumy" and presents five statal unions on the territory which stretched from Pannonia to the Dnieper river.^[1]" reference, or are you just some jealous hungarian that does not want to face the reality that the above statement is true?

Please read WP:Source. The source verify the above claim is not a reliable source for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to your own country if you don't like Romanian hospitality.

I do not understand your above remark. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with regards to Movses Khorenatsi, I was merely translating information from the Romanian version of this article, which, also, did not have a citation. You should have provided a link to verify your claim, not just state it, regardless of how true or false it was.

Until you have proof that the above did not exist, do NOT remove it. That is Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:FD9E:B7DC:64E3:8CB2 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In mainstream scholarship is it a well-known fact, that deceased scholars rarely write geographies. The 5th-century Khorenatsi was not exceptional: he did not write of 9th-century states in present-day Romania. If you read modern literature, you will also find that the reference to the "Balak country" can be found in works written in the "first centuries of the second millenium" (Spinei, Victor (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth century. Koninklijke Brill NV. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5.). Please also read WP:Verification - editors who write something are required to verify it. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you have a problem with: "| 610-641 || || || During the reign of Heraclius, refugees from the Danube regions, Pannonia, Dacia, and Dardania sought safety in Thessalonica.^[2]"?

No primary source? Really? Since when does everything that doesn't have a primary source get taken off of Wikipedia?

Isn't that one of the points of the citation needed tag?

A primary source will most likely be found in the future, as, this article has barely started to become good, as, before I started working on it, there was pretty much NOTHING here.

A bit more respect for Romanian history please.

Or are you jealous that someone is finally compiling a timeline of it so as to dispel hungarian lies about Romanian's lack of rights to be there?

Read your own history. It isn't Romanians that migrated to Europe from Asia... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:FD9E:B7DC:64E3:8CB2 (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil. Yes, you are right, Romanians did not come form Asia. They migrated from the Balkans to Central Europe. Please read WP:Sources: we should verify all claims we want to present in WP. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, (I'll speak English as per admin agreement :) ), I checked in more places, and "Szörényi Bánság" with capital initial is the proper name, not with little "s". Please explain what is the reason for using "szörényi bánság", instead of "Szörényi Bánság", since this is name on an entity, not necessarily a deminuitive form of a location, where the "i" suffix would elimninate the capital. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Korai magyar történeti lexikon. As far as I know, it was never the official name of a political entity. It is an artificial form. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I've found an interesting book recently, I don't know if you know this work: [2]. Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. It is little bit out of date. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael I of Wallachia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Michael I of Wallachia was still the co-ruler of his father Mircea I when in 1417 he refused to send the tribute that Mircea had promised to pay to the Ottoman Empire? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael I of Wallachia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Michael I of Wallachia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhtwiki:, thank you for your comprehensive and thorough copyedit. I highly appreciate your hard work and I am really grateful, because I will be soon able to nominate the article to GA. I would only like to ask you to rethink the use of two expressions in the article (vassal and tenants-in-chief), because none of them could be verified by reliable sources. The counts were not vassals (that is they did not receive a land grant in exchange for an obligation to provide military services to their lords), but they were royal officials who enjoyed certain revenues. The position of the counts of the Székelys in Hungary was not similar to the status of the counts of Anjou, Champagne, Toulouse in France. The latter held large domains and their sons inherited their domains when they died. However, the counts of the Székelys could dismissed any time by the monarch and their sons were never entitled to success them in the office. I also made a change here: [3]. I would like to say that the process of unification lasted for decades: first one of the two or three counts was also one of the two or three voivodes, later the voivodes were costumarily also made counts, and finally always the voivode was made count. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course welcome to change such terms back, especially if supported by sources. I was mainly objecting to the term "directly subjected", which I changed to "direct subjects", and then evidently went too far in equating the counts' position with medieval tenantry. Do your sources actually use the original wording that I found clumsy? My Britannica, under "Transylvania"—which should closely follow the wording of the 11th edition, which is online—characterizes both the Saxons and the "Szeklers" as "free, self-governing communities under the king", but doesn't mention the counts as leaders of the Szeklers. That was just about all I had to consult, since most if not all your citations are for offline sources. So I was guessing, perhaps too much. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your above message. I modified both sentences: [4] and [5].

On 19 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sigismund Báthory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sigismund Báthory, Prince of Transylvania, promised to restore the freedom of the Székely commoners if they joined his campaign against the Ottomans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sigismund Báthory. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sigismund Báthory), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vlad II Dracul 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 SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vlad II Dracul 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:Vlad II Dracul for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fucking, Austria. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vlad II Dracul you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vlad II Dracul 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 SparklingPessimist -- SparklingPessimist (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Catalan Countries. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

history and royalty articles
... you were recipient no. 1368 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]