Archives

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

Happy New year! You seem to be a gentleman who might be informed of such things so let me ask you a shibboleth. Do you know who Bogdan Dragoș was? Bulgarios (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not know. Borsoka (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most Moldavian chronicles write that Bogdan Dragoș came to Moldavia from Maramureș in 1359, he is also said to have had a son, or perhaps son in law, called Costea and another called Stefan among others. I recommend reading up on something about him in Hungarian and then perhaps we can sort out together the terrible mess and POV forks on Wikipedia concerning Moldavia's "Founder". Utterly appalling. All the best. Bulgarios (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendation. I suggest you should first read reliable sources about Dragoș and Bogdan before editing the articles dedicated to them. Both articles list a number of good sources written in English. Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I thank you for the advice with equal sincerity! ^^ And on the subject of reading, the funny thing about people who live in glass houses is... Not quite good enough yet to write any bluffer's guide. I'll be seeing you around I'm sure since we share common interests. Bulgarios (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Charles I of Anjou you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Charles I of Anjou you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Charles I of Anjou you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania 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:Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Histria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

please check the recent additon into the Alba Iulia article, among others this new addition caught my attention:

"It was revived after the original Orthodox diocese was Catholicized as Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Alba Iulia in the 11th century."

It seems dubious to me, because I don't know that an "original Orthodox diocese would be Catholicized", but the Hungarian King founded something new.

Checking the source, it is written in quite "countinity" manner (insisting everything was before was inevitably Romanian):

"...These discoveries are not only indubitable evidence on the continuity of the Orthodox Romanians in these territories, but also certain proofs of the necessity of some Romanian bishops. After the invasion of Transylvania by the Hungarian Catholic kingdom (11th – 13th centuries) the so-called “counties” (Bihor, Alba, Hunedoara) were set up instead of the old Romanian political units. The same happened to the Romanians’ religious structures; Hungarian Catholic dioceses were set up instead of the Orthodox dioceses. So, once the “county” in Bihor was set up, with the residence in Biharea, a Latin diocese was created instead of the Orthodox one, that would soon be moved to Oradea, where it remained until more recently, which is also confirmed by some of the Hungarian historians. The seat of Alba county was established in Alba Iulia, where a Roman Catholic diocese was created and which still exists today, instead of the Orthodox one."

According to "Marton József. Az erdélyi (gyulafehérvári) egyházmegye története (magyar nyelven). Kolozsvár: Gloria Kiadó (1993)",

before since 952-953 by the invitation of Zombor gyula a Greek priest, Hierotheos already made a missionary actions, but it is not sure whether it was in Gyulafehérvár or Szávaszentdemeter....

Opinion? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it is an obviously far-stretched scholarly (?) theory. Borsoka (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this AE request. Cealicuca (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I must say you are so so so childish. You should read and apply basic WP policies instead of wasting other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to ask your opinion regarding the History of Oradea article. Recently in the history section and as well the timeline section Menomorut is identified and listed as "Principality in a feudal state ruled by Prince Menumorut" (practically two identical sentences in different places). As I recall, in the Principality of Nitra and in the Banate of Severin articles the same problem appeared, should we list only rulers that are verified by contemporary official documents also, or at least to put a "(?)" marker as in the latter article? (anyway, as far as I know, there is not any solid evidence that in Biharea any castle could undoubtedly connected to Menomorut...)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should be neutral, as per WP:NPOV. We could mention that a Hungarian chronicle of debated credibility wrote of a Bulgarian-hearted duke ruling over a local Khazar population around 900, named Menomorut, and we should also mention that Romanian historians regard him as a Romanian ruler ruling over a local Romanian population. Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

the main cause of my edit to avoid the confusion with the common mistaken urban legend than Michael The Brave would unite the three principalities, that he never did (and you certainly know it, that's why I am surprised by your revert). Since a long time, more editors corrected this in many articles to describe it properly as it was, i.e. he ruled the three principalities at the same time. Otherwise, we would support an obviously false assertion that is one of the greatest falsities in the correspondent historiography. Anyway, the question has been already set regarding this by a 2011 consensus in the Michael The Brave article, that means we don't say "he united...etc." but at most we may speak about a "personal union" in case, though we try to avoid any misleading terminology. Please try to find a solution accordingly or accept the common solution I presented.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand your above lengthy message about urban legends and more editors. Would you refer to reliable sources? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am surpised, shortly I repeat and give you some sources:

1. Unfortunately the urban legend is rendered by romantic nationalism when retrospectively Romanians in a period started to regard him as a unifier (you may chek this in the Michael The Brave article)

2. This falsity was embraced and rendered by the following era's antionalism, including the national-communism, and it spread into many sources so lazily as other Daco-Roman legends, or i.e. identifying all peasant revolts in Transylvania as an ethnic conflict between Hungarians and Romanians (just to tell you about other falsities and urban legends you anyway know)

3. The topic and the question was raised and discussed in 2011 in the Michael The Brave article, and a new consensus was built a referred above.

4. Since then, in all related articles the false and misleading "united" or "union" phrases have been changed to "ruled the pricipalities" or similar (not just by me, but also other editors to fulfill this consensus and avoid falsity)

Please check i.e. ([1]), where is clearly described the problem I referred (anyway I was certain you know this, since you are interested in neutral historical research, and as an expert in medieval history you certainly know that Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia was not unified/united by any means (also Petre Panaitescu or A. D. Xenopol or Boia or any serious historian describe this fairly).(KIENGIR (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, I still do not understand your lengthy message. You modified a text which is based on two reliable sources based on urban legends. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, could you tell what part you don't understand, or in the whole (or my English?)? Do you understand i.e. that Michael the Brave did not unite the three principalities? If I understood correctly your last sentence, why you use sources based on urban legends, instead of facts? Please try us to understand each other, I don't wish to be lengthy, but if you don't see the point...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The two referred reliable sources clearly say that Michael united the three principalities under his rule. I think it is time to stop this debate. Borsoka (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says, but you still did not answer my questions. But if we know it is not the case and such did not happen, why you oppose proper close pharaphasing? We are interested in a neutral, factual content (similarly as plenty of reliable sources state that Romanians are the descendant of the Dacians or Daco-Romans, though this hard to grasp, but it is a clear fact Micheal the Brave did not united the principalities, just ruled them at the same time, as you may know, or see it by the source I presented, or the sources in the Michael The Brave article, where this is clearly pinpointed. That's why especially I don't undertand you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Nobody say that Michael united the principalities. Sorry, I stopped discussing this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, if you quit, and I don't know why you are so chilly with me....

"Nobody say that Michael united the principalities" vs. "Michael united the three principalities under his rule"....(the difference is "three" & "under his rule". If I assume - there is not other possibility - the latter you may refer, "united under his rule" may be interpreted as he united them during his reign, or his rule is united over the three in case, though it is misunderstandable at first glance). You should help me to clarify thing to properly understand you. Please, Thank You in advance.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

"Napoleon united France and Italy" is a false statement, "Napoleon united France and Italy under his rule" is a fact. Sorry, I do not like debate personal assumptions against reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that you changed your mind and answered, so my latter assumption was correct. BTW, you know very well, it has nothing to do with "my personal assumptions", this was a notable issue in 2011, that went even through on the ANI that time, and including with more editors and administrators a consensus was built for clarity and accuracy. That's why I wanted to be sure. I hope noone will misinterpret such statements in the future or misuse them for illegitimate claims.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Viteazul had nothing to do with the "ethnic unity of the Romanians". This is also a fact. You both may have thrown stones at me, but I felt obligated to modify the text in the first paragraph of Michael's page. It was another myth in the lead of course. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not throw stones at you. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on me :) (KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so lets go over all the problems with the unsourced gallery. Lets quote all the protocols for just a case like this

• WP:GALLERY "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." ...."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article"....that links to WP:DUE that says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"....that links to MOS:ACCIM that says "Avoid indiscriminate gallery sections because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display"

So basically we have a unsourced gallery that has images of things not mentioned in the article. Article needs a cleanup again...not more images not related to the text of the article.--Moxy (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and try to understand the policies that you are quoting above. Borsoka (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LO I wote it....Not sure how I could write it more clear for you. But will start another RfC on it--Moxy (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looks like you have some new anonymous 'friends' from ro.wiki, here: [2], [3], [4] & others. Respectfully,--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never edit Romanian WP, so any discussion at Romanian WP is out of the scope of my interest. I think you should not use new and new user names at English WP, because it is highly uncivil. You may not know, but google translation from Romanian to Hungarian are often really funny. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

haha, forgive him, Kipcsak :)--82.137.15.182 (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets are swarming on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you misunderstood me. I have to mention that I interact with you for the first time and I do not know you. The first message was to alert you to the existence of IPs at Wikipedia in Romanian that make WP:CANVAS about your activity. The activity of IPs is obvious here as well. It is impolite at Romanian Wikipedia to accuse someone without any evidence that it would be sockpuppet. Also it is very uncivil to judge someone's username. I will have to end the discussion.--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assamese people. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Pál Márkházy.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Very nice article, keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Archbishopric of Moravia has been completed.

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

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your thorough copyedit. I highly appreciate your hard work. Have a nice week. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Slavery. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pons, Count of Tripoli 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pons, Count of Tripoli 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:Pons, Count of Tripoli for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helló! A segítségedet szeretném kérni. Ha jól emlékszem, korábban használtad egyes cikkeknél Rogerius mester Siralmas énekének angol fordítását. Remélem, rendelkezel még a könyvvel. Az lenne a kérdésem, hogy ha van kedved és időd, bemásolnád a vitalapomra a Várad elestére, illetve (főleg) Benedek püspök menekülésére vonatkozó sorokat a megfelelő hivatkozással (fejezet, oldalszám stb.)? Köszönöm, előre is. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pons, Count of Tripoli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pons, Count of Tripoli 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of Hungarian history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balaton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Romania. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Én is tudok makacs agyament szerkesztési háborút indítani. (azaz én is tudok olyan hülye lenni mint te, és mindent kártékonyan kitörölgetni) Folytathatjuk akár végtelenségig. Tényleg, teljesen biztos vagy benne hogy ezt akarod?--Draguler (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have several times proved that you are unable to make constructive edits. WP is not your platform. You are not entitled to edit WP articles or to enter into conversations on Talk pages. Borsoka (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"constructive edits." You are a newcomer on WP. (You had not edits around 2006) Please do not teach me how WP works. "WP is not your platform." Who are you? Are you the owner of the WP? :))) --Draguler (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No editor owns WP. The community ruled years ago that you were not here to build an encyclopedia. Your comments prove that it was a well-established decision. I only remind you that you should not and your are not allowed to edit. Sorry, I stop debating this issue with you. Borsoka (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your fantasy is rich, gagyiproli! :)))--Draguler (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of India. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Archbishopric of Moravia 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Borsoka,

Thanks for creating Timeline of Hungarian history! I edit here too, under the username Nabla and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The whole last 1000 years are missing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Nabla}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nabla (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing that the timeline is not complete. I will visit Teahouse to understand the basic principles of editing and I promise that I will make efforts to sign my replies. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The above was an automated message - I am not very experienced using the page curation tool that generated it, so I was not fully aware of the content. And I do not like automated messages much... So, on a personal note, I'll say: The page is fine, except off course that it needs the last 1000 years. As to style, take a look at similar pages, e.g. at Category:Timelines_by_country, to see what other pages look like. I am not used to the Teahouse, but it may be a good place to ask. You may ask me too, at my talk page, though I am busy "out there" so it may take several days until I notice it and reply. As to using talk pages, a good tool there is is the wp:Notifications system, so if you reply to someone, say to me, you may want to call their attention using, for example, {{re|Nabla}}. - Nabla (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - as part of reviewing the page you created about Maria of Enghien, I noticed that there is already an article about her at Mary of Enghien. Normally, I would go through the content and merge the information from each article. In this case, however, it is somewhat complicated because of the sources - the original article is quite detailed, but currently unsourced; your article was shorter, but what was there was well-sourced, and all the sources are books that I don't have access to, so I'm not sure I'd be well-placed to do the merge. For now, I've redirected your title to point towards the pre-existing one, but all of your content is preserved in the article's history - I wonder whether you would be willing to read through Mary of Enghien, add any content that you think is missing, and if possible add your sources to support the assertions in the article? I hope that all makes sense - let me know if there's anything I can do to help you with this, or if you have any questions at all. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:, the two ladies are different, Maria died in 1392 or 1393, Mary decades later. Borsoka (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Borsoka - that was a mistake on my part. I saw the almost-identical names, and that both birth dates were in the 1360s, and jumped to a hasty conclusion - if I'd read the articles properly, I'd have seen that they were not the same person. Sorry for the disruption. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can fully understand your mistake. I think I should place a proper template on the top of both articles, but I cannot find them.  :)

I agree that some sort of 'not to be confused with' template would be a good thing - I'll ask at the Tearoom and see whether anyone has any suggestions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got an answer - I added {{Distinguish|Example}} tags to each article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Santa Claus. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Archbishopric of Moravia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Archbishopric of Moravia 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article János Gerendi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the Transylvanian nobleman János Gerendi refrained from eating blood and animals that had been strangled, he did not keep all the Old Testament laws? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/János Gerendi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, János Gerendi), 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:John R. Bolton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sajnos nem tudom mi a problémád és miért törlöd a szerkesztéseimet. A térképen átírtam a "Kingdoms of Hungary" címkét, amely totálisan értelmetlen, erre megint az van ott. A fővárosok listáját kibővítettem, erre azt is törölted gondolom. Szóval 1783 és 1946 között nem volt fővárosa az országnak a logikad szerint. Továbbá törölted Visegrádot, ahol az Anjou királyok székhelye volt.

Többször leírtam, hogy Lengyelország nem volt Magyarország része sosem, főleg nem a teljes területe, ahogy most szerepel a cikkben.

A beszélt nyelvek között szerepel az olasz és a lengyel, de ezt nem tudom honnan szedted, egyik nemzetiség sem élt nagy számban Magyarországon. A teljesen egyértelmű ószláv nyelvet pedig kihagytad, a szláv nyelvek elkülönülése csak a középkor folyamán ment végbe teljesen.

A latin nyelv mindössze az adminisztráció és a liturgia nyelve volt, ezt nem ártana feltüntetni, mert így olyan minths az emberek beszéltek volna latinul. Továbbá minek az elkülönítés? Beírod hogy a magyar nyelv 1836-tól hivatalos, de a többi beszélt nyelv meg úgy van ott, mintha azokat mindig beszélték volna, de a magyart nem.

Forrást szinte sehol nem használsz, tehát mit is töröltem? Egy helyen volt forrás, hogy a kezdetektől "multiethnic state" volt. Azt javítottam és beszúrtam két hiteles forrást is a cáfolatára, erre törlöd, mert szerinted hitelesebb egy netes forrás, amit pénzért bárki szerkeszthet, tehát kb egy wikipédia 2-re hivatkozol.

Elég szánalmas és silány ebben a formában ez a cikk, de ha neked magyarként ez megfelel.... Kingdom Hungary (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and apply WP:Sources. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Szia! Ha nem probléma, ismét szeretnék tőled segítséget kérni. A Héder nemzetségről szándékozok cikket írni, ők a Héderváriak és a Kőszegiek közös ősei. Amennyiben lehetséges, megosztanád a vitalapomon, hogy mit ír a nemzetségről a Képes Krónika és a Kézai-féle gesta hivatalos angol fordításai? Ha jól tudom, a nemzetséget Thuróczi is említi a jövevénynemzetségek között, eltérő származást megadva, de ha esetleg itt nem rendelkezel angol fordítással, akkor az első kettő szövegforrás is bőven elegendő nekem. Előre is köszönöm, kellemes nyarat kívánok! (a short English summary: I intend to create an article about the kindred Héder and I asked Borsoka for his help to provide two official English translations of medieval Latin texts from Hungarian chronicles) --Norden1990 (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Természetesen. Ma vagy holnap lesz időm. Thuróczi fordítása nincs meg nekem. Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just want to say that the information I added to the article on Baldwin II of Jerusalem is available on multiple genealogy platforms and on other articles of wikipedia (I just condensed what was already written on the wiki pages of Baldwin II's ancestors). I don't know if this was the right form of editing the page, but I figured it is relevant since the page said his connection to the Bouillon brothers is unknown. Please feel free to make or suggest any changes to the page. Thank you very much.

With kind regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit, but we are expected to use peer-reviewed (academic) sources to verify all statements in WP articles. Neither genealogy platforms nor Wikipedia are peer-reviewed, so we cannot refer to them. You should find an academic source, or the sentences will be deleted. Best regards, Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

thank you very much for replying, I am doing it right now (editing the page citing academic sources).

with kind regards,

(talk) 16:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I just edited the article and added 9 academic sources confirming the information I had inserted previously. Please feel free to review it and comment on it. Thank you very much.

Best regards,

I checked two of the books you are allegedly referring to. None of them verify the information, so I have to delete the sentences. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 17:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

the sources I am referring to do not provide the exact information I inserted, each of them cite a different generation of Baldwin of Bourcq and the Bouillon brothers' ancestors (if you analyze them together you will also get to this conclusion). I am new to wikipedia and I don't know if this was the right way of doing it, if you still think the information should be deleted that is fine. I just thought it was relevant providing this information. Thank you for commenting and reviewing my edits,

best regards,

(talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but we are not here to analyse information and draw our own conclusion as per WP:Synth. Borsoka (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for explaining that to me, as I said I am still not familiar with all the wikipedia guidelines. I would like to ask is there any way of inserting the information presented on each of these sources without drawing any personal conclusions? That is, is there any way of citing each fragment of information (relative to a generation) without implying anything/ leaving it for the reader to take their own conclusions? Like I said, I find this information pertinent but I want to do things the right way and am in need of assistence with my edits (because I am a new editor). Thank you for replying and clarifying things to me. Any help would be highly appreciated.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no way. We are not here to present information based on our research. Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: another alternative would be looking for a source listing the ancestors of Baldwin of Bourcq, and another source citing the ancestors of the Bouillon brothers, if they both cite Geberga of Saxony as an ancestor of theirs would that be deemed an acceptable solution? Or would it require a source clarifying this specific relationship between them? Thank you again for answering my questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frid.antonia-arlon (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter solution may work, especially because two specialists stated that their relationship is not close enough to actually establish it. If you have further questions, please seek assistance at the relevant wikiprojects. (You can find them on the Talk page of the article dedicated to Baldwin II) Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for answering all my questions, I replied to your message on the tak page of the article. I will indeed look for a source confirming the info I mentioned.

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I want to let you know I found one source which verifies all the information I had inserted to the article before, you can see more about that on the talk page of the article. I will therefore procceed to edit the page. Thank you very much for your help.

Best regards,

Frid.antonia-arlon (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]