Archives

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

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lorrain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajnálattal láttam, hogy copyvio miatt törölve lett a hiteleshelyekről szóló cikk itt, az angol wikin. Ez igen szomorú, mert egy jól használható cikk volt. A jelenlegi csonkot nincs kedved kibővíteni? Mégiscsak a Magyar Királyság egyik legfontosabb intézményrendszeréről van szó. Sajnos az én angolom ilyen jogi témához már kevés. Ha esetleg lenne kedved/időd, a régi cikket lementettem, így arra lehet támaszkodni, szívesen elküldöm. A magyar változat a megadott bibliográfián túl impozáns listát tartalmaz a téma szakirodalmáról. Ha van rá igény, ezek beszerzésében esetleg tudok segíteni. Tényleg a cikk fontossága miatt kérek ilyet. Válaszod várva, üdvözlettel, --Norden1990 (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hát, igen, régi bűnök árnya messzire elér. Még ifjú voltam és bohó. :) Előbb-utóbb nekilátok, kibővítem, de most éppen más témákra koncentrálok. Ha jól látom, a magyar szócikk forrásainak többsége elérhető Arcanum-on. Azt veszem észre, kevesebben vagyunk. Nem jó ez. Borsoka (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sajnos én is ezt tapasztalom. Mostanában én sem vagyok túl aktív, bár a 2019-es mérlegem így sem rossz, sok régóta tervezett bővítésre és létrehozásra sikerült sort kerítenem. Most azt látom, magyar történelem témában szinte alig történik valami előrelépés, ami sajnálatos, mert ezzel szemben a történettudomány aktivitása az elmúlt években láthatóan fellendült. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to chime in there -- that could look like canvassing -- but I was curious as to what your thoughts are on the current convo on Talk:Romance peoples. Cheers! --Calthinus (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Sorry, I have only limited knowledge on the topic. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Raymond III, 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Raymond III, 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:Raymond III, Count of Tripoli for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka, why are you deleting my addition to the continuity theory section? It’s a perfectly accurate and cited addition in the relevant place. I could have expanded in the individual scenarios document by document, case by case, but I kept it short. Beriboe (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deleting. I deleted it once. It contains OR. I will edit it to properly summarize Pop's (continuity) views. Borsoka (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild og Copy Editors of the article Boril of Bulgaria has been completed.

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

Please check my wording in the Uprising section. I changed "The exact circumstances of the movement are uncertain, because a Hungarian royal charter, which was issued in 1250, preserved to "suppressed" which I think was your intended meaning.

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I modified the above text ([1]). Could you check it? Thank you for your assistance. I highly appreciate your work. Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: I've had a look and made a minor edit. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Theodore I Laskaris has been completed.

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

Best of luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your assistance. I am grateful to you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: You're very welcome. Cheers! Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comprehensive copyedit. I highly appreciate your work. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 05:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; good luck with your planned GA nomination. :) Cheers, Baffle☿gab 19:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, let me congratulate you for your Contributions about the Crusades, but I Wonder if you have references about Balian of Ibelin, the defender of Jerusalén. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.121.195.165 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, I have some material on him. He was a quite important personality of his age, so most books about the crusades mention him. Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 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 Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 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:Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor 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 Yakikaki -- Yakikaki (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Raymond III, Count of Tripoli you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Raymond III, 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, I want to know what was the title of Coloman of Galicia en Szepes. There is no mention about his title in that place. He was a lord, a count, a prince or a duke in Szepes. Could you answer my doubt? Greetings Kardam (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, he bore no specific title. He continued to be styled as king (of Galicia) till the end of his life. Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

see the recent edits in the article....do you know when the Hellenic Chronicle was written? A user added it, but did not place in any time...I found so far in the source it was not written contemporarily the time of Attila...could you look on it please? (recently an orphan section)

No, I have never read of it. I assume it must be a late chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodore I Laskaris 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gervase of Bazoches 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gervase of Bazoches you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gervase of Bazoches 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely sorry for the assumptions I made against you a few days ago over the Hungarian issues in the coronavirus political impact article. Not only are you not obviously biased towards the government, but you sourcing has proven your commitment to neutrality. I apologize for lumping you in with Balkan nationalists and anything you want to say is justified. Jon698 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Taking into account that Hungary is located in Central Europe, I could only be a Central European nationalist. :) Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked literally says "as there is no specific deadline for the special mandate, it will last until the government determines its end." (translated by Google). If you continue to put this disinformation up, you will be reported to admins, who are taking covid-19 related topics very seriously (WP:GS/COVID19) Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also translate the following text as well:"Az Országgyűlés felhatalmazta a kormányt, hogy a veszélyhelyzetben az alaptörvény vonatkozó bekezdése szerinti rendeleteinek hatályát a veszélyhelyzet megszűnéséig meghosszabbítsa. A Ház a veszélyhelyzet megszűnését megelőzően ezt a felhatalmazását visszavonhatja." Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theodore I Laskaris you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodore I Laskaris 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boril of Bulgaria 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the former Proto-Romanian article has been renamed to Common Romanian, argued as it is not a reconstruction. The Proto-language article's lead definiton contains reconstruction as a possibility, while in the definiton section is says it is compulsory....what is your opinion, in spite of these or the relevance or usage, is this rename ok (along with the addition (inaccurately) to the lead regarding Proto-Romanian)?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

So far I have been convinced that a "proto-language" and a "common language" are one and the same. I think the editor who moved the page should be approached on the issue. Borsoka (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami:,

Please convince us/react to our concern/approach...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this. People use the prefix "proto-" differently, for either the hypothetical ancestral language or for the reconstruction of that language. I made this move while adding {{infobox proto-language}} to the reconstructed proto-language articles. Proto-Romanian didn't seem to qualify, as AFAICT it's not a reconstruction. If "Proto-Romanian" and "Common Romanian" are the same thing, then for the sake of consistency I thought it better to place the article under the name "Common Romanian".

Bickerton, writing on "protolanguage" (meaning the precursor to human language) in the ELL2 (Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics), says, It is essential to distinguish the term 'protolanguage' from the protolanguages reconstructed for the various language families of the world, e.g., Proto-Indo-European or Nostratic. These, if they existed, would be full-fledged human languages with a time depth of thousands ... of years, implying that "protolanguage" in this situation means a reconstruction.

The ELL2 article on Romanian doesn't use either term, saying only, This early Romanian soon (perhaps as early as the 10th century) began to split, first into four dialects which later tended to become languages in their own right.

Graham Mallinson, in the Rumanian chapter of Harris & Vincent (eds) The Romance Languages (Routledge Family Series), speaks of "Balkan Romance". The intro by Harris includes Dalmatian in that, so Balkan Romance is Dalmatian plus Rumanian, but doesn't posit a common Romanian apart from Dalmatian.

So I don't see a particular dominant convention. The phrase "Common Romanian" is self-explanatory, while "Proto-Romanian", like "Proto-Romance", will suggest to many readers a reconstruction. I think "Common Romanian" is therefor the better title, but it doesn't matter all that much as long as we're clear in the lead what the article is about. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]