User talk:Borsoka/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Talk:Battle of Sibiu

Please, tell your opinion. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Castra of Aradul Nou. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Szia! Kaphatnék tőled segítséget ez ügyben? Meg vannak a források, rájuk lehet keresni, nem minden esetben magyarul, de ott vannak. Kérlek szavazz ellene. Doncsecz^talk 12:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Köszi! Doncsecz^talk 12:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Castra of Gresia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gresia (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) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Válasz

Mikor leírtam az ominózus mondatokat, már tudtam, hogy ebből nem fog jó kisülni, de egyszerűen nem tudtam megállni, ismerve Omen szerkesztéseit itt a Wikipedián. Volt pár konfliktusom vele az elmúlt egy-két év folyamán. Ezentúl igyekszem meghúzni magam és nem belebonyolódni feleslegesen konfliktusokba. A 20-21. századi politikusok megírásával úgy is el leszek egy darabig. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nem tervezed a közeljövőben, hogy az országbíróról szóló szócikket legalább olyan szintre kibővíted, mint az erdélyi vajdáét? :) --Norden1990 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Medieval Forteresses in Hungary

Until the 12th century, stone-built and earth and timber castles were contemporary,[75] but by the late 12th century the number of castles being built went into decline. This has been partly attributed to the higher cost of stone-built fortifications, and the obsolescence of timber and earthwork sites, which meant it was preferable to build in more durable stone.[76] Although superseded by their stone successors, timber and earthwork castles were by no means useless.[77]

Allen Brown 1976, p. 13 Allen Brown, Reginald (1976) [1954], Allen Brown's English Castles, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, ISBN 1-84383-069-8 Allen Brown 1976, pp. 108–109 Cathcart King 1988, pp. 29–30 Cathcart King, David James (1988), The Castle in England and Wales: an Interpretative History, London: Croom Helm, ISBN 0-918400-08-2

Mindenáron le akarod járatni magyarországot, primitív helynekNépnek beállítva, szerintem mivel magyarország egyik keletebbi balkáni elmaradott régiójából (alföld É-KGH) és gazdasági menekültként leesett a szájad angliától. Korrigáld a hülyeséget amit írtál a cikkbe. Na pá! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.57.92 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Kedves névtelen. Ráhibásztál. Magyarország legeslegelmaradottabb részén, egy rózsabokorba jöttem a világra. Valóban gazdasági menekült vagyok, de nem angliában, hanem a spicbergákon, mivel még ahhoz is hüje voltam, hogy megnézzem, hova megy az a kamijon, aminek titkos reteszében el akartam jutni álmaim földjére. A szájam leesett, ahogy kiestem a kamionból, mivel még az én buta fejemnek is gyanús volt, hogyan kerül ennyi hó angliában. Azóta folyamatosan olyan cikkeket írok a vikipediában, amik torz képet igyekszenek mutatni magyarországról. Ne haragugy, de valahogy meg kell élni itt a hideg északon. Borsoka (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (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) 11:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

János Scheffler

I would like to ask for your opinion and help. I know you are well informed about Christianity. My problem is in connection with János Scheffler. Unfortunately we can not edit his article currently because of edit warring. According to Hungarian sources he was chosen to be bishop of Győr by Pope Pius XII on the 8 of November, 1945. Andrea Cassulo notified him about it in Romania on the 9 of April 1946. However, he chose to stay in Diocese of Satu Mare. Here is a quote in Hungarian [1]:

1945. november 8-án XII. Piusz pápa kinevezi a győri egyházmegye püspökévé a vértanúhalált halt Apor Vilmos győri püspök helyére. Andrea Cassulo bukaresti nuncius 1946. április 9-én közli kinevezését. Kijelentette, hogy aláveti magát a pápa akaratának, ha áthelyezése a Szentatya kifejezett óhaja. Kérte azonban, hogy a nehéz helyzetre való tekintettel maradhasson szeretett egyházmegyéjében. A Szentszék elfogadta a kérelmét.

Or Péter Erdő said that:

1945. november 8-án XII. Piusz pápa áthelyezte őt a győri püspöki székre a vértanúhalált halt Boldog Apor Vilmos helyére. Ő azonban azt kérte, hogy szatmári püspök maradhasson szeretett papjai és hívei körében.

The next bishop in Győr (Karl Kalman Papp) after Vilmos Apor was in charge from May 3, 1946. How should we interpret János Scheffler's situation??? Did he fill the position !temporary! as bishop of Győr? Maybe my interpretation is incorrect, because he resigned in my opinion. He was elected, he was officially notified but he abdicated. Am I right or not? Fakirbakir (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer at talkpage of Scheffler! Fakirbakir (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Voivode of Transylvania

I've begun the GA review of Voivode of Transylvania. This article looks quite solid to me; so far, I only need your thoughts on some very small points. Drop by the talk page at your convenience. Thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Voivode of Transylvania to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin review

Hello! I will be reviewing your article for GA status in the coming days. I am looking forward to analyzing and commenting on it; it is an intriguing topic. Thanks, dci | TALK 21:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Comments on article content have been posted. dci | TALK 00:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear DCI, thank you for your hard work. For a couple of days I will be busy in my real life, so I can only reflect to your suggestions in next weekend. Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take as much time as you need. I am in no hurry whatsoever and completely understand your situation. dci | TALK 23:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

maps

I would like to ask for your help. I have three different maps from Kniezsa and I would need some explanation. The first one[2] is his well known map. As you know I used it as a source in order to design my own map. However I have another map by Kniezsa about the same theme and that is slightly different (p. 18 ( figure 6). Unfortunately I do not have the description of its legend. Those maps are almost identical however area of south Transylvania is dissimilar. The first map shows it as uninhabited area, but the second map uses a very soft pink colour to the same area. It may also mean "uninhabited area" but it is just my guess. Maybe the first map is a simplified version of the original map from the second edition book (2000), and the second one is the original map from 1938. I am unsure. My third map shows the ethnic situation in Transylvania a bit later I think the period is the second third of the 12th century. As you see south Transylvania is inhabited by Hungarians[3]. We also can see bigger Pechenegs communities in Transylvania as opposed to the previous two maps. I know the Szeklers first moved presumably to south Transylvania from Bihar county, but I do not know whether the map shows that process or that means something else. I know the best would be to see the description of the second map's legend. I know Kniezsa drew lots of map and maybe he had slightly different results sometimes but it is a bit confusing for me. What do you think? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Time estimate

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea when you will have time for responses to what I've posted on the review for Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin? Again, feel free to take as much time as is needed, but I would greatly appreciate some sort of estimate. dci | TALK 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear DCI, thank for your approach. I think I will respond in 48 hours. Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. dci | TALK 19:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be done with the review tonight and foresee no problems with passing. dci | TALK 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Y Passed, although please see this section of the talk page regarding one problem. If I'm somehow mistaken here, please let me know. dci | TALK 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Romania in the Early Middle Ages

Hi Borsoka, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Borsoka, you were mentioned on ANI by user Hortobagy. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Romani autonomy in Hungary

Let us make together a wonderful new article! Hortobagy (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

For the time being, I am pretty sure that you cannot "make a wonderful article". I suggest you should first read basic principles of WP, including WP:NOR and you should also learn how to cooperate with other editors instead of ignoring their proposals. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can be mad on me when we can so well collaborate. Hortobagy (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not "mad on you" that is why I suggest you should read basic principles of WP. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

History of Transylvania

Hi Borsoka, a question: user Raysdiet (Iaaasi?) has recently deleted the "History of Hungary" template from the "History of Transylvania" article [4] writing that "this article is not listed on that template". He is right that the article is indeed not on the "History of Hungary" template. What do you think, should we include the "History of Transylvania" on the "History of Hungary" template, or is it enough if the "Principality of Transylvania" is there? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do so, you should also include the template on the articles History of Slovakia, History of Vojvodina and History of Croatia. Good luck for gaining consensus with Slovak, Serbian and Croatian users! Raysdiet (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that that the History of Hungary template should refer to articles which concentrate on the history of present-day Hungary or to the history of one-time polities at least partly located in the territory of present-day Hungary. Transylvania is out of this scope. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Borsoka, for your reply. I see your point, and think that you are right that the template "History of Hungary" should concentrate on the history of present-day Hungary. Still I am a bit in two minds about it, since the history of Transylvania seems closely connected to the history of Hugnary, even though the geographical region of Transylvania is not in Hungary. Anyway, I thank you for your valuable ideas, and if I still have doubts, I might raise the issue on the Talk page of the "History of Hungary" template. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Just one question: would you also add Croatia and Austria to the same template? Both territories' history is closely connected to Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point. On the other hand, Austria or Croatia were never integral parts of (the Kingdom of) Hungary, and they never had large Hungarian populations either. Therefore, it seems to me that the inclusion or exclusion of the History of Transylvania article from the History of Hungary template is a more complicated issue. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Austria and Croatia are sovereign states while Transylvania is and has always been a geographical region. The only state that ever recognized it as an administrative entity was the Kingdom of Hungary. The History of Hungary template should be included on the History of Transylvania page. Raysdiet's above argument is not in logical connection with his deletion of the template: it's not a valid argument. Hungary played an important role in the history of present day Transylvania while it's not the case the other way around. --Rob.HUN (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

So do you recommend to also remove Principality of Transylvania and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom? Raysdiet (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not recommend to remove them. Please read my above remarks again. For example, Debrecen (a town in present day Hungary) used to be a town in the Principality of Transylvania. Borsoka (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. My mistake. Thanks for your answer Raysdiet (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the Székely people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baranya (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) 14:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Blakumen

Nice work on this article.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Borsoka (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Voivode of Transylvania

I am sure that the article will meet the requirements. I would like to congratulate for the expansion of Álmos, Grand Prince of the Magyars article, perhaps you should recommend it for the Did you know section. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zoltán of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fajsz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter, King of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the late Vazul's exiled sons to the country.{{sfn|Kristó|Makk|1994|p=58}} However, it was an [[[[Vata pagan uprising|uprising by pagan communers]] which ended Peter's second rule in 1046.{{sfn|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter, King of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the late Vazul's exiled sons to the country.{{sfn|Kristó|Makk|1994|p=58}} However, it was an [[[[Vata pagan uprising|uprising by pagan communers]] which ended Peter's second rule in 1046.{{sfn|
• {{familytree | | | | |!| | | | | | | | | |!| | | | | | |,|-|-|-|v|-|-|-|(| |}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Romanian may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Romanian may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Romanian may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	Order of the Seven Chieftains third class
	For the A-Team: Álmos, Árpád, Zoltán, Fajsz, Taksony and Géza. Very good job! :) Norden1990 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter, King of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hainburg (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) 11:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Political center of the old Szekely Land

Hello! Do you have any data about this? We found something [5] but maybe you are more informed. Some sources on this subject need also to be added here [6] Raysdiet (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have information. I try to cheque it somewhere. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Name of Hungary

Could you please take a look at this page if you have time. I think this subject needs additional clarification. Thank you in advance. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the article. As far as I can decide, the whole article is OR, but (interestingly) it does not contradict to my knowledge. My main concern is that I do not understand what is the subject of the article. Are there reliable sources on this specific subject? Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I am gonna try to find sources. You are right, the article should deal only with one subject "the name of Hungary". Fakirbakir (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Romanian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illyricum (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) 11:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Romanian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dardania (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) 10:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Romanian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mace (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) 13:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Cuman origin of John Hunyadi

There is an on-going discussion regarding this issue on Talk:John Hunyadi. You made some contributions in the past on this subject, can you please intervene? Your help would be highly appreciated Sutgol (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian help needed

Hello Borsoka, I'm contacting you because we need some Hungarian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hu.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Hungarian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I must apologize for not answering so far, but I was away. Sorry, but I am not an expert on the field of programs, so my Hungarian vocabulary for the translation would be weak. Unfortunatelly, I have no contact to Hungarian Wikipedians with the exception of those who work on English WP. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the reply. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Supposed Hungarian conquest of Preslav

Please stop reinserting the unsourced claim that the Hungarians captured Preslav (which is very unlikely, for various reasons anyway). "The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest" doesn't contain such a claim on page 138 or on any other page, and it would be very unlikely to contain one, as the book deals with a period starting from the 12th century, while the war with the Bulgarians was in the 9th century. Kostja (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Kostja, thank you for drawing my attention to the wrong reference. I fixed the mistake. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Kölpény-Kölpön-Kylfings

I have made a redirection recently at page of Kölpény, however I am not entirely sure that the interpretation of Kolpeny is correct at article of Kylfings. According to written sources (e.g.Gesta Hungarorum) Kölpön, (Kolpán or Culpun) was a brother of Arpad's mother. He settled in Bacska. Village of Kulpin preserved his name. According to page of Kylfings Kolpeny was "only" a people of uncertain origin. Shall we create a page for the person Kolpeny? Fakirbakir (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never heard of Kolpeny or of Kylfings. Borsoka (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? He was the father of Botond (according to Gesta).

"Kölpön (Culpun, Kolpán), a Névtelen jegyző (41. fej.) szerint Árpád anyai nagybátyja, a honfoglalás idejében Tassal, Lehel atyjával együtt, Bodrogban (Bács déli részében) a Vajas folyó mellett telepedett le népével. Nevét fentartotta a Vajas-ér mellett fekvő Kulpin falu (Újvidéktől ÉNy-ra), melyet régente K.-nek (Cwlpwn), vagy 1345-1418 közt Kulpinak, Kölpinek irtak. E megszállás után Árpád Zalán ellen egyebek közt K. fiát, Botondot is (l. o.) kiküldte."

Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There is really a Kölpény in the Gesta Hungarorum. I have no information on him. He might have been an invention of Anonymous based on a place name (as he invented most of his figures), but this is OR. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you

Thank you very much! --Norden1990 (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of Christianity in the Czech Lands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• used the vernacular not only in education but also in liturgy{{sfn|Sommer|Třeštík|Žemlička|Opači]ć|p=222}} which enabled them to strengthen the local element of the clergy.{{sfn|Pánek|Tůma|2009|p=
• dynasty]] was personally baptized by Methodius in this period.{{sfn|Sommer|Třeštík|Žemlička|Opači]ć|pp=225-226}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen I of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Saint Stephen I''' ({{lang-hu|I. (Szent) István}}; {{lang-la|Sanctus Stephanus}}; [[Esztergom]], [[Principality of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Romania in the Early Middle Ages

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Romania in the Early Middle Ages 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 GA bot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Quadell, thank you for undertaking to review the article. I hope you will enjoy this work. Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a very informative article! I have a question for you, regarding how to proceed.

When some people nominate an article at GAN, they like to just get an answer (pass or fail) with helpful feedback for improvement and compliments on the article's strengths. Then they work on the article on their own time, and renominate it later if it didn't pass. But other people like to treat a GAN as a very interactive process, where the reviewer leaves detailed suggestions for change, and the nominator deals with each suggestion quickly, and the process goes back and forth until the criteria are met or until the time runs out. (Ideally, GAN reviews should only be open for about a week or two.) So my question for you is, which type of GAN review would you prefer? I can do either, but I want to do what's most helpful for you.

Dear Quadell, for me the quicker and interactive approach looks more reasonable. I think in a two-week-long period the article can significantly be improved. Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the article currently has many strengths (such as completeness, image use, and sourcing), but also has many shortcomings (such as organization, and clarity issues in the prose). These would have to be dealt with in order for the article to reach GA status. It will take a lot of work, I think, and I don't know how much time you have over the next week or two. Do you think you'll be able to respond to suggestions and make the needed changes in the limited time available? Or would you prefer I simply write up a full review and close the nomination? All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Quadell, for the time being I think that all reasonable changes can be made in a two-week-long period. Borsoka (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, great. I'll get on it then. And feel free to work on any of the areas I've already identified. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Stephen I, the Apostolic king

References:

Apostolic King of Hungary

The Letter of Pope Sylvester II to Stephen of Hungary, 1000 AD.




Sylvester, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Stephen, king of the Hungarians, greeting and apostolic benediction. Your ambassadors, especially our dear brother, Astricus, bishop of Colocza, were received by us with the greater joy and accomplished their mission with the greater ease, because we had been divinely forewarned to expect an embassy from a nation still unknown to us.... Surely, according to the apostle: "It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" [Rom. 9:16]; and according to the testimony of Daniel: "He changeth the times and the seasons; he removeth kings and setteth up kings; he revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness" [Dan. 2:21, 22]; for in him is that light which, as John teaches, "lighteth every man that cometh into the world" [John 1:9]. Therefore we first give thanks to God the Father, and to our Lord Jesus Christ, because he has found in our time another David, and has again raised up a man after his own heart to feed his people Israel, that is, the chosen race of the Hungarians. Secondly, we praise you for your piety toward God and for your reverence for this apostolic see, over which, not by our own merits, but by the mercy of God, we now preside. Finally, we commend the liberality you have shown in offering to St. Peter yourself and your people and your kingdom and possessions by the same ambassadors and letters. For by this deed you have clearly demonstrated that you already are what you have asked us to declare you [i.e., a king]. But enough of this; it is not necessary to commend him whom God himself has commended and whose deeds openly proclaim to be worthy of all commendation. Now therefore, glorious son, by the authority of omnipotent God and of St. Peter, the prince of apostles, we freely grant, concede, and bestow with our apostolic benediction all that you have sought from us and from the apostolic see; namely, the royal crown and name, the creation of the metropolitanate of Gran, and of the other bishoprics. Moreover, we receive under the protection of the holy church the kingdom which you have surrendered to St. Peter, together with yourself and your people, the Hungarian nation; and we now give it back to you and to your heirs and successors to be held, possessed, ruled, and governed. And your heirs and successors, who shall have been legally elected by the nobles, shall duly offer obedience and reverence to us and to our successors in their own persons or by ambassadors, and shall confess themselves the subjects of the Roman church, who does not hold her subjects as slaves, but receives them all as children. They shall persevere in the catholic faith and the religion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and strive always to promote it. And because you have fulfilled the office of the apostles in preaching Christ and propagating his faith, and have tried to do in your realm the work of us and of our clergy, and because you have honored the same prince of apostles above all others, therefore by this privilege we grant you and your successors, who shall have been legally elected and approved by the apostolic see, the right to have the cross borne before you as a sign of apostleship,{68} after you have been crowned with the crown which we send and according to the ceremony which we have committed to your ambassadors. And we likewise give you full power by our apostolic authority to control and manage all the churches of your realm, both present and future, as divine grace may guide you, as representing us and our successors. All these things are contained more fully and explicitly in that general letter which we have sent by our messenger to you and to your nobles and faithful subjects. And we pray that omnipotent God, who called you even from your mother’s womb to the kingdom and crown, and who has commanded us to give you the crown which we had prepared for the duke of Poland, may increase continually the fruits of your good works, and sprinkle with the dew of his benediction this young plant of your kingdom, and preserve you and your realm and protect you from all enemies, visible and invisible, and, after the trials of the earthly kingship are past, crown you with an eternal crown in the kingdom of heaven. Given at Rome, March 27, in the thirteenth indiction [the year 1000].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlarders (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the end of the 19th century it has been well know that the above bull attributed to Pope Sylvester II which allegedly conferred the "apostolic king" title to Stephen I is a falsification from the 17th century. Therefore we should forget it, and all claims based on this false document. [7] [8] [9] Borsoka (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Smile for you recent contributions, and happy editing

Hello Borsoka, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Engel 2005, p. 27.

I have used Engel's book as a reference at the coronation dates. I do not mind if you remove the newer edition, however a reference is incorrect in the article at the moment. I know page 27 in edition 2005 but I have no idea if it is the same in edition 2001. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

nice sentence

" it is a nice sentence from Butler's 18th-century work". It was not Butler's sentence, It was my sentence. I try to avoid copyvio. Unfortunately I did not assume that the whole text of the book (published in 1998) derived from the 18th century. My fault. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"clerical changes"-Originally "ecclesiastical changes". Fakirbakir (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stephen I of Hungary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ragusa and Namur (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) 11:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Updates on the GA review

I want to apologize for how long it's taking me to fully review Romania in the Early Middle Ages at Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/GA3. It's been 7 days now, and I am still not finished reviewing! The reason it's going so slow is that the article is full of excellent information on a subject I was not at all familiar with a week ago, and I just want to make sure that the article is presented in a way so that a newcomer to Romanian history (such as myself) can fully understand the topic. I will continue to work on the review, and I hope to have it finished soon. Meanwhile, I appreciate you working on the article while the review is ongoing, and it is already much-improved. Thank you for your patience, and when my review is done I will show similar patience if your responses and improvements take longer than you expect as well. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 13:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Quadell, I highly appreciate your work which contributes to the significant improvement of this article. I agree with you this is a really interesting topic. Thank for your cooperative approach. Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Szia buzuska!

Vége a nyaralásomnak :) Vitákban veretlen ellenfeled visszatért, és rajtad tartja a szemét, te szemét.--Bolondcaesar (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bolond, welcome back on board. Please feel free to contact me any time. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, who is this "Bolond"? Helló, ezmegkiez? :D --Csendesmark (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

He/she is a human being with his/her own psychological features and with a strange style of communication. Borsoka (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Romania in the Early Middle Ages

The article Romania in the Early Middle Ages you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Quadell -- Quadell (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Romania in the Early Middle Ages (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Antes

Vazul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gisela

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Ladislas the Bald, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, thank you for your above message. However, when I once read the rules of the nomination procedure I decided that I would never nominate an article for DYK. Borsoka (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Michael of Hungary

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for the great contributions at Romania in the Early Middle Ages. Codrin.B (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, thank you for the above message. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ducatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Béla (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) 11:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Great Moravia

Hello Borsoka, I see you are working on the article Great Moravia. First let me say that I am very glad that somebody does something with this topic because the english article page was really a big mess. As I completely remaked the german article page just one week before, I think it could be useful to you just to watch a bit through it. Regards and sry for my english. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, thank you for your message and suggestion. I think it is a good idea. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostislav (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) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Ladislas the Bald, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I know you said you didn't want to deal with the nomination procedure, but it is in fact quite easy; I'd be happy to offer assistance! Your excellent works deserves more recognition! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, thank you for your above offer, I highly appreciate it. Sorry, but I am too stubborn to change my mind in these matters: some years ago I decided not to deal with the nomination procedure. I really sorry, but I enjoy editing WP in my spare time, and would not enjoy the procedure. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Árpád

Dear Baffle gab1978, thank you for your copyedit. The article now can be nominated to GA status. Borsoka (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Szoke

"Many modern historians – including Bartl,[1] Marsina,[2] Štefan,[44] and Szőke[33] – write that after Pribina's expulsion around 833 Nitra became one of the most important centers of Great Moravia, ". I think Szoke would disagree with it. Maybe he changed his mind because (sorry it is gonna be in Hungarian), nemreg valahol egy Zalavarrol szolo regeszeti munkajaban olvastam rola, hogy Nyitra szerepet ideje atertekelni. Sajnos nem emlekszem melyik munkaja volt ez, viszont tudom idezni az MTA doktori biralasat "A disszerens helytálló érvekkel igazolja, hogy indokolatlan Priwina személyében valamiféle szláv fejedelmet látni (163–193.). Szorosan összefügg ezzel az az álláspontja, mely vitatja, hogy a Priwinával kapcsolatban említett nitravai templom, illetve Wiching püspök nitrai székhelye azonosítható lenne a mai Nyitra (Nitra, Szolvákia) Várhegyén feltárt templommal (253–255.). A disszerens ezen álláspontja megerősít azon véleményemben, mi szerint a Kálmán magyar király által Nyitrán alapított püspökség esetében hiába való fáradság 9. századi előzmények után kutatni. Nem kevésbé jelentős az Árpád-kor történetére nézve az a megállapítása, mi szerint nincs régészeti bizonyíték arra vonatkozóan, hogy a Karoling Pannónia kereszténysége megérte volna a Kárpát-medencei krisztianizáció újabb, s immár végleges eredményeket hozó szakaszát, azaz a 10–11. század fordulóját (398.)."[10] Fakirbakir (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is really interesting. I hope Szőke sooner or later will publish his views. All the same, it is remarkable that more and more specialist conclude that the "Principality of Nitra" never existed. Borsoka (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Another source from Szoke with the same conclusion: [11], I am gonna try to seek better sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Jo lenne Szoke doktorijat elolvasni, sajnos neten csak a biralatok ingyen hozzaferhetoek.([12]) Erdekes Marosi Erno megjegyzese: "a disszertacio talan legnagyobb hordereju megallapitasa az, hogy 907-es brezalauspurci csata nem Pozsonynal tortent hanem a valojaban ekkor Brazlav dux birtokaban levo Mosaburg elpusztitasat jelentette.". Fakirbakir (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Principality of Nitra, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Staré Město and Svatopluk (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) 11:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:Fakirbakir in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Psychonaut, please read the introductory text to the guidelines you cited above: "These guidelines apply specifically to discussion pages which are used for collaboration, which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages. The application of these guidelines to user talk pages should be governed by common sense and should not supersede guidelines and policies specific to those pages." Borsoka (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let's say that in this case User:Psychonaut is not fully entitled to ask you for a translation, but I hope it is not a problem to ask for the translation of the discussion at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Hunyadi#K.C3.B6ny.C3.B6rg.C3.B6m 79.117.167.97 (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is about John Hunyadi's Cuman origin: I state that it is a feeble theory, other editors emphasize that it is supported by a number of reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Béla I of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• brother in two successive battles fought at the river [[Tisza]] and at [[Mosonmagyaróvár|Moson]]).{{sfn|Kristó|Makk|1996|p=81}} The king was seriously injured and died in short time.{{sfn|Kontler|
• {{familytree | |!| | | | | | | | |)|-|-|-|.|}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Géza I of Hungary may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• as hostage to the [[Germans]] when he was informed that the German court decided, in August 1063,{{sfn|Érszegi|Solymosi|1981|p=88} to invade Hungary in order to restore Solomon.{{sfn|Kristó|Makk|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The citation of alternative location theories in the articles Great Moravia and Principality of Nitra

Dear Borsoka, I highly appreciate your work on Great Moravia and the Principality of Nitra, as you are working with all reliable sources you have access to. The only thing I want to allude you is that I think the theories of Boba, Bowlus, Püspöki Nagy, Eggers and Senga should be mentioned in all these articles under a seperate chapter Location, because they all represent just individual views and are not accepted by the absolute majority of modern historians. The traditional location of the Moravian realm and the possible Principality of Nitra above the Danube can be seen as fact, because of the large archeological foundings in Moravia and Slovakia (and their total absence in the areas of the Great Morava river in Serbia), the mention of Nitra, Bohemia and Wislania in primary sources, but notably because of the geographical script of Alfred the Great from the 8th century, which without any doubt located the Moravian realm on the territories of Moravia and Slovakia. (You can see the map in Havlík, Lubomír E. (1994): Svatopluk Veliký, král Moravanů a Slovanů [Svatopluk the Great, king of the Moravians and Slavs. p. 90.) At the moment you use the alternative authors too equal to the proven traditional one. Also please try to cooperate in all these topics with Czech and Slovak users, as you are not able to read the most important standard works for these topics and without them it is not possible to have a really objective article. Anyway thank you very much for your rework of the above mentioned articles! --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, why not? Just three remarks: (1) I have cooperated with all the editors who participated in the process of editing the article. Could you refer to any act which was not cooperative? (2) The article Principality of Nitra does not refer to the "southern Moravia" theory (3) That no archaeological finds substantiate the "sourthern Moravia" theory is clearly mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

To what passage of my above text do you refer with your question "why not"? To point 1: Sure you have, and I am very glad about it. But when you rework an article like the Principality of Nitra, it would be better to look for somebody who can read also the Czech and Slovak sources and make the whole article together. For example I would never try to make an article about Stephen I of Hungary without the help of Hungarian users, because I am not able to read the standard works in the Hungarian language. Do you understand what I mean? To point 2: If you write for example a sencence like Bowlus and Püspöki-Nagy refuse the identification of Pribina's Nitrava with Nitra, than it seems like this would be an equal possibility like all other theories, but in fact it is not. These historians refuse the identification of Nitrava with Nitra because they have a totally different understanding of the whole Moravian history in the Early Middle Ages, but their different understanding is seen as nonsence by the absolute majority of the experts. These sources can't be taken too seriously. All the same, they should be mentioned under a seperate chapter of the article. The same is true for Great Moravia. To point 3: That is right and I am glad about it :) --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, I do not understand your above point 1 and 2. Ad point 1: Please do not refrain from rewriting articles connected to the history of Hungary if you are convinced that they need improvement. Even if you do not have access to standard literature written in Hungarian, you can read a number of standard works written in English. If there were any secret knowledge hidden in Hungarian standard literature which is not accessible to other editors in reliable sources, it could be added by Hungarian editors. Ad point 2: There are only three nearly contemporaneous documents (probably or possibly) referring to Nitra in the 9th century. (a) the Conversion referring to Pribina's "Nitrava" without stating that it was conquered by the Moravians (b) a papal letter referring to Wiching as bishop of the see of Nitra (sancta ecclesia Nitrensis) (c) a letter from around 900 which clearly states that Wiching was appointed to a see in a land which had recently been conquered by Svatopluk. Accordingly, the theory that Nitra was not occupied before the 870s is not so feeble as you suggest. And its validity is independent of the location of Great Moravia. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Borsoka, with point 1 I just wanted to explain that in my opinion it is always important to use also the most important native works for an article (in this case Czech and Slovak works), and if a user is not able to use them because of a language barrier, it's a pitty. Ad point 2: As far as I know, no one of the authors who identify Nitrava natural with Nitra, challange that Nitra must have been under Moravian control by 833 at the latest. Unfortunately I haven't read yet Bowlus or Boba, but I am sure that they (and their followers) are the only ones who are doubtful of this matter. And this is the problem I meaned in point 1, because authors localizing Moravia north to the Danube have also explanations and theories about this complaint letter, which are widely accepted by the majority of experts. The same applies for text passages like these: According to Püspöki-Nagy and Senga, the same document's reference to the Merehanii – who obviously inhabited the southern regions of the Great Hungarian Plains – and their 30 fortresses shows the existence of an other Moravia in Central Europe. (Great Moravia, Development of Moravia (c. 800–846)) It seems like there wouldn't be a explanation for the localization of the Merehanii by the authors who hold the view that Moravia was north to the Danube. But there are widely accepted explanations by the majoritarian "north-to-the-Danube"-historians. That is the reason for why I think all the passages that are written in a context to intend to localize Moravia south to the Danube should be mentioned in a seperate chapter, because for every question there is also a traditional explanation. --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, thank you for your message. (1) I do not want to repeat myself, but I maintain that any editor who can read academic work written in Czech and Slovak can edit WP. (2) Any explanation for the 30 fortresses of the Merehanii (either widely accepted or only proposed by one or two scholars) could be added. (+1) I do not understand your last remark: there is a separate chapter for the "Further theories". Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is a seperate chapter, but the views of the "South-to-the-Danube"-Historians are cited in the whole artcles too equal with the other authors. Look at my last edite in the article Great Moravia relating to the Merehani, and you will see what I mean. Also sentences like "since Nitrava has been identified, although not unanimously, with modern Nitra in Slovakia, Pribina is considered to have ruled the large early medieval fortress excavated at that town" should be changed into "since Nitrava has been identified with modern Nitra in Slovakia (authors who localize Great Moravia south to the Danube refuse that), Pribina is considered to have ruled the large early medieval fortress excavated at that town". --Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carinthia (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) 12:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Regino

Could you please explain me why you deleted my contribution? I only cited and translated Bona's source ("Destroyed to earth"). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Because Bóna does not mention that Regino writes that Moravia was destroyed in 902, and Regino did not write that Moravia was destroyed in 902. Borsoka (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your very professional improvement of several articles about early Moravian/Slovak history, such as Great Moravia or the Principality of Nitra. This is no mean feat and I highly appreciate it! Trimnapaschkan (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trimnapaschkan, thank you for the barnstar. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Béla I of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry, Holy Roman Emperor (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) 10:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen I of Hungary

The article Stephen 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Stephen I of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Quadell, thank you for your review and for your suggestions. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solomon, King of Hungary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orthodox and Worms (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) 11:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Árpád

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Árpád 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 LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Feather Barnstar
		For your truly professional contributions and your efforts of bringing articles to good article status. Well done! KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Árpád

The article Árpád you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Árpád for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear LT910001, thank you for your hard work and cooperative approach. Have nice week! Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Géza I of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rus' (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) 11:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Álmos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Álmos 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 Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Álmos

The article Álmos 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Álmos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Álmos

The article Álmos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Álmos for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Álmos to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Khazar2, thank you for reviewing the article and assist to bring it to GA status. Have a nice weekend. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure--you too, Khazar2 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

re-Latinization

We should try to demonstrate somehow the state of the Romanian language before re-latinization. We should definitely mention the process of "re-Latinization". Cihac's work is still the best option. I do not understand why you deleted him even Boia cites him a lot. Actually there are no better works about 19th century than Cihac's studies....Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That is what I do not understand: the article is about the origin of the Romanians, that is about the ethnogenesis of the people. The 19th-20th-century re-latinization of the language is an important issue in the history of the Romanian language, but not in the process of the Romanian ethnogenesis. Similarly, the "nyelvújítás" process in the Hungarian language (which increased the ratio of old Hungarian words in the language) has nothing to do with the formation of the Hungarian people. Borsoka (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

However, the fact that Romanian language was influenced heavily by Slavic words indirectly supports certain theories in connection with Romanian ethogenesis. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. It is a fact that the Romanian language was heavily influenced by Slavic languages, but I do not know any theory which is supported by this fact. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If old Romanian had a very pronounced Slavic character, it can not be excluded that the settlements with Slavic names from early Transylvania were in fact populated by Romanians :D 86.127.22.112 (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if we accept that old Romanians always preferred to use other languages (Slavic, Turkic, Hungarian, German) when naming the rivers, settlements and mountains where they lived. Or they might have spoken 3-4 languages simultaneously and they enjoyed using the foreing idioms when naming their rivers, etc. Or they did not want to use words of Latin origin, because they did not understand them. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Answering to the question: for example, as opposed to the thesis of communist Romanian historiography which deliberately ignored any early Slavic influence, there was a huge Slavic impact on early Romanians. Another question when and where it did happen. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I remember, there is reference in the article to the strong Slavic influence on Romanian. Moreover, the article "History of Romanian" also emphasizes the Slavic influence. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it is true. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Cihac's work is quite controversial. Its scientific value was contested for instance in the 19th century by the philologist Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu and Boia recently remarked its errors. 79.117.166.203 (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter. There was an enormous Slavic influence on Romanian language. A huge amount of Romanian words are "relatinized". These things have to be emphasized far more. (Moreover, Cihac did not find any Dacian words in Romanian vocabulary) Fakirbakir (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What about this: List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin? 79.117.166.203 (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

All of them have alternative etymologies. That article is absolutely unreliable. Just read the first sentence "Below is a list of Romanian words believed by early scholars to be of Dacian origin, but which have since been attributed to other origins (Latin, Albanian, Slavic, Greek) in most cases"Fakirbakir (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"About 300 words found only in Romanian or with a cognate in the Albanian language may be inherited from Dacian. Some linguists and historians have asserted that Albanians are Dacians who were not Romanized and migrated southward" (Romanian_language#Dacian_language) 79.117.166.203 (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice citation but it needs source. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vasilko Rostislavich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rus' (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, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi. In your recent discussion, you talk of Curta writing about Dacians/ Romanians. Which article is that in ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not mention that Curta wrote about Dacians/Romanians. On the contrary, I stated that Curta did not write that the "Dacians" in Anna Comnena's Alexiade were identical with Romanians. Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake,I misread. Wishful thinking. Some new insights to the entire stale debate about Daco-Romanian continuity is much needed. Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Vlachs#History

Hi Borsoka, article of Vlachs has changed a lot recently and I think you should take a look at its sections (you know more of this subject than I do). Thank you. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Principality of Nitra

Dear Baffle gab1978, thank you for your work. I made three smaller edits. I hope the edit summaries make their reasons clear. Borsoka (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, please continue to correct any mistakes I may make (I try not to, but nobody's perfect!). Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Gesta Hungarorum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gesta

Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Torda

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

GA

My apologies friend, it shouldn't be.Please strip it off.RRD13 (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Renaming

Please see my proposal to rename Category:Hungarian prehistory Hugo999 (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ladislaus I of Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (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) 09:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ottomány culture

Could you please take a look at the recent edits here? Many thanks. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. :) My first impression is that it lacks reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zoltán of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zoltán 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 LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 09:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear LT910001, thank you for starting the review. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taksony of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taksony 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 Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Royroydeb, thank you for starting the review. I will be busy in my real life in the next 2 weeks, but I try to react for your suggestions as soon as possible. Merry Christmas (or happy year end) for you. Borsoka (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!

Ezúton szeretnék kellemes ünnepeket és sikerekben és szerkesztésekben gazdag új esztendőt kívánni. :) Üdvözlettel, Norden1990 (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taksony of Hungary

The article Taksony of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Taksony of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zoltán of Hungary

The article Zoltán of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zoltán of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)