Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 6 February 2010

Welcome

Hello, Borsoka! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Misplaced Pages you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Closedmouth (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Noticeboard

Hi and welcome. I wonder if you are a Hungarian (judging by your contributions, it seems likely) – in that case, you could watchlist Misplaced Pages:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to add a note there whenever you need help with something Hungary-related. Thanks a lot for your contributions. Cheers, KissL 11:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged Archidiocese of Veszprém into Archdiocese of Veszprém

Hey Borsoka, I've merged two pages you've created since they were duplicate. If you want people to find one page by the name of another you can use redirects, specifically Template:R from misspelling. Anyway, have fun editing Misplaced Pages! -- StevenDH (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Archdiocese of Veszprém moved to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Veszprém, so I changed the redirect target of Archidiocese of Veszprém. Just in case anybody would be confused or so... -- StevenDH (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent articles on the Roman Catholic dioceses in Hungary. I've updated and incorporated them along with others. Thank you very much. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia

Hi, regarding this edit . Could you please provide source? You did not provide any. Which primary source do you mean? At least that edit is badly formatted please correct it and add a reliable source for that citation. For example which book did you use? ≈Tulkolahten≈ 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the primary source is Emperor Constantin's De Administrando Imperio. If you think that it is not reliable, please delete the first sentence of the section.Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

History of Slovakia

Please stop inserting inaccurate information and removing sourced information. For sources, see: , .--Svetovid (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Svetovid is under editing restrictions and should not have reverted you. He also should not have referred to your edit as "vandalism", and for what it's worth, I apologize about that. Svetovid's account access has been blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Borsoka, we are currently discussing some disputed issues around articles related to Hungarian-Slovak relations. You are welcome to join in, at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --Elonka 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottokár Prohászka

Hi, in your vote in the proposed naming convention poll you commented that it may not work in e.g. the Ottokár Prohászka article. According to the current proposal, his birth town would be rendered as "Nyitra (Nitra)", since he was born before 1918, and I suppose he was Hungarian (was he?). If he wasn't clearly Hungarian, it could be "Nyitra (Nitra)" or "Nitra (Nyitra)".

But, there are several proposed modifications to the proposal, tagged "A", "B", etc., see under "discussion". If you like, you can comment on these modifications. I think I'll rewrite the poll to a vote about the modifications one of these days. Markussep 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

His name is clearly not Hungarian, he was born in a city predominantly inhabited by Slovaks, and he became the Bishop of Székesfehérvár. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Nicolas Sarkozy hungarian? No, he is French, despite his hungarian name. Was Ottokár Prohászka slovak? No, he was hungarian, a hungarian bishop, a hungarian politician as well, he created the idea of "hungarism" so he was hungarian. And in Nyitra hungarians were in majority at this time. Slovak people think, that everybody is slovak who has slovak or czech name. I'm sorry, but you are not right. Toroko (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Pribina

Hi, did you edit this article as an anon with IPs 213.134.24.184 (talk · contribs) and 213.134.29.185 (talk · contribs)?--Svetovid (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Borsoka, could you please explain this edit? You removed what appear to be valid sources from the article, but without giving reasoning for it at the talkpage. We've been working hard lately to reduce these kinds of actions. In the future, please be careful that whenever you make a controversial edit, that you discuss it at talk. And be very careful about removing references. If you cannot provide excellent reasons for why those references are inappropriate, they should be put back right away. --Elonka 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elonka. Thank you for your note. My concern is that if we refer to a primary source (i.e., to the "Conversio") in the article, we should clearly distinguish between the facts described in the source (i.e., "a certain Priwina" had a possession in Nitrava and he was expelled by Duke Moimir) and their interpretation (e.g., Pribina was the prince of the Principality of Nitrava, where he had a court). Otherwise, we would mislead all the readers of the article who could think that the cited primary source covers all the facts described in the article. If my concern is valid, I am sure we could find a proper way to distinguish between documented facts and their interpretation. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you edit the article History of Slovakia as an anon IP 213.134.24.123 (talk · contribs)?--Svetovid (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Sorry I forgot to log in. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

--Elonka 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia

Dear Borsoka, thank you very much for your contributions to Great Moravia. I think we have done a lot of work there and the article seems to be more or less stable now. I am happy that our different sources of information did not cause an edit war, but, instead, lead to fruitful collaboration. I believe insistence on citing reliable academic sources and the efficient (and civil) use of the article's talk page made the trick. I hope other editors writing about the Hungarian and Slovak history will learn from our example. It has been a pleasure to work with you. Tankred (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

Borsoka, would you be willing to create a userpage, at User:Borsoka? I find that it's something that can help increase trust in confrontational situations. Or is there a reason that you would not like to create one? --Elonka 20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Inline citations

The best way to make sure your changes remain in the article is to add inline citations for every sentence. Squash Racket (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:vandalism

Hi Borsoka - I'm sorry about mistaking your edit for vandalism. Please continue with your contributions, Vishnava _talk 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re

Hi. Unfortunately I have little time on my hands right now and I'll be quite busy untill the end of August I don't have time to complete a re-organization of the Origins... article. Should you create a subpage to your talk page and start sketching it I may drop from time to time to add stuff. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I tried to send you a message, but you do not have an email address. For the time being, I do not have much time, but we could begin the article. Let's try how it can work, I hope that we can agree on the wording. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Először is 18 vagyok. 2. MIÓTA VOLT SZLOVÁK NEMES???? A CSÁK NEMZETSÉG ELŐDIG MEGY VISSZA!!!!!!!!4 Mi a faszom hogy slovak nobility??, NINCS NEM LÉTEZETT!!! Nem volt nemességük, egy szarházi irigy pásztor nép a legyenelek, rutének és csehek meg német meg persze magyarok keverékei......én csak az igazságot raktam be. és az tény h a honfoglalók hozták be az a kép bizonyítja MIRŐL BESZÉLSZ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aztán a Cseszneky név is eléggé "szlovák".........attól hogy abban a még nem tót helyen uralkodott pl Csák Máté SEMMI KÖZE A SZLOVÁKOKHOZ!!! KIK ŐK???????? HAMISÍTJÁK ITT A TÖRTÉNELEMET VÉGIG.........

Aztán Mátyás Király és román (félig) MI HE????????, Az ilyen hazugságokkal kellene foglalkoznod NEM PEDIG VELEM, aki kiszed tót soviniszta baromságokat............

Üdvözletem.......

The problem

I understand now what the problem was but don't worry about it I'll fix it. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Üdv. Mi a fenének írod vissza Csákhoz, hogy history of slovakia??? Akkor még alig ovltak szlávok, semmi közük nincs hozzá. Tehet arról az a szerencsétlen Csák, hogy 600 évvel később ellopták a földjét a tetves tótok??????? Magyar Királyság olyan volt, de szlovákia sosem volt, se önálló szlovák nemzeti öntudat, csak 48 tól, az is az osztrákok nymására... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagyarTürk (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I will do my best to contribute. Whatever contributions I will make actually concern the early kingdom, the Legend of St. Gerald and so on. Concerning extremists, let's not talk about that. I've had my share when editing protochronism related articles on ro.wiki. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Maybe we should improve the article on the Gesta before moving to anything else. I also think you should be carefull when making general appreciations of the chronicle. Several aspects of the Gesta are considered quite accurate: the Achtum (Ajtony) episode, for example. The whole story about the descendents of Tuhtum rulling as gyulas in Transylvania, one of which converted to orthodoxy is at least partly confirmed by Byzantine sources and it is descifered in one manner or another even by Hungarian historians. In fact the one part which is completely, firmly and utterly rejected by Hungarian historians is the one concerning the dutchies of Menumorout and Gelou (particularly the latter). In fact, in his Early Transylvania (895-1324) recently translated in Romanian by Imre Paska, Kristo Gyula states that what Anonymus says about the Hungarians themselves can, in general manner, be taken into consideration.

Oh, and yes, one of my ... enthusiast compatriots has been going throug the Korochun article, please take a look. From my point, reverting to the ante-quo article is the best solution. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress material

You removed the nice summary of the Library of Congress, but left there material regarding the same topic, but based on weaker and/or less neutral sources. Squash Racket (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine. You add enough inline citations from reliable sources when writing articles. Please also focus on adding English language references too whenever possible. These are easier to verify for those who don't speak Hungarian. Squash Racket (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Romania in the Early Middle Ages

We get edit conflicts if we edit simultaneously. I just got one when I tried a second edit. In such cases we lose the results of each one's tedeous work. Hence I will let you go first and will not edit for several hours. cheers, Dc76\ 10:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina

Hi, I am having a report on Rjecina again, because he is accusing me of socketpupets and falsifies historical articles on Misplaced Pages. I see that you are active on Misplaced Pages and also interested in history. Please, could you leave a comment on my report on what your take is on this issue. I would really appreciate it. See link to report on my talk page. Thanks.--Bizso (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, Borsoka. I'm asking you to please stop the "obvious vandalism" edit summaries. Read WP:VAN and only use this edit summary when it's valid. See a recent block partly because of that wrong edit summary ("you incorrectly labeled his edits as vandalism"). This is a good faith request, I don't want you to have problems with a random admin who doesn't know anything about you, only judges you based on a recent edit summary.
Suggestion: use "rv. unconstructive edits" or something similar instead. Squash Racket (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

About Coloman's mother

Coloman-Current revision as of 16:27, 16 March 2009 by Borsoka: "It is a brand new theory. Yes, his mother's name was probably Sofia, but she was not Croatian."

Brand new theory?? There is no theory here.. His mother's name was Sofia and she was sister of croatian king Dmitar Zvonimir. Does it matter was she Hungarian, Croatian or maybe Jew? That sounds little nationalistic... --Dvatel (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason is

Hi Borsoka. The reason is that he was the King of Hungary, he was not the king of Croatia because it was part of Hungary, but i think you knew this. Toroko (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka. Thanks for the answer. First i have to say, that i have no problem with Slovak or Croatian people, i don't want to argue with anybody, i hate arguing. What you said, i respect, and i always wrote that Croatia had autonomy, led by a ban, and later they had an own parliament. And i alwys wrote "King of Croatia" in the titles. But it was just a title, and the hungarian king was the king of the Kingdom of Hungary, there were no separate kingdoms. I think every problem should be fixed, so this is the reason, why i did what i did. Toroko (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His concerns are partially valid. There is a debate going on among historians over the true nature of Hungary-Croatia relations. See articles Pacta conventa (Croatia) and Croatia in personal union with Hungary and the many academic, English references listed for details. Squash Racket (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I respect their feelings. But i always want to be consequent, and because of that i see and follow those habits, which are here in wikipedia. For example look at the Czech( Bohemian kings). They are mentioned as "King of Bohemia" and rhis is the right mentioning. Bohemia conssited of Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia and Czech Silesia. So if i should write " King of hungary, king of Croatia, King of Damlmatia, ... then Czechs should write: "king of Bohemia, king of Moravia, etc. But they wrote it absolutely correctly, so they wrote "King of Bohemia". Because the hole was Bohemia, so they did the right thing. This is the same about Hungary. The ruler was only "King of Hungary", the other was just titles, territories within Hungary like in Bohemia. So i took a lot of time to show the correct titles and the correct denomination of the ruler, in order to respect everybody's feelings, follow the wiki habits, and edit well. But thanks for the observation. Toroko (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Borsoka. The Hungarian kings were only "King of Hungary". They were no kings of Croatia. Whether you accept it or not. I gave English reliable, sources. Look, probably you are Slovak, so maybe you don't like Hungarians. I said earlier, i have no problem with you, and any other Slovaks. I don't want to argue with you. Even if you hate us, just because we are Hungarians. It was quite underhand that you peeped about me, whithout i knew it. But i don't care about it. I didn't delete any Croatian sources, i deleted only what was not true, so there is no problem. If you hate Hungarians, you can do, if you hate me, just do it, but he was only, the King of Hungary, there is no question about it, only in Croatia, and only in the mind of some Croatian, who can't bear what happened earlier, lots of hunderds of years ago. Nobody can change the history, because it has already happened. It is very ugly not to bear it and try to do something against it. This is my last sentence. Toroko (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Award!

You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Merit" because you continue to write new articles on Ukrainian topics - such as the Rurik dynasty - and because you actively participate in the Misplaced Pages community. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

Hey. Just to let you know I put this good article nominee on hold; there's just a few things that need fixing. Should be a GA upon completion of these. Wizardman 02:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Szia!

Remélem beszéled a magyar nyelvet, de ha nem akkor természetesen lefordítom neked angolra a következőket.

Szóval csak annyi lenne, hogy már egy ideje szemmel tartom a magyar vonatkozású szerkesztéseidet (köztük a keleti szomszédunk eredetével foglalkozót, ugye érted :) és pusztán gratulálni szeretnék kitartó és igényes munkáidhoz. Ez utóbbi is nagyszerű! Ha esetleg szükséged lenne segítségre ne habozz, írj bátran. Üdv,--B@xter 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

-- Ευπάτωρ 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RE

Hi

Hi there. I have noted you have made many large expansions to articles related to the Origin of Romanians. First I would like to say I appreciate your dedication to add more information to WP. Second, I would like to make two observations related to many of your edits. You removed most interpretations that fit Anonymous' Gesta. My first observation is: 1) not everything that fits with Gesta should be a priori assumed to come from Gesta. You seem to make such conclusions very often. 2) While Gesta's interpretation is just a view, it is a legitimate view, and IMHO should not be simply removed, but properly attributed instead. Roesler's theory is also just a view, but is kept as a view, not removed every time. Otherwise texts tend to simply say "my view is correct, other views are wrong." Undoubtedly, some interpretations are more accepted by historians than others (Origine of Romanians from Romanized Dacians over Roesler's Theory, Gesta's incorrectness over Gesta's correctness), but deleting concurrent interpretations leads nowhere constructive. Thank you very much if you could, please, consider adjusted the edits you made/make in this sense. Dc76\ 12:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dc76! I received your email, and thank you for it. But, unfortunatelly, it is not clear for me. Would you, please, specify what are my edits you referred to. Sorry, I cannot remember that I made any edits in connection with the article Gesta Ungarorum, but I may be wrong. Or I misunderstood your email. Regards Borsoka (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Dacia

Thank you for you response. I wanted to provide some materials that would help to clarify. I agree with your point of view Blurall (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungary-related articles

I just wish you would be similarly interested in improving History of Hungary articles. Some of them are begging for a rewrite/proper references. Happy New Year in case I'm not late with that. Squash Racket (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message. I have been collecting books on the history of Hungary written in English; so sooner or later, I will continue to edit those articles as well. For the time being, sincerely, I am more interested in editing articles in connection with the history of the Rus' principalities, Cilician Armenia and Romania - and I managed to buy some really good books on these topics. Happy New Year for you and for yours, as well. Borsoka (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

your reverts on Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please understand that texts that do not document the Origin of the Romanians do not belong to the article. Please understand that the article has to comply with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. I will report you on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Criztu (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)