User talk:Borsoka/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Your GA nomination of Menumorut

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Menumorut 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian History

Hi Borsoka! I saw that You are interested in Hungarian History, especially in the Middle Ages. Here is a book of János Bollók,prof of Latin language, translator of many medieval texts. Hope You find it useful: http://honlap.eotvos.elte.hu/uploads/documents/kiadvanyok/Philologia_Nostra_beliv.pdf

--Ltbuni (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ltbuni, thank you. I am sure I can use some of the articles (especially about Anonymus and the saints of the Árpád dynasty). BUÉK. Borsoka (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Kontár barátunk, hivatkozásaidból tudjuk hogy te csak egy "2-3 könyves" szerkesztő vagy

Kedves kontár barátunk, hivatkozásaidból tudjuk hogy te csak egy "2-3 könyves" szerkesztő vagy. Ráadásul csak pár külföldi "ismeretterjesztő" szintű könyvet használsz referenciaként, nem pedig valódi specializált szakkönyveket tankönyveket melyeket egyetemi oktatás során alkalmaznak történész hallgatók számára. (talán nem nagyon férhetsz hozzá a google books-on tankönyvekhez :))) Bár ezért nem hibáztathatlak.

Egyik kedvenced Az Engel Pali könyve. Róla tudni kell hogy egy főiskolai oklevelet szerzett ELTE történelem-könyvtár szakán, ami elvileg általános iskolások tanítására volt elegendő. Ettől magasabb képzettséget soha nem szerzett. Ilyen is csak a szocializmusban fordulhatott elő hogy egy autodidakta történészt akadémikussá koronáznak, ez egy nyugati országban elképzelhetetlen lett volna képzettség tudományos fokozatok vizsgák letétele megszerzése nélkül.

Látod belekontárkodtál a "Hungarian prehistory" cikkbe. Ez egy gyorsan változó képlékeny téme, ne használjad olyan történészek műveit akik 2000-es évek előtt írták könyveiket, mivel számos elméletet már megdöntött a genetika (pl: nagycsalád elmélet megdőlt) , a fosszíliákból kinyert haplocsoportok is mást mutatnak mint a korábbi feltételezések. Megdöntötték a magyarok jurtában élésének elméletét is.--Wurtler (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Óh, már megint itt vagy. Örülök, mert az üzeneteid mindig nagyon szórakoztatóak. Kérlek, ne fogd vissza magad. Oszd meg velem végtelen bölcsességedet, hogy ne maradjak ennyire buta, elmaradott. Mellesleg, javaslom, hogy olvasgasd ezt. Borsoka (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Megosztanám szívesen bölcsességemet, de az sajnos évekig tartana (míg népiesen szólva "kikupálnálak"), lévén proletár vagy paraszt leszrmazott vagy. De most térjünk a tárgyra:

Kedves három-könyves barátom, mi a fenének törölted ki az I. Károly cikkből az adók fajtáit? Mégis mi a **** bajod van velük? (Az új gazdaságpolitika részre gondolok). Nem törölgetni kellene a listát, hanem ha nem tetszik (mert tudsz attól jobbat, részletesebbet is) akkor kibővíteni a felsorolást.--31.46.83.250 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Olvasgasd a szócikk szerkesztéstörténetét. Nem én töröltem ki az adók fajtáit. Viszont előbb-utóbb kitöröltem volna. Ahhoz, hogy megértsd ennek az okát, el kell olvasnod néhány WP politikát. A WP politikák olyan közösségi szabályok, amelyeket minden szerkesztőnek célszerű ismernie, mert egyébként úgy jár, ahogy te szoktál járni: eleinte kiröhögnek, majd amikor már unalmassá válik, hogy állandóan ismételgeted a szokásos marhaságaidat, elzavarnak. E WP politikák közül a legfontosabb a következő: WP:NOR. Ez arról szól, hogy nem csak úgy beleírogatunk a nagyvilágba, hanem hivatkozást is adunk minden egyes mondatunkhoz, mégpedig mindig úgynevezett megbízható forrásra kell hivatkoznunk. Ha már elolvastad és megértetted a két említett fontos WP politikát, folytathatjuk a párbeszédet. Kérlek, szánjál az elolvasásukra legalább 3 napot, mivel számodra nehezen érthető lesz a szövegük. Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ne légy már butuska proletár származék barátom! Sosem írtam marhaságot wikin. Ahogy ez a lista sem marhaság. (Te vagy barátaid törölték ki a hivatkozást onnan. ) A lista ismeretlen számodra (ami simple fact minden Magyarországon tanult embernek). Felvetődik a kérdés: Jártál te valaha magyar általános suliba? vagy gimibe?

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis I of Hungary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kingdom of Poland and Banate. 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) 09:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Menumorut

The article Menumorut you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Menumorut for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emeric, King of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emeric, King 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emeric, King of Hungary

The article Emeric, King 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Emeric, King of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Emeric, King of Hungary

The article Emeric, King of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Emeric, King of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Béla III of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Béla III 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus III of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ladislaus III 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 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Louis 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Miért törölted ki a Károly cikkből az adónemeket?

Kedves "három könyves" barátom. Gondolom te nem érettsgiztél Magyarországon, hiszen akkor tudhatnád: a kötelező érettségi tételek között szerepel a Károly Róbert gazdasági reformjai és új adónemei. (Általános iskolai töri könyveknek is tananyaga).

Angol nyelven tett Magyar történelem vizsga tételekre felkészítő:

http://www.doksi.hu/get.php?order=DisplayPreview&lid=12800&p=4&user_lang=en

http://erettsegizz.com/tortenelem/anjou-kings-charles-robert/

Magyar nyelvű Magyar töri érettségi tételekre felkészítő anyagokban :

http://www.muszakikiado.hu/files/Letoltesek/kidolgozott_tetelek_emelt_szintu_tortenelem_szobeli_erettsegihez_1fejezet_vizjel.pdf

http://www.antiskola.eu/hu/beszamolo-beszamolok-puskak/12464-anjou-reformok

http://dezs.extra.hu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=920

http://eduline.hu/segedanyagtalalatok/letolt/4167

http://erettsegi.org/az-erett-feudalizmus-magyarorszagon-a-xiv-szazadban/

Azon három csupán az "általános ismeretterjesztő" (bárki is írja azokat) kategóriába tartozó könyvből igényes szerkesztő nem írhat cikkeket. Ha végigolvastad azokat a könyveket amire hivatkozol, rájöhettél volna hogy még egy Magyar érettségin is részletesebben követelnek történelemből témákat. Egy emeltszintű vagy régebben központi érettséginek nevezett vizsgát sem lehetne ezen könyvek segítségével lerakni. Valójában történelem iránt érdeklődő külföldieknek készültek, nem tudományos szintű, hanem általános ismeretterjesztő jelleggel. Arra jók csupán hogy az olvasója (aki lehet történész is de nem MAgyarország a szakterülete) "képbe legyen" valamennyire Magyarországgal kapcsolatban.--84.0.217.108 (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Olvasd már el a szócikket figyelmesen: szerepel benne a bányabérre és a kapuadóra történő hivatkozás. Szintén olvasd el, mit jelent az, hogy "reliable source". Ne haragudj, nem lehet komolyan venni azt, aki azon a szinten van, hogy az interneten összebogarászott cikkekből tanulja a történelmet. Borsoka (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Miért kellene komolyan venni ismeretterjesztő színvonalon álló / terjedelmű könyveket, amiből egy töri érettségi felkészülésre sem elgendő? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Mivel megbízható forrásnak minősülnek a wikipedia szempontjai szerint. Ennyire egyszerű. Nem akarlak nagyon sokkolni, de a történelem érettségi ugyan fontos dolog, de önmagában nem mérvadó 2015-ben. Majd te is rájössz erre, ha túl leszel az érettségin. Ha Jóska Pista összeállít egy (szerinte) a történelem érettségire felkészítő, leegyszerrűsített irományt, majd azt elhelyezi a világhálón, ez nem jelenti azt, hogy az iromány alkalmassá vált arra, hogy hivatkozzunk rá, amikor a wikipediát szerkesztjük. Javasolom, hogy menj el egy közkönyvtárba, meséld el a könyvtáros néninek/bácsinak, hogy szeretnéd a wikipediát szerkeszteni. Biztos vagyok benne, hogy segíteni fog neked, és ajánl valamilyen egyszerű, olvasmányos könyvet. Ne ijedj meg, ha folyamatos szöveg lesz benne, nem csak tárgyszavak, felsorolások - ez már majdnem biztos jele annak, hogy megbízható forrásra akadtál. Figyeld meg, néhány nap után akár több oldalnyi tömör szöveget is el tudsz olvasni fáradság nélkül, és ha sokat gyakorlod, még emlékezni is fogsz arra, mit olvastál. Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kedves Három könyves barátom! Senki sem akart érettségi felkészítőket referenciaként beszúrni a szövegbe. Egy központi érettségihez (most emeltszintű) töriből többet kell tudni mint ami ilyen rövid ismeretterjesztő könyvekben (fizikailag) elférhet. Megismétlem, talán így megérted: Arra jók csupán hogy az olvasója (aki lehet történész is de nem MAgyarország a szakterülete) "képbe legyen" valamennyire Magyarországgal kapcsolatban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nem értem. Ha nem akarsz hivatkozni érettségi felkészítőkre, milyen célból helyezted el a fenti, érettségi felkészítőkre vonatkozó hivatkozásokat ezen a lapon? Személyes véleményed egyes történészekről esetleg érdekes lehet a kis pajtásaid számára, de a wikipedia szempontjából érdektelen. Megismétlem: amíg egy könyv megbízható forrásnak számít a wikipedia szempontjából, használható és hivatkozható. Ha úgy gondolod, hogy valamelyik általam hivatkozott könyv nem felel meg a megbízható forrás fogalmának, akkor itt indíthatsz egy vitát ebben a témakörben. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Az egyetemi történészképzésről ne is beszéljünk (gondolom történelemből egyetemen sosem vizsgáztál, és nem vagy történész sem), hiszen ott részletesen oktatott tantárgyanként komolyabb egyetemi tankönyvek vannak. Mikor látod be végre hogy ismeretterjesztő könyvek nem elég professzionálisak márcsak általános voltuk, (PLegy egész ország vagy korszak történetét próbálják vázolni) és terjedelmük miatt sem lehetnek azok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Már megint kényszeresen ismételgeted a saját gondolataidat. Tényleg csak egy üggyel tudsz foglalkozni, kizárólag egy ügy körül keringsz, csak egy ügyed van: megpróbálod bizonygatni, hogy azok a források, amelyeket minden más szerkesztő megbízhatónak tart, valójában nem megbízhatóak, és ezzel kapcsolatban üres kinyilatkoztatásokat teszel. Természetesen bármikor bármilyen egyetemi tankönyvet felhasználhatsz a wikipedia szerkesztése közben, feltéve, hogy hivatkozol rá (szerző, cím, kiadás éve, kiadó, ISBN és oldalszám). Itt megtanulhatod, hogyan lehet a felhasznált forrásokra hivatkozni. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Nagy Lajos cikkét is össze trollkodtad, logikátlan masszává alakult a struktúra

Tanultál földrajzot? Olvassad el Wars in the Balkans (1358–1370) és The Neapolitan campaigns szekciók szövegeinek többsége nem is abban a régiókban történtek meg, így félrevezető még a címük is. JAvaslom hogy tisztítsd meg, gondold át a struktúrát, legyenek összhangban a szekció -címekkel. Tudom munka lenne egy következetes gondos szövegátcsoportosítás, deha trollkodni volt energiád, akkor erre is illendő volna hogy legyen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.131.121 (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) Olvasd el még egyszer a "The Neapolitan campaigns" részt, figyelmesen. Szerintem meg fogsz lepődni. (2) Mi lenne szerinted a megfelelő cím a "Wars in the Balkans" helyett? (3) Célszerű lenne, ha a szócikk vitalapján tennél javaslatokat, hogy minden érintett szerkesztő hozzá tudjon szólni. Tudod, ez lenne a civilizált (=helyes, normál emberek körében szokásos) megközelítés. A stílusodról nyilvánvalóan nem tehetsz. Ne félj, ha valaki emiatt kezdene kötözködni veled, igyekezlek megvédeni. De valószínűleg a szerkesztők túlnyomó többsége megértéssel viszonyul majd hozzád. (4) Próbálj konkrét javaslatokat tenni (a szócikk vitalapján): ezt és ezt kellene módosítani, ezért és ezért. Meg kell értened, hogy a wikipedia egy emberi közösség, mindenféle furcsa szabályokkal, amelyeket be kell tartani. Ha valaki nem tartja be a szabályt, akkor valamilyen jogkövetkezménnyel (=büntetés) kell számolnia. Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ladislaus the Posthumous page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Béla III of Hungary

The article Béla III of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Béla III of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus III of Hungary

The article Ladislaus III of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ladislaus III of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 3family6 -- 3family6 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Magyar reneszánsz cikk

Nincs Hungarian Renaissance cikk , pedig még a horvátoknak is van saját reneszánsz cikkük az angol wikin.--Buzicezarka (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Írjál. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Matthias conquered Styria

HAbsburgs lost the control over most of Austria. Why do you repeat the lower Austria term? Mert a 3 könyves műveltségbe már nem fér bele?, vagy nem említette neked az autodidakta Engel Pali bácsi (aki még törtész képzésben sem részesült, és jó "szocialista módra" vizsgák tudományos címek megszerzése nélkül nélkül akadémikus lett? Ellenben a pártgyűléseket bezzeg az iskolapad helyett sűrűn látogatta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzicezarka (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and WP:Source. Próbálj már meg normális szerkesztő módjára viselkedni: olvass, hivatkozz, és ne össze-vissza írkálj mindenfélét a világhálón összegyűjtögetett érettségi felkészítőidből. Ha pedig nem tudod, mi a különbség Austria és az Archduchy of Austria között, akkor ne használd ezeket a fogalmakat. Értem én, hogy a te kis világodban nem elég, ha Mátyás Lower Austriát hódítja meg, ha van egy Archduchy of Austria is, de ettől még utána nézhetnél a fogalmak közötti különbségnek mielőtt nekiesel egy szócikknek. Borsoka (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Nevetséges hogy ki akarsz oktatni a wiki használatából engemet aki már 2006 óta szerkeszt itt az n+1 álnéven. Ugyan már, nézz rá a térképre Mátyás halála után. Hiába veszek elő neked oxford university press könyveket akadémikus szerzőktől, mivel az nem fér bele a "3könyves univerzumodba". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.218.25 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) Még mindig nem érted. Teszek még egy próbát: Stájerország nem része és nem volt része az Osztrák Főhercegségnek. (2) Sajnos, 9 év alatt nem sikerült elsajátítanod a WP alapvető szabályait, de én nem adom fel. Lehet, hogy neked tetszik, hogy már évek óta az az egyetlen szereped ebben a közösségben, hogy össze-vissza köpködsz és grimaszolsz a kis csörgősipkádban mások mulattatására, de ebből ki lehet nőni. (3) Próbálkozz, hátha nem kapok szívszélhűdést, ha el kell olvasnom egy Oxford University Press kiadványt. Lehet, hogy már az akadémikusokról is hallottam. Borsoka (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Corvinus cikkben a kitiltott dákóromán "jási" barátod revertált éppen téged.

Próbáld meg aláírni az üzeneteidet. Érdekes, hogy a civilizálatlan viselkedés miatt kitiltott szerkesztők mindig megtalálnak. Már feltűnt, hogy te vagy az egyetlen közöttük, aki azt állítja magáról, hogy magyar. A többiek mind a délkeleti régióból érkeztek. Őszintén szólva, nem tartom túlzottan fontosnak a kis lelki társad által törölt részt: én csak azért nyúltam hozzá, mivel te előtte belerondítottál a szövegbe, és ki kellett javítani. Ha majd valaki fontosnak tartja, visszaírja. By the way, do you use google translator when communicating in Hungarian? Sometimes your sentences remind me to Priscus of Panium's report of "Zerkon, the Moorish dwarf" whose words "were a confused jumble of Latin, Hunnic, and Gothic" [1]. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Menumorut

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

... for the kind words on WT:GOCE/REQ (I hadn't been watching it :-)). Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 00:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus I of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ladislaus I 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Emeric, King of Hungary

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Béla III of Hungary

Hello! Your submission of Béla III of Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine ✍ 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus I of Hungary

The article Ladislaus 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ladislaus I of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus I of Hungary

The article Ladislaus I of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ladislaus I of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bolokhoveni

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bolokhoveni 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 Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bolokhoveni

The article Bolokhoveni you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Bolokhoveni for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bolokhoveni

The article Bolokhoveni you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bolokhoveni for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Caponer -- Caponer (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Géza II of Hungary, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Imperial Diet and Crema. 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) 09:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Gelou

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ladislaus the Posthumous

Hi Borsoka!, I really enjoy your improve in the article of King Ladislaus of Hungary and Bohemia. I hope could meade my improves in the same level that you!...Congratulations! Aldebaran69 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Aldebaran69, thank you for your kind words. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mary, Queen 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:

• {{sfn|Fügedi|1986|pp=103-104}} Qeen Elizabeth and Nicholas Garay decided to get rid of Charles.{{sfn|Engel|2001|p=198}{{sfn|Fügedi|1986|p=106}}{{sfn|Csukovits|2012|p=121}} They persuaded [[
• 1991|p=157}} The wounded King Charles was carried to [[Visegrád]] where he died on 24 February.{{sfn|Engel|2001|p=198}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Bolokhoveni

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Béla III of Hungary

Harrias ^talk 00:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ladislaus I of Hungary

Hello! Your submission of Ladislaus I of Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ladislaus III of Hungary

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foundation of Moldavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarai. 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) 08:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Andrew II of Hungary

I left a couple of {{clarify}} tags and corresponding comments for you to look at. Thanks! --Biblioworm 21:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm, thank you for your thorough copyedit. I tried to clarify the issues you marked and made some minor changes. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ladislaus I of Hungary

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Boris Kalamanos

About Talk:Boris Kalamanos, thanks for you repliy on my short review, but although would continue the discussion here or somewhere else, asked at WP:ANI for removal or re-arrangement of comments because it's useless making new section or replying to each other when ignoring and editing his comments won't help anyhow to stop this...--Crovata (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I am pretty sure that he will be banned from WP within a couple of days. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't have time this days to respond you; (1) shouldn't WikiProject Greece, Poland, Ukraine be removed from the talk page? (2) yes, as far I read the 18th century source and 19-20th century historians somehow did identify Ban Borić of Bosnia with Boris Kalamanos because of the similarity of their names. What's interesting that while we don't know Ban Borić past we do of Boris Kalamanos, and yet Boris Kalamanos cite took part in the campaign of the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos against the Kingdom of Hungary, and during the campaign he led an army pillaging the southern parts of the kingdom (around 1150). He is believed to have died by 1154, in exile., while in that exact year Borić cite As the Hungarian crown's domination over Bosnia grew, Borić became its supporter and was by 1154 made a Hungarian Viceroy of Bosnia and instated with the title of Ban of the newly created Banate of Bosnia ... Borić is mentioned for the first time in 1154, during the Byzantine-Hungarian War. As a Hungarian vassal, he took part, alongside a Bohemian detachment, in the attack on Byzantine-held Braničevo. He had assisted Palatine Beloš in the attack. Byzantine Emperor Manuel I dispatched a squadron of troops towards Belgrade, to cross the river Sava and chase the Hungarian army, but it was defeated.

There exist interesting connection, so as said, it's plausible, but needs further research for confirmation (3) as far the modern historiography, I have not yet researched what's their view, so if find this week or two will reply more in detail on article talk page. Mostly didn't had time because as was engaded in the discussion about Ban Borić, remembered that in sandbox for over a year had saved revision about the Ban (title). I don't know what to do with this revision (which still has to be edited) and asked for User:F. Blaschke opinion, but I don't think he read and understood the point in the discussion over a year ago (or wasn't interested). So if you have time, would like to hear your opinion on my latest reply, was it active in discussion or your's or mine talk page. Thanks.--Crovata (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. If there was a theory in the 17th-19th centuries we could mention it. However, it cannot be mentioned as a fact, because it was only a scholarly POV. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations to your effort and great work at Boris Kalamanos article! Would note that I'm losing hope to find modern historiography source which mentions and discuss this scholarly POV. Will contact Zoupan if has any other further information on this issue, and perhaps we could bring all this quotes together again and finally conclude the discussion. Must say, as my editors pov, although this year 1154 looks interesting, it is doubtful (if it's true, then it opens whole new door and need for explanation) that Kalamanos who was all his life fighting against Hungarian throne to suddenly under the name Borić became very close to the respective throne. It is quite unbelievable. Would note this article, on Wikipedia with ultra-nationalist oriented ideology.--Crovata (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foundation of Moldavia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mureș. 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) 08:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew II of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew II 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 Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Kisa (chieftain)

Hi! Do you have any information on Kisa (chieftain)?--Zoupan 15:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have. Actually, I am pretty sure that I have not read of him. Borsoka (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boris Kalamanos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leopold III of Austria. 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) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew II of Hungary

The article Andrew II 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Andrew II of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Hungarians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

J^♯m, I suggest you to check the revision history again. User:Borsoka violated nothing. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar for You!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Andrew II of Hungary to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work!  — ₳aron 09:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew II of Hungary

The article Andrew II of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew II of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary.
Message added 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — ₳aron 20:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka

Hi Borsoka, I am currently working on the Georgian printing press history and a person who did play his role there is mentioned a person with a name Mikhai Ishtvanovich who happened to be a Hungarian. What I wanted to know is how exactly his name and surname is written originally in Hungarian language (I think it should be a Hungarian surname) so maybe as you're a native Hungarian could you help with this issue here? Thanks. Jaqeli 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jaqeli, he was born in Wallachia, according to a source that I found (Haiman György: Tótfalusi grúz betűinek nyomában). The original (Romanian) form of his name was Mihai Iștvanovici, which proves that Mihai's father or other patrilinear ancestor was ethnic Hungarian (because István is the Hungarian form of the name Stephen), but Mihai was an Orthodox priest. He worked in Transylvania and Wallachia before moving to Georgia. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just created Mihai Iștvanovici. Maybe you could add some more info there from your Hungarian sources? Jaqeli 09:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Kuber page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew II of Hungary.
Message added 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey need your help again lol  — ₳aron 17:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Egy weblap, ami erdekes lehet szamodra

Szia Borsoka. Szeretnék a figyelmedbe ajánlani egy weboldalt, amin dolgozom: http://l3-po.org/. Az angol nyelvű wikipedia-t lehet vele grafikusan felderíteni. Egyszerűen kattints a Go gombra, majd pedig a megjelenő személyekre bal, illetve jobb egérgombbal. A lényege, hogy történelmi személyiségek családfáját lehet vele felderíteni. Még bőven fejlesztés alatt áll, de már pár funkció elérhető. További lelkes wikipedia szerkesztést kívánok:), Iván — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeitclean (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arad County (former), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lipova. 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) 08:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hungarian prehistory

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hungarian prehistory 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 User:llywrch (llywrch (User talk:llywrch -- {{subst:user0|User=llywrch]] ([[User talk:llywrch}} 23:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Unknown name

Hi Borsoka,

If Theodora of Wallachia's name is unknown, then where did "Theodora" come from? Her article does not say anything about unknown names. --Biblioworm 14:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm, first of all thank you for your edits. I do not know why she is mentioned as Theodora in that article "Theodora of Wallachia", because none of the academic works cited in the article "Basarab I of Wallachia" name her. On 16th February 2015, I added a "citation needed" template to her name [2], but no reliable source was provided. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Basarab I of Wallachia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Basarab I of Wallachia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Basarab I of Wallachia

The article Basarab I of Wallachia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Basarab I of Wallachia

The article Basarab I of Wallachia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Basarab I of Wallachia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew II of Hungary

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Avar dignitary

In the charter of the Kremsmünster Abbey, according the latest source by Agusti Alemany (2009) which deals with the title origin (see title origin and etymology on the article Župa), is written "Tassilo is said to have granted the monastery a group (decania) of ("Slovene") Slavs, headed by the chieftains (actores) Taliup and Sparuna, whose abode lies beneath the boundaries reported under oath by the župan Physso (infra terminum manent que coniurauit ille iopan qui uocatur Physso)". There is no mention of Avars or iopan Physso being Avar dignitary. Scholars even considered that Physso is Slavish *Byšъ like in the name *Pribyslavъ (Georg Holzer, Namenkundliche Aufsätze, 2008). It is controversal to cite a singular scholar POV as a fact, which is as it is by their (Engel and Róna-Tas) own POV, or perhaps ideological tradition in Hungarian historiography (I assume that the Avars association is pointed out as the Avars probably incorporated some remnants of the Huns horde, from whose leader Attila the royal Hungarian family proclaimed their descent, rather than the existence of Slavic chieftains in the vague boundaries.) Furthermore, the older scholars assumption that the title župan is of Avar origin still is just a guess as there's no concrete and clear evidence for its Avar origin.--Crovata (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Is there a reliable source that states that "iupan" was a Slavic dignitary or the source only says that his name is of Slavic origin. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no reliable source that proves iopan Physso was Slavic, even less Avar dignitary, as there's no concrete evidence to make such a conclusion. Alemany and many other scholars have a neutral standpoint about whose Physso political dignitary, and like the source by Georg Holzer where's noted the consideration of his name being of Slavic origin, the etymological and political origin of both the title iopan and Physso fall into the category of mere scholars considerations. What scholar considerations until now proved is that the title župan is completely undertermined in the sources related to the Avars, and its Avar origin. On what evidence Engel and Róna-Tas base such a conclusion (geo-political evidence to consider Physso an Avar dignitary in 777) I am sincerely interested in, but as I said, it looks to me nothing more than faulty personal scholars POV, or ideological tradition in the Hungarian historiography.--Crovata (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Róna-Tas is a reliable source. It may be a scholarly POV, it may be a faulty personal POV, but it was published in an academic book. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware of what you currently said? That Róna-Tas is a reliable source while Alemany and many other reliable academic scholars are not reliable? What kind of criteria and neutrality is this? Since when one scholars POV has bigger WP:WEIGHT than the POV generally accepted by the majority of scholars? The note it was an Avar dignitary must be removed. Why are you making an issue of such a simple edit?--Crovata (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I wrote. You obviously did not read it because you were commenting your own thoughts. Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Just what are you talking about? What kind of a multiple GA nomination editor discusses like this? I remember a case not so long ago when constructively worked together and came to a conclusion. You currently neither constructively discuss, neither cite the Róna-Tas POV, at least to make me personally see what are his arguments as am interested and edit the topic, compared to the most relevant academic scholars cites you can find in the Župa article. An academic book per see doesn't mean anything if the scholar claims something that is not widely accepted. When the readers see such a statement will take it as true, and when will go to the etymology and origin of the Župa article will read that is completely undetermined among Avars. What Róna-Tas claim is not a fact, yet personal scientific consideration and needs to be treated as such, for example The term župan was first recorded in the charter of foundation of the Kremsmünster Abbey, according Róna-Tas as the title of an Avar dignitary.--Crovata (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion again. You may not know what constructivness means. You have several times informed me of your assumptions and feelings but you have not answered my first question: is there a reliable source that states that the dignitary mentioned in the charter was not an Avar official? Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please without underestimating. I already answered your first question, August Alemany (2009) and Georg Holzer (2008) do not mention iopan Physso being an Avar official, which means according them was not an Avar official. Peter Štih (2010) [3] in detail wrote about the role of župa and župan, and part of it can be read on pg. 187-188 "Physso – according to Kronsteiner an abbreviated form or nick- name (hypocoristic) for Pribislav – acted as the tribal leader of a locally settled group of Slavs and cooperated as their legally binding representative in the incorporation of their land and people into the monastery’s property. Physso’s importance may be compared with the account of Constantine Porphyrogenitus from around the mid 10th century that the Dalmatian and other Slavs had no archontes but župani – elders, and this may be understood as if they held the position of patriarchal chiefs." Note that the statement Their origin is still something of an enigma although a majority tends to believe that župan is an originally non-Slavic name and institution and that the Slavs adopted it by way of the Avars is quite outdated for the time of its release, even by the authors work, as by the majority he cited older works, and scholars like Walter Pohl, who by the influence of Kroinsteiner, overestimated the Avar influence, while the author itself already in 1995 highly critized Kroinsteiner loose considerations concluding that "the name is certainly not of Avar origin, and does not mean that the župans were Avars" (transl). For the Avar lordship over Slavs see [4]. This is just a short digression on the whole origin issue, more about that can be read in the related article.--Crovata (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. If you had read my edit summary, you could have add Štih's POV to the article days ago [5]. Instead you shared your views and assumptions with the community on my Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Udvada Atash Behram

Please see my reply to your review. Is there something more needed to be done in the article?--Nvvchar. 02:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Hungarian Prehistory

Hi -- Is one of the books on archeological findings you need Istavan Fodor's In Search of a New Homeland? If so, I have a copy at hand & would be happy to share any information from it you might need for this article. -- llywrch (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Basarab I of Wallachia

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Kumanovo shootings

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Kumanovo shootings. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Delhi gang rape. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Upstate New York

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Upstate New York. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Géza II of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Géza II 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hungarian prehistory

Hi Borsoka! Just wrote up my latest comments to this nomination. Have a look, & hope we can work out these last few points so it can be promoted to GA status. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

After all this time, Hungarian prehistory has at last passed! Congrats! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. -- llywrch (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

FA comments

Hey Borsoka, I wanted to ask are you available to leave some comments or vote on Master of Puppets, an FA nominee of mine. The nomination page is here. Judging by your profile, I guess you're more into history topics, but since I'm having trouble finding reviewers on my nomination, your input would be much appreciated. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Géza II of Hungary

The article Géza II 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Géza II of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Géza II of Hungary

The article Géza II of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Géza II of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Newfound River

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Newfound River. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen V of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stephen V 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 West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen V of Hungary

The article Stephen V 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stephen V of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Ladislaus I of Hungary

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ladislaus I of Hungary/archive1, this is a reminder that you are not supposed to open another FAC within two weeks of having one archived. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stephen V of Hungary

The article Stephen V of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stephen V of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hungarian prehistory

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And my congratulations for that honor! -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Borsoka. You have new messages at Pax85's talk page.
Message added 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pax Verbum 05:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And I have replied once more. :) Cheers! -Pax Verbum 16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Another copy edit

I've learned some wonderful tidbits about the history of the the monarchy in Hungary these past few days. Thank you! Please let me know if there is anything else I can help out with. -Pax Verbum 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for the barnstar. Always happy to help. :) -Pax Verbum 05:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen V of Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen V of Hungary

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep up the great work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Géza II of Hungary

Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Return

I'd like to inform you that my unblock request was accepted, I got a second chance to fix my previous errors. If you have question or need help, cooperation, something else, please feel free to write me. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Walashma dynasty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Walashma dynasty. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Koppány

Ha majd lesz időd, kedved és késztetésed, ránéznél a Koppány szócikkre? Jelenlegi állapotában botrányos (olyanokat állít, hogy Géza fejedelem testvére, Szt. István nagybátyja illetve Szt. László nagyapja volt, arról nem is beszélve, hogy 998-as csatákat részletez, amikor Koppányunk valószínűleg már 997-ben 4 darabban csüngött a Megyer törzsterületek határvárosainak kapuin). Most már szinte minden Árpád-házi férfiúról nagyszerű cikkek vannak neked köszönhetően, a hiányzókon túl egyedül Koppány és Levedi (bár utóbbi nem Árpád-házi) szócikke "stub". [Abstract for English-speaking readers: "Koppány" article is terrible quality and I asked Borsoka to improve it]. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --Norden1990 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koppány, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somogy. 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) 09:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the Office of Palatine

I've just found this very recent work, maybe it will be useful for your future edits.--Norden1990 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it will surely be useful. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

George Koriatovich

Hello, I changed a little article about this prince. [6] It is a problem that cited authors which was writing in English didn't know the Polish literature about this topic. In my opinion Kuczyński (his article was published in 1935 and then included in 1965 in the book with his old articles, which I cited) is right, but I hope my version is neutral. In the article about George we should also use works of Jan Tęgowski, the best Polish specialist in Lithuanian genealogy, and Janusz Kurtyka, the best Polish specialist in medieval Podolia. Regards, Kmicic (talk) 09:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. My only concern is the use of weasel words. Borsoka (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure [7]? Codex Suprasliensis is from 11th Century. I suppose that right could be latopis of Suprasl, which is from 15th Century. If in your source is really Codes Suprasliensis, it means that is a very poor source. Kmicic (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The cited source (Knoll) writes: "This chronicle, printed in Latin-letter transliteration by I. Danilowicz, Latopisiec litewski i Kronika ruska (Vilno, 1827), is actually based on only one of five manuscripts which bear this title. The Codex suprasliensis formed the basis of Danilowicz's edition, but the other four (Akademia, Krasinski, Raczynski, and Bychova codices) are very similar, and for this period almost identical." Borsoka (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Archbishopric of Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pepin. 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) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC

Thank you for your comment at Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager#RfC: Should the table of contents an chapter summaries be included?. However your comment "Because you have not added, but you "will add" a secondary source. :)" is not sufficient. If you do not think the addition of the summary of contents is WP:OR, could you express explicitly the withdrawal of your previous comment? I will not add contents not in the source. Thanks in advance.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Kerlés, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Torda and Apulum. 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, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Kerlés

How in the De Administrando Imperio from the 10th Century could be mentioned the battle which happened in 1068? Kmicic (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost the whole article, besides two sentences, isn't about the battle, but it is about Pechenegs. Kmicic (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for the time being. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Ban Borić

I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian needs to be updated with some IPs.--Zoupan 03:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Another article

Újabb tanulmányok a nádor cikkhez, amelyek esetleg hasznosak lehetnek: C. Tóth: Az ország nádora, A nádori cikkelyek keltezése, Nádorváltás 1458-ban, főleg az első lehet érdekes. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Illetve itt megtalálható Szőcs további tanulmányai a témában. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Még egy utolsó: Tanulmány a 289-es laptól, letölthető, Zsoldos POV az interregnumi zűrzavarról a nádorokat illetően, ezt talán Szőcs is feldolgozza a monográfiájában. Itt egy másik: III. András korabeli nádorokról, a cím hasonló, de a két tanulmány teljesen más. No, elnézést, most már leállok, de ezeket mindenképp meg akartam még itt osztani. :) --Norden1990 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth of Bosnia

The article about Elizabeth of Bosnia has been a Good Article for five years. It was nominated for FA few years ago and I think I have fixed all the issues brought up during the review. I would nevertheless greatly appreciate it if you could pay some attention to the article. I've seen the magic you've done with related articles, most of all Mary, Queen of Hungary. That article appears to contain information more relevant to Elizabeth, which the latter lacks. Unfortunatly, I don't speak Hungarian, so I am limited to English and Serbo-Croatian sources. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I think the article is really near to FA. I made (and in a couple of days, I will make) some comments. I hope they will contribute to its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It only now occurred to me that I had asked for your help regarding this article. I see you have left lots of comments and suggestions, and I am addressing them at the moment. I will try to incorporate relevant information found in the articles about her husband and daughters, if that is alright by you. Surtsicna (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am curious. Does Bertényi specifically says "stillborn" when mentioning Elizabeth's possible premarital pregnancy? A queen's pregnancy was more likely to go unrecorded if it ended in miscarriage, but a stillbirth might explain the lack of further pregnancies for many years. Surtsicna (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Bertényi writes (in Hungarian): "A történészek feltételezik, hogy a házasság megkötését sürgető gyermek halva jöhetett a világra..." - "Historians assume that the child who urged the marriage was dead when he/she was born ..." (I tried to translate it verbatim). Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like Bertényi is not the only historian to put forward the unintended pregnancy theory. It also sounds like he considers it more than a possibility. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I think, it is an assumption. First of all, we do not know that she was pregnant. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melbourne

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melbourne. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Jadwiga of Poland

You're at 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, just so you know.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That's 4 reverts now... that's a pretty big deal.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have declined the blocking request, but please refrain from further edit warring and please try to reach agreement on the article talk page. Further edit warring from either party will almost certainly result in a block. TigerShark (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Jadwiga

[8] - Will you please stop? You just barely managed to dodge a 3RR block and you come back and start edit warring again? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not an edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to numerous articles on historical kings, queens and other assorted royalty and nobility figures, I, Piotrus, present you with The Royalty's Barnstar. Please keep up the wonderful work! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Especially, because I know that you are an expert in this field of knowledge. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2015 (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 Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illyricum. 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) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A Text-Code tip for your points

Hi Borsoka, I noticed that you listed your points by going (#). You can use the '#' at the start of a new line to create a numbered line which helps with presentation and breaks up the "walls of text" that editors, including myself, find difficult to read. For example:

1. This is the first line with a hash-tag (#) placed at the start of a new line
2. And this is the second, with the same set-up.

It is similar to using the colon (:) to create an indent but you have to use a colon to indent at increased levels, e.g.

1. Indented number line

1. Double indented number line, and I'm sure you get the idea for further indenting.

1. Back to one indent
2. Continued

Each new indent creates a new "number line" system and going back simply creates another new system. Hope these help and if you want to update your comment to use this, that would be appreciated to break the text-wall, but this is more for future comments. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your proposal. Done. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Haha, a bit enthusiastic with the usage but you seem to understand it. I might suggest that you replace your numbered comments in between Ditilini's comments with simple indents instead of the numbered indents since it "breaks" the number system, as shown in the second batch of examples and on the talk page. If you want, I can do it for you but it is good learning about it first-hand. I am going to copy his signature after each comment at any rate to allow uninvolved editors to know that the 'original' comment was by Ditilini instead of being clarified by you. I just found this tutorial as well which does a better job than myself in explaining the various indentation-forms. Glad to see I may have helped, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Borsoka, could you please add Ditinili's signature when you are "breaking" their comments? If you could fix this for your previous edits that would be wonderful, and please take this into the future when responding other user's comments. You also don't need to respond underneath each individual paragraph, instead you can simply have a single response which allows for a clearer flow of discussion in many cases. At the very least, you need to repost an editor's signature when you break into the middle of their comment to respond. I cleaned this up last time, but you need to start doing this to avoid confusing the discussion pages. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Nazism sidebar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

re: Primary source

You are probably right, but for now I'd suggest relying on WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR: until some reviewer complains about that quote, let's not tag it. IMHO is it reliably referenced enough for, I don't really understand why would we require a secondary source for a quote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lower Pannonia. 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) 11:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We probably got off on the wrong foot but...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		you deserve this for your hard and excellent work on Jadwiga of Poland  Volunteer Marek  06:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC) 03:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(I reserve the right to do some copy editing and grammar fixes)  Volunteer Marek  06:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your barnstar. Yes, the article still needs significant improvement. Borsoka (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Huns 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:

• Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription [[Yuezhi]] < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti".Pulleyblank, 1966, p. 18</ref><ref>Yu. A. Zuev, EARLY TURKS: ESSAYS on HISTORY and IDEOLOGY,
• {{Infobox Former Country

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phineas Gage

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phineas Gage. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Louis I of Hungary

Materialscientist (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan's claims are indeed fringe, sir

Sir, I explained at the talk page if you observe my posts there why his sources are fringe. If you read them yourself; they have no evidence behind them and most historians concerned (or who were concerned) with the Horn of Africa (If you give me time; I'd be perfectly willing to run down a list for you) do not share in these views. Zekenyan's claims are all often based on the work of Ulrich Braukamper and he cites no viable evidence for his claims about their "ethnicity" (just read Zekenyan's source closely; do they actually cite real historical records or viable evidence?)

The other sources however that cite that these individuals were either Arab or Somali have actual evidence grounded in history. For one numerous sources (you can see one of them on the page itself) say the Walashma spoke Arabic, no other language is honestly explicitly stated within the historical record (neither Argobba nor Somali). Any author claiming they spoke "Argobba" is a modern author and has no evidence for their claims (no inscriptions, no historical figures claiming they spoke Argobba... Nothing).

Also, the sources that tie them to Somalis tend to base this mostly on the fact that Walashma have a historically known Aqeeli genealogy as in it is claimed that they are descendants of the Darod clan's claimed ancestor "Isma'il Al-Jaberti" or "Aqeel ibn Abi Talib".

A source mentioning the genealogy/ "Aqeel/Akil" origin:

[-]

Also, other sources have a second fabled genealogy for this family and directly tie them to a medieval Somali saint and this genealogy actually comes directly from the region itself from historians from areas like Harar:

[-]

And here is a source claiming them as either "Arabized Somalis" or "Somalized Arabs":

[9]

There are others who would make similar claims...

The point sir is that when you look at the actual historical data; there is no record of them being Argobba. This claim is not based on archaeology, it's not based on historical records, it's not based on anything other than the conjecture of one or two scholars who randomly began claiming these chaps were "Argobbas" or at the very least "Ethio-Semites". If you look at my sources they tend to be grounded in actual historical evidence like the author citing a local historian sharing the genealogy or the author citing that a great historical figure such as Ibn Khaldun sharing the Akil genealogy. This pattern does not honestly exist in Zekenyan's sources... A source shouldn't be valid just because someone wrote something in a book but should be validated by actual historical records. The claims that they were Arabs or "Somali-Arabs" or what have you are grounded in actual historical data, written or otherwise and not someone merely sharing their conjecture in a book they wrote regardless of their credentials. Awale-Abdi (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your above argumentation suggests that there are more than one scholars who say that they were Argobba and this view was published in peer reviewed books. Consequently, their view cannot be described as a fringe theory. I suggest that you should name the scholars who say that they were Arabs or Somalis, adding their principal arguments. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Source on this edit

You removed this foreign language source. What did it say?

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=House_of_Szil%C3%A1gyi&type=revision&diff=683264199&oldid=683259566

thanks. Llanfairpwllgwyngylly (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing interesting in connection with the subject. The source was published in 1830. Borsoka (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2015 Thalys train attack. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of military occupations

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of military occupations. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Origin of the Romanians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principality of Transylvania. 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) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Charles I of Hungary

Borsoka, I have just finished copy-editing Charles I of Hungary. It was pretty well written as it was. I only made minor copy-edits. There is one issue that needs addressing. I don't know if it was you or another editor who somewhat frequently used the time phrase "Next year", or sometimes "Next summer", often at the beginning of sentences. When referring to past events, this phrase is usually not appropriate and is often not clear. I managed to figure out a few of them and re-word them, but I had to leave several alone because I didn't know what was meant.

If you say, right now, "Next year he's going to start medical school", it is pretty clear that you mean "in 2016". But when talking about events in the past, it's not so clear.

If you have described an event in, say, 1316, and you want to say that something else occurred in 1317, you can say, "The next year", or "The following year".

If you have described an event in, say, February 1316, and you want to say that something else occurred in July or August of 1316, you can say, "That summer" or "In the summer of that year". If you want to mention something that occurred in July or August of 1317, you would say, "In the summer of 1317" or "In the summer of the following year", or "In July of 1317" or "In July of the following year".

If you have described an event in, say, November 1320, and you want to mention an event that occurred in July or August of 1321, you can say, "The next summer," "The following summer", "In the summer of 1321", "In the summer of the following year", "The following July", or "In July of the following year".

If you have described an event in November 1320, and you want to mention an event that occurred in March 1321, you would say, "The following spring", or "The following March".

I suggest that you go through the article (use the "Find" tool of your computer, usually at the far upper right corner of your screen) to search for all instances of "Next year" or "Next summer", and see if you can use the correct phrase. If you need help, just ask me.

Also, I saw in one of the sections near the end of the article the title Voivoide, capitalized. I thought perhaps you had decided to put those in lower-case, but I don't remember. I just thought I'd mention it.

I will read through the article from beginning to end once more tomorrow to see if I see anything else. Corinne (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In the section Charles I of Hungary#Family, I noticed that you used "According to" quite a few times. I wonder if there is a way to reduce the number of instances of that. User:BabbaQ Could you look at this section? I know that WP style discourages including the name of a source in the main text of an article, but I don't know if that applies to a primary source. This article uses only about two primary sources. I can understand using "According to X......" However, "Y" states...." In order to highlight a contrast between two sources, but apart from that, I'm not sure "According to" is needed so often, but since I'm not sure, I hesitate to delete the mention of the source (the Illuminated Chronicle). Corinne (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Another thing: I saw you had put the word "oligarch" or "oligarchs" in quotation marks. I don't understand the reason for that. It's an English word. We put quotation marks around an English word when we want to emphasize, or draw the reader's attention to, the word, or if the meaning intended is not the ordinary meaning of the word, in other words, an oligarch, but not really an oligarch. I don't think either of these is a reason, here, to put the word in quotation marks, but if I'm wrong by all means feel free to put the quotation marks back. Corinne (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, thank you for your copyedit. I highly appreciate your work. I will try to address your above concerns tommorrow (today I am exhausted) :). Borsoka (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, I made some minor edits based on your above remarks. I would be grateful if you could checque them. Borsoka (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, sorry for the late reply. I will take a look at it!--BabbaQ (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Superpower

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superpower. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew III of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew III 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 Neil916 -- Neil916 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew III of Hungary

The article Andrew III of Hungary you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew III of Hungary for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Neil916 (Talk) 19:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

University of Pécs

It was closed in the 15th century. Do not use obsolete books of the socialist era (like Engel), which were translated to English decades later. http://www.rubicon.hu/magyar/oldalak/1367_szeptember_1_a_pecsi_egyetem_alapitasa/--Rubicoers (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please consult with a native speaker of Hungarian about that publication. It does not state that the university was closed in the 15th century. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azov Battalion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Azov Battalion. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

GA nomination for Foundation of Moldavia

Hi Borsoka, I see that Foundation of Moldavia has been waiting the longest for assessment as a GA article. Since I made a GA nomination for Cross-country skiing (sport), I've decided to follow the advice of reviewing two articles, myself. Of course, there can never be quid pro quo. I've set up a Talk:Foundation of Moldavia/Sandbox, where I plan to try out any attempts clarify problem passages. You may wish to put this page on your watch list. My goal in assessment is to bring the article into compliance with GA standards, where possible, rather than simply failing it, if It doesn't meet the criteria. I'm writing you, because you are both very competent and very involved in the article's development, so that you can help bring this effort forward. I'll watch this page. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

HI Borsoka, I have made some restructuring and paring down of your article at the article's sandbox, which I hope that you will find helpful. I leave it to you to decide whether I included or omitted the right things. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 11:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Géza nagyfejedelem

Szia! A Géza, Grand Prince of the Hungarians cikkben végrehajtott szerkesztésemet visszavontad. Gézát Székesfehérvárott temették el, és erre adtam forrást is. Kérdezted, hogy ez egy széles körben elterjedt elmélet-e. Igen, az. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ja, és a Stephen I of Hungary szócikkben is visszavontad a szerkesztésemet.

Azért írok magyarul, mert a szerkesztéseid és a neved alapján magyarnak tűnsz. De ha nem vagy az, kérlek, valahogy jelezd. :D --Lálálá9999 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Nekem az a problémám, hogy ez az információ (Gézát Székesfehérvárott temették el) nem jelenik meg semmilyen másodlagos forrásban, kizárólag egy harmadlagos forrásban (egy lexikonban). Nem tűnik túlságosan elterjedt nézetnek. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Pedig eléggé elterjedt nézet. Annyira elterjedt, hogy idén is kutattak a sírja után, mert 99%-ra állítják, hogy Fehérváron temették el. Nézz utána. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Oks, köszi. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

Hello, Borsoka -- I assume you've seen the latest edits to Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301): this one [10] and the ones just previous to it by the same IP editor. I'm sure these edits have been done in good faith, but now the sentence is not as well written, so would need a little adjustment. If you think the added content should stay, I'd be glad to work on the wording of the sentence(s). But I am also concerned that this may be unsourced. Perhaps the material is taken from the same source as the surrounding information, but I'll let you check that. Let me know if you want me to work on the wording. Corinne (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I do not understand the reasons of the edits, so I undid them. I hope, the IP editor would clarify them. Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew III of Hungary

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foundation of Moldavia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Foundation of Moldavia 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 Samtar -- Samtar (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Foundation of Moldavia

The article Foundation of Moldavia you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Foundation of Moldavia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Samtar -- Samtar (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Puzzling references

Hi Borsoka, I note that there are two references at Foundation of Moldavia that have a discrepancy. They are:

• The Mission of Friar William of Rubric (ch. 18.1.), p. 126.
• The Mission of Friar William of Rubric (ch. 1.5.), p. 126.

The discrepancy is, how can citations from different chapters have the same page number? Perhaps you can correct that. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

YI believe that I've taken care of these. User:HopsonRoad 22:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

magyar királyok

szia! A magyar wikin is megírnád kiemeltre Szent István cikkét? Sajnos senki sem akarja megírni, ezért kérdezem tőled, hátha :) Szajci ^pošta 20:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Elnézést, de most egy darabig nem sok időm van. Talán valamikor egy hónap múlva vagy az év végén lesz. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Medieval Hungarian royal cities

Are you ashamed of the truth?

Why did you delete the references and especially you hate the word "established" in the lead section of Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

Most of the medieval Hungarian royal cities were established by Western immigrants, so why did you delete it so vehemently. Are you nationalist? --83.143.240.18 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:civility and also read carefully the edit summaries, including those that were not written by me([11]). You should also read the first sentence in the same section of the lead and learn some more English. Borsoka (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus IV of Hungary

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ladislaus IV 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 Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ladislaus IV of Hungary

The article Ladislaus IV 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ladislaus IV of Hungary for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Notecardforfree -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your quality improvement efforts to the article Ladislaus IV of Hungary. Thanks to your hard work, the article is has now passed the GA review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaus IV of Hungary at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iranian peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iranian peoples. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nyitra/Nitra

Please, can you explain why did you revert Nitra to Nyitra? Nitra is well estabilished English name, while Nyitra is only HU transcription (by the way phoneticaly the same name as Nitra in SK language). It's strange, also because HU name was preserved (lang-hu tags). --Ditinili (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

See the naming convention here. Borsoka (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Nitra (Hungarian: Nyitra)" is fully compliant with your agreement. Please, let me know what exactly was violated. Read also "Widely accepted name" in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Thx.Ditinili (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read the "before 1918" section of the specific convention. Borsoka (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now. If it is a biography, some special "rule" applies. OMG.Ditinili (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Banat in the Middle Ages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Béla. 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) 09:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Szeklerland

Szia Borsoka,

Szeretnelek megkerni hogy kukkants ra erre a friss szerkesztesre: [[12]] Alatamaszthato az, hogy Erdely volt a "politikai kozpontja" a dakoknak? Egyebkent mennyi koze van a dakoknak Szekelyfoldhoz? Sajnos nem vagyok elegge kepzett Dacia-val kapcsolatban. Ebben a formaban ez az okori resz szamomra eleg mulatsagos, jo lenne ha valaki, aki ismeros a temaban, helyrerakna a dolgokat. Koszonettel, Fakirbakir (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Valóban Erdély volt Dácia központja. Nekem csak az a zavaró, hogy nem Székelyföldre koncentrál a szöveg, hanem egész Erdélyre. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Probaltam valami jobb osszefoglalot irogatni ma, de meg nem tokeletes. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Empire - Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867

Szia, én is kérnélek, az előttem szólónak már szóltam, megvádoltak "canvassolással" egy kedves román feljelentő révén, végül az érintett akivel vitatkozunk a fent említett cikkek tal page-én ezt fel is használta, bezzeg ő azóta is szólt már egy újabb editornak, meg még előtte egy adminisztrátornak, szóval rendkívül kedves kettős mércével van dolgunk. Egy iszonyatos történelemhamisítást akarnak elkövetni, csodálkozom hogy a holland szerkesztőnek ez miért olyan fontos. Kérlek olvasd el a releváns részeket és ne hagyd hogy hamisítsanak. Valami korábbi konszenzusra hvatkoznak, amit én nem találok, és ha meg is történ volna, iszonyatos nagy hülyeség, történelmi tényeket ez alapján sem szabad meghamisítani, hiszen a "good faith" elve azt kívánja hogy az legyen kinn az oldalon, ami a legközelebb van a valósághoz a legkorrektebb módon. Remélem nem fog ANI incidensig menni, de az oldal nem maradhat így! Köszönöm fáradozásodat, Üdv(KIENGIR (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Legal status

Szia Borsoka, Bocs hogy megint "nyaggatlak", csak belefutottam egy erdekes problemaba. Eppen Partium oldalaval kezdtem vacakolni, ahol azt ecsetelem, hogy Erdely kulonallo volt es nem volt resze "Hungary proper"-nek, igenam csak par nappal elotte meg szerkesztgettem Szeklerland oldalat, ahol forrassal (Britannica) megjelolve azt irom, hogy Erdely a Magyar kiralysag resze lett ismet a torok haboruk utan. A Habsburg kiralyok mint magyar kiralyok uralkodtak Erdelyben? Mi a velemenyed, egy kulonallo ugymond "perszonaluniot" hoztak letre a Habsburgok a Magyar Kiralysag keretein belul? Hiszen kiralyi kormanyzosagok voltak, mi mas ha nem magyar kiralyi? Nem eros a Grand Principality oldalan, hogy egy sima Habsburg tartomany volt Erdely? Nem kellene kiemelni, hogy attol meg jogilag a Magyar Kiralysag resze volt? Vagy nem? Fakirbakir (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Őszintén szólva nem tudom a pontos választ (és lehet, hogy nincs is pontos válasz :)). Erdély, Horvátország, Szlavónia a Szent Korona tartományai voltak, de mégis jelentősen eltértek egymástól. Például a horvát bán magyar zászlósúr volt és a horvát sabor követeket küldött a rendi gyűlésre, míg Erdéllyel kapcsolatban semmi ilyesmi nem történt. Borsoka (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Ha ezt[13] vesszuk alapul akkor bizony nem lehet tartomanyrol beszelni. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

1.§ explicitly kimondja, hogy magyar királyként kormányozza Erdélyt. :) Borsoka (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Temporary work

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Temporary work. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Géza

Kérlek, ne vedd ki Géza nagyfejedelem temetkezési helyét a cikkből, mert egy olyan ember tanulmányát adtam meg forrásként, aki 30 évig ásta Székesfehérvár földjét. Üdv. Lálálá9999 (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Meg tudnád mondani, hol ír arról, hogy Géza nagyfejedelem Székesfehérvárott volt eltemetve? Borsoka (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

"...Géza (István) fejedelmet – Szent István király édesapját – 997-ben feltehetően Székesfehérvárott, a Szent Péter és Pál apostolok templomának helyén levő egyházba temették. Ugyanitt helyezték örök nyugalomra feleségét Saroltot [...] 1440-ben, amikor V. Lászlót koronázták, vele jött az ünnepségekre Dragos krakkói kanonok és megemlékezett arról, hogy a koronázási szertartás után Géza és felesége nyughelyére is elzarándokoltak..."

Ha nem hiszed, Ctrl+F. Lálálá9999 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Köszönet, de ez akkor sem egy tény, következésképpen nem lehet tényként bemutatni. Kérdés, hogy érdemes-e egyáltalán megemlíteni, mivel egyetlen egy műben szerepel, és ott is csak feltételezésként. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Tudod, az sem tény, hogy I. Istvánt 1000. dec. 25-én megkoronázták, mégis szerepel a Wikipédián. Ezek a dolgok csak feltételezés szintjén léteznek, ha ezt így figyelembe vennénk, nem lenne mit leírni. Géza fehérvári sírhelyét annyira komolyan veszik, hogy a nemrég induló Árpád-ház Program első részeként feltételezett sírhelyét tárták fel ismét. Eredményekről még nem számoltak be, de előre szóltak, hogy nem kell csodát várni, ugyanis nem csak egy csontvázat találtak ott. Jan Dlugosz pedig valóban leírta, hogy elmentek Géza és felesége sírjához, és ezt valószínűleg nem csak Hankó Ildikó közölte így. Oda kell írni, hogy Fehérvárott nyugszik a Szent Péter- és Szent Pál-katedrálisban, és oda lehet írni zárójelbe, hogy valószínűleg, vagy feltételezett vagy mittudomén. Annyi megoldás van, nem értem, mit kell ennyit szöszölni. Üdv. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mint írtam korábban, írtam, feltételezésként le lehet írni, és természetesen Dlugoszt is meg lehet említeni. Viszont tényként közölni, félrevezető. Borsoka (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Rendben, nézd meg most, hogy jó-e így, mert én nem tudok jól angolul, és akkor írd bele Dlugoszt is. Esztergomot pedig beírtam feltételezett helyszínnek halálához (a magyar wikiben is benne van). Valamint megkérnélek még valamire. Látom, te nagyon sok cikket írsz és szerkesztesz a magyar történelemmel kapcsolatban. Van ez a cikk a székesfehérvári királyi bazilikáról, aminek a címe nem megfelelő, mert nem egyértelmű. Székesfehérvárott a középkorban két bazilika rangú templom is volt (egyik a királyi bazilika a másik a Szt. Péter és Pál), illetve most is van egy (Szent István-székesegyház). Ezért ésszerűbb lenne a Szűz Mária- vagy Nagyboldogasszony-bazilika cím, persze angolul (Nagyboldogasszony-bazilika), és ha van kedved, fejleszd is egy kicsit a cikket, mert én itt az angol Wikipédián nem vagyok senki, még csak üdvözletet sem kaptam a vitalapomra. Üdv. és búék! Lálálá9999 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A Mátyás király cikkbe azért írtam bele a Korvin Mátyás nevet, mert a Corvinus nem Hunyadit jelent, félreérthető így. Angolul akkor Mátyás Hunyadi, mert latinul van a Corvinus. --Lálálá9999 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ladislaus IV of Hungary

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Lower Pannonia

Are you willing to merge Principality of Lower Pannonia with Lower Pannonia (9th century)? The scope would be the 9th-century Slavic polity in Pannonia, with clarifications of borders and political changes, of course. I would also rid the state infobox in that case. If not, explain why, and would you instead consider moving it to another title, such as Lower Pannonia (846–875), Balaton Principality, or the descriptive title (Lower) Pannonia under Pribina and Kocel, or similar? Note that neither of the two had the title of Prince of Lower Pannonia, but dux and comes de Sclaius. The article name of "Principality of Lower Pannonia" is ambiguous, and virtually unused, and is more appropriate for the subject of the 9th-century history of that region/polity (as a redirect), rather than housing the history of only two of its rulers.--Zoupan 15:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not Pannonia (9th century)? As far as I can remember there were various Slavic polities or domains ruled by Slavic lords in the territory during the 9th century. What is sure, I have never read that Lower Pannonia or any part of Pannonia was included in a single polity (of course, with the exception of the Carolingian Empire). Borsoka (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ljudevit, Ratimir, Pribina, Kocel and Braslav are all called rulers of Lower Pannonia in scholarship (confusing enough). At least Ljudevit and Braslav were mentioned in contemporary sources as such. As I said, clarifications of border and political changes are to be made. I meant to say the region/province, without an infobox, instead of dividing it into numerous articles based on overlordship. We could tag team it.--Zoupan 15:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's give a try to it. :) I think it will be quite disturbing: rulers from the lands to the south of the Drava, from the territories to the north of the same river, and a ruler who allegedly united both territory for a couple of years before the Magyars came. Borsoka (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Boldog új évet és további sikeres és színvonalas szerkesztést kívánok a 2016-os esztendőre. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Csatlakozva Norden jokivansagaihoz, Boldog Uj Evet Kivanok neked!! Happy Hogmanay! Fakirbakir (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)