Revision as of 03:39, 27 April 2008 editBorsoka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users44,606 edits →Pribina← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:58, 27 April 2008 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,958 edits Formal notice of editing restrictionsNext edit → | ||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
Hi, Elonka. Thank you for your note. My concern is that if we refer to a primary source (i.e., to the "Conversio") in the article, we should clearly distinguish between the facts described in the source (i.e., "a certain Priwina" had a possession in Nitrava and he was expelled by Duke Moimir) and their interpretation (e.g., Pribina was the prince of the Principality of Nitrava, where he had a court). Otherwise, we would mislead all the readers of the article who could think that the cited primary source covers all the facts described in the article. If my concern is valid, I am sure we could find a proper way to distinguish between documented facts and their interpretation. ] (]) 16:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | Hi, Elonka. Thank you for your note. My concern is that if we refer to a primary source (i.e., to the "Conversio") in the article, we should clearly distinguish between the facts described in the source (i.e., "a certain Priwina" had a possession in Nitrava and he was expelled by Duke Moimir) and their interpretation (e.g., Pribina was the prince of the Principality of Nitrava, where he had a court). Otherwise, we would mislead all the readers of the article who could think that the cited primary source covers all the facts described in the article. If my concern is valid, I am sure we could find a proper way to distinguish between documented facts and their interpretation. ] (]) 16:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
Did you edit the article ] as an anon IP {{user|213.134.24.123}}?--] (]) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | :Did you edit the article ] as an anon IP {{user|213.134.24.123}}?--] (]) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
Yes, I did. Sorry I forgot to log in. ] (]) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | ::Yes, I did. Sorry I forgot to log in. ] (]) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Notice of editing restrictions == | |||
] '''Notice:''' Under the terms of ], any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking. | |||
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged ]. | |||
--]]] 05:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:58, 27 April 2008
Welcome
|
Noticeboard
Hi and welcome. I wonder if you are a Hungarian (judging by your contributions, it seems likely) – in that case, you could watchlist Misplaced Pages:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board. Feel free to add a note there whenever you need help with something Hungary-related. Thanks a lot for your contributions. Cheers, KissL 11:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Merged Archidiocese of Veszprém into Archdiocese of Veszprém
Hey Borsoka, I've merged two pages you've created since they were duplicate. If you want people to find one page by the name of another you can use redirects, specifically Template:R from misspelling. Anyway, have fun editing Misplaced Pages! -- StevenDH (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- For the record: Archdiocese of Veszprém moved to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Veszprém, so I changed the redirect target of Archidiocese of Veszprém. Just in case anybody would be confused or so... -- StevenDH (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent articles on the Roman Catholic dioceses in Hungary. I've updated and incorporated them along with others. Thank you very much. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Great Moravia
Hi, regarding this edit . Could you please provide source? You did not provide any. Which primary source do you mean? At least that edit is badly formatted please correct it and add a reliable source for that citation. For example which book did you use? ≈Tulkolahten≈ 12:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the primary source is Emperor Constantin's De Administrando Imperio. If you think that it is not reliable, please delete the first sentence of the section.Borsoka (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
History of Slovakia
Please stop inserting inaccurate information and removing sourced information. For sources, see: , .--Svetovid (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, Svetovid is under editing restrictions and should not have reverted you. He also should not have referred to your edit as "vandalism", and for what it's worth, I apologize about that. Svetovid's account access has been blocked for 24 hours. --Elonka 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
Hi Borsoka, we are currently discussing some disputed issues around articles related to Hungarian-Slovak relations. You are welcome to join in, at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --Elonka 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Ottokár Prohászka
Hi, in your vote in the proposed naming convention poll you commented that it may not work in e.g. the Ottokár Prohászka article. According to the current proposal, his birth town would be rendered as "Nyitra (Nitra)", since he was born before 1918, and I suppose he was Hungarian (was he?). If he wasn't clearly Hungarian, it could be "Nyitra (Nitra)" or "Nitra (Nyitra)".
But, there are several proposed modifications to the proposal, tagged "A", "B", etc., see under "discussion". If you like, you can comment on these modifications. I think I'll rewrite the poll to a vote about the modifications one of these days. Markussep 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
His name is clearly not Hungarian, he was born in a city predominantly inhabited by Slovaks, and he became the Bishop of Székesfehérvár. Borsoka (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Pribina
Hi, did you edit this article as an anon with IPs 213.134.24.184 (talk · contribs) and 213.134.29.185 (talk · contribs)?--Svetovid (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Borsoka, could you please explain this edit? You removed what appear to be valid sources from the article, but without giving reasoning for it at the talkpage. We've been working hard lately to reduce these kinds of actions. In the future, please be careful that whenever you make a controversial edit, that you discuss it at talk. And be very careful about removing references. If you cannot provide excellent reasons for why those references are inappropriate, they should be put back right away. --Elonka 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Elonka. Thank you for your note. My concern is that if we refer to a primary source (i.e., to the "Conversio") in the article, we should clearly distinguish between the facts described in the source (i.e., "a certain Priwina" had a possession in Nitrava and he was expelled by Duke Moimir) and their interpretation (e.g., Pribina was the prince of the Principality of Nitrava, where he had a court). Otherwise, we would mislead all the readers of the article who could think that the cited primary source covers all the facts described in the article. If my concern is valid, I am sure we could find a proper way to distinguish between documented facts and their interpretation. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Did you edit the article History of Slovakia as an anon IP 213.134.24.123 (talk · contribs)?--Svetovid (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I did. Sorry I forgot to log in. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Notice of editing restrictions
Notice: Under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.