Talk:Romania in the Early Middle Ages/Archive 4

Copyright problems
This article has been blanked for evaluation at the copyright problems board. Considerable content has been added to this article which has been transcribed directly from copyrighted sources.

For a few verified examples of copying, this edit demonstrably introduced the following problems:

This is just an example. There is more copying from the books identified above. For instance, the content on the 950 baptism of the Magyar leader is a problem; cf. for one further example pp. 189-190 of Curta. See also additional problems flagged above. And not all of the books used are visible for preview and comparison.

Much of this content is still published in the article, still violating our copyright policies. While I realize that this constitutes a considerable set-back for this article, all copied content must be removed or handled properly in accordance with our copyright policies. This means that any direct copying must be marked by quotation marks, with a page number given for the quote, and that usage of direct copying must have good reason in accordance with WP:NFC. All other content based on these sources must be rewritten from scratch. Changing a few words creates a derivative work; rewriting should implement new language and structure to avoid this legal pitfall.

Alternatively, the article can be reverted to the last version prior to influx of content by the contributor who added this material, here. Content added by any other contributors may be restored, but only if it does not build off of the content added by this user from copyrighted works.

See also Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As no rewrite has been proposed, the article has been reverted to the last version prior to the influx of content by the contributor who added this material. The history of the article remains visible. Hopefully, there will be no issue with people restoring suspect or copied content that would require revision deletion. Contributors interested in improving the article are welcome to restore content that was added by any other contributor, but only if it does not build off of the content added by this user from copyrighted works. Content added by the user in question should not be restored, but unless there are verifiability issues of which I'm not aware, may be useful for mining facts and sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The Hungarian user/editor Borsoka should be reported and banned from Wikipedia. Take a look at his contribution history you will find many copyright issues.

He seems to be an "expert" of the Slovakian and Romanian history. He is confusing the readers and introduces "Hungarian" bias in the articles like other editors such as Fakirbakir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.14.34 (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody can see that your comment is hostile toward Hungarian users, issues. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please refer to actual examples of "Hungarian bias" introduced in articles? Otherwise, plagiarism might have become an issue because Hungarian editors who did not insist on the exact wording of the scholarly books they used had to face the accusation of OR by other editors. In the specific cases, good faith may be assumed taking into account that the sentences under investigation always refer to their sources, including the exact page of the books used when editing the article. But it is not me who can judge these cases. Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Systemic Bias or A Masterpiece of Twisted and Truncated History
The current article is completely biased as a result of illegitimate distortion of the historical records. The changes made especially by user User:Borsoka who tries to twist the history in favor of extremist and chauvinistic interests. Many changes are marked as " -less relevant info". This is a masterpiece of science about how the history can be twisted and used as a manipulation tool. The methods can found in the examples from below. For sure this achievement will be remembered in the annals of Wikipedia as a dark comedy. Unfortunately such mischievous acts will not resist over time. Saturnian (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I must have missed some points, because I do not understand the below list. My remarks are introduced. I think before making remarks on an article we all should read it, because the article's history is not the article itself. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A lot of hard work over years and many articles. Probably money was received for this ... but in vain.


 * Interesing, personally I can imagine a world where people work free for community purposes, but we are not the same. Nevertheless, neither do I state nor do I deny that I am a green man from planet XRSA'45T and by creating articles I am working for dark green purposes. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The changes, removal of facts and dates, changing the emphasis, is favouring Hungarian point of view and as consequence the entire article is . Also other users pointed out that the article has many issues. Saturnian (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your remark, although the case remained totally mystic for me. (1) The above table contains lots of mistakes, since in many cases the sentence listed as "completely removed" were not removed in fact. (2) The above table contains a list of not significant changes, therefore they could not lead to "systematic bias". (3) What is the "Hungarian point of view" and how is it presented in the article? Without a proper argumentation and without explicit statements about the concerns, the template is only a joke. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The current article is a big joke. You try to ask petty questions since the differences are obvious. Please revert your systematic changes. Saturnian (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to draw your attention my above remarks and questions which remained unanswered, so I repeat it. (1) The above table contains lots of mistakes, since in many cases the sentence listed as "completely removed" were not removed in fact. (2) The above table contains a list of not significant changes, therefore they could not lead to "systematic bias". (3) What is the "Hungarian point of view" and how is it presented in the article? Moreover (4) What are the "non-Hungarian point-of-views" ignored? Without a proper argumentation and without explicit statements about the concerns, the template is to be removed. Borsoka (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Borsoka is right, no concrete problems were identified so far. Dear Saturnian, please specify your issues with the changes, as just stating that they are "biased" is not sufficient to keep a warning template.  K &oelig;rte F a  { ταλκ }  11:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will not repeat myself. Enough is enough. I will not play your game. -- Saturnian (talk) 05:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The "game" is called Wikipedia and you should also play by the rules. So far you just gave a list of changes and said that they are biased, without actually giving at least some examples which specify your main problems with the changes (based on which you claim that they are "biased"). Please, also read the related Wikipedia policies, for example, TAGGING says: "Especially in the case of a tag such as npov, complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them.". Cheers,  K &oelig;rte F a  { ταλκ }  06:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank both of you for your remarks. Dear Saturnian, please read Negotiation. Sorry, I am afraid I cannot understand declarations. I would like to ask you again to answer the following questions or to suggest any other proper way to solve the conflict, because there is no point in labelling articles without argumentation. (1) The above table contains lots of mistakes, since in many cases the sentence listed as "completely removed" were not removed in fact. (2) The above table contains a list of not significant changes, therefore they could not lead to "systematic bias". (3) What is the "Hungarian point of view" and how is it presented in the article? (4) Which are the "non-Hungarian point-of-views" ignored? Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)