User talk:123Steller/Archive 1

Blacorum
Hi, I noticed that you deleted an important part of the article Blacorum simply saying that "unreliable sources". Well, there is an ongoing discussion about this subject on the article talk page. No one proved it so far that the historical sources are unreliable. To have a more clear article I budged and deleted historical sources (for example that of Villehardouin, Anonymus or King Andrew II) which mention the Blacs but those sources can refer to both the Blacs and the Vlachs. But please keep the present sources, because the present sources can not be understood as being refereed to the Vlachs because the Vlachs did not come from Bashkiria. The present sources are really important to understand this topic about the Blacs. I know it is a controversial subject, but let's keep it civil.Thank you. Arpabogar (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Austro Hungarian Compromise
Hello User:123Steller. I saw your report on the Austro-Hungarian compromise article. Yesterday Kiengir and I agreed on text for the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) article, which makes his modus operandum on the other article rather hard to understand. I added some text on your report here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Principality of Tranylvania articles
123Steller, I have to give you a warning, it is very suspicious that after achieving more consensus it seems you are chasing me and suprisingly you revert any edit or any illegal act on some pages, although I don't know about a function that would immediatley would show which page what contribution was made by the same user.

I has turned out you are not the professional of Hungarian history and affiliations, once you acknowledged this but it seems you act in a provocative manner, may I ask you, are you an anti-Hungarian or a Hungarian-hater or what is the purpose of your activity?

You do not know such an elemental thing when Hungarian langauge became official? Although all documents are written, researchable and it is undeniable? Maybe you don't know Principality of Transylvania was founded by Hungarians and it was a Hungarian state? Jesus!

Your action in the other article is very blatant, because it seems you don't understand Wikipedia, regarding new additions you can go on with bold edits and if there is no oppositon, it is automatically accepted, the case would be different if a former content would be removed. Fakirbakir made a long time addition, he indicated it in the talk page and he made a consensus with me also and the new content was added that anyway in not any means influenced the article or did not deleted or overriden other existing information, moreover they are fairly and precisely correspondent of the historical facts. What you now impose is the same way impossible like I would do with the former articles, since if you were not present on a consensus or a more month ago edit that was accepted, you cannot act in a way that it is nullified. The page has to preserve the current state and you have to build a new consensus if you have a problem with the content. Don't you think an administrator will immediately notice you what you do is not fair, the edit history cannot be cheaten! My action was only preserving the page in it's current state, so you have no reason to revert my edits!

Please mind these, and do not provocate a new conflict! Have a benevolent and collaborative effort in Wikipedia, it is always suspicious to me if some people want to get rid of historical facts!

All the best!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2016 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Transylvania answer
Ok, I accept the peace offer! I checked the map carefully. Old, medieval age created maps have many times distortions regarding today's maps or fair geographical locations. After a longer check - as well knowing the exact borders and territorial extent of Principality of Transylvania - I verified all that is shown in the map is part of the Carpathian Basin, it does not surpass the historical borders neither the classic Kingdom of Hungary or Principality of Transylvania. Thus it does not contain historical Wallachian or Moldavian regions (= and territory or region from the Principality of Wallachia or Principality of Moldavia). I think the author wrote and attested about the population of the current time, as it is exactly written in the South-Transylvanian border, near Hátszeg area that is a well-known place were Vlachs were settled in early times thus there their population grow in centuries. The same I consider about the "Moldavia" designation, since in those areas the Hungarian Kings earlier granted feudal rights in exchange for allegiance of Wallachian/Moldavian landlords, and more of them - with their settled Vlach people were later expanding to the territory of Principality of Moldavia also. So I think - similar to the Saxon and Hungarian, Szekler latin deisgnations - above the official borders and counties, we get a picture about the near ethnic-composition of regions & historical, traditional regions extension whether they are official or unofficial - i. e. traditional Saxon cities or areas, although this does not exclude other ethnics were also present.

Short conclusion: the "Wallachian" and "Moldavian" regions did not have any (official) status, they are just an unofficial designation by the author of the map about ethnical presence (I now do not intervene in the Moldavian ethnicity debate - the author - as contemporary times - is referring to the state of origin this way).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

Tracking
Hi would you please tell me how is that possible than anytime I edit you appear since I do not know any function that would monitor any activity of a current user. Thanks in advance for your honest answer! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR I checked your edits using the "contribs" button. I have no intention to create a discomfort for you. 123Steller (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have found this function also, however I needed a Wikipedia guide for it, I did not know it was on the left. Clear, Thx (KIENGIR (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC))

OOPS!
Sorry about that reversion on Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867). I don't know how I managed to do that. It looks like you've already reverted my mistake; thanks for doing that. Happy editing :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Blacorum. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 10:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Your revert
Steller,

you know that I really appreciate you and I don't forget your remark that you consider me a valuable contributor, but you are aware of wiki rules and by our work together I think we have tried to apply it properly, initally sometimes with a bit of misunderstandings, finally with mutual respect and in a peaceful manner. You know very well what is WP:BRD and status quo ante, so you know after a warn of edit warring reverting again is harming multiple rules. You know also that the argumentation abou being "fringe" does not imply this change, since to state something generally that something is "refuted" is totally improper, it may have the opinion of some people of scholars, but also we have other opinions, on the other hand if something is refuted an irrefutable proof would be needed that does not exist, also regarding other disputed theories (i.e. Daco-Roman or Finno-Ugrian theory) we cannot state generally that something is refuted. So with the utmost good faith towards you, I recommend you to revert yourself, and head to the discussion page, I will wait it for a while. Thanks in advance!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, there are at least 2 editors that support the current phrase (me & Crovata). "There has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians, but this hypothesis does not bear the test of scholarly scrutiny." 123Steller (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not support your addition about refute or whatsoever. Moreover for a new consensus, all participants agreement is needed, as you know it very well. Revert yourself, that is the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * In my understanding, "this hypothesis does not bear the test of scholarly scrutiny" has the same meaning as "this hypothesis was refuted". 123Steller (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You understand it wrong, it is one opinion like many other pro or contra. To refute something such an evidence needed that cannot be debated just see mathematics or other scientific fields. Such opinions about the Daco-Roman theory or the Finno-Ugrian theory could be cited in an endless way.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC))
 * He didn't understand it wrong, it is one of several opinions which have the same conclusion. You don't understand that we don't give equal WP:WEIGHT pro or contra. It is like pushing to include information about the Flat Earth theory in the Earth article. Also you cannot compare this minor, refuted, fringe hypothesis to generally discussed Daco-Roman or Finno-Ugrian theories. You even reported me. Your behavior became WP:DISRUPT because you don't understand how Wikipedia is edited.--Crovata (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , It is ridicouolus what you are stating here, one of several opinions does not prve or imply a general refute or whatsoever, but we discussed this also, you just repeat somthing continously that does not support your claim. If you had carefully listen, I avoided personalization or name-calling, but after what Steller did I had to present the case in the whole. My behavior has no connection to WP:DISRUPT unlike you continous unconcensused push and attack about other editors on false grounds just becuase you hevaily disagree or dislike something. Just keep the rules like everyone else has to(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * It is not about one, there several opinions i.e. conclusions it is a refuted, fringe theory. Yes, we already discussed this and it is incredible you still don't understand and accept it.--Crovata (talk) 11:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there are more opinons pro and contra, there is not any gerenaral conclusion about refution. Yes we discussed many times and you don't accept or understand other's point of view (not just mine).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Stop to lie, there is one general scholarship conclusion about refution. My last comment here.--Crovata (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not lying, you again do not understand that one conclusion is not a general refution, my last warning of civility.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please I have to do this only because ot was demanded the name of the users, as you see I tried to resolve it in your personal page, without any personalization and conflict, you did not revert your edit finally. Remember when I have mistakenly run in a 3RR you imediately reported me. So you can see how nice I try to avoid any possible conflict. I am still willing you treat you as a partner.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

Hátszeg
Ok,

give a little time to figure out the best English reference for it. I need some time, it is more rare even the Royal Lands. I'll tell if I can present some alternatives.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
 * "Thank you" for your patience...(KIENGIR (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
 * I don't understand your displeasure. A request for rename can be launched anytime. 123Steller (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am for the initial collaboration and construction regarding a new article, maybe my engineer vain dictates like so. If you'd ask me to wait, I'd have waited. I wish you Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
 * , if we don't have the (incipient) Land of Hațeg article and the afferent talk page, which would be the venue for discussing the article title? The talk page of another article? A user page? I find your scenario odd.


 * The current article title is seemingly valid, I found it in several places. If another name will be considered more appropriate, a rename can be easily done. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, too! 123Steller (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we managed also with this "odd scenario" regarding Royal Lands, Wikipedia has large opportunities to talk, then you - at least - waited for me. I did not say you'd harm any rule, it is just about a mutual respect, if I ask you something like if you'd ask something...it's all about this. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Well, I have finished looking on the subject, I added some historical info directly, I have no intention to change the name of the article, it seems it is most widely used in English. However, if we refer of strictly as part of Hungary or Transylvanian states in the early period, the term "District of Hátszeg" may be used to indicate officially that it is something administrative and not considered just as a region in broader terms.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Meanwhile, another user changed "Land of Hateg" to "Tara Hategului" claiming that it is left often untranslated, although the "Land of Hateg" has significantly more English reference and occurences than "Tara Hategului"...I let you deal with this in case, check on it.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC))
 * If you don't agree with the rename, it is your right to undo it. In that case, User:Biruitorul will have to follow the steps from WP:RM. 123Steller (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but I have no intention to do immediately anything unless there is a weighty reason for it. Please tell your opinion about this recent change, if you are also comfortable with it, I don't think I'll push on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC))
 * I am not sure which is the best title, there are several variants. Haţeg Country or Haţeg Land, which appear in some places, are also candidates. 123Steller (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring: Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2016 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This dispute has been closed as no violation but I'm alerting you to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE
EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians
Your recent editing history 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)