User talk:OrionNimrod

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Orionnimrod! Your additions to Béla IV of Hungary have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Battle of Varna into List of wars involving Hungary. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Solomon, King of Hungary into List of wars involving Hungary. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are still not supplying the required attribution. It happened again today at History of Transylvania, copying from Székelys. DanCherek (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that, I forget to mention this in the edit log. I do next time. By the way I wrote that text in the Szekely page what I copied to the other page relating the Szekelys and the history of Transylvania. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your understanding. DanCherek (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

False accusations of vandalism
Hello. You have reverted a comment I made on a talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sz%C3%A9kelys&diff=1071098662&oldid=1071050157 under the pretense that it was vandalism. My comment was a valid point in the topic that was being discussed, as it was my intention to provide proper context for the debate regarding wether the subject is an ethnic group or a subgroup. It was made in good faith and therefore cannot be described as "vandalism". Furthermore, the comment did not contain any contentious, false or bad faith arguments that could make someone reasonably assume that the comment was vandalism - aside from my labeling of the Fidesz party as "ultranationalist" - a claim which is supported by reliable sources, and even if it wasn't, it doesn't justify a deletion of an entire post. I will undo your revert, and I will ask that you read WP:ATWV for future reference. Thank you. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to have reverted my edit on the Hungary page about the government state. Where else am I meant to put the government state then in the infobox? NecromancerOfEnchanting (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Lorin
"Lorin Fortuna" is the name of a well-known and controversial Romanian, involved in the 1989 Revolution. The Wikipedia account is clearly a joke. Also "secoimea" is a mocking word that replaces "secuimea" with a word from the word family of testicles ("coaie" in Romanian). Regards,--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information! OrionNimrod (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Transylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gilău. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Tárnok Valley moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Battle of Tárnok Valley, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Storchy (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This was just a start stage, expanding in progress. But I did not know how move to draft. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Storchy,
 * Could you delete this article?
 * Draft:Battle of Tárnok Valley
 * I created a new one which is better named, because this 2 legendary battle is related and it was almost together in the old medieval chronicle, of course I will expand and make it correct:
 * Draft:Battle of Tárnok Valley and Battle of Zeiselmauer
 * Thanks! OrionNimrod (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, just place a template on the article, since you made the only substantial edits. Storchy (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! OrionNimrod (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Csaba's existence
Let me be frank, I think that Prince Csaba never existed. I think the stories about Csaba (by Simon of Kéza, and Mark of Kalt) as well as the story involving Prince Zuard & the Sobamogera (by Anonymus, on pp 46-47 of containing Rady's translation, see also Rady's note on pp. 68-69) are all based this short passage: "One part went eastwards and settled in the region of Persia, and they to this day are called by the ancient denomination of the [Magyars] 'Sabartoi asphaloi'" However, I do not know (any) source(s) that refute(s), or at least is/are skeptical of Csaba's existence. Can you kindly provide any? If there weren't any, still fine. I'll keep speculation in the talk pages instead of publishing it in articles. Thanks beforehand!Erminwin (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Sabirs were also referred to as Huns. Byzantine documents normally refer to Sabirs as Sabiroi, although the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (908-959) writes in his De Administrando Imperio that he was told by a Hungarian delegation visiting his court that the Tourkoi (the Byzantine name for the Hungarians) used to be called "sabartoi asphaloi". Possibly some Hungarian group derived from the Sabirs.
 * I think the Hungarian names many times were adapted wrongly in foreign sources or the Hungarian form was different for the same person. Csaba can be legendary or real figure. If real, historians identify his person with son of Attila like Ernak, just Csaba was the Hungarian name for him. Ernak based the Onogurs. By 568 the Avars, under Khagan Bayan I established an empire in the Carpathian Basin that lasted for 250 years. Related peoples from the east arrived in the Avar Kaganate several times: around 595 the Kutrigurs, and then around 670 the Onogurs.
 * Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum and the Chronicon Pictum say:
 * Probably this can be the Avars/Onogurs, (Hungarian chronicles never mention the Avars, and also the Hungarians named several times as Huns or Scythians, even in the Avar timeline)
 * “This Csaba is the legal son of Attila from the daughter of the Greek emperor Honorius, whose sons were called Edemen and Ed. When the Hungarians returned to Pannonia for the second time, Edemen was coming with the huge kinship of his father and mother, his mother was from the nation of Khwarazm/Chorasmia (White Huns/Hephthalites). And Ed stayed in Scythia with his father. The Aba clan originated from this Csaba. When Csaba went back to Scythia and he boasted the nobility of his mother in front of the community, the nobility of the Huns despised him, claiming that he is not a true offspring of the country of Scythia, but only such a foreign kind. Why he did not get a wife from Scythia, but he got a wife from the nation of Chorasmia.”
 * "In the year of 677 after the incarnation of the Lord, 104 years after the death of King Attila of Hungary, in the time of Emperor Constantine III and Pope Zachary - as it is written in the Roman chronicle - the Hungarians came out the second time from Scythia."
 * Some historians (which can be fringe) think the timeline problems related to the Phantom time hypothesis, and because it was many calendar and confusion and new unified calendar was after 1000 only in Europe.
 * Name of Hungary
 * The Hungarians probably belonged to the Onogur tribal alliance and it is very possible that they became its ethnic majority.
 * Several contemporary sources mentioned the Hun–Avar–Hungarian continuity and identity, such as "The Avars called Hungarians".  The downfall of the Avar Khaganate at the beginning of the 9th century did not mean the extinction of the Avar population, contemporary written sources report surviving Avar groups. The main work of historian and archeologist Gyula László is the theory of the "double conquest" of the Carpathian Basin by Hungarians in the 5th and 9th centuries. The essence of the theory is that Avar culture is similar, or sometimes identical to Hungarian culture in that period. According to the archaeological findings, the Avars not only survived the end of the Avar state but lived in great masses at the time of the Hungarian conquest. Gyula László suggests that late Avars, arriving to the khaganate in 670 in great numbers, lived through the time between the destruction and plunder of the Avar state by the Franks at the beginning of the 9th century and the arrival of the Hungarians at the end of the 9th century. He points out that the settlements of the Hungarians complemented, rather than replaced, those of the Avars.
 * The Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin, in a geographically unified but politically divided land, after acquiring thorough local knowledge of the area from the 860s onwards.  After the end of the Avar Kaganate (c. 822), the Eastern Franks asserted their influence in Transdanubia, the Bulgarians to a small extent in the Southern Transylvania and the interior regions housed the surviving Avar population in their stateless state. According to the archaeological evidence, the Avar population survived the time of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin. In this power vacuum, The Hungarian conqueror elite took the system of the former Avar Kaganate, there is no trace of massacres and mass graves, it is believed to have been a peaceful transition for local residents in the Carpathian Basin.
 * In 862, Prince Rastislav of Moravia rebelled against the Franks, and after hiring Magyar troops, won his independence; this was the first time that Hungarians expeditionary troops entered the Carpathian Basin. In 862, Archbishop Hincmar of Reims records the campaign of unknown enemies called "Ungri", giving the first mention of the Hungarians in Western Europe. In 881, the Hungarian forces fought together with the Kabars in the Vienna Basin. According to historian György Szabados and archeologist Miklós Béla Szőke, a group of Hungarians were already living in the Carpathian Basin at that time, so they could quickly intervene in the events of the Carolingian Empire.   The number of recorded battles increased from the end of the 9th century. In the late Avar period, a part of Hungarians was already present in the Carpathian Basin in the 9th century, this has been supported by genetic and archaeological research, because there are graves in which Avar descendants are buried in Hungarian clothes. An important segment of this Avar era Hungarians is that the Hungarian county system of King Saint Stephen I may be largely based on the power centers formed during the Avar period.  The Hungarians took possession of the Carpathian Basin in a pre-planned manner, with a long move-in between 862–895.  OrionNimrod (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem of Turanian fantasy is the population genetics, especially the modern Autosomal genetic admixtures. Almost all population of the former communist countries (Slavs or Romanians) cotain higher ratio of Mongoloid/Asatic genetic admixture ratio than modern Hungarians. How can you explain it?--Hefty-priced (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hefty-priced, could you clarify, who should be Mongolian? OrionNimrod (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I can not believe that you have never heard of population genetics. Maybe you confuse the term Mongoloid (around 40% of Global population) with Mongol nation.--Hefty-priced (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not know what do you want to say with this genetic data. Please clarify it. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You have confused the terms of mongoloid with mongol ethnic group. I think you are a turanist, a follower of pseudo historic movement.--Hefty-priced (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not really and I do not know what are you talking about, and what do you want with that mongolid thing because you did not explain your purpose why do you write me regarding this. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You mentioned László Gyula and his debunked dual conquest theory, which was revoked by him. You believe that Huns and avars are related to Magyars, which is false. That's why it is obvious that you are Turanist fantasta. Hefty-priced (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * King_Ladislaus_I_Hungary_-_Haplogroups.jpg
 * I see the turanism means some kind of turkic brotherhood, I do not remember I would write ever about these things. I beleive in the result of the DNA. That is your personal problem if you do not like the science and the result. I also like the very old medieval sources, I also do not think that 1000 years ago the German, Hungarian, Byzantine, Italian, etc authors were turanist who wrote Hungarians related to Huns. Genetic studies revealed that the Huns and Hungarians had a certain relation, especially the ruling class, and the identity of the nation always came from the ruling class. Genetic studies also revealed that the Huns and Hungarians were a very mixed diverse groups, (both mostly Scythian, Sarmatian mix and less Asian), so I really do not think why do you cherry pick only the mongoloid element, which was rather the feature of the Avar elite but not the Avar commoners according to the studies. Regarding today Hungarians, after 600 years (20 generations) everybody has more than 1 million ancestors, what do you expect? But of course people in the same place are mixing each other so the genetic is mostly similar. As Hungarian, in my personal genetic result I have many Asian Hun, Tien Shan Hun, Saka, Tarim mummy, Pazirik Scythian, Asian Scythians, Sarmatians and of course a lot of European Scythian, Hun from Carpathian Basin, and many Avar and Hungarian conqueror sample matches from the proper period which show us the steppe migrations. But of course I have vast amount of local Carpathian Basin sample matches from all ancient periods, because the locals always mixed with the newcomers. I also have German and Slavic sample matches. These things are true for the other Hungarians as I saw many individual results.
 * https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1 OrionNimrod (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You confused [Pan-Turkism]] with Turanism. They are not the same. Turanism also includes fantasy theories of kinship with extinct peoples, e.g. Huns, Scythians, Avars, Sumerians, Etruscans, and also with peoples living today, e.g. Japanese Hungarian Mongols, Native American Indians, Koreans, Finns and Turkic speaking peoples. Interestingly, the pseudo-scientific Turanian origin theory of Hungarians, e.g. kinship with Huns, is 100% consistent with the discrediting narrative propagated by Hungarian-hating Romanian or Slovak nationalists about Hungarians. Hefty-priced (talk)
 * MyTrueAncestry_-_To_closest_Ancient_group.jpg
 * @Hefty-priced, I am not interested in turanism, however old people did not evaporate but they were the ancestors of the future generations, and all nations mixed in various levels during centuries. Genetics are a real science, morover many of my family members anonym way made a personal test and the DNA company grouped together with them as a family. Also I do not understand what is the business with Hungarian, Romanian, Slovak nationalism that 1000 years old authors wrote Hungarians are related to Huns and Scythians (DNA proved) for example Anglo Saxon map from 1040 wrote in the territory of Hungary "Hun race" Early world maps. Please consult with the old high ranked authors from many different countries (sometimes emperor, popes) who wrote this connection, and with modern genetic scholars. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you follow the methodes and characteritics of pseudohistory. You also follow the fantaasy of Gesta Hungarorum, which is supported only by Romanian historians.

A „sajátos nemzeti érdekeiket” szem előtt tartó román történészek abszolút hiteles műként szeretik bemutatni a Gesztát a nemzetközi közvélemény előtt. 1987-ben Ceausescu román diktátor kérésére még a New York Times-ban is fizetett hirdetésszerű propagandaanyagot jelentettek meg a Gesta "hitelességének" védelme érdekében.[6]

A magyar történészek viszont kezdetektől bírálták a műnek a honfoglalás korára vonatkozó hitelességét. A gesztában szerepeltetett helyi vezérek vagy államok ugyanis teljesen különböznek attól, ami a régebbi német, bizánci, lengyel és kijevi krónikákban olvasható. Információ hiányában Anonymus fiktív hősöket, vezéreket talál ki, akiket folyókról vagy domborzattal kapcsolatos helynevek után nevezett el. Fiktív hősei a honfoglalás során pedig elképzelt csatákat vívtak elképzelt népek és a honfoglalás korában a Kárpát-medencében nem létező hatalmak ellen.[7] A Honfoglalás korára vonatkozóan az Anonymus által "ősi" Kárpát-medencei etnikumokként szerepeltetett kazárok, kunok, görögök, blakok (románok), csehek és rómaiak a 9. században nem éltek ezen a területen.[8]

Read the article of pseudohistory.

Pseudohistory is purported history which:

Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients Is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political or religious agenda rather than find out the truth about the past Often denies that there is such a thing as historical truth, clinging to the extreme skeptical notion that only what is absolutely certain can be called 'true' and nothing is absolutely certain, so nothing is true Often maintains that history is nothing but mythmaking and that different histories are not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, fairness or honesty, but on moral or political grounds Is selective in its use of ancient documents, citing favorably those that fit with its agenda, and ignoring or interpreting away those documents which do not fit Considers the possibility of something being true as sufficient to believe it is true if it fits with one's agenda Often maintains that there is a conspiracy to suppress its claims because of racism, atheism or ethnocentrism, or because of opposition to its political or religious agenda[9]

Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke prefers the term "cryptohistory". He identifies two necessary elements as "a complete ignorance of the primary sources" and the repetition of "inaccuracies and wild claims".[10][11]

Other common characteristics of pseudohistory are:

The arbitrary linking of disparate events so as to form – in the theorist's opinion – a pattern. This is typically then developed into a conspiracy theory postulating a hidden agent responsible for creating and maintaining the pattern. For example, the pseudohistorical The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail links the Knights Templar, the medieval Grail Romances, the Merovingian Frankish dynasty and the artist Nicolas Poussin in an attempt to identify lineal descendants of Jesus. Hypothesising the consequences of unlikely events that "could" have happened, thereby assuming tacitly that they did. Sensationalism, or shock value Cherry picking, or "law office history", evidence that helps the historical argument being made and suppressing evidence that hurts it.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefty-priced (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please consult with the genetic scholars and not with me, that the genetic result are wrong according to you... OrionNimrod (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

No, your Magyarságkutató Intézet is not considered real scientific organization, since their researchers had no hiigh academic rank or rank at the universities, it was established as political propaganda tool of the recent governemnt, it is part of the NER. You try to avoid the answer: Why do you use the charateristics of pseudo history? Why do you try to follow unreliable fairly-tale books, like Gesta Hungarorum, which can be called as the Holy script of Romanians. Why do you support such laughable theories like turanism, which is 100% in line with anti-Hungarian Romanian and Slovak propagandas? Thank you for your answer. (Please do not avoid any questions, and do no cherry pick only a single topic of this discussion.--Hefty-priced (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My family did genetic test with: 23andme is USA, MyTrueAncestry is Swiss company, my closest ancient population is Scythian, and I can see many Hun sample matches. Please consult with them too that you do not beleive in their result, that is your problem not mine. 1000 years old German, Hungarian authors, Byzantine emperors, ... etc were clearly not turanist. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There are no Scythian option in genetic tests. Neither genetic testing companies use such pseudo-scientific terms when they sent the results of the tests vie e-mail. There are several pseudo-scientific game calculators (or clown calculators) where you can upload the DNA test files, and give you anceient fantasy ancestors. They are used often by nationalist teenagers instead of serious adult people. --Hefty-priced (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There are thousand of archeogenetic analyzed samples, and scholars are uploading them to the archeogenetic database. And the DNA of modern population are compared with them. That is still not my problem that you deny the existence of it.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOXBdsywuoQ
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9_e__J6cAE OrionNimrod (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to read the genetics section of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scytho-Siberian_world#Genetics If you were real scythian, than you would had non-European (non-White) partially Asian/Mongoloid genetics, which is very unusual in Hungary. Asian admixture is more common among Eastern Slavic and Romanian population.--Hefty-priced (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I see Scythians have European genetic OrionNimrod (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Nobody see tham true europeans among archeogeneticist. East erasian admxture is determinant in them (it means mongoloid aka Asian genetics) Learn: Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians Link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe4414 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefty-priced (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you say the ancient population above Black Sea (Scyhia) in Europe was Mongoloid? (There are also blond Scythian mummies in western China.) Morover Scythians were in the Carpathian Basin also: Agathyrsi.
 * Scythian deer found in Hungary:
 * https://mnm.hu/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_item/public/gallery/01_szkita_aranyszarvas_01_jpg.jpg?itok=4hKa_-eM
 * https://mnm.hu/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_item/public/gallery/szkita_aranyszarvas_02_jpg_1.jpg?itok=QZ265WU8 OrionNimrod (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Scythians as an ethnic group were born in the borderlands of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, thus their Mongoloid / Causcaisan admixture is not surprising but expected. Scythians were not so advanced to create any aristically signifficant values, most of their gold and sylver artifacts were created by Greek and Persian masters.--Hefty-priced (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello!
I am writing because you are clearly interested in the medieval history of Hungary. In the recent period, many developments have been made in order to genetically identify the members of the Árpád dynasty (and also the Hunyadi family), which is a joint project of the Szeged Archeology Center and MKI (The royal tombs of Székesfehérvár, the Reliquary of St. Ladislaus, the identification of graves by radiocarbon analysis, either in Egres or Abasár, etc.). I think that a separate article could be written about this, where the current development could always be expanded. I am happy to undertake this, but I think my background knowledge is not enough. However, it would be good to collect the sources (MKI has published monographs on the subject in English). What do you think about this? I also wrote about the matter to another editor User:Gyalu22, who is also active in the topic of medieval history. Norden1990 (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Norden1990 and Gyalu22! I am happy to participate in this with you. I think I have a good knowledge about the topic because I usually follow those researches, and also I have many sources regarding this. Also they have a youtube channel, many videos where they explain the result to make it more understandable, and also they are making many kind of history conference with many kind of scholars, with foreign scholars also. I and my family also have personal genetic result and I saw many genetic result from other Hungarian people, and these results are in harmony with the genetic results of the MKI.
 * The genetic legacy of the Hunyadi descendants – Published: 16 November 2022: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(22)03019-5
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glNx8uuBgOI
 * The genetic origin of Huns, Avars, and conquering Hungarians: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1
 * The archaeogenomic validation of Saint Ladislaus’ relic provides insights into the Árpád dynasty’s genealogy: http://www.jgenetgenomics.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.jgg.2022.06.008
 * Determination of the phylogenetic origins of the Árpád Dynasty based on Y chromosome sequencing of Béla the Third: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-020-0683-z
 * Maternal Lineages from 10–11th Century Commoner Cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8005002/
 * Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Niwa2CSPA
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dl6uFFFj-Y
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA5bsdpxkUA
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYGT-9Z0wPA
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlUyc6Rf5xk&list=PL5_qHt3CexT5VM8u7-u2_O5VsHSWy-NIz&index=20
 * https://mki.gov.hu/hu/videok-hu/mediaszereplesek-hu/a-hun-avar-magyar-rokonsag-bizonyitekai-atirjak-a-honfoglalasrol-tanult-ismereteinket
 * Similar foreign studies:
 * Xiongnu Y-DNA connects Huns & Avars to Scytho-Siberians: https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/
 * 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
 * Genetic evidence suggests a sense of family, parity and conquest in the Xiongnu Iron Age nomads of Mongolia: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4
 * Diverse origin of mitochondrial lineages in Iron Age Black Sea Scythians: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43950?proof=t
 * Longobards from Scandinavia, and the “Ural-Altaic” Árpád lineage: https://indo-european.eu/2020/10/longobards-from-scandinavia-and-the-ural-altaic-arpad-lineage/ OrionNimrod (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Longobards from Scandinavia, and the “Ural-Altaic” Árpád lineage: https://indo-european.eu/2020/10/longobards-from-scandinavia-and-the-ural-altaic-arpad-lineage/ OrionNimrod (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Gyalu22 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Beatrice d'Este portrait
Hi. You provided a link but I cannot access the website. The portrait definitely does not look contemporary. Could you please provide some details about the source publication and also about the file (author, date, etc)? Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Surtsicna,
 * I think it is very rare to find contemporary medieval portraits. For example, many other similar articles use non-contemporary portraits (because contemporary portraits not available) List of Hungarian monarchs, please check the ruler articles. It is very strange that links does not work for me at the moment, but it worked and I downloaded the book some hours earlier, please try later. This is the book of the Este family: Genealogia dei principi d'Este
 * http://bibliotecaestense.beniculturali.it/info/img/mss/i-mo-beu-alfa.l.5.16.pdf
 * http://www.ilbulinoedizionidarte.it/italiano/facsimili_250.asp
 * Anyway I give you screenshot
 * Beatrice Este.png
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A portrait is not required. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, it is better not to have a portrait than to have a poor portrait. That 15th-century miniature looks very much out of place, in my opinion, because the subject is a 13th-century woman. It is especially jarring that she is dressed in Renaissance fashion. I think a wider image would be appropriate at House of Este, but not necessarily in individual articles on people who lived much earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow your logic we could remove all portrait from all historical persons before 15th century. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna, Do you think these non contemporary portraits are better? Should we remove them? I do not think so. You know many paintings and satues were erected much later to represent historical persons.
 * King Arthur
 * Eadwig
 * Æthelred the Unready
 * Genghis Khan
 * Louis V of France
 * Charles IV of France
 * + thousand of examples OrionNimrod (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCONTENT is a very good essay: that crap exists in other articles is no reason to have crap in this article. The examples you listed include a legendary person (of whom, naturally, there can be no contemporary portrait); a nearly contemporary depiction (also a likeness) made for the subject's tomb by a famous sculptor; and a nearly contemporary portrait made from the memory of eyewitnesses and universally associated with the subject. They are not comparable to an obscure illustration made two centuries after the subject lived. Does this illustration appear in any biographies or reference works on Beatrice? Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So you do not like when her own Este family made a family book later about the family members? We can ask third opinions about this, but following your logic we could remove thousand of infobox images, I think users were not happy. If we do not have contemporary portrait, still I do not understand why would be problem to use later depictions. Almost all medieval wiki pages full with them. I think you know there are hundred of future depictions of famous peoples, battles. Forbid to use them? Or you have problem only in the usage in the infobox? But we can use in the article as mention "depiction in X book from 1500? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not like it when we use as lead images those illustrations that are not used in reliable sources discussing the subject, especially academic (scholarly) ones. Those images belong in the body of an article, preferably a "Legacy" section or something similar. The lead image should inform, not merely decorate and certainly not confuse. Surtsicna (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. But following to this thinking, we could remove all images from all persons in the medieval times. For example we could remove the images almost from all kings, because the majority of them are not contemporary. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not quite true. Most have contemporary images. But they do not have to be contemporary if they are commonly associated with the subject. This image is probably not found in any source discussing Beatrice's life. But if you feel so strongly about it, let's at least have a caption warning the reader that the image does not represent what she looked like or even what any 13th-century woman could have looked like. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why would be a problem if the own Este family made a illustrated family book later about the family members. Which is clearly associated to the subject. We can mention where is the image, 15th century depiction from that book, etc. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Hungarian monarchs
It is very good to see that you are making a more informative table of the list of Hungarian rulers. However, it would be nice if the article was accompanied by sources. For instance,

I have doubts about some dates, however. For example, it is impossible that Andrew III would have been king on 10 July 1290, since he was still in captivity in Austria on the day of the assassination of Ladislaus IV. He was smuggled out of the country by the monks of Archbishop Lodomer. On the other hand, Coloman had to fight for the crown with his brother Álmos following the death of Ladislaus I, and was crowned king only in early 1096. Just one more comment: in the case of Charles I and Louis I, would it not be more appropriate to use the contemporary depictions (the miniatures of the Illuminated Chronicle)? But these are just small comments, the list itself is very impressive and informative. I'm glad to see that medieval Hungarian history is of interest to someone other than me here on Wikipedia. Norden1990 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Norden1990 (talk), thanks for your kind feedback! I did it according to my best knowledge, I checked both Hungarian and English wiki regarding the kings. You can update that content which you think it is not perfect, or maybe with this: (?). I think in modern times it is more attractive and easier to learn if we could combine the good informations with good design. I already updated the full Chronicon Pictum, however I plan to buy the book and use much better photos later, I also started to update the Chronica Hungarorum so later we can easier use the best quality images. I also made many work on wiki common, descriptions, category, uploads regarding the subject. For example what do you think about the coat of arms before Stephen? Chronicles said it was the Turul. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited István Kniezsa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hungarian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

John Hunyadi
Hello, I already talked with @Borsoka and she let the text I wrote in. Historians' consensus is that his father was Vlach/Romanian and there are only legends about his mother two centuries later. Talk with @Borsoka. I will put back what I wrote. Ninhursag3 (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * John Hunyadi'S father was Wallachian/Vlach. Wallachian and Wallachia come from Vlach (exonym from German that means Romance/Latin language speaker). Vlachs called themselves Romanians. Ninhursag3 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * John Hunyadi's mother is unknown according to contemporary sources. Only that she was born before 1400 in order to give birth to John Hunyadi. Gáspár Heltai notoriously reworked Antonio Bonfini's Ten Volumes of Hungarian Matters (written between 1488 and 1497) which Heltai published in 1575 as "Chronicle of the Hungarians’ Past Deeds" and added his own text to it. Including adding Erzsébet Morzsinai as Voyk's wife and John Hunyadi's mother. Ninhursag3 (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please use the talk page of the article. I do not see that Borsoka would agree with anything. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want proof, the best proof is the fact that @Borsoka left my last edit alone before you changed it. You can ask her. I already talked with her about the topic. Not about John Hunyadi's mother though. I made a topic on the John Hunyadi page, please read it. Thank you in advance, have a nice day. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Your edit to Vlach law has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa, sorry for that, I will be more careful. I already rephrase every sentences what I use from source to respect copyright, probably I was not enough carefully in this case, however I changed the text, it seems it was not enough modification. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Nádasdy Mausoleum
Hello, OrionNimrod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nádasdy Mausoleum, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Szabolcs
Hello, OrionNimrod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Szabolcs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Battle of Tárnok Valley and Battle of Zeiselmauer
Hello, OrionNimrod. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Tárnok Valley and Battle of Zeiselmauer, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Pápai tizedjegyzék
Van egy új tanulmány az 1332-37. évi pápai tizedjegyzékről, amely esetleg érdekes lehet számomra, itt. Norden1990 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Köszönöm, jók a térképek benne! OrionNimrod (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

POV-pushing regarding the origins of the Romanians
I've already warned you once. I am warning you again to appropriately portray academic discourse regarding the origin of the Romanians. In Decree of Turda, you've only included Hungarian sources referring to the Romanians as settlers in Transylvania. If you show you're not able to edit Wikipedia from a neutral point of view showing both viewpoints in a heavily controversial area you will be sanctioned. The solution here is to either use sources showing both viewpoints or at the very least attribute the sources you use ("according to X, whatever"). If you cannot do this I am going to report you to the administrators. Super  Ψ   Dro  10:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Super! As Hungarian editor I have almost only Hungarian sources and you can see I am focusing only Hungarian topics: User:OrionNimrod There are many common Hungarian and Romanian historical events, so sometimes the articles regarding each other. All Hungarian sources universally claim the Romanians as settlers in Transylvania, which is part of the Hungarian history, I cannot do anything, because this is the Hungarian historiography and knowledge. Decree of Turda and List of Papal Tithes from 1332–1337 in the Kingdom of Hungary made by medieval Hungarian administration so Hungarians sources know about them. Also I know a lot of non Hungarian historians from many countries who claim the same, the reason is simple, because Hungarian historiography (and German, Austrian, Polish...) does not know about any Romanian presence in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary before 1200, example: British historian about Hungary, Martyn Rady book: "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania." I do not know Romanian language, I do not know the Romanian sources, and I see most of the articles the Romanian POV already presented while the Hungarian is not. I asked at the Papa Tithes source to ask Romanian contributors to extend it. However probably you are right, and those content belongs better to the history of Transylvania where already both POV are presented. I understand that you say both POV should mention, that is why I do not understand because after you reverts the Decree of Turda article represents only the Romanian POV. Earlier this edit incited me to represent the Hungarian POV, and earlier that article represented only the Romanian POV. Which one, you can see it was questioned also by Borsoka because the decree of Torda does not mention any religious things, and I showed the Hungarian POV to explain the reason for the harsh actions toward Romanians. I agree with you, I can use "according to X", in this article I did this: Vlach law, please check it, what do you think? (however many Romanian claim should also write "according to Romanian historiography", and I think in many case not only Hungarians claim the same, so it is hard to phrase). OrionNimrod (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not true that all non-Romanian scholars support the commonly held view by Hungarians. As an example of a scholar supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory there is Keith Hitchins. This is a notion that you should not count with. In Hungary, virtually all scholars support the immigrationist theory, in Romania the same with the Daco-Roman one, but international scholars are mixed. I've honestly seen more supporting the Daco-Roman continuity one but I assume this might be due to my own bias which might be what has happened to you.
 * I don't know Hungarian either however today in the Internet era it is easy to translate sources. If I had do I could pick some Romanian sources and translate some Hungarian ones and synthesize and balance the information present to them in a neutrally-written article. This is what you should do, it is complicated but required. This is one of the reasons I avoid the Transylvania feuds in Wikipedia, almost all historiography is blatantly nationalist, there's a lot of trash. I please ask you to treat this topic with more care in the future as I don't like seeing articles in Wikipedia addressing the Hungarian view only as a Romanian. You've told me the same happens to you regarding the Romanian view, and you're on your right, that needs fixing too, but that shouldn't mean that some articles should therefore only show the Hungarian view like some show the Romanian one only. Ideally this should motivate contributing to the feat that all articles become neutral and balanced, adding Hungarian views to those articles and writing neutral ones. Otherwise you'd be further contributing to the problem rather than fixing anything.
 * And yes, Romanian sources should also be attributed when necessary. I didn't imply that all Hungarian sources must be attributed all the time by the way, only the possibly controversial statements should. An example: which was not resolved and was further complicated by legal and social aspects of the settlement of Romanians in the Hungarian counties. This is simply showing the Romanians as settlers and presenting it as a factual statement when it is not known if that was the case. This is a controversial statement and it needs to be attributed. Info treating more inoffensive matters, which will be most of the info in an article unless about a topic like Origin of the Romanians, doesn't have to be attributed. I assume what happened in the case that I cited that a primary historical source mentioned the Romanians in a context of problems in Transylvania and the author you cited, Benedek Jancsó, combined this information with his already set in stone view that Romanians are migrants and wrote that it is precisely the settler Romanians, because of their settling, that were causing the problems. Maybe the historical source did mention the Romanians as directly causing the problems but I would not be surprised if Jancsó exaggerated it. Maybe you're now seeing the problem in this academic area. Many authors interpret the sources to favor their views.
 * By the way, I don't know why would you think an info presenting Romanians as violent people attacking fields and stealing and killing each other was a good idea. It seriously makes me concerned about what do you consider is appropriate for an article. You even presented this as factual, unattributed. I am 100% sure no such article does the same about Hungarians. There is a point in which we have to question the author's professionality. It probably also matters that the source is from 1931 right after the Treaty of Trianon in isolated Hungary. Historical context is important to consider, like you would I would not blindly trust the integrity of a Romanian source talking about Northern Transylvania in 1942. See also the Wikipedia policy WP:AGEMATTERS.
 * And yes, I am aware of the edits you mention at Decree of Turda. I reverted them too because I realized you added those edits because of that. Next time though, the best solution could be starting a discussion with the user that added the information you disagree with.
 * Lastly a note. By attributing I mean "According to János Bárth", or "János Bárth argues that". "According to X historiography" is too general and would get repeated too often in an article. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Super! I see you are nice and smart. I understand what you mean, I can accept, because I agree Wiki should be a great and high quality intellectual material, which should present all academic views. Could you cooperate with me in those cases where the topic is sensible and the Hungarian and Romanian POV are different? Because I know the Hungarian sources, you know the Romanian sources it would be good to publish both POVs regarding the same topic. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Transylvania is not among my interests, I am more interested in diaspora areas like Bukovina, Timok Valley or Transnistria. I would say Transylvania if not second to Bessarabia is the primary region in the mind of Romanian patriots so you will be able to find other Romanian editors in this topic area, hopefully with good intentions.
 * By the way, you made a good job here . I'm glad to see you've understood these concepts quickly. The only other thing I'd note is the format of references. There's two ways of citing: etiquettes and sfn templates. Do you understand what I did here ? Because consistency should be kept if an article is written using sfn templates. Hopefully you will be able to understand how do those templates work, though if necessary I can explain you.
 * I don't have any other issue with your edits. Many thanks for your understanding and cooperation. I apologize if my tone might've been harsh at first. Super   Ψ   Dro  14:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Bulcsú
Ha esetleg Bulcsú cikkét jelentősen ki tudnád bővíteni a közeljövőben, az nagyszerű lenne. Én nem igazán vagyok otthon a magyar őstörténetben + a nagyfejedelemség korában, ezért nem is nyúltam még hozzá. De mégis csak a 10. században legtöbbet emlegetett magyar törzsszövetségi vezetőről van szó. Forrást, ha gondolod, segíthetek összegyűjteni a számodra. Norden1990 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Norden1990, köszönöm, az jó lenne! Ezt nézd meg: OrionNimrod (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Köszi, mindenképp meglesem. Bár az igazat megvallva, azért Kásler nálam valahol az ezoterikus őstörténet határán mozog. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Norden1990, Ha megnezted kivancsian meghallgatnam hogy szerinted mi nem stimmelt abban amit mondott, ha lesz ilyen abban az eloadasban. Nekem jo osszefoglalonak tunt, Bulcsu is benne van azert jutott eszembe. OrionNimrod (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Siege of jajce,
The Ottoman army did not retreat, Mehmed handed the siege to his pasha and marched on the Hungarian army. Keremmaarda (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Aristeus01 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Tárnok Valley and Battle of Zeiselmauer
Szia! A tárnokvölgyi csatáról illetve az ahhoz kapcsolódó hun-magyar hagyományról jelent meg egy új tanulmány Veszprémy László tollából a legújabb Hadtörténelmi Közleményekben (2023. 1. sz. március). Később majd ingyenesen is letölthető lesz a szám. Norden1990 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Szia @Norden1990! Köszi az infót, esetleg ha elérhető átküldenéd? Én ezt ismertem tőle: https://arsmilitaria.blog.hu/2020/09/23/a_tarnokvolgyi_csata_es_attila_sirja
 * Látom sok csatát kidolgoztál, esetleg megtennéd azok esetében amiket te írtál (tehát gyorsan és jobban tudod) hogy röviden beírnád a lényeget hasonló módon ahogy pl Kálmán király háborúinál beírtam ide: List of wars involving Hungary? OrionNimrod (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Egyelőre nem elérhető (szerintem csak jövő év elején lesz az), de átküldhetem e-mailben, mert a könyvtárban kifényképeztem. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Szia @Norden1990! Az nagyszerű lenne! Be van állítva hogy innen tudsz írni emailt. Akkor ha visszajelzek ott tudod is küldeni a fájlt. Köszönöm! OrionNimrod (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Szia@Norden1990! Elküldtem levélben innen az email címemet, esetleg küldtél fotót mert még nem látom? OrionNimrod (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bocsánat, csak most volt időm, elvileg elküldtem a fotókat. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rerum Hungaricarum Decades
Hello OrionNimrod,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rerum Hungaricarum Decades for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Rerum Hungaricarum Decades to be deleted, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

- 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆, yes thank you, this is draft and mistake. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Pauline–Carmelite Monastery
Your edit to Sopronbánfalva has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Azure94 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Diannaa, @DanCherek, I contacting with you because you are part of the copyright team. An user started a harrassment campaign (WP:HARASS) against me, he follows me on many articles with personal insults, blacklist persons, he deleted now content (the full chapter, every single sentences as personal revenge) what I wrote myself with my own words as allegedly "copyright violation". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sopronbánfalva&diff=prev&oldid=1168067789
 * Well this is the English Wikipedia, and the source text was not English what I used, I also used several sources adding/removing contents by my own taste and using my own language to write the article following the sourced contents. Because Wikipedia needs reliable sources, it means we can adapt the same content just change the language to avoid copyright issue. Please check the full text which was written by me and which was removed by the user, please check it whether it is violate any copyright or not. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. You can't "avoid" copyright by just switching the language used. A cursory glance at the article shows that you lifted entire paragraphs outright. Azure94 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A word for word translation or even a paraphrase is not okay, as it violates our copyright policy. The content needs to be re-written completely, in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A word for word translation or even a paraphrase is not okay, as it violates our copyright policy. The content needs to be re-written completely, in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Sopronbánfalva
Hello OrionNimrod! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sopronbánfalva, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://24.hu/kultura/2020/02/12/legyozott-ordogkent-abrazoltak-sztalint-egy-soproni-templomban/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Sopronbánfalva and send an email with confirmation of permission to "[mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ]". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Sopronbánfalva, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Sopronbánfalva. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Sopronbánfalva with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Sopronbánfalva saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Azure94 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, OrionNimrod. Thank you for your work on Epitome rerum Hungarorum. User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 scope_creep Talk  23:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Siege of Belgrade
Hi, In the field battle, the Turks are chasing the Hungarians back to the castle. It is common for Mehmed to be injured because Mehmed was trying to gather his army on the battlefield. Seeing that Mehmed was fighting, the Ottoman soldiers quickly united and attacked the Crusader army and pushed the Hungarians back into the castle. After this war, the Hungarians lost their former power, they could not raise such a large army even in the Battle of Mohacs (although there was crusader support). That's why I wrote the Pyrrhic victory. And İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says that he prevented a crusade from taking place thanks to the resistance of the Turks in the field battle. I would be grateful if you read and evaluate my comment. Keremmaarda (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1171488726
 * I see you have some alternative history about this, you can study this, that siege is very popular, none of them claim your fringe claimes, you need to study them:
 * https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=siege+of+belgrade&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
 * https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=siege+of+belgrade
 * "After this war, the Hungarians lost their former power"
 * ? Really, that is why King Matthias Corvinus occupied huge part of the Holy Roman Empire? :D And Hungary defeated Ottomans again in 1478. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2On5JAMuu4A
 * "Pyrrhic victory" the siege of Belgrade in 1456"??? Article itself say that victory stopped for 70! years the Ottoman adavance. Noon bell came from that victory. "Turk won the battlefield"? How? Hungarians defeated the Ottomans at battlefiled, the sultan wounded the Ottomans retreated fast. That siege is the most famous Hungarian victory against Ottomans.
 * It start to be boring the defacing of all Hungarian-Ottoman battle articles with many similar probably sockpuppet accounts. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Kings And Generals page is not a safe source. It contains a lot of wrong information about Mehmed. https://youtube.com/eOxQhnqMfp4
 * From the link I gave you, if there are subtitles, you can watch the video in detail and understand what I'm talking about. I can give you a lot of sources that the Turks won the field battle. You once told me "we use academic resources given by historians". So why don't you use it now, Mr. OrionNimrod? Keremmaarda (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The link I gave is briefly "Harp Tarihi-Belgrad kuşatmas" You can reach it by writing. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That links were examples that the battle is well researched, you can find many academic sources about the battle. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Historians has different POV that is why "4000-34000" include more sources, we need use what is in the academic historical documents not by our opinion. I added additonal Hungarian sources from the biggest and detailed Hungarian military history book." You gave me this argument for the Kosovo war. Tansel, Uzunçarşılı and many Turkish historians say that the Turks won the pitched battle. Now why not stick to your own argument? Keremmaarda (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is valid. I doubt you have sources which say that siege of Belgrade 1456 was not a Hungarian victory or pyric victory :D You know the flat earth theory has followers but it is fringe because mainstream academic has different opinion. I added just estimations and I did not rewrite complete the battle as you want. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not deny that the war was a Hungarian victory. I'm just saying that your Hungarians are war-torn. That's why I wrote the Pyrrhic victory. The battle in front of the castle, which took place in the victory campaign I mentioned, and the Turks here prevent the crusader army. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says that he prevented the crusade from taking place. Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı is a historian, isn't he? Keremmaarda (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not know what the Turks prevented, they retreat hasten when they were defeated front of the caslte, the sultan was wounded and faint.
 * In many battles both parties have great losses and it does not mean all of them was pyrrhic victory, in the case of Belgrade the Hungarians did not loss full their army. I do not your historian you do nor provide any link to any academic book. I doubt you have any historical source which say that Belgrade battle would be pyrrhic victory. Wiki is not a personal blog. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr. OrionNimrod, only Hungarian cavalry 12 thousand how can there be 4 thousand trained soldiers? Is the situation dire enough for the Hungarian king to land only 4,000 soldiers? Were the Hungarians such a bad kingdom? And the pope is declaring mobilization, and soldiers come in droves from almost every state.The number of untrained soldiers (beggars, peasants) consists of 10 thousand people. King John Hunyadi is sending them ahead anyway. Keremmaarda (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1173032611
 * I see your Hungarian history knowledge is quite weak, John Hunyadi was not a king and Hungarians did not have "spahi" units.
 * you removed the sourced content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=next&oldid=1165150469
 * Anyway I will check the data in the biggest Hungarian military history book. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know, the Turkish translation of Andre Clot said in his book that there were 12 thousand horsemen and 1,000 spahi. And I never wrote that there was an Ottoman victory. I said that the Turks won the pitched battle, which is true. https://683701.site123.me/yaz%C4%B1lar/fatih-sultan-mehmed-in-bat%C4%B1-seferleri Examine the page. When the Grand Viziers offered to retreat to the Sultan, Sultan Mehmed took his sword and knocked down the three people who came upon him and started to counterattack. This move rallied the dispersed army and prevented a possible defeat. Sultan Fatih was injured in his forehead and calf during this battle. While this would have been a terrible defeat for an ordinary ruler, it was just a bad experience for the Great Turk. Because a few months would be enough for him to gather the army he lost again and make up for his deficiencies. The human resources and economic power of the Ottoman Empire were the most obvious indicators of this. While the new preparations were made, Fatih Sultan Mehmed organized a magnificent circumcision wedding for his sons Beyazıd and Mustafa to fix his deteriorated image. Big Turk, He says that Mehmed prevented the defeat and that he recovered in a short time.If the Turks stopped advancing for 70 years, how was Bosnia invaded and captured? And only Mihaloğlu Ali Bey has more than 100 influxes to Hungary.While Mehmed was rapidly gathering large armies before 1 year passed, the Hungarians could not raise armies as large as before.Keremmaarda (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked by google translate: https://683701-site123-me.translate.goog/yazılar/fatih-sultan-mehmed-in-batı-seferleri?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en
 * By the way, is this an academic source?
 * "When the Grand Viziers offered to retreat to the Sultan, Sultan Mehmed took his sword and knocked down the three people who came upon him and started to counterattack. This move rallied the dispersed army and prevented a possible defeat. Sultan Fatih was injured in his forehead and calf during this battle. While this would have been a terrible defeat for an ordinary ruler, it was just a bad experience for the Great Turk. Because a few months would be enough for him to gather the army he lost again and make up for his deficiencies. The human resources and economic power of the Ottoman Empire were the most obvious indicators of this. While the new preparations were made"
 * It says " this would have been a terrible defeat for an ordinary ruler, it was just a bad experience for the Great Turk. Because a few months would be enough for him to gather the army he lost again and make up for his deficiencies." which means the sultan was defeated but the empire was strong, so he could gather again a new army for the future, which means the defeat was not a fatal for him.
 * In your source, I do not read any Turk victory in the battle or any Pyrrhic victory as you rewrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)&diff=prev&oldid=1171488726
 * The Ottomans advance in Europe was stopped for 70 years = they did not enter in Hungary. Bosnia was south from Hungary. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * HiKeremmaarda, conversation moved here to the appropriate place: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456) please post there. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He says that the sultan prevented the defeat and gathered the army again. If the rout was averted, how could the Turks have lost the pitched battle? Yes, the source I gave is a reliable and academic page. I admit that the general campaign was a Hungarian victory. What I am talking about is the field battle in front of the castle. And Bosnia is a kind of vassal under Hungarian rule. In fact, Turkish sources write that Serbia and Bosnia are tired of the Catholic Hungarian domination. Keremmaarda (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to talk in the article: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456) OrionNimrod (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible sock
Rome99's editing is very similar to Germanicus44(blocked for disruptive editing). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kansas Bear,
 * maybe this is not the proper format, but I recognized more sockpuppets: Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda
 * Keremmaarda [14 ] and Rome99  [15 ] make exactly the same history falsification edit, and again:  OrionNimrod (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kansas Bear
 * Another irreal numbers:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Nicopolis&diff=prev&oldid=1173307221
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Mohács&diff=prev&oldid=1173328412 OrionNimrod (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to add something too. Taking İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı as a reference about the Mohaç war, he said 150 thousand people to the Hungarian army. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı says 300 thousand people for the Ottoman army. Since İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı is an old historian, he cannot benefit from modern sources on army numbers. That's why I think it is wrong to base the sources on the army numbers. You can read the Mohaç section of the PDF I sent you. It says 300 thousand to the Ottoman army and 150 thousand to the Hungarian army. Keremmaarda (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Göktuğ538538 wrote the same, is he not your sock? Talk:Battle of Mohács OrionNimrod (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I have no connection with him. Only one thing we have in common is that we both research Ottoman History Göktuğ538538 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I've said it many times. I just said that İsmail Hakkı refers to the number of armies he gave about the Hungarians. If the sources of İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı in the number of the army are taken as a reference, it is necessary to write 300 thousand people to the Ottoman Empire. But this is a huge number for that period because Halil İnalcık says that there were a maximum of 117 thousand active soldiers during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent. Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı should not be taken as a reference regarding the number of armies within the two sides. Good day Mr OrionNimrod Keremmaarda (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The same thing is mentioned in Yılmaz Öztuna's book called Suleiman the Magnificent, pages 39-40
 * You can look at Joseph von Hammer's Ottoman History, Volume 5, page 76. Oda says that the Hungarian forces were that big, yes, modern estimates do not accept this, but some sources mention these figures. Göktuğ538538 (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's be objective, if the Hungarians were recruiting more soldiers than the Ottomans during the reign of Sultan Suleiman, the most powerful state of that period was the Hungarians, not the Ottomans. Just in case, the army of Suleiman the Magnificent should be larger. Keremmaarda (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kansas Bear
 * just I would like to show it is the same boring edit war pattern, possible by the same users: Sockpuppet investigations/Keremmaarda
 * These users (or this sockpuppet user) always edit only the info boxes, rewrite many Ottoman battle articles to Ottoman victory, or if Ottoman lost he rewrite like "Ottomans just went home from a "picnic" due to the bad weather", he decrease always the number of Ottoman army and casualties while he always increase the number of enemy and their casualties. Even he rewrote the the famous Siege of Belgrade was just a pyrrhic Hungarian victory (which stopped the Ottomans for 70 years) and he rewrote the Turks won the battle. He always remove modern academic sources and replace it with 200-500 years sources with bad referencing stlye that hard to check if true of twisted.
 * Siege Vienna 1529: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Vienna_(1529)&diff=prev&oldid=1172458325
 * Siege Güns: Same edit war pattern: "Ottomans went home due the bad weather" Talk:Siege of Güns 5 reverts within 2 hours:
 * Siege of Belgrade 1456: Talk:Siege of Belgrade (1456)
 * Siege Jajce 1464: Talk:Siege of Jajce (1464)
 * Battle Nicopolis: Talk:Battle of Nicopolis
 * Battle of Keresztes: Talk:Battle of Keresztes
 * Siege of Maribor 1532: Talk:Siege of Maribor (1532)
 * Battle of Mohacs: Talk:Battle of Mohács
 * Siege of Kruje 1467: Same edit war pattern by 2 possible sock users: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Krujë_(1467)&action=history OrionNimrod (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kansas Bear, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents OrionNimrod (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Chronica Hungarorum
Hello OrionNimrod! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Chronica Hungarorum, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from  , and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Chronica Hungarorum and send an email with confirmation of permission to "[mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ]". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Chronica Hungarorum, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Chronica Hungarorum. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Chronica Hungarorum with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Chronica Hungarorum saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Azure94 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bratislava. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Azure94 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Message
I do not enter into email correspondence with other editors but you can leave a message to my Talk page any time. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Reporting Disruptive Editing
Please do not report disruptive editing, or the use of questionable maps, to me. You may report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, which sometimes deals effectively with disruption, but sometimes the discussion either becomes bogged down or becomes a great monster. You may also report disruptive editing in a contentious topic area at Arbitration Enforcement, and, as you saw, I have notified NeimWiki that Eastern Europe is a contentious topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! OrionNimrod (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

3rd Opinion request for Fidesz discussion
Hi @OrionNimrod

I've opened a request for 3rd opinion related to the discussion on Fidesz. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Vaslui
The principality of Moldavia is in the alliance alongside Venice. And all wars that took place between 1463 and 1479 are included in that category. Keremmaarda (talk) 08:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please use the talk page of the article. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Tahtalu
Hello Mr. OrionNimrod, Can you review the Battle of Tahtalu? Keremmaarda (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2023 (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. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Breadfield
Battle of Breadfield Hello Mr. Orion Nimrod, Did Matthias Corvinus take part in this battle?Keremmaarda (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Personally not, he sent an army which commended Bathory, I think we can talk on the talk page of the battle. Need check the details. OrionNimrod (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, do you have any Hungarian sources about Mihaloğlu Ali Bey's raid on Hungary in 1463? Keremmaarda (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This map also useful, show miliatry events during the period of Matthias: File:The wars of Matthias Corvinus of Hungary (1458-1490).png OrionNimrod (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Check this by page translator
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0011/828.html
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0011/829.html
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0011/830.html
 * https://mek.oszk.hu/09400/09477/html/0011/831.html OrionNimrod (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Keremmaarda (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Belgrad, Strenght
Hello Mr. Orion Nimrod, do you have any sources that give the number of the Ottoman army in the siege of Belgrade according to different Hungarian sources? Are there any Hungarian sources that say there are 30 thousand people? Keremmaarda (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! Which siege, there were many siege of Belgrade. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1456 Keremmaarda (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I answered in the article talk page. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood. Ok thank you.Keremmaarda (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Byshek (1467)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Battle_of_Byshek_(1467)

Hello Mr. OrionNimrod. Have you ever seen any sources mentioning such a war in period Hungarian documents or historians? Keremmaarda (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buda Chronicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gesta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule
Your recently reverted my edits to Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) three times.

Though our points of view differ, please refrain from reverting my edits 3 times. I request that you restore my content and start a conversation on the talk page.

Szirtyu (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Weissmuller
Thank you for your edit! Source for confirming your edit is here incase someone tries to revert your edit. https://www.johnnyweissmuller.com/biography/ Elvisisalive95 (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Elvisisalive95, thanks for the link, it would be good to place in the article talk page also.
 * Kingdom of Hungary had more or less 1000 years long the same borders. But in 1920, 2/3 of its territory with 1/3 ethnic Hungarians were taken away by the Treaty of Trianon. Hard to understand why, but this is a common practice in the new states which got territory from Hungary (Romania, Slovakia) to claim everybody else (mostly famous Hungarians) how lived in the region what they got as own ethnic person even if that person lived 1000 years ago when those states and nations did not exist at all.
 * That is why Johnny Weismüller became "Romanian" or the famous German rocket engineer also: There are extreme examples when King Stephen of Hungary (997-1038) claimed as "Romanian king" or even as "Slovak king", or the old Hungarian script claimed as both Romanian or Slovak, etc...
 * This is very common that Maurice Benyovszky (1746-86) became Slovak by many IP edits  or Frantz Liszt  or Hungarian lord from 1300 became "Slovak" Matthew III Csák...etc
 * That is a really common in Hungarian related articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zsolt_Erőss&diff=prev&oldid=1176021401
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free not to participate in the discussion if you do not wish to, I have included you as you were the only other participant in the talk page discussion, it'd have been more rude not to include you in my view. Thanks for your participation so far by the way, I will mention the professional formation of İbrahim Akyol if given the chance. If you find anything notable about Muhittin Eliaçık, please let me know, either here or there. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Historians
Mr. OrionNimrod. Muhittin Eliaçık is not only a literature teacher but also has an academic background in history. He is someone who studies Ottoman archives and writes books. https://kariyer.kku.edu.tr/akademik/default.aspx?sicil=A-0212 Keremmaarda (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I read that info in your book what I presented in the talk page. The author is İbrahim Akyol OrionNimrod (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your link, MUHİTTİN ELİAÇIK also Turkish literature, not a historian. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

-
Hello Mr. OrionNimrod. I will probably get a permanent ban. I wanted to thank you before I go. When I first started Wikipedia, you were my first interlocutor, you treated me like a human being and responded to my discussions and topics. You were the first to teach me right and wrong here. Maybe you hate me, maybe you will complain about me, but I see you as my friend and you are the only editor you care about here. That's why I wanted to say goodbye to you. Even though we argued and fought, we had good memories with you here (at least for me). See you brother, take care. Keremmaarda (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Keremmaarda, thanks for your kind words! I think just follow the rules, be kind. Because it is an international team it is normal that there are many different views by historians for certain events. If they realiable modern academic sources, we can present more views, (if not fringe, like the flat earth theory). Do not make edit war, just use talk page and make a consensus. Regarding the sources, example: I think this Turkish movie about the siege of Contantinople cannot be a reliabe historian source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4TOUrxzd28 like this Hungarian movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04CZI0A0Vgw about the siege of Eger cannot be reliable academic historian source, because that is just cinema. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Your Scythian turan comrades tried to make a putch against the Hungarian state
https://www.hetek.hu/cikkek/online/fegyveres-hatalomatvetelre-keszult-egy-csoport-magyarorszagon

Can you see what can be the result of pseudohistoric lullabies?--Hefty-priced (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * please stop personal harassment, I am not interested in your things OrionNimrod (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not harrasent, but a fact. Another article about Scythian terrorist coup. These lesser educated people (proletarians craftsmen) also beleive in your Scythian fantasies.

Another article about Scythian Coup attempt: https://hang-hu.translate.goog/kultura/krasznahorkai-laszlo-elore-latta-a-szkita-puccsot-161086?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefty-priced (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

SPI?
If you have suspicions concerning a particular editor, I would suggest filing an SPI. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Avishai11 (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Avishai11,
 * thanks for the feedback, sometimes I am making new articles and complete rewrite or extend chapters, and if I do a lot of edit, it would be hard to make notes for every single changes, but I will do my best! OrionNimrod (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Avishai11,
 * I checked some of my edit, I think because I did a lot of new articles, I usually did not make log in these edits while they were under working progress or minor edits. Some examples:
 * Buda Chronicle
 * Epitome rerum Hungarorum
 * List of Hungarian chronicles
 * User:OrionNimrod/Battle of the Iron Gates
 * Do you think the emtpy log is ok in these case when developing progress? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @OrionNimrod, sorry for the late response. I think that if the edit is relatively minor, you can just use one work like, "spelling", "clean-up", etc. I think that if there are multiple edits within a couple hours, then maybe for the last edit of the day for that page, provide a longer description. I honestly don't know. Thank you! Sorry if that sounded confusing. Best, @Avishai11 Avishai11 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Army numbers
Dude, we've been having a lot of discussions on the articles under Ottoman war history. We keep accusing each other of number vandalism. If you want to have a mutual exchange of information on this topic, we can exchange private messages. My problem is not to minimize the number of Ottoman armies, but to prevent number vandalism by Western sources. Actually, I think you would understand me if you correlate a little bit between the wars. As I said, we can solve this issue by discussing privately, not on Wikipedia. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, please show me academic sources, links, page numbers regarding the army sizes. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

List of Hungarian chronicles
A 12.század eleji "Keresztény magyarok cselekedetei" kimaradt. Juliánus barát is azt használta a Gesta helyett, mert megbízhatóbb és régebbi volt.--Hefty-priced (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the feedback! You can extend if you find more things. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian political crisis (1905–1906)
Hungarian political crisis (1905–1906)

Can you improve that new article? Thank you!--Hefty-priced (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry that is out of my knowledge. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hungarians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongol invasion of Hungary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Hungarians. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa! Thanks for the feedback. I am carefully adapt the copyright contents, rewording myself. But in this case I found an open access genetic study and I added the "free" tag:  Do you think it is ok? I see you added this "Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes" that was the missing data, right? If yes I will add this in the future for the similar sources. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. You can find this set of attribution templates as Template:Creative Commons text attribution notice — Diannaa (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Systematic distortion of historical articles. Thank you. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Romania History
Thank you for your feedback and for your contributions to the Romanian history page on Wikipedia. We appreciate your dedication to improving the accuracy and relevance of the content. Your insights help maintain the integrity and focus of the articles. Portasa Cristian (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Portasa Cristian, Thank you! OrionNimrod (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1919 in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chop.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Page protection Zrinski and Szigetvár
I've requested page protection for Nikola IV Zrinski and Siege of Szigetvár because the same IP(s) are making the same edits on both articles. I have 1RR so please watch out for the Nikola IV Zrinski's article too. Best regards Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I had to contact you to tell you that I have nothing against the pictures you represent, but put the author and maybe the year of the picture when it was painted so that it can be checked on the Internet and there is no problem with entering pictures. Only you return, no one else. Thus, anyone can post unverified pictures of unknown authors. Don't be mad at me. I guess there are some rules of Wikipedia, so then everyone would put all kinds of pictures. Thanks78.2.236.99 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That painting is from Hungarian national gallery, unknown author does not mean the image is unverified :) many ancient and medieval artworks author are unknown OrionNimrod (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Miki Filigranski! OrionNimrod (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Güns
Would you care to give your opinion regarding the information I found concerning the Siege of Güns? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, just I have my phone at the moment with me, I will respond properly when I am at my pc. OrionNimrod (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (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. Lostsandwich (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bese
Dear Nimrod. You recently made this revert. I would be delighted if you can show me a professional article or book in Hungarian specifically about this bird which specifically uses this hungarian word Bese for the animal with pictures of the bird please. Much appreciated. 149.50.160.94 (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Map
Hello. I've reverted most of your edits in other Wikipedias removing that map. Some other edits were reverted by other users. By pushing a clearly POV and not neutral map you've set a precedent. Now I am simply following the logic of this precedent. As long as the map is attributed, it is okay and we may not question it, correct? Super  Ψ   Dro  10:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Super, it is not secret I am against the fake maps. That map is clearly a fake map which claim border of Kingdom of Hungary was at the Tisza river between 900-1400, how? And the map says that fantasy characters like Gelou/Menmarot/Glad were Romanian voivodes in 9-11th century! So Menmarot and Gelou in 1100 as Romanian country? Even Menmarot is clearly names as Bulgarian in Gesta, how can be he Romanian king? How possible to claim in 1100 Transylvania was not part of Hungary? Romanian Duchy of Menmarot in 1100? Do you think it is not a fake map?
 * What is the modern academic background of this map? This is a photoshopped map:
 * https://uz.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayl:FormatiuniPoliticeRomanestiSecolele_IX_XIII.svg
 * This map does not match at all with international history maps, but is same as the nationalcommunist fake map. It is obviously a fake map. I also did not say any attribution of that map, that "this is a nationalcommunist Romanian claim map" a "nationalist vision about Romania from Tisza-Dneister in 800-1400" and "mystic Romanian kings like (the Bulgarian) Menmarot who do not acknoweledged anybody outside Romania".
 * International maps (you can find many others): Do you see that Kingdom of Hungary was at the Tisza or that Transylvania was not part of it? Do you see any Menmarot land?
 * File:Europe mediterranean 1097.jpg
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg
 * British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant:
 * "More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."
 * Do you intend to publish academic source on Wikipedia or obvious fake maps? I bet those Wiki articles are not so frequently visited articles, but I would be curious what users from other Wikipedia (Croatian Wiki, Polish Wiki, Spanish Wiki...) would think about publish an obvious fake map. Lets see how looks the Spanish, Polish, Croatian... Europe maps from 800-1400.
 * You cannot compare that photoshopped map which (I can create in 5 minutes) to the Hungarian academic researches with 30 years of work. Regarding the Hungarian map, it is clearly attributed that is made by Hungarian researches and that is the Hungarian historical point, which cannot be cenzored just because others dont like the Hungarian view and researches about their country history, follow this logic we can remove all Daco-Roman theory because is not supported by Hungarian scholars. The Hungarian map is attributed that is Hungarian academic view about population, while the Romanian map is an obvious distortion of Hungarian history and international European history, because we cannot see that claimed lands at expense of Hungary, and borders on international maps. If you have modern academic Romanian maps, you can publish them. Do you think Romanian academy in 2024 claim that Hungary borders were at Tisza? OrionNimrod (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The map is clearly employing all possible interpretations that are favorable to showing a history of Romanian statehood, including the interpretation of Brodnici and Bolokhovians as undisputedly Romanians. Gelou is featured as a Vlach in the Gesta, while as far as I can see the ethnicity of Glad was not specified but his country is said in the Gesta to have been populated by Vlachs among others. I don't see how this case is any different from the village-by-village ethnic map of 1495. Here we can attribute and say this is a map according to Ovidiu Drimba or Romanian historiography. Both are nationalist maps which intend to push a point which has no consensus or universal acceptance. Both should be removed from Wikipedia. But if one is to say according to a certain logic and that logic can be applied on the other map, the result is that both maps will stay. We should be seeking truth and not to show what nationalist inventions each side has. The truth is that an ethnic map of the year 1495 with village-by-village precision is impossible to make in 2024. If it happens to show a view convenient to the Hungarian POV, and hides in white minority areas claiming they were "not permanent settlements" (a user already provided an example of a village having been founded before, and also why the use of tax registries can be problematic), it is just as bad-faithed of a map as the other one. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Super, What is your explanation that Bulgarian Menmarot as Romanian country in 1100? Gesta called him Bulgarian, and Szekelys and Khazars mentioned in his land. What is your explanation that Gelou country as Romanian country in 1100? (That map says 9-11th c.) In Gesta, Gelou land was occupied by Hungarians around 900, how can be still Romanian country in 1100? And “Vlachs” in Gesta are really debated by scholar “as evidence”, so if that map use Gesta as main source, but that map even does not follow Gesta, because Gesta does not say Menmarot was Romanian and Gelou land occupied around 900 by Hungarians. That map distorts Gesta, because Gesta is about 99% Hungarians in the text and Gesta also mention the borders of Hungary which are total different on that Romanian map.
 * The Romanian map nowhere never attributed that is a romantic fantasy map to claim “Romania border was forever from Tisza-Dneister”, it never attributed those characters are from Gesta (but we can see that map distorts Gesta) but clearly claimed “Romanian countries 800-1400", it never attributed that made in the nationalcommunist time, it never attributed that borders of Hungary was not in the Tisza as we can see in all international maps, which means  that border of Hungary universally accepted that it was not the Tisza.
 * If you worry about “consensus, universal acceptance” Do you want push a fake map where kingdom of Hungary is only half size, the borders of Hungary is at the Tisza river which clearly different is all international history maps?
 * The Romanian map is not a modern academic map but a national communist one, do we live in the 2024 or in the Ceaucescu times? I asked many times, please show modern academic Romanian maps.
 * The Hungarian map is not a nationalist one but researchers of 30 years, modern academic map, it does not show fake borders and fantasy states, just population research which clearly attributed. That is not Hungarian nationalism if Romanian nationalists claim “there were always majority Romanians from the time of caveman” and Hungarian scholars are working based on sources and not by Romanian nationalist speculations and preconceptions. That is not Hungarian narionalism if we have lack of sources of allegedly “always majority people”. 100% Hungarian historiography refuse Romanian nationalist Daco-Roman theory, I think you dont think seriously that 100% of Hungary would be nationalist just because they dont accept a nationalist theory from an other country… Communist Hungary in the past also refused DacoRoman theory, I never saw anybody who would accuse Hungarian communists with Hungarian nationalism. I can and I quoted already many non Hungarian scholars, Germans, British… who claim no sources about Romanian before 1200s in Hungary + many similar statements, so now every single foreign people also became Hungarian nationalist because of that statemens or who do not accept immediately Daco-Roman theory?
 * The whites areas are common thing in Hungarian maps, they will not populate people to marshes and mountainpeaks. Even in 2011 Hungary map I can see white areas. In the computer generated 1910 census map which used data also I can see the empty areas on the forested, mountain areas. This also testify the deep research of that map. But did you complain on those maps where big forest area where 100 people lived was colored carefully as Romanian and 100,000 populated Hungarian cities was just colored a very small patch?
 * The 2 maps are not comparable. OrionNimrod (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you really telling me that in the end the map is actually favoring Romanians? The map is indeed Hungarian nationalist precisely because we have lack of sources of allegedly “always majority people”. You don't seem to equate the Daco-Roman countinuity and the immigration theories on the same level even though there is no proof for any of them. There has never been anything about an immigration of such a large group of people north of the Danube, we in fact have Byzantine chronicles attesting the immigration of Vlachs from north to south instead, we have a writer of 1150 showing the notion of this people having been there before the conquest, we have sources attesting many similar-souding peoples (Blakumen, Blaghjs... all of which Hungarians say they cannot have connection with Vlachs). I think you dont think seriously that 100% of Hungary would be nationalist just because they dont accept a nationalist theory from an other country no I think the nationalism comes from their own nationalist theory with the exact same aim as the Daco-Roman one: that we are here first, that the other side has no history, and that therefore this land belongs to us.
 * I can find many sources to back this map. Page 37, the map in a book by Neagu Djuvara. "The archaeological researches at Biharea confirm 'the existence in Crișana of Menumorut's principality of Bihor, basing on the ethnic-demographical reason of the settlements sail – Romanian and Romanian-Slav villages, fairs, and citadels in this area of Romania" (page 108, page 31). "in the chronicle Gesta Hungarorum by Anonymus the three Romanian and Slavic voivodates are mentioned: the voivodate of Menumorut, the voivodate of Glad and the voivodate of Gelu." (page 81), this interpretation is backed by the population structure Romanian authors claim the voivodates to have had: a Romanian-Slavic cultural life, which they claim is backed by archaeology.
 * Please seek dispute resolution measures to involve third users. Because I am not going to accept the 1495 ethnic map remaining and the other one being removed. The map can have taken 300 years to make for all I care, it is still based on either weak or inexistent evidence that has never been reproduced again by national academies. Of course, if consensus is found through these resolution methods I will back down. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Super, the Hungarian modern map is about population not about states and borders, and it is clearly attributed that is the Hungarian research. At the moment I would like not talk about theories, just the map. The Djuvara map does not claim borders and timeline of duchies, however quite strange to mix together 1000 years period (I see Gepids, and Litovoi), (there are many Avar and Hun sites in Transylvania and before the Tisza area, however that map puts them only beyond the Tisza).
 * - Why the Romanian map has no proper attributions? (It would be perfect match to the nationalcommunist Romania section, that was the historical teaching at that time)
 * - Could you tell me any Menmarot duchy in 1100 as that Romanian national-communist map shows? Do you think it is correct to claim in 1000, 1100 Menmarot duchy was a Romanian country in the time of King Saint Stephen, King Saint Ladislaus of Hungary?
 * - Do you think showing a map where border of Hungary is the Tisza river, it is correct? It is not a false?
 * You can see, Tisza is center of Kingdom of Hungary in a non Hungarian made English academic maps about 1000: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_About_A.D._1000.jpg + https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg + a German map https://www.gifex.com/images/1000X0/2010-01-04-11595/Europe_in_the_Middle_Ages_900_1000.jpg + French one https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fixa1iqwp4acc1.jpeg (which proves what is the international academic view) Do you think it is not an obvious history distortion to remove half part of Hungary between 800-1400?
 * That is not a disputed thing at all that the "Tisza river was the border of Hungary". OrionNimrod (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That it is about population rather than political borders is irrelevant as both can be subject to controversy, ethnic composition arguably much more so than political borders that are easier to verify. May I add that, when we were discussing the other map, I noted that the discussion was not about the theories, but now that the roles have practically reversed, it is you who feels like they have to note that...
 * The map is very strongly sourced in Commons, it seems to be based in Ovidiu Drimba's work, but also in other sources, including from authors like Nicolae Iorga . If you wish the map can be attributed to Drimba everywhere. As I said the map seems to take out of all possible interpretations of controversial historical sources like the Gesta or the Russian Chronicle the ones that are positive to the Romanian nationalist POV. I think the map is ahistorical but you defended the ethnic map based on attribution to Hungarian historiography thus I see absolutely no reason for this one to be excluded when the same attribution can be applied. Ideally I'd have both maps removed because they are just showing nationalist POV from both sides. That the duration of supposedly undisputed Romanian states is extended is no different than hiding in white minority areas in an ethnic map.
 * By the way, I want to express, since this is with difference our biggest disagreement yet, that I wish this dispute do not worsen our interactions in the future, I still have a positive opinion regarding you and hope the opposite is the case. I act in good faith in all this and know you do too. That being said, I insist that this discussion is going to lead to nowhere because I do not intend to change my position without third opinions. Please start a procedure to decide if the map should be removed like I did with the ethnic map. Super   Ψ   Dro  23:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Super, of course I have no negative feeling towards you, I appreciate you, because it is good to talk with smart people and know the arguments of others, and also as you see I am looking collaboration than bad edit wars or personal attacks. :)
 * As you say the political borders are not subject to controversy, that is why I really dont understand how possible to put a map which has obvious fake borders, as you can see it is not true that border of Hungary was at the Tisza in all international maps. In that map it clearly attributed that Menmarot duchy 800-1100 (9-11th) which is also cleary fake even he was defeated around 900 in the Gesta, and I dont think anybody claim any Menmarot duchy at the time of King Saint Stephen and Saint Ladislaus, King Ladislaus founded Oradea and he was buried there which is in the land of Menmarot, do you think the Hungarian king buried in the duchy of Menmarot as the Romanian map claim? The Romanian map also show the Hungarian chieftain Gyula duchy as "Romanian country" (Voievodatul Gelu Gyla) (Gelu=Gelou, Gyla=Gyula), how can be this a Romanian country? By the way I am not wondering because I saw many Romanian users in internet who claimed King Saint Stephen of Hungary was also a Romanian... did you see this claim?
 * The Hungarian map is not a nationalist one, it is cleary attributed that "based on the Hungarian researches", you can see 1784 map had more Romanian areas because they had sources to paint Romanians on many areas, and you can see more Romanians than Hungarians presented there, so that would be Hungarian nationalism to show more Romanians than Hungarians? Regarding the 1495 one which is not the dark medieval times, lack of sources of Romanians does not mean nationalism, but they worked after researches, which was 30 years according to the director of geography institute.
 * If you see the Hungarian map, also there are many white areas in the Hungarian populated regions, but mostly in the mountain and big forest areas everywhere not just in Transylvania. File:Kingdom of Hungary - Ethnic Map - 1495.jpg
 * In this version less areas are white, probably they used different limits (but here even the Lake Balaton is colored by people because of the district areas): https://emna.hu/en/map/Km_nyelvi_terszerk_1495/@45.8801811,22.2092281,7.00z
 * Please see again this computer generated map which based on 1910 settlements data, you can see many sparsely populated regions still here which similar position like the white areas on the Hungarian map https://atlo.team/anyanyelviterkep/ So the authors dont populate the marshes with people, but just the settlement areas. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Super Dro! Western historians don't believe in the mere existence Vlach (Romanian) early and high medieval era settlements, because they consider Vlachs as one of the latest nomadic people in Europe.
 * Here are quotes of academic historians with URLs and full citation/reference infos of their books. Read https://daco-roman.blogspot.com/2021/02/romanians-latest-nomadic-ethnic-group.html Lighgravity (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an argument in favor of the notion that it is difficult to map an ethnic map of a medieval kingdom with such detail. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Super, could you answer to my previous questions? (my last comment) OrionNimrod (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've already expressed that I prefer to have this discussion with the participation of other users as well. If the issues would be the dates they could be edited. Regarding Gyula III it seems to be based on the logic that he became ruler over Gelou's Vlach and Slav subjects as per the Gesta. I am familiar with funny ridiculous Internet claims such as the Hungarians built the pyramids of Giza or the Latin language first appeared in Dacia but I haven't seen what you've mentioned. The 1784 map is based in a census which did not include ethnicity nor language and has the same problems as the 1495 one. It just serves to further argue the POV that Hungarians were replaced in their native lands by migrant peoples. The maps are both inappropriate but can also be defended based on the logic of attribution to national historiographies, which I disagree with. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Super, as you can see I dont talk about flat earth quality things which I never heard, but I talk about medieval times (in private I will send you that Saint Stephen thing, I dont want make a propaganda here for that author).
 * Please let me share you some things. (I also show the sources)
 * You mentioned that "no evidence about Romanian mass migration", firstly nobody say "mass migration", but it was a centuries long slow process, devastation of Hungarian populations by centuries long wars, while Vlach population lived in safer areas, and intense local population growth of Romanian population. Immigration could change the population very fast, this is a modern example: As of early 2019, 30.2 percent or 572,834 residents of Vienna did not hold Austrian citizenship. 251,129 of them were citizens of EU or EFTA countries and 312,705 persons were third-country nationals. And this happened just in the recent decades, not hundred of years ago! The population of nations changes very fast:
 * For example Norther Dobruja had 21% Romanians in 1878 and now 77% Romanians: Northern Dobruja And it does not mean Romanians were there the majority in the past.
 * For example Orade had 5,6% Romanians in 1920 now 77% Romanians: Oradea And it does not mean Romanians were there the majority in the past. (And there are many other Transylvanian city examples)
 * Why it is hard to imagine a population change?
 * I show you some examples, I think those things are not shown in Romania:
 * 1.
 * Georg von Reicherstorffer – Transylvaniae Chorographia Moldaviae, 1550:
 * According to Reicherstorffer the Romanians came from Moesia [Bulgaria] into Transylvania.
 * “Morover, Moesians were once those, who are now Valachians, is more accepted today than anyone dares to deny”
 * “Also Vlachs dwell in this land, but sparsely, without a fixed home.”
 * 2.
 * During Ottoman times, in case of trouble, for the Wallachian rulers and their households (many families), the asylum was regularly found in Hungary. When the trouble was gone, not all of them settled back to Wallachia, but many remained in Transylvania, and this thing happened many times during the Ottoman period.
 * 3.
 * Approbatae Constitutiones Regni Transylvaniae & Partium Hungariae Eidem Annexarum: contained the decrees of the parliaments between 1541 and 1653 (This book published in 1696 in Kolozsvár)
 * The immigration of the Vlach people into Transylvania clearly can be seen also from contemporary laws made by the Transylvanian parliament between 1541 and 1653:
 * "Though the Vlach nation has been admitted to this country for the common good, yet it is not conscious of its low rank, and some noble brethren have been harrassed to avoid working on their feasts. It was therefore decreed that they should not command to the Hungarian Nation, and that no one should be disturbed thereafter for the above reason."
 * 4.
 * Vasile Lupu, Voivode of Moldavia (1634-1653), he wrote a letter to his Turkish overlord in 1653. In this letter, he says the Vlach population is 1/3 in Transylvania. This matches with the Hungarian estimations. I think the contemporary Romanian ruler himself cannot be "Hungarian propagandists" :)
 * 5.
 * Evliya Çelebi, Ottoman diplomat, his trip to Hungary was between 1660-1666. The Romanian serfs move to Transylvania because of the tyrannical rulers of Romanian lands. The Romanians say there is justice, legal order, and low taxes in Transylvania:
 * "From Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) to Fehérvár (Alba Iulia) in Transylvania, you have to go east. All the way up to the Saxon-Hungarian Vilayet the Vlach rayah are black Vlachs. In Wallachia the beys were very tyrannical over them, therefore these rayahs saying: "Let justice be justice", all moved to Transylvania and pay one gold tribute to the king and they have no other duties."
 * 6.
 * Voivode Ghica, Prince of Wallachia write to Mihály Apafi, Prince of Transylvania in 1663 that full Vlach settlements moved to Transylvania:
 * "From our realm, a couple of villages have escaped into the realm of your greatness, some to Fogaras county, some to Brassó, some to Szeben, and they did not flee because of their rascality but only for the heaviness of the tax."
 * 7.
 * This is the old Romanian document: The Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc chronicle dating to the early 1700s describes the emigration of Romanians to the north (in English and in Romanian):
 * “But first let's talk about the Romanians who broke away from the Romans (= Byzantines) and migrated north. So they moved to the water of the Danube, they crossed Szörényvár; some to Hungary for the water of the Olt, the water of the Mures, the water of the Tisza, reaching as far as Maramureş. And those who crossed at Severin Castle reached the foothills of the Olt River. Some went down along the Danube and filled the whole place with them and came to the Necopol border.”
 * On the Romanian side, it is often argued that the text describes the colonization of Dacia, as according to the text, the ethnic group in question came from the Roman Empire. But this is not true. The text refers to them as “Romanian”, which is the modern self-name of the Romanians today. The document firmly states that Hungary already existed at the time of the events described and that this group settled on Hungarian land. The full title of the work is also revealing: The History of Muntenia since the Orthodox Christians Settled (1290-1690) - (Istoria Țării Românești de când au descălecat pravoslavnicii creștini (1290–1690)). As the title suggests, the story begins in the late 13th century. At that time, the Byzantine Empire still existed, which was also called officially the Roman Empire, and its inhabitants called themselves Romans. In the text, therefore “Romans” means the medieval Byzantium and not the ancient Roman Empire. Letopisetul Cantacuzinesc says the Romanians broke away from the Romans and migrated to the north. We know well the Roman Empire made a lot of bloody wars against the Dacians, definitely the ancient Romans did not migrate, but the ancient Romans conquered Dacia.
 * Its citizens referred to the polity as the "Roman Empire" and to themselves as "Romans" Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Rumelia name also came from the "Roman Empire" Rumelia
 * The Letopisețul țărâi Moldovei chronicle was written in 1640 by Grigore Ureche, a Moldavian chronicler:
 * “The Romanians, as many as live in Hungary and Transylvania and Máramaros, come from the same place as the Moldovans and they all spread out from “Râm” [Byzantine Empire].” “Rumânii, câți să află lăcuitori la Țara Ungurească și la Ardeal și la Maramoroșu, de la un loc suntu cu moldovénii și toți de la Râm să trag.”
 * 8.
 * Austrian official estimate, dating from 1712–13, according to which 34 percent of Transylvania's inhabitants were Romanians, 47 percent Hungarians, and 19 percent Saxons.
 * 9.
 * Transylvanian law from 1744, 6th article: This 1744 law names Vlachs as “newcommer people”
 *  '"..the constitutional organization of this principality shall be free from subversion and shall not be among the Vlachs or any other newcomer people..."
 * 10.
 * One of the distinguished members of the 1744 Transylvanian national assembly, Baron István Dániel, mentioned in his memorandum from that year that he fertility of Romanians is astonishing:
 * "...the unprecedented and excessive spread and proliferation of this newcomer and foreign people; they have inundated almost all of Transylvania to such an extent that it seems they are at least equal to, if not surpassing, two of its three established nations. The fertility of this people is astonishing, as we see many villages that were partly inhabited by Vlachs, partly by Hungarians or Saxons fifty years ago, are now entirely occupied by the prolific offspring of foreign Vlachs, with the former inhabitants having died out. Moreover, many villages can be seen whose only indications of having once been in the possession of Hungarians or Saxons are their churches and the surrounding walls and towers; all their current inhabitants are foreign Vlachs.”
 * 11.
 * British traveller Richard Bright wrote in 1814 about the fast growing of Vlach population in Hungary, claiming a Romanian man is already became a grandfather before he became 30 years old. (Book: Travels from Vienna through Lower Hungary, page 560)
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thank you for providing sources left for food for thought to consider the other theory. I don't really agree that Râm neccessarily means Byzantine Empire. But this is still not about the two theories. Even if strong evidence for the immigrationist theory appeared that wouldn't mean I would accept the map. I still find it is extremely doubtful. For the umpteenth time: it is a village-by-village map of 1495! And not of a small area. Not with the strongest methodology. It has not received any discussion (acceptance or rejection) at all outside Hungarian sources apparently, not even by Romanian/Slovak/etc. ones. And this methodology doesn't seem to have been repeated by other national academies. Why is it absolutely necessary that we keep this map making an extraordinary claim with such extreme detail? If everything was so clear, why would there even be a dispute in historiography? Why would articles like Origin of the Romanians exist? Can we really not find a more general and vague map? Super   Ψ   Dro  23:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Super!
 * I sent those things not in the relation of maps, just information, as I am also curious the arguments of other theories.
 * Ok, let's focus just the map issue. Can you demonstrate me that usually in Wikipedia history related articles at which percentage maps have been discussed scholarly, or even created or approved by any academy? Don't you think, on the contary that  your claim is extraordinary, would you prefer "general and vague" (thus much more inaccurate, superficial) maps instead of a precisely researched one (even part of an award winning series)?
 * The origin of the Romanians are a far more broader topic than a map should be singled out which not necessarily contradicting any of the theories, in fact there would be no guarantee a more general and vague map would depict e.g. more Romanians, maybe even less, however the quality of the map should not be based solely on this factor...
 * You should see the contradiction of claiming a too detailed map (which is in fact an advantage) and claiming not having the strongest methodology...could you tell me what would be the strongest methodology, or even could you demonstrate a medieval map with even nearby accuracy? (because the Academy likely applied the strongest possible methodology based on the available sources - hence 30 years (!) of work -, of course no maps may be 100% perfect back in time compared today ones when more statistical data and satellite images are immediately available, but again, with this claim and the same argumentation you may remove frankly all demographic maps from all articles earlier the 20th century)"
 * I emphasize again, the map had a proper attribution "that is a Hungarian research" (so nobody say that this is a Romanian view) and the map is in related demographic sections regarding Hungary. I don't think Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Serbs would have any problem with that map as they have no romantic nationalistic (sourcless) preconceptions about "they were always majority everywhere from forever". Regarding the Germans, I think it is really well know by settlement sources which settlements had German populations. In this German map the German population is similar as in the Hungarian map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_Germans_in_Hungary_and_parts_of_adjacent_Austrian_territories.JPG
 * And still I can say 1500 is not the blurry dark ages, the library of King Matthias was the second biggest after Vatican but Hungary had many developed cities, settlements already at that time and sources (though lot of things destroyed during Ottoman period), you can just see the medieval nice Transylvanian cities. Even Romanian documents were printed in Transylvania (I can see here a lot of Hungarian texts along with the Romanian one) 1570:
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fragmentul_Teodorescu.jpg
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are very few maps in Wikipedia making such an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim such as aiming to be an accurate village-by-village ethnic map for a big part of Europe in 1495. Those should have heavy non-partisan backing. I've already argued how the map is ignored outside Hungarian sources. I do not believe only Romanian users would have an issue with this map. I cannot suggest any methodology because I do not believe ethnic maps of this detail for such a past period of time are possible, at least now, and I am also not any expert. An ethnic map making more vague claims would surely be more appropriate in my opinion because it would not be aiming to be accurate on the ethnic composition of thousands of settlements centuries ago. I've already linked that ethnic map of Armenians in the 16th century, which I find much more encyclopedic as it is more vague (notice it doesn't have white areas in the lands where Armenians were presumed not to have lived). in fact there would be no guarantee a more general and vague map would depict e.g. more Romanians, maybe even less this is not the issue I have with the map, it is the pretension of accuracy for such detail and period in time. Regarding the Academy's methodology, it was summarized in under one page. I do not find it particularly exhaustive. The map excludes non-permanent settlements when many Romanians had not become fully sedentary yet. Another user had raised issues as well with the use of people's names in tax payer lists. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)