User talk:Lexutz

Hello, Lexutz, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Lexutz! Your additions to Chioar fortress 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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. — Diannaa (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chioar fortress moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Chioar fortress, 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 "Draft:" 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. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Chioar fortress[edit]

Hello, Lexutz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Chioar fortress, 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 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) 08:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Describing your fellow editors as "Hungarian extremists" is a personal attack. Do not repeat such comments. You are welcome to make your case for the changes you want while focusing on content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their very presence here in large numbers and their contribution speaks for itself. Lexutz (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for personal attacks, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia certain pages (Vlachs and Talk:Vlachs).

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I am hopeful this is just a misstep, and I'll be glad to unblock if you recognize your misconduct and commit to avoiding further personal attacks. On the other hand, if you continue the personal attacks, you risk being topic banned or blocked. Please review WP:PA and ask questions if there are parts you'd like clarified. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, could you please explain what is going on here? There's like half a dozen Hungarians hijacking a page amd a topic that is esentially about ANOTHER COUNTRY, writing zillions of discussions and replies and all (seriously, who does that unless they are on the payroll of a certain government?). And you're telling me that this is okay? How so? Lexutz (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have proof that an editor or group of editors are engaging in extremist POV-pushing or government-funded advocacy, please bring that up for urgent administrator attention at WP:AE or WP:ANI. If not, please do not make unevidenced accusations about your fellow editors. I'm extending you some grace, since most editors tend to dial their rhetoric up a bit in response to a block, but if you continue to make comments like the one above, further sanctions are likely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just appealing to your common sense there. But anyway, as a solution to the problem, the page could be reverted to what it was before the group of Hungarians started editing it, and then wait for the conclusion of the respective discussion. Keeping the page like the Hungarians have wrote it for an indefinitive period of time is not a reasonable approach, I hope you qgree with me on this. Lexutz (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of other articles for you to edit, and I'm not interested in discussing that particular one with you any further. As you move on to other things, I urge you not to draw conclusions based on the nationalities—real or assumed—of the editors you're working with. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you I guess, but again, keep mind that this is not just us 2 discussing this. This same exact issue that is already growing into a scandal in both Hungary and Romania.

Hungary and in Romania.

https://dailynewshungary.com/hungarian-nationalists-rewrite-romanias-history-on-wikipedia/

https://www.g4media.ro/presa-maghiara-oare-nationalistii-unguri-rescriu-istoria-romaniei-pe-wikipedia.html Lexutz (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the controversy, though I hadn't read that news coverage of it. I'm glad you shared it. I would be interested to know if more such coverage comes out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 news outlets are also quite popular here in Romania:

https://evz.ro/nationalistii-unguri-wikipedia.html

https://m.activenews.ro/cultura-istorie/Cum-schimba-nationalistii-unguri-istoria-Romaniei-pe-Wikipedia-retea-extinsa-de-utilizatori-unguri-care-rescriu-istoria-%E2%80%93-informatii-eronate-despre-Romania-si-inventii-anti-romanesti-187903 Lexutz (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last question. How is this dispute supposed to be resolved and when, and who will get to decide on the matter?

Again, I'm not a very active contributor here (and I usually don't contribute on topics related to history) so I'm not familiar with the process. I'm just here because of those news articles that I've come across, and it does indeed look like a gross fraud is happening here. That huge ass discussion in itself is simply insane, who in the right mind (without being paid for it) would have the energy to write all that, and who is supppsed to follow all that?

Not to mention that just by scrollimg a bit you can detect the fraud. Actually, I just scrolled all the way to the bottom of the discussion and the very last line was a fraud as well.

Last line was this (guy provides a list of historians which he claimed spoke in favor of the Immigration Theory):

Robert William Seton-Watson (Scottish) : A history of the Roumanians

CriticKende (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

So I took my time and searched for the book, which I did find, and I read the whole chapter on the origin of Romanians. And guess what? This Setton-Wattson guy does not endorse the Immigration theory at all, but exactly the opposite, he endorses the Continuity theory!

Here is the book:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=-tI3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA58-IA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Page 12: The Romanians, it is safe to say, are Romanized Dacians, infiltrated with Slav and to a much lesser degree Tatar blood.

So yeah, I'm just interested to know what the process looks like here, because obviously engaging in such discussions as with CriticKende here is not a solution, guy obviously has access to an entire detabase with such fraud replies, he could throw in another 1,000 pages of such 'discussions' which he obviously doesn't even read (as my example clearly shows, he threw in as examples some authors that he had never read and that claimed the exact opposite of what he is claiming). Lexutz (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how the dispute will be resolved. We'll see. Hopefully with less edit warring and personal attacks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking technically...how does this process look like and who is supposed to oversee this process.

If there is no framework for the timely resolution of such situations/disputes, then it goes without saying that tension, personal attacks, etc are simply inevitable. Lexutz (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, when an article talk page discussion can't reach consensus, it's time for some dispute resolution. Someone has to pursue some outside voices, using a noticeboard post, RfC, or other option. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware but this issue (the abusive editing of pages on Romania-related topics on Wikipedia by a group of Hungarian nationalists) has made the headlines in both Hungary and in Romania.

https://dailynewshungary.com/hungarian-nationalists-rewrite-romanias-history-on-wikipedia/

https://www.g4media.ro/presa-maghiara-oare-nationalistii-unguri-rescriu-istoria-romaniei-pe-wikipedia.html Lexutz (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you! Lexutz (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lexutz, @Firefangledfeathers, just I would like let you know about this:

The story started in Romanian internet, then it was translated to English https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1b44mqj/comment/kswju54/

I found a Hungarian response in Hungarian and below in English: https://www.reddit.com/r/hungary/comments/1b73sbh/comment/ktu7u4f

From the response: This is an old failed report from several years ago from 2021. No one agreed with it, and even Romanian user (who is in Wikipedia since 2002, so respected) said that is a baseless report. Finally, the reporter user (who has about 100 Wikipedia edits) withdrew his own report.

By the way, the Romanian point of view is also presented on the English Wiki regarding Romanian related articles, you can check it. But the radical followers of the Daco-Roman theory not tolerate if other historian views presented in English Wikipedia than their narrative. That is why a reddit user is complaining that "Hungarian nationalist network rewriting wiki" if not exclusively their narrative presented there as ultimate truth. Hungarian editors will not automatically become "nationalists network" just because they have a total different official historiography than a nationalist Romanian theory.

I think it is very sad, that an user in reddit can incite people each other, it is also sad that information spread everywhere and people who do not know Wikipedia whitout checking that is true or not. It is also strange that how possible to find such an old report buried in the Wikipedia archives, maybe who created that report in the past just revived it. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to throw excuses, your activity here is self evident. Lexutz (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lexutz, could you tell me exactly which activity?

For example I was accused for these thing:

[1] I clearly stated that was "duplicated content", you can see that content is still in the page: Vlachs#13th century I did not remove it.

[2] Jan Długosz lived in 1415-80, the source refer a book from 1711, which is againts Wiki rule: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I do not think a book from 1711 can be a modern reliable academic source, morover I highly doubt that Dlugosz would say Romanians are "Geto-Dacians" I assume this is the personal opinion by the IP edit [3]

That would be that "so bad" activity? I suppose people should check the story instead of beleive or every incite whitout checking. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrionNimrod: I think it would be better if you disengaged on this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]