CriticKende

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, CriticKende, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CriticKende. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krisitor (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"that other editors disagree" a.k.a you, it's only you! I was the one who made the talk page, but you just delete the whol thing i wrote, with sources. Also you delet my writing, because i dont give the pages, while you dont show the pages as well... CriticKende (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Vlachs

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Vlachs, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello CriticKende! Your additions to Vlach law 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. Please 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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Keszthely culture

Hi,

I found a good German article about this with a lot of images: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binnenkastell_Keszthely-Fenékpuszta OrionNimrod (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will include it in the article. CriticKende (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits on History of Transylvania

Hi @CriticKende

Your recent edits on the said page are not supported by the sources cited. For example Zosimus writes about the 3rd century AD general Danube region, and the passage from Magyarok eredete also refers to the Danube area. None of the authors specify Transylvania region, nor does the timeframe correspond to the chronology. These edits fall under the no original research and need to be removed.

However, this is not the first time we had this conversation and we spoke about it again just a few days ago. I have no intention to start (or continue) an edit war with you and I do appreciate the amount of sources you bring forward for my interest, hence I leave you this message.

Please read the rules and have another look at the said edits on History of Transylvania. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Both describe the areas north of the Danube, including Transylvania. CriticKende (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Meanwhile the Borani, the Gothi, the Carpi, and the Urugundi, nations that dwell on the Ister, left no part of Italy or Illyricum unpillaged, but devasted all without any opposition.

The Goths and the Carps live in Transylvania around this. :)

From the Rogoski Chronicle, we learn about the ethnic relations of Transylvania at that time, according to the chronicle, in 897 there were Slavs, Hungarians, Danubian Bulgars and Muromas living in Transylvania.

Do you think it's like describing what's in the territory of Hungary today, skipping Transylvania and continuing on to Bulgaria? No. It's clearly describing the area where the Hungarians settled, that's the area from present day Budapest to present day Bulgaria, that's why Bulgarians are included. CriticKende (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@CriticKende All I see is that they lived by the Danube. Transylvania has no "border" with Danube.

I understand your opinion but my question is where does it say in the text those people lived in Transylvania (or the area of nowadays Transylvania)? Aristeus01 (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There are many historical sources referring to this region like that, as the Danube was a good reference point. Do you think these people lived a few hundred metres from the Danube and that's it? No, it obviously refers to the Danube and the region around it. CriticKende (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be worth discussing this on the article talk page. CriticKende (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not about the article improvements, it's about your editing and repeated breaking of the NOR rule. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not break the NOR roulet because it is in the text. CriticKende (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Where? Where does it say Transylvania or the area of Transylvania in those texts? Aristeus01 (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It does not say Transylvania, but it describes it. The area where the Hungarians moved in. The whole book is about the Carpathian Basin, of which Transylvania is a part. Besides, it describes the peoples living along the Danube, in the Hungarian kingdom Transylvania bordered the Danube. CriticKende (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The map of Transylvania in the Hungarian wiki https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C3%A9ly_t%C3%B6rt%C3%A9nelme#/media/F%C3%A1jl:TransylvaniaPhysicalhung.jpg CriticKende (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because you don't write on every page that Transylvania is included, given that the book is about the Carpathian Basin, and at the time of the Hungarian kingdom Transylvania bordered the Danube, it is quite clear that Transylvania is included. This is not my invention, it is the way the writer wants it to be understood. The book is (partly) about the Carpathian Basin. Of which Transylvania is a part. And in Hungarian geography, Transylvania borders the Danube, so when a Hungarian writer writes that so-and-so lived along the Danube, Transylvania is included. CriticKende (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF TRANSYLVANIA

http://erdely.terkepek.net/ CriticKende (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Kogutowicz Manó : Map of Transylvania - Scale: 1:900.000

https://muzeumantikvarium.hu/item/erdely-terkepe---mertek--1-900-000?set_lang=en CriticKende (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sablon:Erdély-térkép = Template:Transylvania map in the Hungarian Wiki

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sablon:Erd%C3%A9ly-t%C3%A9rk%C3%A9p CriticKende (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~ Aristeus01 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Vlach Article

Hello @Aristeus01

I see in the Vlach article there is one of my edit that you don't like, (here: 1) which you think are not in the source.

Here is the quote from the source, and the link to the source:

The part, that you dont like:

Anna Komnene mentions in her Alexiad that in 1091 Emperor Alexios ordered Nikephoros Melissenos to raise an army against invading Pechenegs. Melissenos recruited, among others, Bulgarians and "wanderingthe nomadic tribes called Vlachs in popular parlance".

Your source: Florin Curta: Imaginea vlahilor la cronicarii cruciadei a IV-a, page 39, 2015

Link to your source: https://www.academia.edu/20297336/Imaginea_vlahilor_la_cronicarii_Cruciadei_a_IV_a_P%C3%A2n%C4%83_unde_r%C4%83zbate_ecoul_discu%C8%9Biilor_intelectuale_de_la_Constantinopol?auto=download

And the quote in your source, which I put in the article:

page 39: Melissenos a recrutat oșteni din rândurile bulgarilor, dar și a celor care „duc o viață de nomazi și sunt numiți în limba populară vlahi”114

Translated to English: Melissenos recruited soldiers from the ranks of the Bulgarians, but also from those who "lead a nomadic life and are called in the popular language Vlachs " (I translated it with a translator, it may not be perfect, but you can see that it is the same.)

So what I wrote is in the source. So I don't quite understand why quoting the source is a problem.

As well as in the original text (link: https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/alexiad_dawes.pdf page:141) in this place: "He was partly to levy recruits from the Bulgarians and from the nomadic tribes (called Vlachs in popular parlance) and for the rest whatever horseor foot-soldiers offered themselves from any country. "

So what I wrote is in your source word for word, and in the original text word for word, after that I don't see how I would break any rule.

If there is anything else I can help you with, I look forward to hearing from you. Have a nice day.

CriticKende (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@CriticKende

If you read the entire entry and not just the part that you like you'll see that Curta explicitly dismisses that interpretation (of Vlachs being nomads) (footnote 116, page 39). On Wikipedia we need to add text that is supported by the source, not our personal interpretation of it. This is not a blog. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have quoted the source word for word, so my editing is correct. (By the way, the original text says the same) CriticKende (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Royal Frankish Annals

Hello @Aristeus01

I see I also have an edit in the History of Transylvania article that you don't like.( 2) I'd like to argue that too, and show that what I put in the source doesn't break any rules on wikipedia.

Link to my source: https://archive.org/details/carolingianchron0000scho/page/186/mode/2up

What I wrote in the article: "In the Royal Frankish Annals, it is described that at that time in Transylvania, there were Avars and a Slavic tribe called the Obodrites, also called the Predecentes, and Bulgars lived next to them."

Quote in the source: "After arriving at Aachen and celebrating Christmas there, he was informed that the envoys of the king of the Bulgars were in Bavaria. He contacted them and made them wait there until the right moment. The emperor also received the envoys of the Obodrites who are commonly called Praedenecenti and live in Dacia on the Danube as neighbors of the Bulgars, of whose arrival he had been informed." (Page 116)

Quote from the source commentary by Bernhard Walter Scholz, University of Michigan Press (the translator): "After Ljudovit’s timely death in 823 the Franks encounter a new foe in the Bulgars, whose emissaries appear before Emperor Louis the Pious for the first time in 824. At issue is the border between Franks and Bulgars and the control of the Slavonic tribes living along the Danube in Dacia and in neighboring territories. That the Franks are fighting the Bulgars deep in the Balkans by the time the annalists discontinue the official annals of the realm is a measure of the expansion which the Carolingian empire undergoes over the nine decades of Carolingian history recorded by the RFA." (Page 18)

So, it's in the text, what I wrote, but it's even in the Commentary. And even if you don't accept that Transylvania borders the Danube, (which is: The map of Transylvania in the Hungarian wiki:https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C3%A9ly_t%C3%B6rt%C3%A9nelme#/media/F%C3%A1jl:TransylvaniaPhysicalhung.jpg ) in the commentary by the academic Bernhard Walter Scholz, it is stated that "Slavonic tribes living along the Danube in Dacia and in neighbouring territories", so again I can only say that I didn't make it up, it is not my own research, but it is in the source as a preserved historical record and as a historian's opinion. So again I don't understand when I broke a rule on wikipedia.

If there is anything else I can help you with, I look forward to hearing from you. Have a nice day.

CriticKende (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@CriticKende

Again, if the source does not state that explicitly, your research or "logic" is not valid. We are here to quote reliable sources on the topic. For example, your entry here does not say anything explicitly about Transylvania so it does not belong in the Transylvania article. If you would add that entry to Dacia or Romanian in the Migration Period/Middle Ages that would be perfectly fine, since the territory of Roman Dacia is contained within that. Transylvania is just a part of the former Roman province, therefore your pinpointing at it without the sources specific indication is null. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case, however, the text say it, so all is fine here. CriticKende (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"your entry here does not say anything explicitly about Transylvania so it does not belong in the Transylvania article"

"Slavonic tribes living along the Danube in Dacia and in neighbouring territories" CriticKende (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're so attached to the word Transylvania, but you've put the Baskirs as a picture for the Hungarians with a calm heart. As if the problem is not that there is no Transylvania, but that the Vlachs are not mentioned in the text... CriticKende (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be your problem, not mine, this single purpose editing intended to promote Immigrationist theory. My problem is that your edits are not supported by the sources or only touch on the subject while you add a hefty amount from your opinion. I will not let such poorly written texts be added to the pages I edit as well even if I have to ask for 3rd Opinion, Dispute resolution or NOR for every single one of them.

On a more positive note I appreciate that you highlighted so many new sources and I can work with that. We just need to be more accurate with citing. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Considering the facts that both the text and the commentary clearly indicate that this text fits perfectly into the article, the section will remain and the article will be enriched by it. CriticKende (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"On a more positive note I appreciate that you highlighted so many new sources and I can work with that. We just need to be more accurate with citing." Thank you :) CriticKende (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Huba (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Huba and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CriticKende! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Reason of attack

Hi, I would like let you know about this: [1] OrionNimrod (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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) 14:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

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) 03:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

All right, thank you for the advice. CriticKende (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)