Ajtony has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 9, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ajtony appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 June 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
It will be fine with me to insert another website next to Samuil of Bulgaria#Other theories as long as it is not a news/portal site of a city. Please get a website from the Serbian academy of sciences or something of that sort. Mr. Neutron 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ahtum&action=historysubmit&diff=326546416&oldid=326486271
Borsoka, it is a matter of putting words into one's mouth. And I'm afraid it is not the first time you are doing this. Hungarian sources could say anything outrageous about the Romanian POV. It doesn't mean that the Romanian POV claims that, it only means that the Hungarian POV thinks that is what Romanian POV claims. And similarly in the opposite sense. Hungarian sources must be used to explain the Hungarian POV and Romanian sources to explain the Romanian POV. It is elementary common sense. Otherwise, NOPV is prejudiced from the start. I would appreciate if you could revisit also other articles where you have might done this. Dc76\ talk 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Pakko, please stop with this nationalistic POV pushing. The older version of the map is more NPOV and present both wiews about character of empire of Samuil while your map present only one-sided Bulgarian view completelly ignoring valid views of Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian historians. Here is list of sources that show that usage of word "Macedonian" for empire of Samuil is valid and videly accepted:
Also, this article is mainly related to the history of Vojvodina and Banat and this is not a place where question whether empire of Samuil was Bulgarian or Macedonian should be resolved. It is better that this article have NPOV map in which both views are presented, not just one-sided nationalistic Bulgarian view. I hope that everybody can agree about that. 212.69.12.165 ( talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Panonian, you quote only sources from former Tito's Yugoslavia... They are not relevant. So read more about Samuil's Bulgaria on en.wiki... Best regards my friend! -- Пакко ( talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I moved the page because use of "Ajtony" is clearly in majority. It has 6300 hits [1]as opposed to "Ahtum"(871 hits) [2] and "Achtum" (1530 hits) [3]. Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sainsf ( talk · contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Will review. Cheers!
Sainsf (
talk ·
contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Fairly well-written as always. Only a few comments: Sainsf ( talk · contribs) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"....Ajtony's former duchy was not fully incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary until the 13th century because frequent internal conflicts had enabled the Romanians to preserve their idea of a "Romanian country".... Is this for real? What does it mean "idea of a Romanian country"? We are talking about the 11th-12th centuries..... Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Ajtony has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 9, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Ajtony appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 June 2016 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
It will be fine with me to insert another website next to Samuil of Bulgaria#Other theories as long as it is not a news/portal site of a city. Please get a website from the Serbian academy of sciences or something of that sort. Mr. Neutron 16:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ahtum&action=historysubmit&diff=326546416&oldid=326486271
Borsoka, it is a matter of putting words into one's mouth. And I'm afraid it is not the first time you are doing this. Hungarian sources could say anything outrageous about the Romanian POV. It doesn't mean that the Romanian POV claims that, it only means that the Hungarian POV thinks that is what Romanian POV claims. And similarly in the opposite sense. Hungarian sources must be used to explain the Hungarian POV and Romanian sources to explain the Romanian POV. It is elementary common sense. Otherwise, NOPV is prejudiced from the start. I would appreciate if you could revisit also other articles where you have might done this. Dc76\ talk 15:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Pakko, please stop with this nationalistic POV pushing. The older version of the map is more NPOV and present both wiews about character of empire of Samuil while your map present only one-sided Bulgarian view completelly ignoring valid views of Serbian, Croatian and Macedonian historians. Here is list of sources that show that usage of word "Macedonian" for empire of Samuil is valid and videly accepted:
Also, this article is mainly related to the history of Vojvodina and Banat and this is not a place where question whether empire of Samuil was Bulgarian or Macedonian should be resolved. It is better that this article have NPOV map in which both views are presented, not just one-sided nationalistic Bulgarian view. I hope that everybody can agree about that. 212.69.12.165 ( talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Panonian, you quote only sources from former Tito's Yugoslavia... They are not relevant. So read more about Samuil's Bulgaria on en.wiki... Best regards my friend! -- Пакко ( talk) 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I moved the page because use of "Ajtony" is clearly in majority. It has 6300 hits [1]as opposed to "Ahtum"(871 hits) [2] and "Achtum" (1530 hits) [3]. Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sainsf ( talk · contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Will review. Cheers!
Sainsf (
talk ·
contribs) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Fairly well-written as always. Only a few comments: Sainsf ( talk · contribs) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"....Ajtony's former duchy was not fully incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary until the 13th century because frequent internal conflicts had enabled the Romanians to preserve their idea of a "Romanian country".... Is this for real? What does it mean "idea of a Romanian country"? We are talking about the 11th-12th centuries..... Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)