Talk:Ajtony

message: 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)
thread_title:  The website 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)
thread_title:  Hunagrian POV vs Romanian POV - Please try to read the referred sources even if you are tired 

message: 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:
* http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/samuil.htm
* http://www.makedonija.info/samuil.html
* http://www.mysticalmacedonia.com/default.aspx?mode=1&id=471&lang=1
* http://www.macedonia.co.uk/client/index1.aspx?page=25
* http://www.soros.org.mk/konkurs/068/Sredvek.htm
* http://www.hic.hr/hrvatski/hid/hid4.htm
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)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I quote sources and it is not up to you to judge are they relevant or not. However, I propose compromise that both maps are used in the article with proper description on which sources are they based. Also, you cannot point to Wikipedia article as a source since we very well know that people can add just anything to Wikipedia articles. Certainly, the sole reason why aricle about empire of Samuil looks the way it looks is because Bulgarian and Greek editors in Wikipedia are more numerous than Macedonian ones so Macedonians cannot contest anti-Macedonian POV in proper way. 212.69.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Empire of Samuil

message: I moved the page because use of "Ajtony" is clearly in majority. It has 6300 hitsas opposed to "Ahtum"(871 hits) and "Achtum" (1530 hits). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, looking at the "Ajtony" hits it rather looks like a substantial part of them are actually about other people. And "Ohtum" seems to deliver 2,230 hits. You could have discussed the move prior to actually carrying it out. It does not look justified to me. --Laveol T 12:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ajtony's 6300 hits are mainly about the historical person Ajtony. Do you suggest that we should use a less prevalent name? But you are right I should have discussed it before moving. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: "....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)
replies: text: Yes, it is a quite strange theory, because a Romanian country without Romanians/Vlachs could hardly exist in Banat. However, the theory is proposed by one of the leading Romanian historians. Borsoka (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  undue