Talk:Stephen Báthory

message: Lysy, I don't see you communicating on the talk page here, either.  At any rate, the Kings of Poland templates are inappropriate, as are all the Polish officeholder templates.  We don't do such templates for any other officeholders, and there is no reason to do it for Polish kings.  Why does having a list of all Polish kings add to the article on an individual Polish king?  Why isn't a succession box sufficient? john k 15:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you removed it silently on April 25th. I think it would be appropriate if you explained this before you removed the template. I find the template useful, as it puts t\he monarch in a better historical context. I also don't see any harm it makes and cannot understand why you keep removing it even if I'm sure you're aware that no consensus was reached on this. Forcing your views is not the best way of conduct on WP. Could you explain what is that you find offending in this template. I'm sure more people would appreciate it if you could contribute to the article in a positive way instead of deleting content that you don't like for some reason, especially when you know that other people find it useful. In the meantime, I would like to ask you to refrain from removing the template before a consensus is reached to do so. Lysy 17:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are procedures for this - namely Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. I don't think that the argument 'others don't have them, so those few that have them should be downgraded as well' is valid. True, most of the relevant articles are stubs and thus the templates stand out, but eventually they will be expanded to large size and the templates will be barely noticable. Of course, the templates can be divided without losing much content - for example into Piasts, Jagiellons and elected kings. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: At the very, very least the template needs to be present in the very article relevant to it. I.e. the 'kings of Poland' template should definetly be used in the kings of Poland article. If you go on removing template spree, make sure you leave (or add) it to the main article, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, it's a good and polite practice not to remove contents when you see that others find useful. If you don't like the template, then VFD is the way to go instead. Please hold on with your deleting until it's resolved there. Lysy 08:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kings of Poland template 

message: *:Stefan Batory → :Stephen Báthory, King of Poland —(Discuss)— This person is the most famous but still only one of all in all 12 people called "Stephen Báthory" (not all will get articles but four already have) - to improve the distinction between all these Stephens I suggest to use numerals for all of them but this here, as he is special as King of Poland - therefore the inclusion of the title, which is in line with naming convention which prefer the use of the highest ranking title for reigning monarchs. Simply using the Polish spelling Stefan Batory (which in itself I don't mind) IMHO is not enough to distinguish him from his eleven namesakes. This move was already agreed upon on talk but recently reverted. Str1977 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Stephen Báthory of Poland, Lithuania and Transylvania (Romania didn't exist then) is not a feasible title. But the disambiguation problem remains. Str1977 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't insist on the word "King". Str1977 (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
Regarding usage one of the crowns, due to naming convention, we should take into account that it is not set in stone. In other hand I would not oppose to Báthory usage. M.K. 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
M.K.'s comments about the subject's importance in other countries does not tally with our naming conventions. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is also queen of many other countries, for example. All the remaining contributors seem to be happy with the title Stephen Báthory of Poland. This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Stephen Báthory of Poland is awful.  When you have "Name Ordinal of Country", it is clear that a monarch is being referred to.  "Firstname Surname of Country" is just weird. john k (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stefan Batory is a better name; plus the RM above did not show consensus for the move to the current name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Could an editor address the following material, which appears to be a copyvio. Source here refers to the Wayback machine version as of Jan 17, 2006 . That version states Copyright ©2005 Soylent Communications. The sentences were all inserted on Feb 3 2006 . 
1) Source: István Báthory spent his early years at the court of the emperor Ferdinand, subsequently attached himself to Janos Zapolya, and won equal renown as a valiant lord-marcher, and as a skilful diplomat at the imperial court.
:Article: Stephen Báthory the son won renown as a valiant lord-marcher, and as a skillful diplomat at the imperial court.
2) Source: The Pearl of Poland", encouraged by her immense wealth, and almost impregnable fortifications, as well as by the secret support of Denmark and the emperor, had shut her gates against the new monarch.
::Article: The city, encouraged by its immense wealth and almost impregnable fortifications, as well as by the secret support of Denmark and the emperor, had backed Emperor Maximilian II and shut her gates against the new monarch. 
3) Source: Two campaigns of wearing marches, and still more exhausting sieges ensued, in which Báthory, although repeatedly hampered by the parsimony of the Diet, was uniformly successful, his skilful diplomacy at the same time allaying the suspicions of the Porte and the emperor.
:Article: Two campaigns of wearing marches, and still more exhausting sieges ensued, in which Batory, although repeatedly hampered by the parsimony of the Sejm, was uniformly successful, his skilful diplomacy at the same time allaying the suspicions of the Ottomans and the emperor.
4) Source: But the king, despite the murmurs of his own officers, and the protestations of the papal nuncio, Possevino, whom the curia, deluded by the mirage of a union of the churches, had sent expressly from Rome to mediate between the tsar and the king of Poland, closely besieged the city throughout a winter of arctic severity...
:Article: But the king, despite the murmurs of his own officers, and the protestations of the papal nuncio, Possevino, whom the curia, deluded by the mirage of a union of the churches, had sent expressly from Rome to mediate between the tsar and the king of Poland, closely besieged the city throughout a winter of arctic severity. 
5) Source: At first his position was extremely difficult; but the sudden death of the emperor Maximilian at the very moment when that potentate, in league with the Muscovite, was about to invade Poland, completely changed the face of things, and though Stephen's distrust of the Habsburgs remained invincible, he consented at last to enter into a defensive alliance with the empire which was carried through by the papal nuncio on his return to Rome in 1578. 
:Article: However, the sudden death of the emperor Maximilian at the very moment when that potentate, in league with Muscovy, was about to invade Poland, completely changed the face of things, and though Stefan's distrust of the Habsburgs remained invincible, he consented at last to enter into a defensive alliance with the Holy Roman Empire which was carried through by the papal nuncio on his return to Rome in 1578. Novickas (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you leave a message for the editor who inserted the problematic material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent copyvio

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Novickas (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that 5 sentences justify removing 2/3 of the article and 3 years of editors work. Please remove the problematic 5 sentences instead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  14:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the cutoff point is for copyvio postings, it could use clarification. I've removed some 1 or 2 sentence problems myself. Possibly, tho, they'll be doing some sort of analysis of cpv problems, which could channel resources to that project, and just removing them would lose those data points. The three years of work will I'm sure be restored after an admin vets the article entry at CP problems. The instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems look to me like 3 alternatives: speedy delete, blank all or section, or restore clean version. Then wait for admin action. Novickas (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing five sentences seems a much simpler solution than removing 2/3 of an article, which went down from 15kb to 5kb, where less than 1kb of copyvio text needs to be removed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor and as an admin, you can delete the offending sentences, restore the intervening edits, and remove it from the cpvio page. Now that I've posted it, as a mere editor I'm not free to do that, per the instructions there. In the meantime we can await clarification from MRG, who is currently on a break, on the amount-of-copyvio-justifying-a-posting issue, or you could contact another admin on the cpvio project for an opinion. Novickas (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had time, I'd have done so. For the record, I find the instructions you cite in need of revision: any editor should be allowed to remove copyvio sentences in such a situation. Perhaps as an admin I could authorize you to do so? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, thanks; I'll wait for the wider discussion. Novickas (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Piotrus asked my opinion here. The copyright instructions are difficult to follow, as they are spread out at various points. WP:CP essentially does provide those options and should probably be updated to accord with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which does allow selective removal: "If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known."  Novickas, thanks for once again locating what does seem to be improperly copied text on Wikipedia. Good use of internet archives to verify. Piotrus, I appreciate your taking five minutes to rewrite those sentences. I'll alter the CP instructions to accord with the policy page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alexander Jagiellon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Is he related to the mass murderer?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.160.246 (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about Elizabeth Báthory, then yes, he was her uncle.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation

message: Quick fail for B-class for WP:POLAND: lack of inline citations throughout. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class failed

message: The town/castle is mentioned once, as a place of the death. The king used to live there  Stephen Báthory of Poland who made a royal residence here Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grodno/[[Hrodna]] 

message: User @Pofka added in this edit information that Bathory was elevated as grand duke in Vilnius in 1580 receiving a sword and a cap. In reality he received from the Pope blessed sword and hat as a confirmation of his status as Fidei Defensor, as a sign of gratitude for his fights against Turks and Tatars. This is confirmed by Jerzy Besala in his biography of the king (p. 295-296). Please revert your changes as the content you added is now misleading. Cheers Marcelus (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Pofka's edit is not misleading, he's simply writing what he's found in sources. I checked and reliable sources call it the way Pofka wrote about it.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then sources are misleading; because reception of the blessed sword and hat from Pope isn't the same as elevation of the Grand Duke. Marcelus (talk) 10:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understood correctly from what I read about this event, then there is a possible synthesis of seemingly contradicting sources by saying that the presentation of the blessed sword and hat from the Pope was interpreted as elevation to a Grand Duke. But no matter my opinion(s) on this, sources must state it, because WP:VERIFIABILITY matters. If RS say it was enthronement, then it was one, as far as I am concerned.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth moving the discussion to: Talk:Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania#Quotes_and_additional_explanation_about_the_1580_ceremony_of_the_Lithuanian_Grand_Duke_Stephen_Báthory. Since @Pofka decided to ignore this discussion and start it in several other places. Marcelus (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Do we have RS stating this? The edit diffed above is for 15min, which does not seem like an authority on history. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bathory's sword