User talk:Iadrian yu/Archive April,2010

History of Romania
This article provides only a brief outline of each period of the history of Romania; details are presented in separate articles (see the links in the box and below).

Prehistory
The oldest modern human remains in Europe were discovered in the "Cave With Bones" in present day Romania. The remains are approximately 42,000 years old and as Europe’s oldest remains of Homo sapiens, they may represent the first such people to have entered the continent. The remains are especially interesting because they present a mixture of archaic, early modern human and Neanderthal morphological features.

One of the fossils found—a male, adult jawbone—has been dated to be between 34,000 and 36,000 years old, which would make it one of the oldest fossils found to date of modern humans in Europe. A skull found in Peştera cu Oase (The Cave with Bones) in 2004-5 bears features of both modern humans and Neanderthals. According to a paper by Erik Trinkaus and others, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in January 2007, this finding suggests that the two groups interbred thousands of years ago. Radiocarbon dating indicates that the skull is between 35,000 and 40,000 years old, making it the oldest modern human fossil ever found in Europe.

Dacia
The earliest written evidence of people living in the territory of the present-day Romania comes from Herodotus in book IV of his Histories written 440 BCE. Herein he writes that the tribal confederation of the Getae were defeated by the Persian Emperor Darius the Great during his campaign against the Scythians. The Dacians, widely accepted as part of the Getae described earlier by the Greeks, were a branch of Thracians that inhabited Dacia (corresponding to modern Romania, Moldova and northern Bulgaria). The Dacian kingdom reached its maximum expansion during King Burebista, between 82 BCE - 44 BCE. Under his leadership Dacia became a powerful state which threatened the regional interests of the Romans. Julius Caesar intended to start a campaign against the Dacians, due to the support that Burebista gave to Pompey, but was assassinated in 44 BC. A few months later, Burebista shared the same fate, assassinated by his own noblemen. Another theory suggests that he was killed by Caesar's friends. His powerful state was divided in four and did not become unified again until 95 AD, under the reign of the Dacian king Decebalus. The Roman Empire conquered Moesia by 29 BC, reaching the Danube. In 87 AD Emperor Domitian sent six legions into Dacia, which were defeated at Tapae. The Dacians were eventually defeated by Emperor Trajan in two campaigns stretching from 101 AD to 106 AD, and the core of their kingdom was turned into the province of Roman Dacia. The Romans exploited the rich ore deposits of Dacia. Gold and silver were especially plentiful, and were found in great quantities in the Western Carpathians. After Trajan's conquest, he brought back to Rome over 165 tons of gold and 330 tons of silver. The Romans heavily colonized the province, and thus started a period of intense romanization, the Vulgar Latin giving birth to proto-Romanian language.

The geographical position of Dacia Felix made it difficult to defend against the barbarians, and during 240 AD - 256 AD, under the attacks of the Carpi and the Goths, Dacia was lost. The Roman Empire withdrew from Dacia Romana around 271 AD, thus making it the first province to be abandoned. Roman conquest of Dacia stands at the base of the origin of Romanians. Several competing theories have been generated to explain the origin of modern Romanians. Linguistic and geo-historical analyses tend to indicate that Romanians have coalesced as a major ethnic group both South and North of the Danube. For further discussion, see Origin of Romanians.

Dark Ages
In either 271 or 275, the Roman army and administration left Dacia, which was invaded by the Goths. The Goths lived with the local people until the 4th century, when a nomadic people, the Huns, arrived. The Gepids and the Avars and their Slavic subjects ruled Transylvania until the 8th century. . The Pechenegs, the Cumans and Uzes were also mentioned by historic chronicles on the territory of Romania, until the founding of the Romanian principalities of Wallachia by Basarab I around 1310 in the High Middle Ages, and Moldavia by Dragoş around 1352. Different people from other kingdoms (or empires) lived with the Romanians, such as the Gothic Empire (Oium) from 271 until 378, the Hunnish Empire until 435, the Avar Empire and Slavs during the 6th century. Subsequently Magyars, Pechenegs, Cumans and Tatars also raided and settled in the lands to various extents.

Middle Ages
In the Middle Ages, Romanians lived in three distinct principalities: Wallachia (Ţara Românească—"Romanian Land"), Moldavia (Moldova) and Transylvania.

By the 11th and 12th century, the nomadic confederacy of the Cumans and (Eastern) Kipchaks (who are considered to be either the eastern branch of the Cumans or a distinct but related tribe with whom the Cumans created a confederacy) were the dominant force over the vast territories stretching from the present-day Kazakhstan, southern Russia, Ukraine, to southern Moldavia and western Wallachia. By the 11th century, the area of today's Transylvania became a largely autonomous part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Kings of Hungary invited the Saxons to settle in Transylvania. Also living in Transylvania were the Székely (székely magyar). They were an ancient Magyar tribe which had arrived after the Avars (they had the same language). Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 10-11th century until the 16th century, when it became the independent Principality of Transylvania until 1711. Many small local states with varying degrees of independence developed, but only in the 14th century the larger principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia emerged to fight a threat in the form of the Ottoman Turks, who conquered Constantinople in 1453.

Independent Wallachia has been on the border of the Ottoman Empire since the 14th century and slowly fell under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire during the 15th century. One famous ruler in this period was Vlad III the Impaler (also known as Vlad Dracula or Vlad Ţepeş), Prince of Wallachia in 1448, 1456–62, and 1476. In the English-speaking world, Vlad is best known for the legends of the exceedingly cruel punishments he imposed during his reign and for serving as the primary inspiration for the vampire main character in Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula. As king, he maintained an independent policy in relation to the Ottoman Empire, and in Romania he is viewed by many as a prince with a deep sense of justice, and a defender of both Wallachia and European Christianity against Ottoman expansionism. The principality of Moldavia reached its most glorious period under the rule of Stephen the Great between 1457 and 1504. His rule of 47 years was unusually long, especially at that time - only 13 rulers were recorded to have ruled for at least 50 years until the end of 15th century. He was a very successful military leader (winning 47 battles and losing only 2), ) and after each victory, he raised a church, managing to build 48 churches or monasteries, some of them with unique and very interesting painting styles. For more information see Painted churches of northern Moldavia listed in UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites. Stephen's most prestigious victory was over the Ottoman Empire in 1475 at the Battle of Vaslui for which he raised the Voroneţ Monastery. For this victory, Pope Sixtus IV deemed him verus christianae fidei athleta (true Champion of Christian Faith). However, after his death, Moldavia would also come under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century.

Early modern period
By 1541, the entire Balkan peninsula and most of Hungary became Ottoman provinces. In contrast, Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania(Transilvania), came under Ottoman suzerainty, but conserved fully internal autonomy and, until the 18th century, some external independence. During this period the Romanian lands were characterised by the slow disappearance of the feudal system, the distinguishment of some rulers like Vasile Lupu and Dimitrie Cantemir in Moldavia, Matei Basarab and Constantin Brâncoveanu in Wallachia, Gabriel Bethlen in Transylvania, the Phanariot Epoch, and the appearance of the Russian Empire as a political and military influence. John II, the last non-Habsburg king of Hungary, moved his royal court to Alba Iulia in Transylvania, and after his abdication as king of Hungary, became the first Prince of Transylvania. His Edict of Turda was the first decree of religious freedom in the modern history of Europe (1568). In the subsequent period, Transylvania was ruled by mostly Calvinist Hungarian princes (until the end of the 17th century), and Protestantism flourished in the region. Michael the Brave (Romanian: Mihai Viteazul) was the Prince of Wallachia (1593–1601), of Transylvania (1599–1600), and of Moldavia (1600). Briefly, during his reign the three principalities largely inhabited by Romanians were for the first time united under a single rule. After his death, as vassal tributary states, Moldova and Wallachia had complete internal autonomy and an external independence, which was finally lost in the 18th century. In 1600, the principalities of Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania were simultaneously headed by the Wallachian prince Michael the Brave (Mihai Viteazul), Ban of Oltenia, but the chance for a unity dissolved after Mihai was killed, only one year later, by the soldiers of an Austrian army general Giorgio Basta. Mihai Viteazul, who was prince of Transylvania for less than one year, intended for the first time to unite the three principalities and to lay down foundations of a single state in a territory comparable to today's Romania. The Principality of Transylvania experienced a golden age under the absolutist rule of Gabor Bethlen (1613–1629). In 1699, Transylvania became a territory of the Habsburgs' Austrian empire, following the Austrian victory over the Turks. The Austrians, in their turn, rapidly expanded their empire: in 1718 an important part of Wallachia, called Oltenia, was incorporated to the Austrian monarchy and was only returned in 1739. In 1775, the Austrian empire occupied the north-western part of Moldavia, later called Bukovina, while the eastern half of the principality (called Bessarabia) was occupied in 1812 by Russia.

the Kingdom of Hungary in 1890]] During the period of Austro-Hungarian rule in Transylvania, and Ottoman suzerainty over Wallachia and Moldavia, most Romanians were in the situation of being second-class citizens (or even non-citizens) in a territory where they formed the majority of the population. In some Transylvanian cities, such as Braşov (at that time the Transylvanian Saxon citadel of Kronstadt), Romanians were not even allowed to reside within the city walls.

As in most European countries, 1848 brought revolution to Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania, announced by Tudor Vladimirescu and his Pandurs in the Wallachian uprising of 1821. The goals of the revolutionaries - complete independence for Moldavia and Wallachia, and national emancipation in Transylvania - remained unfulfilled, but were the basis of the subsequent evolutions. Also, the uprising helped the population of the three principalities recognise their unity of language and interests. Moldavia and Romanian countries were very close, not just in language, but in geography also.

After the failed 1848 Revolution, the Great Powers did not support the Romanians' expressed desire to officially unite in a single state, forcing Romania to proceed alone against the Turks. Heavily taxed and badly administered under the Ottoman Empire, in 1859, people in both Moldavia and Wallachia elected the same "Domnitor" (ruler) - Alexandru Ioan Cuza - as prince. (Domnitor in Romanian). Thus, Romania was created as a personal union, albeit a Romania that did not include Transylvania, where the upper class and the aristocracy remained mainly Hungarian, although Romanian nationalism inevitably ran up against Hungarian nationalism at the end of the 19th century. As in the previous 900 years, Austria-Hungary, especially under the Dual Monarchy of 1867, kept the Hungarians firmly in control, even in parts of Transylvania where Romanians constituted a local majority.

Independence and Kingdom of Romania
In a 1866 coup d'état, Cuza was exiled and replaced by Prince Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, who became known as Prince Carol of Romania. During the Russo-Turkish War, Romania fought on the Russian side; in the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, Romania was recognized as an independent state by the Great Powers. In return, Romania ceded three southern districts of Bessarabia to Russia and acquired Dobruja. In 1881, the principality was raised to a kingdom and Prince Carol became King Carol I.

In 1866, the German prince Carol I (Charles or Karl) of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was appointed as Domnitor—Prince—of the Principality of Romania. In 1877, Romania declared independence from the Ottoman Empire and, following a Russian-Romanian-Turkish war, its independence was recognized by the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, making it the first independent national state in the eastern half of Europe. Following the war Romania acquired Dobruja in its southeast, but it was forced by Russia to cede the Southern Bessarabian territory to Russia "in exchange" for the access to the ports at the Black Sea. Prince Carol I was proclaimed the first King of Romania on March 26, 1881.

The 1878-1914 period was one of stability and progress for Romania. During the Second Balkan War, Romania joined Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey against Bulgaria. In the peace Treaty of Bucharest (1913) Romania gained Southern Dobrudja - the Quadrilateral (the Durostor and Caliacra counties).

Re: Romanian
Please see Talk:Novi Sad. No such user (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Delete an article
Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. Looking at Vojvodina Academy of Sciences and Arts and Vojvodinian Academy of Sciences and Art, it would appear that these two articles need to go through the merger process, though I have no clue as to which one should remain. To help facilitate the merge, I have made a request for assistance from WikiProject Universities. Good luck! — Kralizec! (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. iadrian (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Endre Pap
A tag has been placed on Endre Pap requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ridernyc (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Pamant
In primul rand, scuze de intarzaiere. In al doilea rand, in legatura cu pamantul patrat, despre aceasta teorie am scrie la Flat Earth :) Dar hai sa adresez mai concret intrebarea ta. Unde e o dezbatere stiintifica sau istorica si unde autoritati stiintifice care isi publica cercetarile in jurnale revizuite de alti profesori in domeniul respectiv (vezi WP:RS) au doua puncte de vedere diferite si care nu sunt absurde (vezi WP:FRINGE), atunci se prezinta ambele teorii. Vezi de exemplu Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause ("Legal scholars disagree..."). Sau vezi Functionalism versus intentionalism. Unii ("intentionalistii") zic ca Hitler planuise Holocaustul cu mult inainte sa inceapa pe deplin (cca. 1942); altii ("functionalistii") sustin ca circumstantele razboiului l-au impins sa porneasca Holocaustul. Wikipedia prezinta ambele puncte de vedere. (Si vezi ca aceste doua teorii accepta amandoua ca Holocaustul s-a intamplat; cei care il neaga complet (o teorie care intra sub WP:FRINGE) se discuta la Holocaust denial.) Sper ca te-a ajutat putin raspunsul meu dar putem sa mai discutam.

In legatura cu intrebarea ta anterioara, o-sa iti trimit un e-mail in urmatoarele zile. Iti citesti mesajele de la mail, da? - Biruitorul Talk 02:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at John Hunyadi. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Indent

 * I see that i have been accused of something, i would like to clear my name if it is possible ? To the administrator, not to the paranoid user. Since i was blocked and i could`t defend myself. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the accusation has been officially registered, so i don't think there is a reason to defend yourself from anything just yet. However, keep this in mind: using multiple account to edit Wikipedia is called sockpuppetry and is strictly forbidden. Doing so while being blocked on another account is called block evasion and this will result in a reset of the block timer, or even in a longer block. In other words, Don't edit while being blocked, no matter the reason!


 * On another matter, don't get caught in an edit war again - if several users disagree it is better to discuss it on the talk age, rather then holding a Tug of war trough reverting. If you cannot seem to agree, take it to dispute resolution to get advice on how to handle it. If the other user controversially edits the article even while there is a discussion, let him/her do so. It will only look bad when evaluated by DR. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 09:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.


 * What's the AfD discussion in question? This account doesn't seem to have edited one directly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please check that this user hasn't been mixed up with sockmaster  who Jpgordon has had a lot of recent dealings with. 99% certain it's a mix-up. Many thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  16:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori.  Esowteric + Talk  16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only reason i can think of is this edit war which happened yesterday. In that case the user evaded the block by editing as an IP user and eventually creating a new account (User:IancuHunedoara)). However, if i remember correctly, he stopped editing after i warned him about this.


 * Besides, both editors finally settled down to talk about the edit war - IF the edit war is the ban cause i would say the reason is void for now. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The IPs were blocked for rigging votes at an AfD of an article which several socks of Iamsaa edited.  Esowteric + Talk  16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, i don`t want to sound silly, but why am i banned? And what is going on? I don`t now what Nusrullah Khan Noori even is ? Can you please help me to understand what is the problem? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's a mix-up with sockmaster . See my note above.  Esowteric + Talk  16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My ip now is 80.74.161.51 from Vojvodina.iadrian (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The 116.71.17.159 and 119.160.59.185 are from Pakistan. I am from Vojvodina,Serbia. iadrian (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry: have left talk page messages.  Esowteric + Talk  16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing JPGordon didn't edit in over 30 minutes, i just raised this at ANI instead. Should be solved soon. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * thinks the same. Have pointed him to AN/I.  Esowteric + Talk  16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My total apologies for this. I was chasing down several cases at once, and obviously got confused at exactly the wrong time -- right before driving across the Mohave Desert. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Np, glad that all worked up. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

John Hynady article - neutrality disputed.
Hello, as you know the history on this article, we have some problems which we can`t solve. To avoid another edit war i give up, and left the other users to do as they want, but i challenged the neutrality of the article. Now, even with that some of them have a problem. Can you please help me, and explain why is that removed since it is clear (from the talk page) that this article is not neutral at least. If i am doing something wrong, can you please explain me please what could be the problem. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You added the tag correctly, yet seeing the situation i think you should consider which template fits best. If you believe the article is currently leaning towards a certain viewpoint the current tag should be used (To give an example: In an article about Creation–evolution controversy leaning towards either viewpoint is disputed neutrality). On the other hand, if you believe certain facts are not correct, the template should be used. (Examples for this are disputed birth dates, countries of origin et cetera). In short: The current template states that the article is giving undue attention to a certain viewpoint, while the template i mentioned warns the user that there might be factual errors in the text.


 * As for adding the template itself: I believe it should at least be temporally added to signal users that the article has recently been disputed. Kind regards, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the facts are generally all good, i don`t see any problem with them, just with the summarization some users write on the article, the way they say it change the whole meaning of the facts. Yes, i believe that the article is currently leaning towards a certain viewpoint, so this form is correct. Since it is clear even from the Talk page that the neutrality of this article is not clear, how can i stop certain users from removing the tag? Thank you.iadrian (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless you are an administrator with locking rights, you cannot prevent other users from simply removing the tag. The only thing you can do is ask them why they did it and revert the tag, with the risk of creating yet another edit war. I know this can be frustrating at times, as it is something i regulary experience on newpage and vandalism patrol, but little can be done about it. The only option i can think of is going trough a DR procedure which can be quoted later on. Safe for that, i think this is just one of the few drawbacks of a "Free to edit for everyone" encyclopedia. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

A question.
Hello, sorry to bother you, again :), but since you were provide a clear explanation about the previous matter, i would like to ask you another question. EX: We have a location, city Novi Sad, now that city have other language names that are present on that city page. Now we have that Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina, and on the article about Vojvodina, we don`t mention other language name of Novi Sad, only the state language which in this example is Serbian language. Is that correct? Thank you again. iadrian (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is one of those questions that has a level of detail which goes beyond normal editing questions, and therefor i cannot give you an answer that is based upon the policies or agreements on naming such items. I can, however, say the following: Normally each article has a specific topic, and man should try not to add detailed information which isn't about that specific topic. For example the Comparison of revision control software article should not add long descriptions on each piece of software - that should be added on individual article's instead.


 * The question for you would be: are the alternate names for the city necessarily to understand the Vojvodina topic? Would users fail to understand the article if the alternate name would not be mentioned? Many countries and cities have alternate names in another language, but generally taken they should be mentioned only if required. Hence, that is why we add the native names of the city on the english wiki, but not the name a random other country uses. There is no sense adding the French name to the New York article for example.


 * Note that i am just quoting a basic policy now, and applying that to the current situation. It is possible that some other policy or wikiproject overrides this though, so if you want to be sure you may want to ask at Wikiproject cities. Hope this helps, Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names in Romania
Please look at the compromise reached many years ago on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc

It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox,too.

Please also study the recent opinion on this issue of neutral and undoubtedly impartial editors here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:S%C4%83rma%C5%9Fu

Please stop wikihounding and vandalizing my work.

Kind regards:User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I would rather say that you are vandalizing articles in Transilvania. It is clear that other language names are presented in paranthesses not in "OR" form or any other as you are trying to do. The official names use in front, other language names in paranthesses. Unless the other language names is necessary for the understanding of the article.Romania has only one official language. iadrian (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but i don`t see "that" as a compromise since In Vojvodina, Romanian and Hungarian languages are official, but not Romanian and Hungarian names of the places as you are trying to do. And in Romania there is no form of autonomy. iadrian (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not investigate who did it, but in many instances Romanian - official names are replaced with Hungarian ONLY. I like multiculturalism, but this is becoming only Hungarian "culturalism" in Romania.iadrian (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iadrian, let us discuss our difference of opinion when both you and me have time for that. What we deal with are mostly leads of stubs without any notable content. While we are waisting energy on Romanian/ Hungarian names, we stay with stubs where the only content is the name. Why we do not agree to co-operate on adding useful content for a specific number of articles, which may better represent both communities than an empty page under whatever name is written above. No one reads such articles on Transylvania anyway, except for people like you and me. With friendly regards User:Rokarudi. p.s. I do not mean to insult you with respect to late Iaaasi, after all, we were good buddies, indeed.--Rokarudi 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I agree with what you stated above. We should concentrate on the quality of the articles but you must also understand that there are some naming rules regarding this matter that should be respected, and we should talk about it. It is very important to take into consideration the Romanian law and the status of the Hungarian language in Romania in this discussion. I would kindly suggest stopping further edits until a consensus is reached. I will await your notification on my talk page.iadrian (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Raised at ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - I've raised the issue at ANI in order to centralise it. It may be that the discussion is moved elsewhere. You may wish to inform other editors about this discussion whether they support your view or oppose it, in order that all have a chance to participate. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't have the authority to make a ruling. I've facilitated a discussion where consensus can be established. Being on the ANI board, you can be sure that a fair number of admins are watching all parties involved. Once consensus has been established, then further disruptive editing can be dealt with if that proves to be necessary. I'd much rather that the issue is discussed, and the parties whose view doesn't meet the general consensus gracefully acknowledge that fact and accept the situation. The alternative is blocks and bans, which I'm sure nobody wants. Mjroots (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no immediate rush, give it a few days for the discussion to continue and see how that develops. It would be better if all involve put some effort into expanding and sourcing stub articles in the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

wikiquette
Iadrian - sorry, I should have clarified: you really need to provide wp:diffs (read that link to see what I mean). the point is for you to show specific edits where the other user was insulting, accusing, or otherwise problematic. That makes it much easier for other (neutral) editors to look through and see what the problem is. a diff looks like this (click edit to see what it looks like in wikitext). you can make them by clicking on the history tab and searching out the edits you want to use, then copying the page address. again, read the diffs link above.

after you're done adding diffs to the wikiquette, please leave a note on Rokarudi's talk page with a link to the wikiquette, so that he can go and respond to people there. -- Ludwigs 2 00:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did it here and repaired the request. Thank you for the instructions. iadrian (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback Kedadi
 kedadi al  14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Investigation
A user accuses me of having an edit war with you. Can you please express your POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Squash_Racket_reported_by_User:Umumu.28Result:_.29 (Umumu (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC))