User talk:Iadrian yu/Archive August,2011

Barnstar
Thanks! Greetings. Adrian (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal
I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread:. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys(Iaaasi (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Message
Please see this. Thanks.Fainites barley scribs 16:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info but I don`t really understand what is the problem? The conversation is very confusing ... I will try to see what is the problem. Adrian (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's basically a spill-over from arguments about whether or not EK should be in the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina info-box (ie, is he a Serb or a Bosniak). Now it's got down to - should the fact that he is of Bosniak descent be included in the lead?Fainites barley scribs 22:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand it now. I already responded and I was wrong adding it in the lead. I wasn`t aware, but according to WP:OPENPARA the version introduced by me was wrong. The ethnicity should`t be mentioned in the lead. I just acted on other examples I saw but in sensitive cases we should follow the guild-lines (if they already exists) how to proceed to avoid any possible problems now and in the future. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seems to me the question to be answered arose from - 2.Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notabilityFainites barley scribs 22:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don`t know. It is very tricky deciding when ethnicity is notable to mention and when not. Is Kusturica ethnicity important to his work, his occupation ? I don`t know. This is really hard to answer. Adrian (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes isn't it! Fainites barley scribs 22:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a wonderful message for you! God will salvate you! And thus you'll be saved from eternal damnation! Let me tell you about Jesus Christ then!
Nah, actually I'm not a Jehovah's witness ;), but since you were dying to to read the conversation I had with Bizovne's IP sock, I thought I'd let you know that I've finished translating it into English. You can view the whole conversation here. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank god! :) I was just grabbing my The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to defend myself from salvation.. or damnation :). I am not actually interested in that conversation... anyway, I think I explained my reasons in my messages. Thank you. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rosedu


A tag has been placed on Rosedu 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. &mdash; RHaworth 00:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Moldavia the vassal country
According to all sources Moldavia was vassal country (in the beginning ) of Hungary. (Moldavia was founded by the admit of Louis the great of Hungary, than became vassal country of Poland than vassal of Ottomans.--Balancedright (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice
Notice that phrase, "before World War I". Until 1918, Transylvania was indeed an irredenta for Romanian nationalists, who believed the Romanian state was incomplete without it. At least between 1916 and 1918, gaining control of Transylvania by force of arms was Romanian government policy. Since 1918, of course, Transylvania is part of Romania, and so cannot be described as an irredenta.

Hungary three times (1920, 1947 and 1996) renounced its claim over Transylvania, the third time being through the voluntary act of a sovereign state, so Hungary also has no irredentist claims over Transylvania. (It did, though, between 1920 and 1940, when the primary objective of Hungarian foreign policy was "revision" of the Treaty of Trianon.) Some individual Hungarian nationalists may, but that's a different story. - Biruitorul Talk 16:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Don`t want to make a big deal out of this, especially after the last editor`s statement at that article. It looks really strange because like this, every country in the world has irredenta for some core teritories if we present it like this... Should`t this be moved to the historical section ("Europe (Historical)")? Because the section is "Europe (Continuing to the modern day)". Transylvania isn`t irredenta for Romania today or to the modern day. Adrian (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus
Hello Iadrian. I'm simply responding to your deletion of my content on the Matthias Corvinus article. May I ask for what reason you did that? Secondly why you called my contributions "vandalism"? Most of what I provided comes directly from the article itself. May I ask you gave you administrative sovereign rights over this article? It's apparent that you are attempting to monopolizing this article who wants to block other responsible editors.

I'm persuaded to call in Wikipedia mediation and arbitration if you don't respond to this response. Tell me your logic as you why you deleted my content, I am very intrigued. I'm obliged to go directly to Wikipedia administration if you don't explain your rationale, actions and your refusal to discuss the nature of the preamble in the discussion section. The ball is your court, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMyronGuyton (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have explained everything here ..  the problem is that you choose to ignore it.. About the vandalism I also explained my actions here  when I reverted you. Please avoid to contact me on my talk page regarding this issue when we already talked about this and there are open discussions on the talk page of the article. If you have a problem with this article try the talk page at that article, if that doesn`t help try to ask some administrator for help or try the ANI(mediation/arbitration) board. Also there is no difference in edits if you or I am Romanian,Hungarian or whatever, neither the country where do you or I live. PS: there is no ball. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Hungary
I would appreciate your opinion about this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demographics_of_Hungary#POV_presentation_of_early_demographics PANONIAN  15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, I just finished reading it. I will provide my input soon. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference provided by Hobartimus indeed says "black and white" - 400 000 Magyars and 200 000 Slavs and the reference provided by you says the ethnic composition based on the language they were using. From the reference: " Magyarization of the native Slavs was under way. Initially, the Hungarian language was spoken only by the knights and nobility, but it was later adopted also by the rest of the population in the country`s heartland." I don`t think this is very accurate but reading from this page, it is clear that we are talking about 1342-1382. It is standard history book reading. Until a new period is mentioned we are presuming that the next previous is the one the text is analyzing. Look it up this page. It is clear that there is a need for a compromise but you must admit that Hobartimus`s reference is more accurate. Do you have any suggestion? Or maybe I did`t notice some aspects of this problem? Greetings Adrian (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Vlachs of Serbia
I'm just writing an explanation on article's talk page. No such user (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sterija
His father, being Aromanian, is not crucial for the introduction of Sterija-Popovic, nor his life achievements, thus, it is stated where it belongs, in the "life"-section. I removed "blog-references". --92.32.45.19 (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1), don`t make sensitive changes without talking to some editors first. This article was already analyzed and all data in it is present from a consensus between experienced editors. Consensus is one of the most important things in Wikipeda, please respect that.
 * 2), Nacioanal Theatre in Belgrade and the Aromanian comunity is hardly a "blog" reference. If you think that some reference is not valid you can use the reference noticeboard or consult some other editors. Also there references was already analyzed.
 * 3), please don`t remove German names.
 * 4), MOS (Manual of style) is according to this article. The origin of some person is important enought.
 * Finally, what you are doing constitute vandalism(you ignored a couple of rules and my messages several times) and if you wish to contribute to the article (as you stated) please do so, but without removing the consensus, referenced established data.
 * Greetings. Adrian (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1 and 2. Sensitive changes would be removing the view of his father being Aromanian. Again, his father being an Greek-Aromanian immigrant is not crucial in the introduction of this person, instead we put this in the "life"-section where it is clearly stated his father's possible origins. I suggest you also respect adding of sources and removing less appropriate; Lunjina (non-scholarship, removed), Walter Puchner ("His father was Greek", scholarship, added), Dragan Dennis Milivojevič (Yugoslav academy of art, added). If you see the talk page, the sources you have put forward as "analyzed references" are not valid sources.
 * 3. I am not removing the names, as they today are the same, only in different styles (languages), as they were all in Austro-Hungary.
 * 4. Yes, only if it in some way is crucial to the person - important enough to be part of the introduction, in this case, this person has (questionable) a father that came from Greece, Aromanian by ethnicity. Therefore it is put where it belongs, in the "life"-section.
 * Finally, this is not called vandalism, but constructive edits, i suggest you read the talk page and understand that the established data is as such: Sterija-Popovic possibly had a Greek-Aromanian father. --92.32.45.19 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you are "back" to "correct" the article. Again, you are cleverly ignoring everything that was already discussed on the talk page, and of course ignoring references you don`t like. Maybe his origin can be moved to the life section, but in unchanged form. Again, you are dismissing the most important thing, consensus. There are dozens of valid references and you are simply choosing one that suits you and altering informations. You may call it " constructive" but unfortanate it is not judging from your contributions and data/references "picking". Please consult some of the wikipedia policies before making anymore unconstructive edits. Adrian (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? If you cant understand what we're dealing with here then I don't know what to do. READ the talk page. Biblbroks: "anyone can conclude that his ancestry is questionable" and "And afterwards we decide where and how to mention his Aromanian or whatever ancestry." Your reply: 7 sources, among wiki-pages, forum threads, free websites and Vlach homepages (without sources). I have not deleted the possibility of him being part Greek-Aromanian, I have put it where it belongs (not in the introduction) - in the life section, with a source. Here you have some sources of his Greek origin: "Sterija se rodio u Vršcu god. 1806. od oca Grka i majke Srpkinje. Po ocu je dobio ime Sterija", "od oca Grka i majke Srpkinje. Otac je želio sina trgovca", "Rođen 1. siječnja 1806. u Vršcu u trgovačkoj obitelji od oca porijeklom Grka", "Serbian dramatist, poet, and novelist. Born in Vrsac on January 1, 1806, of a Greek merchant father and a Serbian mother", "Die griechische Sprache des Komödiendichters Jovan Sterija Popovit, Greek-Serbian Cooperation" and an entry of his possibility: "Bio Sterija porekla cincarskog, grckog ili kojeg bilo drugog, on nece biti manje „otac srpske drame", niti manje njegove zasluge za srpsku kulturu.". Answer me, do you think its needed for me to put all these (more appropriate) refs in the article? no, because it isnt needed, certainly not in the introduction, or if it its a blog entry or a forum thread! Clarifying enough? --92.32.45.19 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Since you talk...as you talk.. I will just explain what wiki policies you are violating. I don`t know if I forgot any, but I think these are enough. Adrian (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:NAMES - Manual of style, removing the ethnic origin from the lead.
 * 2) WP:NAME - Removing the German names and leaving only Serbian.
 * 3) WP:COM - Violating the previous consensus without any constructive attitude. If a new :consensus is needed you should open a topic on the talk page and talk it out... Evidence
 * 1. "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." - Comment: Possible ethnic origin, which I have moved from the introduction to the biography. see WP:BIO for your inclusion of a possible ethnic origin in the introduction, and WP:IRS for you "blog entries" as sources. Thank you, 1-0.
 * 2. I fail to see what your pointing at, but you have misunderstood, I have left "only" the current names of each city; Temeschwar>Timișoara (Romanian), Késmark>Kežmarok (Slovak), Werschetz>Vršac, these were all under the Austro-Hungarian crown, thus in one and the same country, although I have changed to their respective names (the names are identical as then, only in different spellings)
 * 3. Your "concensus" did never exist. If you see the talk page, you are the only editor that push "of Aromanian origin" in the introduction. After reading the discussions, I simply moved it to the appropriate place. I added numerous sources and better phrasing, but you reverted before even seeing the changes. Do you understand this as constructive, as per WP:BIO and WP:IRS, or you simply push this because of your personal Vlach/Romanian origin? Leave the "according to some, his father was of Greek-Aromanian origin" in the biography section, not in the introduction. Not in the introduction. Not in the introduction. --92.32.45.19 (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lebanon
FYI Talk:Lebanon.  Will Beback   talk    20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:DEMOGRAPHIC MAP
I think the map at the start of your page is very misleading, you ought to replace it with this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnographic_map_of_hungary_1910_by_teleki_carte_rouge.jpg Also, please always refer to the idea of Dacian-Romanian as a theory unless you have proof that it is fact. Here is a great link for a Lucian Boia book which discusses the topic and makes mincemeat of the theories of Cantemir, Hasdeu and Xenopol you read in school http://www.scritube.com/literatura-romana/carti/LUCIAN-BOIA-Istorie-si-mit-in-651021223.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your observation. Pál Count Teleki de Szék was a prime minister of post Trianon Hungary after all and the map you suggested has Hungarian toponyms.. The Daco-Romanian continuity is recognized in the majority of academic circles (it is not an simple idea). I appreciate your opinion regarding this map but I think my user page is ok and correct like this. On my page there is a map of present day distribution of ethnic Daco-Romanians . I did`t refer to any historical data. Don`t get me wrong, but what I put on my user page is my own choice, as what you put on yours is your. About reading, I don`t know exactly what are you trying to say with that but I did`t go to school in Romania nor Hungary. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)