User talk:Iadrian yu/Archive March,2013

Removing project banners
Hello!

Project banners are meant to be there to help maintaining and improving these articles (ie appearing in project watchlist, cleanup listings, to prevent vandalism, to catch editors' eyes if something going on (eg. move request, etc)). WP HU covers stuffs related to Hungary and the Hungarians. Taking Komarno, the city been part of Komarom until 1918 when is was separated from the old town, been the capital of Komarom County, and has a significant number of Hungarian inhabitants (in truth they form the majority), has a (probably the only?) Hungarian language university in Slovakia, etc. In the case of Targu Mures, it's been the center of the local Hungarians for a long time, capital of Marosszek, Maros-Torda County and later the Magyar Autonomous region. It has almost 70,000 Hungarian inhabitants, thus the local "Hungarians forming the largest urban Hungarian community in Romania" (from the article). Taking this, the banners should be right there.

Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I understand your reasons but I don`t believe that is enough to do this on wikipedia because following general practice, this isn`t being done to any current place (excluding historical events, etc, where WikiProjects are welcomed on the basis of association). Based on the historical events imagine that every place in the World could have this kind of banners, but they don`t. Take into consideration only the Ottoman Empire. Komárno or Târgu Mureș is not a special case ( a cultural center of Hungarian minority, an autonomous province, a federal unit or similar). As I can notice Komárno is the cultural center of the Serbian minority, there is info about the Hungarian minority also but no refs for that. If there are references for this info (cultural center in this case) wikiProject HU is welcome. The demographic reason is not a valid reason for this inclusion.
 * Ex:
 * Dunajská Streda - 79.75% Hungarians. Also Komárno did`t had this banner.
 * Miercurea Ciuc - 81.75% Hungarians.
 * Senta - 80.51% Hungarians.


 * This places don`t have wiki projects of other countries because it is not an historical article, it is just an article of a place in that country. There are a handful examples of this practice on Wikipedia and that are special examples, I can`t see that this 2 cities follow that pattern. Also this articles already have a wikiProject of that country to maintain vandalism patrol and to notice problematic editors. Adrian (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the project is to cover all the things connected to Hungary and Hungarians, all the places where there is a significant Hungarian population belongs to it, regardless where it is to find, including the ones you listed above, and many more. If one does not have the banner it does not mean that it shouldn't. Also I find it someone funny that if there's not a ref of being a cultural center despite having the lone Hungarian language higher education institute in the country, you claim it invalid. Or taking Targu Mures, which was the main city of the Szeklers and a regional center for Hungarians, but since there's not a single line that would fit one of your "special cases" (which I don't know from where comes and why should it be the one and only rule to follow) you declare that the banners are forbidden. No. Banners are totally harmless and are only to have a broader coverage ie Hungarian editors to maintain and contribute to these articles. It won't make the article worse, it won't make the talk page worse, it won't do anything else but help those who are connected with the topic to do a better work.Thehoboclown (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on this, should we include Turkish banners as well? Or Romanian on Budapest since it was occupied by Romanian army and it was an important point in that war? Do you see where this could lead to? We could add wiki projects into almost every article. For many editors this can be a sensitive subject.
 * I don`t know if it is funny, but that info doesn`t have any ref therefore it is unreliable.
 * I am not saying they are forbidden, just that this kind of inclusion could create a whole bunch of problems. I believe that many Hungarian editors would protest if we add WikiProject RO to the city of Budapest?
 * Flowing the general practice ( if there isn`t a specific rule about something, we usually follow examples from other articles ) and 99% of other articles doesn`t have this kind of banners.
 * It doesn`t hurt the article but it can create a whole bunch of problems and since there isn`t any special rule that supports this kind of inclusion and on the other hand we have examples how this pages look like, I think that we should really avoid this kind of inclusion. Maybe Târgu Mureș could be a special example ( although it is not officially other then to overemphasize the historical importance, but let`s assume good faith ) but others certainly should not.Adrian (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By your reasons, we would have 3-4 countries banners all over wiki articles. Because if Targu Mures or Komarno can have WIkiProject HU then many places in Hungary could have WikiProject SK and RO, and places in SK and RO could have HU projects. Or wiki project Austria to all places Austrian Empire ruled? I don`t believe this is a good idea. Adrian (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, you are about to blur the point of the whole talk and driving it to a nonsense direction, aren't you? If there would be a significant Austiran population somewhere, just go ahead and the banner. Coming up with attitudinize stuffs like add WP RO to Bp really won't bring it anywhere forward. However, adding WP RO to Mehkerek would make sense, and I guess noone would have a bad word against it. I think you are clever enough to understand what it is about. Generating all the oversensitive fuss is just unneccessary. Nobody wants to add banners to unrelated things, why would one? It's completely useless, since an Austiran for example does not give a damn about a little Hungarian village. Why would one? I don't know what's your problem with the willingess to give a broader coverage of the article. Actually, that's what wiki is about, everyone put there his/her little knowledge to make the articles bigger and better. If somebody would see more into it than what it really is, well I can't do anything with that, but it's surely not a reason for eliminating banenrs. Thehoboclown (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You don`t think that WP:RO could be added to Budapest, but if we do that to Targu Mures or any other place in RO or SK, what is stopping us to add it to Budapest as well, after all, they are not harming anyone, right? I don`t think we are coming to a solution since we both have arguments. I have asked for an advice here where I got the recommendation to ask about this problem at wikiProject HU to see what are they saying, something like 3rd opinion.Adrian (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Komarno is a cultural center the banner is welcomed there, and at Targu Mures let`s say not to make a big deal but adding it outside this patter can be a problem.Adrian (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Annoying IP
OK, I complained to Courcelles who reverted him at Nađa Higl and asked him for help, here: User_talk:Courcelles. I don´t remember meating such an annoying and persistent disruptive user lately such as that one. I really hope this ends cause I have no patience of loosing time every day reverting his same old silly edits... Cheers! FkpCascais (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually have had similar cases :) but in this case all of us really had patience. He received his first warning only after his third "wave". The problem is that this is a private IP, registered to a private company. I should`t say what company or location because it can be seen as a breach of privacy (WP:OUTING). Maybe I am paranoid :) but there can be easily be a wireless router with no password and one of the neighbors is playing with wiki. Anyway this IP user had at least 6 chances to explain his contributions or to simply stop. Thanks for your contributions in this case and I hope this all ends well. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hm, I thought the editor in question had retired. Anyway, it's not a problem: I enjoy helping out when I can. I've given my thoughts at the 3RR page, and hopefully (...) things will cool down after his return. - Biruitorul Talk 15:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I left an explanation. I also made a new list that you may find useful as a quick reference. - Biruitorul Talk 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed
You know very well that if you cite something, the source better say it (WP:SYNTH). You've added a source which does not say "Their ethnonym is Rumâni, while they call their community Rumâni din Sârbie in fact means Romanians from Serbia"*ref*. I know that Rumâni/Români has the same root - Romans, but please add a source which supports your edit. We need to do it the right way. --Z oupan 03:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I have never seen that a simple translation has a citation. I have explained on the talk page of the article. If needed I can add the google translate as a source but since a dialect of the Romanian is not standardized the translation is not very good |en|Rumâni%20din%20Sârbie translation. I speak Romanian and it is easy for me to translate it but If you wish we can contact an uninvolved editor who knows Romanian to translate it. Adrian (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bratislava
On the Raca page of the bratislava borough there is no link to the Serbian town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But this is common to add links like this to pages(any pages, disambiguation pages) that share the same name. It is a matter of navigability of Wikipedia. Ex: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and many more examples of disambiguation pages that share the same name. Adrian (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Târgu Mureș. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I might remind you that you already expressed your concerns over the project template, however, it got a positive answer at the editor assistance noticeboard, which you understood an accepted. Now, by this move you removed a proper template and restored a sock made vandalism. Please refrain from such moves. Thank you.

You have done the very same thing at Talk:Komárno, although every criteria was met to include the banner. Please, consider yourself warned in this case as well. Thank you, Thehoboclown (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian language
You have gotten your answer, but please do not work on any conflict, better help to your nation by distributing objectivity and truthful evaluation, and please do not support any distribution or acception as a mainstream any citations without proof.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

I made an answer again, I don't agree about the former case if I would cause conflict, since i haven't accused anybody with sock-puppetry and did not reported anybody to the ANI board, by the way I haven't supported impossible assertions, however I agree with, you about the Chilean-Scottish roles. But I have to emphasize again, good faith means I do not support any improper information even if it could be presented by the rules of Wikipedia. The Bikfalvi case is the one of he worst and dangerous thing that really blowed the fuse in many people, and we can't believe in Romania it can happen today...that's why I asked you to do something, because these unfortunate incidents are harming the Romanian-Hungarian relations, that are sometimes very hard to reconcile. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Regarding Bikfalvi's case, and overall, I don't agree of the policy of judging some sources reliable and reliable, because these judgements can also be manipulated, and because of a newspaper is well-known, or respected, it does not mean anything, since The New York Times also stated i.e. an not true statement about Hungary in 2010 - in a thing that one point by one could be checked by everyone in the world in a second - even internationally protested people and noticed that, but still this citation is insertable, and I am sure New York Times will also be accepted as a reliable/respectable source in the future regardless of this case. My opinion is that, regardless of the rules, truthful and verifiable citations has to dominate. I won't repeat the case of Bikfalvi and it's circumstances, it is such an insanity if I'd add a citation about Victor Ponta's Zimbabwean origin, and i.e. from a 'respectable" newspaper...would that made Ponta Zimbabwean? I don't think so...in this case, sorry there is no compromise! The author of the article, and the newspaper are guilty for that, since Bikfalvi was well-knonw among Hungarians in Szatmár, long before Romanians even get known him, and just because of his blond hair by a joke at his stay in Jiu, stating a respectable newspaper that...well, I don't say any word, because foolness should have limits...Or should he have once state "I'am Hungarian", than, in the future Gazeta Sportulilor would be no more respectable? Or his mother should write a book (to be able to citate something)? Would case the Swedish-reference to disappear? Or all of his ancestors should be traced? Where did he learn Hungarian? (open television, interview in Budapest, you could hear it, you could see it...) Why his family name is Hungarian? Why their relatives declaring themselves Hungarian? A joke in a training room, and a serious an awful mistake of a "respectable" newspaper can overcome on reality, origin and family? You have to feel it, it is even pathetic I have to make struggles to be accepted something, that is one of the most clear and obvious thing in the world....otherwise, someone would published in New York Times "Elvis is alive", and it would mean he is not dead? I want to have someone to modify the Elvis page and remove any reference on his death...I am sure there are plenty of reliable and respectable sources for the citation mentioned earlier... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIENGIR (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
--Nmate (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Berber people". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Demographic estimate 2011
You do know that 2 million plus/minus between the two data is simply impossible? I won't bother to much to argue about that I know that Romania just like most other eastern eu states have massive outflow of people and declining brith rates therefore I have to believe the census data not the estimate but dont you think that leaving the 21,8 million there will just confuse someone who is not expert on the topic? Szaboci (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don`t know the exact data about this(data from the last census), but there is a ref, and in this ref the estimation is from July, 2011. By what you are saying something is strange here, but I don`t know what. Simply removing referenced data(and leaving it blank) is not the solution, for the simple fact that it is referenced. Maybe you could start a new section about this on the talk page of the article and see if somebody know more on this subject. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian. I changed the data then according to the reference to 2011 estimate. Szaboci (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Np. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lipar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Béla Nagy Abodi
In case you're looking for something to clean up, this may be a good one. Written by his son, it's a bit too heavy on the "Kolozsvár" (and so on), has that rather loaded paragraph about "fighting throughout his life for the survival of the Hungarian population of Transylvania", and is generally a bit too laudatory of its subject. - Biruitorul Talk 15:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the data. I will try to improve this article but only in 2 days, I have a project and I must finish it until 7 December. When I am done I can devote some time to this. Thanks. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WPs
Now Peacemaker67 removing other WP-s:. Why? You have say that "other WPs are welcomed of course". Oldhouse2012 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I said more banners are welcome, but only related banners. What you did looks to me like an abuse at the first look. I am not sure.Adrian (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time I cannot reply, I will see to it latter. Thanks. Adrian (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

hi ladrian pls respond on talk/serbs
ladrian i have found reliable sources for the "Serbs" wiki page, which show demograghic estimates on number of serbs around the globe, but have met yet no response to what i have posted, while i cant change the page myself as i am not permited to edit protected pages. i would pls ask you to check out and respond to my new post under talk/Serbs.

(I called it a "golden source" as it is from one of the national web pages and shows estimations from a national NIN magazine and from the Ministry of Serbian Diaspora (they both conclude similar counts (12 million+ serbs around the world)).

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 20:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry for the late response but I was having some work to do. I don`t think today I will be able to see the data you presented but for tomorrow I promise I will check what you stated. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again ladrian, np, thank you so much for your answers and for posting a reliable source from which i was able to found where is stated a total number of serbs outside the balkans (balkan is already known for ca. 8,2 million + ... but number of diaspora was always a problem on wikipedia here which would conclude this problem and give us the most reliable number of total serbs in world, i have also found two more interesting sources about the number of serbs in south africa (10 to 20 000) from two web pages about the mentioned... and a number of serbs in chicago alone (250 000), from youtube recorded american live news, i will post these mentioned sources here, ... while i will reply on both of the last discussions on "talk/Serbs page" under the last discussion (9.9 million serbs? how?) ....

now first the newly found (maybe) reliable sources:

-Rep. of South Africa:

http://www.svetitoma.org/Modules_FE/layout1/displayfull.asp?id=1#

this first article is from the official page of the serbian orthodox church (st. thomas) in south africa .. when you go under "informacije" in the middle of the text you will see a data mentioning that it is estimated there are around 20 000 serbs in RSA.

http://glassrbije.org/%C4%8Dlanak/kako-%C5%BEive-srbi-u-ju%C5%BEnoj-africi-otac-pantelejmon

this second article shows a interciew with a ser. orthodox priest in johanesburg... just under the mid of the article, you can see the priest mentioning a comunity of 10 000 serbs in RSA (heres a copy of that part of the text ->)

Na koji način naši sunarodnici u Južnoj Africi čuvaju srpski jezik ?

Najbolji način da se očuva maternji jezika da se na njemu govori u kući. U Johanezburgu je radila jedna škola za učenje srpskoj jezika "Zavičaj", a danas postoji škola "Sveti Sava". Ali, od 10 hiljada ljudi, koliko okvirno broji srpska zajednica, obe škole je pohađalo svega 10 - 20 đaka. ...

-Chicago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vel-WvZKbUk

ik this cant be a good reference, but i just wanna proove what i was talking about, the source however is reliable.... ignore the whole theme about a movie premiere in chicago and just skip this video to excactly 1.49 ... here you will hear an important thing i want you to hear.... hear it for yourselves.... but this is what i was talking about, censuses dont reveal real numbers , especially in usa where most of serbs still declared as Yugoslavs in the old census (coz back then it was still Federative republic of Yugoslavia (1992-2003) which then renamed to Serbia & Montenegro (2003-2006) and after that Montenegro declared independence) ... alot of serbs still also feel that "Yugo" nostalgy therefore they declare different (in usa the case is mostly Yugoslavs, Slavs (Rod Blagojevich a former governor of chicago of serbian descent declared as a "Slav" on the last U.S. census for instance), Eastern European or just Americans) but they are still people of Serbian descent who also declare their maternal language as Serbian or they were raised to belong to Serbian Orthodox church, so just like other nations make their estimations, serbs also did and this number is always from up to 600k (min.) to more than 1 million+ (max.)... as also all datas similary say from the sources ive been giving you and even the latest reliable source that you (ladrian) posted. I forgot to mention that majority of serbs reside illegaly in the usa, above all i mentioned above... so its impossible to make a right figure.

i am sorry if you had tough job with reading this, i decided to post these sources here, coz im still bad at making texts on wikipedia (im kinda new) and i didnt wanna mix up the themes and cover up what is important on the "talk/serbs" page. i hope these sources are however helpful and that you will use them for the "Serbs" wiki page if they are reliable. Правичност (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

serbian diaspora
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_diaspora this is what i was talking about....

it says serbian diaspora is everything excluding lands where serbs are, or were constituent nation (Serbia (and Kosovo), Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your statement has 2 problems. 1) If you take a look at the article you will notice that the whole lead (where this info is stated about what is diaspora and what not) does not contain any references. It is unsourced and as such we can`t take it into serious consideration. If you take a look at the talk page of the article you will notice a complain about this problem. 2) Please read WP:CIRCULAR - Wikipedia can`t be used as a source.
 * Maybe you are right, diaspora is not Bosnia,Montenegro,Croatia but you must have a valid source that supports this statement. On wikipedia, everything you do/say must be supported by a valid reference. Adrian (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

hi, yes i have noticed that i have made few mistakes.. but i made a new section of talk under serbs talk, ... and i think ive mad emy point... as in those articles where they mention diaspora, they mention that most of serbian diaspora lives in usa, germany, austria etc... they dont mention bosnia for example ... and bosnia is the second most populated country by serbs right after serbia... they first mention usa, then germany, and then others.... ive also posted few sources... one is separate where it says about 2 million serbs live in the region outside serbia... then the others are talking about diaspora where they mention 2,8 or 3 - 4 million people living there (then they add estimations like i said (usa, ger, aut, australia etc...) ... and when we calculate these numbers we again get number ~12 million + (serbia - 6 mil + region ~2.mil + + diaspora ~3-4 million) as some other sources ive posted said....

btw here i have a reference with exact question and answer ... "what is serbian diaspora?" ... then it explains underneath ... that its derived from greek word... that diaspora is made of serbian emigrants who emigrated coz of wars in history, economical reasons etc... that they left their homelands herzegovina, montenegro, serbia etc... in a certain periods of centuries ... and migrated around the world (outside of their homelands) they again mention usa, europe etc as locations to where the serbs have emigrated... ... for example .. just like cyprus cant be greeces diaspora, so cant bosnia be serbias diaspora... or wales - english diaspora, or romania, hungarian diaspora etc...

http://www.srpskadijaspora.info/vest.asp?id=10997

hmmm but also check this source out below text... a respectable media from serbia Blic: it says there are about 10,5 million serbs on planet out of which half of them live in foreign lands (diaspora) outside serbia and compromise half of serbias population there- it says 4 million serbs found "their piece of bread" -(its a national saying im sure you can translate it better) all around the world... ... here its says about 6,2 million serbs live in serbia... about 1,5 mil. in the region (ITS SEPARETLY MENTIONED FROM DIASPORA) and about 2,8 million in the diaspora (across the world). which makes 10,5 alltogether.... im confused...

http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Drustvo/266353/Cetiri-miliona-Srba-naslo-uhlebljenje-u-inostranstvu

thugh coz some estimates say there are 2,8/3 - 4 million serbs in diaspora (pls check my sources from newest section on the bottom of the text on talk/serbs page) if the ones that say there are up to 4 million serbs in diaspora are reliable sources --- we can add an additional 1 million estimate (next to these 2,8 or 3 million) to the count ... and would therefore make the most realistic estimate according to sources of total 10 - 12 million (or 10,5 - 11,5 and similar) serbs around the world. This would be; if you ask me, the most realistic estimated number of serbs around the world (considering there were ~9,5 million serbs in yugoslavia alone, be4 the wars).

so like i asked, i would kindly ask you to check out my sources on talk serbs page in last new section you will find estimates with this exact number (2,8 million) or 3 million, while most will have an added estimation with up to 4 million in diaspora alltogether... so 2,8 - 4, or 3 - 4 million ..... thats how the numbers say...

so what you say? do you think we can make a change of the total number now? - now that we have quite many sources... which changes could we make/if we could make?

(Правичност (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC))


 * This is a complicated problem. I will study it after Christmas. Please try to keep your messages shorter and "more to the point" in the future. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is... Thank you, please do... And i will try.... Merry Christmas by then :) Правичност (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes check
In case you were not familiar with it, let me show you a new tool. If you do Special:RecentChangesLinked/ARTICLE, you see all the recent changes in all the articles linked to that page. (It also works for categories, but only articles directly inside that category, not subcategories, see here.) So for example Special:RecentChangesLinked/List of local administrative units of Romania is quite interesting because you can track everything going on with the Romania locality articles. You can do up to 500 changes over 30 days, as seen here. How about this or this? Well, I'm sure you'll find a few things to play around with. - Biruitorul Talk 04:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Serbs - Total population
Greetings Adrian, i have finally found a reliable source for a new and more realistic number of Serbs total population
 * A book called "All Serbs of the world" or "Svi Srbi sveta" written by Dr. Vladimir Grečić and Marko Lopušina. It is in pdf here and on certain pages it shows an "mid-estimated number" (as it says in the description itself) of Serb population in the world. Which means they have chosen a mid-estimation figure rather than smaller or higher one, and they indicate this figure as "11,5 million, as from 1994". This source can also serve as a refference to the total world population of Serbs figure, on the "Serbs" article. You can Find this figure of 11,5 million (Serbs on this planet) on pages ! 19 ! and ! 153 !.

Link: http://www.seminarskirad.biz/seminarski/vgecic%20i%20mlopusina-svi%20srbi%20sveta.pdf

But since the figures are dated (from 1994) as you can compare them to todays figures of countries in diaspora, where Serb population has drastically risen compared to datas figured back then, while population of Serbs in Balkans slightly fell (mainly in Serbia and Croatia)... So since the Serbian population from back then till today varied i recommend that instead of 11,5 million. A figure of; (Serbs; Total population); 11-12 million would be rather putted. Can you make the change of the total population from current 10 mil. to ...11,5 mil. or as if you d agree to ′′11-12 million′′ then? Do you agree?

(Правичност (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC))


 * Hello, I have looked at this source and you can notice: kao realna mogla bi se prihvatiti cifra od oko 11,5 miliona. Razume se da se svi ti ljudi ne izjasnjavaju uvek kao etnicki cisti Srbi, budući da su, osobito u rasejanju, kod druge, treće i cetvrte generacije, dosta nacionalno izmesan - where it is stated that not all this people declare themselves as Serbs and that there is a lot of mixed population. As you know, wikipedia population numbers is based on population censuses made in various countries.
 * Also the data is from 1994 year. That is an very old estimate. Also since all European nations are shrinking in population, the population of Serbs has dramatically dropped too. To make a change based on this source would not be correct. Take a look at this recent example at . When it comes to the population numbers we need new data and since every state has a statistical office that conducts population census that would be the best source. Adrian (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, understandable (Правичност (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Infobox
Why you replace "Infobox Serbia municipality" with "Infobox settlents"? Such articles are about both, municipalities and towns. 119.109.206.184 (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because infobox settlements contains much more info(can fit in much more info in it), better formated and it is used all over wikipedia. There is no reason to use special infoboxes just for some cases since it is used on Serbia related articles. Adrian (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

total population - 3 questions/requests
1.)Could you atleast change the number to 10,5 million, as it was before? -(this article puts the same figure: http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Drustvo/266353/Cetiri-miliona-Srba-naslo-uhlebljenje-u-inostranstvu).

''Considering that the total number in infobox is calculated only by countries that are inside the infobox (even those exceed 10 mil.) and theres no number for "other countries of the world" (Despite Holland for example... No data on Cen. and Lat. America, Africa, Asia at all). ... not mentioning that 315.000 figure in Turkey thats not counted in ("315.000 people can claim serbian descent"- as its cited)''

2.)Or in other way could you put that number estimation a bit wider at 10 - 11 or 12 million for example? - like the Croats article has.

3.)I`d also like to ask you what you think about this source? (Its also ref to Denmark, on "Serbs" article) 864 http://www.joshuaproject.net/peoples.php?peo3=14

I ask you this, because i (and probably yourself) consider the 10 million estimation as the lowest possible one (with only few (mostly European) countries included into the count). (Правичност (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC))


 * 1) This source is ok but I myself can`t change the article if the other editors disagree (WP:Consensus), also if you look at the article you will notice the letter "A" with the number (where it is indicated that A means = A Higher estimations exist). So I don`t really see the need to change to 10,5 when the article states that higher estimate is available.
 * 2) I don`t believe the number could be a bit wider because we have no valid source to support it. At the Croats article, there is a valid source for this estimate, they are not just guessing :).
 * 3) I think this source is ok.


 * The 10 million is the number according to the sum of all countries. I don`t think it is the lowest possible, I believe this article had a lower number but never-mind. I believe that in this present state the article is ok since there is a note along with the number. I will add "circa" word in the front as the Croats article has so it would be clear that this is an approximation. Adrian (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Or maybe like this, I will add both estimates.Adrian (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

-I must say, i am satisfied with the change you have done, the editors must have agreed in that case. I did notice the explanaiton on the A letter in lower infobox, but its not with the number, as it was before.

-Eventough i was hoping the number could get a wider estimation, like the Croats article has... and yes i know they werent guessing :) ... but i was thinking ... when you said, you think that "joshua.project" source is ok (and i have presented you with a false link i apologize), here is the real link (reffering to Ethnic Serb population profile) : http://www.joshuaproject.net/peoples.php?peo3=14864 .... So as i started... i was thinking, if this source is valid and it shows a figure close to 10,8 million, perhaps the number could be more widely estimated , atleast from 10 to 11 million (or 10,8 mil. specificly), then in this case, we would have a valid source to support a wider est. Thus the article would be more similar to the Croats one.

-Oh and i must regreadfully disagree about the lowest estimation, i have repeated a calculation with an online calculator of all the figures from infobox again and i got ca. 10 million (ca. 100k more, or less) only from those countries in infobox, so the sum of all countries of the world make the figure quite higher im sure. This is why i believe my plan would make the figure more realistic. I must add that kosovo flag is still not included in the infobox under Balkans, therefore i havent counted about more than 100.000 Serbs that live there (wiki page on kosovo serbs says 140.000,, but i couldnt find any source).


 * So, Could you ask the editors about this joshua project source and the idea of "(c. 10-11 (or 10,8) mil.) solution ??"

-In other way, even if my hope cant be granted and no more changes can be done to the total population figure, i congratulate you for your efforts, for what you have done already by now, with the most recent change :). (Правичност (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I have made some changes. I hope they will remain. I see no other editor has expressed any concern.
 * About the further changes, the joshua.project is by my opinion OK, but I don`t know if others agree with me since it is not a well known page. The joshua page states: Totals: 36 Countries	10,763,000  - not 10.8 million. I believe this changes that I made so far are ok since Blic media is well-known and respectable media but making even more changes based on joshua project I don`t think it is that solid. Maybe you could ask on the talk page of the article to get more input on this (to see what other editors think).
 * I just said that this article had even lower estimate if my memory serves me well, but that doesn`t matter.
 * Thank you. I will always help if there are valid sources, atleast we can do is to open a discussion and see.
 * I suggest to put this proposal at the talk page about the joshua project to see what other editors have to say, if you have problems, I can do it too. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

-I agree with you that the recent change is good, i have however posted my proposal about joshua.project and wider estimation on the "Serbs - talk page". If you are willing to, you can support my idea and i also hope that current change stays as it is (if joshua.project source idea doesnt meet success). -And well i recommended a more circular number; 10,8 million - because 10,763,000 is closer to 10,8 m. than 10.7 m. mathematically. The Serbs page however looks fine, maybe needs some infobox picture "refreshening".

You can check my proposal on the talk page also and help with the realisation of it if you find it rightfull.
 * i propose there should be atleast one picture of one of the Serbian ex-monarchs of the Karađorđević dynasty... Like King Peter I of Serbia ... or his son Alexander I of Yugoslavia. While 2nd picture that should be added is definetly Balkan wars and WW1 heroine Milunka Savić, the most-decorated female combatant in the entire history of warfare. How can such persons be overlooked, i dont understand. And i propose these 2 pictures should replace Marina Abramović, and Nikola Pašić.

-i am also concerned on how the Serbian language article looks like, i would say the infobox is chaotic and "Native speakers" figure is controversial towards "realistic facts". when talking to editors, they refused to use these sources, or change the number: http://ec.europa.eu/languages/euromosaic/hu5_en.htm

http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/Dru%C5%A1tvo/45760/Srpski+jezik+govori+12+miliona+ljudi+.html

Because they considered 12 million speakers (stated there); include also "2nd language speakers" (eventough thats not written anywhere) ... But i didnt ask them if they consider "Ethnologues 500k speakers abroad" as speakers who immigrated to the EU, from Bosnia in the last 23 years alone. (being sarcastic)...

Greetings.
 * if you "do linguistic stuff" as well, maybe you can help fix that chaos in infobox on Serbian language article. I ask my self why doesnt it look like any other article... but it has to have detailed explanations and different sources on the total number... Perhaps a wider estimation of 9 (9,2) m. (using existing sources) to 12 mil. (using one of the sources ive posted here) can be a solution.... I propose it should be shortly written "Native speakers: 9-12 million", what do you think?

(Правичност (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC))


 * I have responded on the Serbs article, it is better to be there on the talk page because if someone has something to say - he can see it there and participate. Since this are sensetive matters, it is best like this to avoid any problems.
 * About the language, I don`t agree here since we already talked on the talk page (Serbian language) and we agreed that this source (RTS) although reliable it is not precise, it does not specify l2 speakers therefore by me, there is no need for change there. If you wish to get more opinions on this matter, I propose to put this suggestion on the talk page there too. Adrian (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

-Thank you very much. I think that idea of 10,5 - 10,8 million is a good idea and i hope other editors will accept the idea. - And about Serbian language, i feel bad for not finding a better source, coz i think figuring serbian diaspora (of ~3-4 mil. people) has only 500k srb. speakers is a discrimination for both diaspora and language, for example i have numerous relatives in 6 diaspora countries, where they already started a third family generation since they migrated and they all speak Serbian (even i am born in diaspora)... and i know this isnt a "special case" since (if i can remember) every third family in serbia has someone living in diaspora (family members, close relatives or/and relatives of more generations), while a similar case is with Bosnian Serbs im sure (since im partly a Bosnian Serb, and alot of Serbs immigrated from there in past 100 years, especially after the war till today). But in the end its reliable sources that matter in the end anyway, so no big deal. Hope the number gets change in the future somehow. I refuse to talk on talk page about it again, coz my ideas already failed. So i wont bother with this question no more, unless i find a reliable source by then. I will focus only on "Serbs page" pictures and "result of the "total number" proposal" for now. (Правичност (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC))

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

TALK-page: Hungarian people SEMATICS and REALITY
About the folklore & landscape pictures

The Hungarian People article doesn't talks about the present-day Hungarian Republic or Hungarian state (or its modern state-borders), but it talks about an ethnic group, the Hungarians. Forexample many minorities live between the borders of modern Hungarian state (Germans Serbs Slovaks Croatians etc..), but this article is about Hungarian people as ethnic group. The origin of buildings in modern Romania modern Slovakia etc.. are not relates to the culture of Slovak people, Serbian or Romanian (Vlach) people (which refer to etchnic groups) These medieval catholic Romanesque Gothic and Renaissance buildings are styles of the Western (catholic - protestant) World, and they aren't related to the culture Orthodox Romanian or Serbian people too... Keep in mind: Just because the borders were changed after the WW I in 1920, the old history and the old past (the cultural history or the history of these medieval and early modern buildings) did not changed. For Adrian and Iadrian yu: Interestingly, the Hungarians have never claimed that the orthodox early-modern and medieval wooden-churches monastries of Vlachs are Hungarian churches.--Relevater (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you created your account today just to participate here? I will answer in short. I have already said this, we have RANDOM pictures, nothing special for the Hungarians, how can that be important except it can be used as POV pushing since, by accident there are only images of places that were a part of Kingdom of Hungary (Treaty of Trianon). Why not a singe image from Croatia? Slovenia? Austria? Ukraine? You must understand that this images have no place on this article if you compare all the other articles on wikipedia: Ex: (Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...). I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. As the folklore and traditions which images I have left on the article.Adrian (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)