User talk:Rokarudi

Scouting WikiProject
Thanks for your articles on Hungarian Scouting in Slovakia and Romania. Köszönöm, Jó munkát és Légy résen - cserkész osztrák Phips (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wat are you doing ? Where are you from ? Iam from Sereď and Sereď is not Hungarian city. You dont know about this city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomezko (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images
Please respect the rules on fair use images. If there is a main article, the image cannot be shown in any other article. --jergen (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

chlapec ty si v poriadku ? o čo sa snažíš ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomezko (talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Romániái Magyar Cserkészszövetség.png
The last version of File:Romániái Magyar Cserkészszövetség.png that you uploaded was actually in JPG format and contained compression artifacts. I have fixed this, but please check your uploads. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ubrezs
A tag has been placed on Ubrezs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Felsőrőcse
A tag has been placed on Felsőrőcse, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian names
Hi, I see you're adding Hungarian names to many Romania and Slovakia related articles. Please keep in mind that this is English wikipedia, and that for English readers, Hungarian names are not as relevant as they would be for Hungarian readers. Alternative names should not be linked, avoid phrases like "Zvolen (Zólyom)". And no, in your version of the Mureş River article it is not clear that e.g. Tövis and Teiuş are actually the same place. I'm sure very few of the Hungarian names you added are commonly used in English, so I only see the added value of those names in the articles about those places. The edits you made to e.g. the infobox of the Mureş River article aren't an improvement IMO, I think I'll have to revert most of your edits. See also WP:NCGN, specifically general guideline nr. 3. Markussep Talk 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, let me explain what I mean and what the intentions of the naming rules are. It is good to mention relevant alternative names (like Léva for Levice) in the article about that place. It is not good to just dump a list of alternative names somewhere and totally disrupt the appearance of an article, like you're doing at Mureş River. The Hungarian name of the river is prominently mentioned in the article, which makes sense because it also flows through Hungary and through a part of Romania with a significant Hungarian minority. But that doesn't mean that the Hungarian name for every single place in Romania along this river has to be given in that article. The rules you quote relate to article titles, and the names that should be presented in the lead of an article. The Mureş River problem is about another issue: what name to use for a place in other articles. See Proper names: "In general, refer to places by the names which are used for the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." The standard modern name in English for places in Romania is generally the Romanian name, and since the Romanian name for e.g. Reghin is perfectly appropriate in the context of the river Mureş, we use that. If people want to know the Hungarian name for Reghin, they can find it in the article about Reghin. Remember, this is English wikipedia. Markussep Talk 00:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your latest reply, I'm glad we don't have to edit war about it. Last year there was a nasty edit war about Hungarian names for places in Slovakia. In the end, we came up with a naming convention for places in Slovakia, see User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Its status is not really clear, but it helped to solve most of the problems. If we can translate this naming convention (and since we're talking about the present, I mean the "after 1918" part) to Transylvania-related articles, that could mean that it's acceptable to mention Hungarian names for places with over 20% Hungarians. There have been (unsuccessful) discussions about moving articles about places in Romanian with Hungarian majority to the Hungarian name, if you have a lot of spare time, you can read this: Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc. Please be careful with adding alternative names, because it decreases the readability of the text. If you do add names, do it this way: Topliţa (Maroshévíz), Reghin (Szászrégen), Târgu Mureş (Marosvásárhely), Luduş (Marosludas), etc., only for places with a large minority and not in the infobox. I'm not very happy either with the present state of the article, the list of small villages is useless IMO, and I have no idea which of the tributaries are actually more than a small ditch. But the article used to be much worse, with all the villages and tributaries in the infobox, which used to be 5 pages long. Markussep Talk 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Can you please explain why you found it necessary to create several different templates containing the same lists of articles: This type of duplication is undesirable because it makes it very difficult to be sure that all of the templates contain the same links and are all updated whenever anything changes. Unless there is a very compelling reason for this arrangement, I would strongly recommend that all three templates be combined into one. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Tributaries of Mureş ( Maros ) River (incidentally, please note that in English we do not put spaces after a "(" or before a ")" character)
 * 2) Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)
 * 3) Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Hungarian - Romanian names)

Mures River
Tisa was only an example And my question was:

why for river Mures (761 of 803 km in Romania) is correct to bold both Romanian and Hungarian names, but for Tisa (almost a half in Serbia and Ukraine) it was correct to bold only the hungarian name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gelou
it is a mistake to treat Gelou as a purely fictional character whose name derived from that of the Transylvanian town Gilău (Gyalu in Hungarian) [5].[7] Romanian archaeologists made every possible effort to prove that the Gesta was a reliable source for the medieval history of Transylvania and to turn Dăbâca into a Transylvanian Troy.[1] Archaeological research has located his voivodate, unearthing more than 40 settlements there. (wikipedia article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 11:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hunyadi
Szervusz! Ugye te magyar vagy? Szeretném megkérdezni, hogy mit szólsz ehhez, hogy sokan igyekeznek azt erősíteni, hogy Hunyadi apja román származású lett volna, holott ez igen valószínűtlen. Én már elmondtam amit tudok, de nem sikerült semmit se kieszközölnöm és most is írtak arról, hogy a legtöbb külföldi tudós elfogadja azt, hogy román lenne. Én szerintem ha ez igaz is, akkor őket a román elméletek bolondították meg, mert én kötve hiszen, hogy a Vojk és viselője román lenne, ugyanis foglalkozom az indoeurópai nyelvekkel, amelybe a román is tartozik, de nem hiszem el, hogy ez tekinthető indoeurópainak, sokkal inkább töröknek. Doncseczznánje 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Az igaz, tényleg nagyon vegyes volt. Havasalföldön sűrűn váltották egymás a különböző török elemek keletről, előbb besenyők, aztán, úzok és kunok, s végül már tatárok is, de nem pusztultak el egyből, mert a kisebbségek sokáig fennmaradtak. A románok elődei akik beérkeztek ide ezekkel keveredtek, plussz szlávokkal, meg egy-két kisebb csoporttal, akik között feltehetőleg magyarok is voltak, ebből formálódik a mai román népesség. A régi havasalföldi kenézek is gyakorlatilag inkább kun, tatár, besenyő, vagy úz származásúak lehettek, ezt a neveik is többnyire mutatják, de a feljegyzések csak ritkán említik. Basarab fejedelemről is a románok azt mondják, hogy román volt, de vannak más román történészek és a külföldiek is, akik úgy látják ő is valamelyik török etnikumból való, amit a neve is mutat. Azonkívül hagyatkozni lehet azokra a leírásokra, amelyek a külsejét mondják el ezen kenézeknek, sőt még Hunyadinak is. Ebből lehet következtetni, hogy mely népcsoporthoz tartozott. A kunoknak volt saját hajviseletük és testfelépítésük is. Flag of the Slovene Nation.svg Doncseczznánje 19:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum
"The CHRONICLE was written probably between 1196 and 1203"

(Gesta Hung. wikipedia article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

john Hunyadi Hungarian article
"Hunyadi is a Hungarian[5] noble family probably of Romanian[6][7][8] origin" (English wikipedia) "John Hunyadi of the assumed kun origin" (hungarian wikipedia)

can you please do something against this anti - Romanian propaganda from the Hungarian article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 11:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaassi, ce mai faceti? I would not say there is anti-Romanian propaganda around the ancestry of Hunyadi, however, I think that the on-going tug-of-war on his family background and ethnicity is nothing of good. In my opinion 3 or 4 reasonable Hungarians and Romanians should invest some time in this issue and try to come out with a reasonable suggestion stopping editing this setion 5 times a day. Although I am afraid that 99% of the readers of John Hunyadi article are Romanians and Hungarians, anyway familiar with the problem, if an outsider happens to read the article, it would be better if he/she found a decent article on a great man instead of messy text made in co-operation by edit-warring neighbours. I am ready to take part.Rokarudi 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I was talking about the article about J Junyadi in Hungarian language, http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunyadi_J%C3%A1nos, where his Cuman origin is considered aa being proved, even if there are many neutral sources which claim his Romanian (Vlach) descent; i was asking you, as Hungarian language speaker to try to improve that article (Iaaasi (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

File source problem with File:Borsos_tamas.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Borsos_tamas.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum
1. What genre is "Gesta"? "Gesta Hungarorum" is the Latin for "The Deeds of the Hungarians".Do you mean "Deeds" is genre? i have never heard something like that. In the wikipedia article for "Gesta Hungarorum" it is said it really was a chronicle

2. Why do you think Gelou was invented? What if the toponym was taken after the ruler and not vice - versa? If he is reffered in a single source does it automatically have to be a fictional character? Are there any other chronicles who talk about a diffreent ruler in Transylvania in that period which are countered by the supposition that Gelu was real? And what reason would Annonymus have had to lie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaasi, 1.) Gesta and Chronicle are different type of works, indeed, although both deals with historical events. Chronicles ( e.g. Annales Fuldenses or The Yearbooks of Altaich) mostly deal with the events in sequence of time order, and if the chronicler died or stopped work, the chronicle could be continued by someone else. Gesta also deals with history, but focus is on story telling and was a mixture of historiograpy and a novel. In the prologue of Gesta Hungarorum, Anonymus himself tells that in his youth he compiled a book on the Troyan war, and this inspired him to write a similar book on the deeds of the Hungarians. The mentioning of it on Wiki as a chronicle is a mistake. 2.) Not only Gelou was invented but many of the persons mentioned by Anonymus (Zobor, Glad, Salanus, Menumorout) and Hungarian chiefs also. Apart from Menumorout who was Kazar (eastern nomad), all of them were created by etymology and died without descendants on the estate of the noble clan whose ancestor defeated him (Zobor is Slav word and denotes a mountain at Nitra). The placenames which are names of a real person and stand alone are typically Hungarian (nomadic) namings, so if Gelou or Gyalu was a person's name, he was Hungarian or other eastern nomad. Example: Bucur + esti, this is the Romanian naming method, the Hungarian name would be Bucur. Its not a problem that Gelou is mentioned only in a single source, the problem is that we know from reliable and quite abundant external sources ( Western, Byzantinian, Arabic) who were the main figures of the period of the Hungarian incoming: Great Moreavia (Svatpluk, Moymir, Pribina, Braslav), Bulgaria (Simeon), Byzantine Empire (Emperor Leo etc.), Franks (Arnulf), Italy (Berengar), Hungarians ( Árpád, Kursan, Liuntika) etc. Even in King Alfreds geography, it is written that between the Franks and the Bulgarians, there was a solitude. It is clear from western and byzantine sources, that when Charlemagne and Krum khan defeated the Avars around 800, Transylvania came under Bulgarian control. 3.) Anonymus did not lie, he had no choice but invent heroic deeds from family traditions and create opponents for legendary stepfathers. Anonymus writes in the prologue that his aim was to write the 'deeds of the kings and noblemen of Hungary." The ideology was that the ancestors of the noblemen living in the era of Anonymus, especially his bosses and other influential families, acquired their estates by blood, so these posession are rightly posessed by them. The Hungarian Chronicles wrote only about the events in general and what happened with the royal family. Anonymus is more 'democratic'. He had at leat a dozen of noble clans on his list whom had to furnish with enemies to defeat victoriously, creating legal title for teh Estates acquired by blood. He had to invent enemies as he did not know how the conquest actually took place.

Anonymus had the same goal as mayn had later: legitimize rights to dominance. In his era, the title was blood of the ancestors. Kind regards and noapte buneRokarudi 20:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx for your detailed reply, but i have one more question: In the original text in Latin the name of the duke is Gelou. Why was it translated in Hungarian "Gyalu"? Was it chosen to match with the name of the town Gyalu/Gilau?(Iaaasi (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

In the middlle ages spelling rules were unstable and there were greater differences in dialects than nowadays. Moreover, clerics were of different ethnic origin, so they tended to give back the same text in writing with Latin alphabet.

A German, a Romanian, a Hungarian may have heard differently the same Slavic placename, and put it down with different orthograpy.

Between 1060 and 1400 the name of the village was written as: Galov, Golou, Gelo, Galou, Gyolo, Galo; Gyalo, later in 1579 Giallu, so one thing is sure that 'Gelou' at Anonymus is not the single known spelling. From 1808, we have "Gyilau vel Gyillou" which, in its turn, obviouly the Romanian name with difefernt spelling. On historical records of the placenames in Transylvania, you can find information (unfortunately only in Hungarian) at http://www.fatornyosfalunk.com/. Maybe you can find something useful. Rokarudi 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

History of Transylvania - map
In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_transylvania it's inserted the following map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transsylvani%C3%AB_12e_eeuw.png

I've recently found the English version of the map http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/trans-map/Trans_hungarian_12th.htm

I don't know very clear what "Romanian ethnographic zones with old folklore" means

In the next map, http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/trans-map/Trans_13th.htm, there are present "Romanian ethnographic zones with old folklore" and "Romanian settlements" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaaassi, look at the other maps on the page, too. http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/trans-map/Trans_gepids&goths.htm It is clear that "Romanian ethnographic zones with old folklore" refers to "modern Romanian ethnographic zones", so unfortunateley the map on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_transylvania is a simple falsification of the original information. The original map indicates medieval Hungarian settlements and modern Romanian ethnographic zones ( that is differences from medievel and later situation), while the Transylvania article presents the green patches as if these were, according to the map, the areas populated by Romanians in the 12th century. Of course, a map decides nothing, but false interpretation is false interpretation. The fact is that Romanian village and other place names appear in Transylvania as from the beginning of the 13th century on a larger scale (which off course does not mean that Transylvania is less the homeland for Romanians than for Hungarians).Rokarudi 10:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

czia, a magyar
Dear Rokarudi,

Thank-you for your message on my talk page. I am learning, but do not speak well yet, Hungarian. My partner User::Monkap is Hungarian, so please if you prefer to say something to her in your language then she can translate for me. I am learning, but cannot understand quite yet.

Yes, we have done a lot of articles on Hungary between us. I am glad you like them. They are not perfect and please make them better if you can. At the moment we are concentrating on the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and have got lots of that in order, we try to be faithful to the Hungarian/magyar so our fault we think is that we can only translate from the Hungarian.

I put some templates in place for the Hungarian geographical articles. See at Category:Hungarian geographical name templates, and then go from there.

Now I consider myself honorary Hungarian. But I like to be good Englishman too.

Best wishes

S. 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How to sign your posts
Szia!

Nem tudod hogy kell aláírni az üzeneteidet? A wikipédiának kell ezt automatikusan megcsinálnia helyetted, de csak akkor fogja megtenni, ha 4 tilde jelet raksz az üzeneteid végére persze zárójelek nélkül, csak úgy simán. Ekkor a rendszer aláírja azt a nevet, amin be vagy jelentkezve a wikire; az aktuális dátummal együtt. Az aláírásod logikusan a 4 tilde jel helyén, illetve ahelyett fog megjelenni. Üdv.--Nmate (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

1883 treaty with A-H
Treaty of alliance with the Central Powers in 1883 has not entered into force, because provided Casus foederis. Romania had a duty to intervene in favor only if the dual monarchy of Austria - Hungary was the victim of armed aggression —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 16:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, Iaassi that was the argument of the Italians as well. When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia (formally) for the state-sponsored terrorism, we may say that Romania's obligation was not due. But when Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary this was another story. Prime Minister István Tisza was from Oradea (for English speakers sake:)), he had long opposed declaring war as he knew exactly that Romania may invade Transylvania. Wilhelm s said they wouldn't, and anyway, we will won WWI until the leaves fall...Rokarudi 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A-H practically declared war to Russia too, because it was clearly known that Russia will support Serbia, a traditional ally (Iaaasi (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)) Practically doen not mean legally. Germany, in its turn, declared war on Russia as it declared war on A-H, the same case. From the historical point of view, everybody new in Hungary that Romania wants Transylvania and makes an attempt to get if the circumstances show themselves proper, also that Slovaks hoped for the Russia Empire to "liberate" slav nations as itv did on the Balkans. The No:1 reason of future mishaps of Hungary was that we lost WWI, and a lost war is the most common reason in history why a one time dominant ethnie give way to others. And these others, to anothers after a while. No:2 was off course demography.--Rokarudi 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your formulations in Romania article
Rokarudi, your edits are ridiculous. such as "the Entente promised Romania the right to annex large territories of Austria-Hungary". You seem inexperienced and not aware of the meaning of the words u use. A party, state, alliance, whatever, does not "promise rights" to another party, country, whatever. A country, party, etc. has a claims a right, and other country, alliance, etc. recognizes them, commits to respect that right. Criztu (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC) You are right, the wording was bad, but the gist accurate: During secret talks in 1916, Romania was promised large territories of Austria-Hungary by the Entente in exchange for its attacking the Central Powers. As a result, in the secrect Treaty of Bucharest concluded on 17th August, 1916, France, Great-Britain, Russia and Italy recognized Romania's right to annex Eastern-Hungary, including Transylvania and Bukovina etc.Rokarudi 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)--Rokarudi 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

György Dragomán
Rokarudi, you seem to have trouble understanding me, so let me be clearer here.

1. Do not blindly revert! Not only are you changing the lead, you are eliminating categories and other improvements. Please stop doing this.

2. If you look at WP:MOSBIO, you'll see the one exception to the rule (the non-"normal case") refers to Great Britain. There's nothing abnormal about a Romanian citizen emigrating to Hungary. Or about a Romanian citizen who happens to be Hungarian: see for instance György Frunda and László Borbély, whose ethnicity is not mentioned until after the lead section. See also Albert-László Barabási for an analogous case to Dragomán's.

3. You seem a bit confused about how self-identification works. People choose how to describe their ethnicity. I have no doubt that Dragomán has self-identified as an ethnic Hungarian all his life. However, they do not choose their country of birth and their birth citizenship. Dragomán was born in Romania and is a citizen of Hungary; these are uncontested facts. They are also relevant, and I don't see why you're so intent on masking them.

4. Your theories on what constitutes "triple nonsense" don't really interest me, but still: why? Iuliu Maniu, for instance, was born in Austria-Hungary, and he was a citizen (indeed a member of parliament) of that state for his first 45 years. And for his last 35 years, we was a citizen (indeed head of government) of Romania. Thus "Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian" makes perfect sense. See also Ana Cumpănaş. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1.) Austria–Hungary was a monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe. An empire made of two countries Therefore, Austro-Hungarian citizenship did not exist. In Hungary, the Act 50 of 1879 provided guidance for citizenship, and only for citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary, including ethnic Romanians. Therefore, Austro-Hungarian born does not make sense, maybe except for Otto von Habsburg.
 * You are correct that there was separate Austrian and Hungarian citizenship. (I actually didn't know that, and I thank you for pointing this out.) However, it still may be logical to use "Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian" because Austria-Hungary was a single state: even if it had different citizenships, it had one head of state, one army, one coat of arms, currency, national flag and anthem, signed treaties as one state with foreign states, was represented abroad by single embassies, etc. To use a more modern example, someone born in Belgrade in 2005 was born in Serbia, yes, but he was also born in the state Serbia and Montenegro (loose though that union was, it was a single actor in international affairs).
 * You may be interested to know that we have a category, Category:Austro-Hungarian people, with subcategories like Category:Austro-Hungarian people by ethnic or national origin and Category:Austro-Hungarian emigrants. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

2.) Please. have a look at the biography of Stefan Zweig (Austrian), Jaroslav Hašek (Czech), Leopold Staff (Polish), Pavol Országh Hviezdoslav (Slovak), Liviu Rebreanu (Romanian).

Although all of them were born in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, none of them are called Austro-Hungarian-born or Austrian or Hungarian-born on Wikipedia.
 * I did it first, but to be honest, looking at other Wikipedia articles probably isn't the best way to make an argument, especially if they're older or shorter articles that don't meet the standards set by WP:MOS. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

3.) I would use the “Transylvanian-born Hungarian writer formula” and in the biography can be mentioned that he ws born in Romania,

If you keep to your principle, before reverting my edit, please edit first one of the following Romanian-related articles: George Coşbuc, Liviu Rebreanu, Lucian Blaga

an example:


 * George Coşbuc (September 20, 1866, Hordou, nowadays Coşbuc in Bistriţa-Năsăud County—May 9, 1918, Bucharest) was a Hungarian-born Romanian poet.

or However, If we want to change ( which in my mind ins not warranted), I would suggest: Please understand, that pushing POV with respect to Transylvania-related issues lead nowhere on Wikipedia.
 * Lucian Blaga (May 9, 1895 – May 6, 1961) was an Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian philosopher, poet, and playwright.
 * Liviu Rebreanu (November 27, 1885—September 1, 1944) was a Transylvanian-born Romanian novelist, playwright, short story writer, and journalist.
 * Transylvania ceased having any meaningful autonomy in the early 18th century, so I wouldn't mention it in the lead for those men, but it's fine for the body of the article. However, I've adopted your suggestion for Rebreanu and perhaps we should do so for others. And rest assured, pushing a POV is far from my thoughts. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is an example with my Maros (Mures) Template. I agree it can be a bit modified to be acceptable for people with strong Romanian feelings. But with the efforts we all have already spent on this deletion discussion, we could have already improved 20 stubs of the county’s villages which do not contain more than one line information + the templates, Hungarian or Romanian village all the same. Look at John Hunyadi article, there is no actual edit apart from changes with respect to his ancestry.
 * Well, personally, I don't think there's a need for two separate templates, hence my position. If someone created a template with the Romanian names of villages in the Hertsa Raion, I would be equally opposed to that -- yes, the area was part of Romania for close to a century, and yes, it's 95% Romanian, but it's also in Ukraine, which has one official language (Ukrainian), places there are known to the English-speaking world by their Ukrainian names, and one needn't clutter up articles with separate templates for every linguistic group that might have a claim to one. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider that the exception to the rule (the non-"normal case") refers only to Great Britain. As this is English wiki, this case was highlighted. As Austro-Hungarian was not a nationalty, it is similar to UK-born in contrast to British-born.
 * I suppose you can ask other people if you're unsure. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Ana Cumpănaş, it was also very controversial. As a compromise, we can keep her as Austro-Hungarian. He had bad luck as Austria-Hungary.User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say the Cumpănaş business was "very" controversial, and I think Dahn's reply on the talk page was quite satisfactory. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Zsófia Bosnyák
Hi Rokarudi,

I recently came across the article you wrote on Bosnyák Zsófia. I made a number of changes to improve the grammar and structure of the article, but because I do not speak magyar, I do not know if I have introduced factual errors.

Would you please review the article and correct anything that is incorrect?

« D. Trebbien ( talk ) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Little Entente has been formed"
That was a really good joke. I liked it :)) (Iaaasi (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

"Vasile Lupu voivode of Moldova in 1650 wrote to the Ottoman Sublime Porte that one third of the population of Trsnyalvania were Romanians"
If you add a source for that in the article the affirmation about the percent of 60% may be deleted

But you need to give a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've found something by myself. So you're right(Iaaasi (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

question
How do you comment the following:

In the mid 16th century Anton Verancsics wrote: “Transylvania is inhabited by three nations, the Szecklers, the Saxons, and the Hungarians; I would, nevertheless, add the Romanians, who, although they easily equal the number of all the others, do not have any liberties or a nobility, nor any rights of their own…

A papal census in 1332 found that of 3000 towns in Transylvania, only 900 had Catholic parishes. In Banat, around 95% of the population followed the Eastern Orthodox rite, and in Maramures, Orthodox Christians made up 90% of the population until Ruthenian refugees were settled in the region, dropping the percentage to 80%.

In 1374, Pope Gregory IX wrote of Transylvania as having a "great populace which goes by the name of Valachian" ("Multitudo quorundam popolorum qui Valachones vocantur")

Emperor Joseph the Second of Austria (1765-1790) tells us about the Romanians: “incontestably, the oldest and most numerous denizens of Transylvania.”

Count Teleki, President of the Transylvanian Chancellery informs us in a document from 1791: “the Vlachs are the oldest inhabitants of Transylvania.”

József Benkő writes in 1777: “What remains of the Roman colonists who mixed with others are the Romanians.”

Gaspar Bojtinus, historian of Gabriel Bethlen, wrote of the union of Transylvania with the Romanian principalities in 1600 as “inevitabilis fatorum lex”, implying that they have always been the same soil with the same people.

Iosif Bánki (1764) writes: “so great is the number of Romanians that they easily outnumber all the other nations of Transylvania combined.”

Hungarian Gábor Fábián writes in the ethnography of Arad in 1835: “The Romanians are the oldest people here, and if it is true that they are the colonists of Dacia after Trajan’s conquest, then they can be considered as the aboriginals of this comitat”

Hungarian historian Theodor Lehoczky writes in 1890: “The regions from Northeastern Salaj were, without a doubt, inhabited by Romanians before the Magyar elements managed to penetrate into this region.”

Hungarian historian G. Petrovay in 1911 writes “The Hungarian historical hypothesis in which the Romanians arrived in Transylvania in the 13th century does not logically patch there realities of Bereg and Maramures, because these regions had privileges which a people of pastoralists who immigrated slowly, as strangers and enemies, and were captured in battle; to send a captured enemy to guard your borders and land is complete nonsense.” (in " Szazadok, XLV -1911, p. 607 -626 ) (Iaaasi (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Dear Iaaasi, I thought noi sintem prieteni but you were very rough on my Maros (Mures) county template, more than that interfered with the other template which was really not nice. So, I am angry with you now, and will not give you a detailed answer, although I still appreciate your endeavour to confront the Romanian arguments with opposite views. I think the main problem is that while the rst of the world passes us with a speed of 200 km/hours, we waiste our time by nagging the each other. I worked several day with may template in good faith and now it is about to be deleted although it was for Mures and not for Maramures. You cn find the mainstream Hungarian views in the English Erdély története, maybe sometimes, we can discuss this issue thourougly. Kind regards--Rokarudi 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Kardzhali Province (Bulgaria): Turks 61.649% Template "Municipalities of Kardzhali Province" ONLY in Bulgarian

Transnistria (Moldova): 2/3 Rus + Ukr, 1/3 Moldovans Template "Cities and communes of Transnistria" ONLY in Moldovan

Also the districts in Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have templates ONLY with greek names, even if most of the population is formed Of Turkish

Can you give me a single example of bilingual template on wikipedia? (Iaaasi (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) Iaaasi, why don't you bring examples also from civil war battered black African countries as well. I think we should and we will have to show example from tolerance for others. As to Wikipedia, see Be bold--Rokarudi 10:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is funny that you, the Hungarians, talk of tolerance after the opression of the minorities from the Hungarian Kingdom. Franz Ferdinand himself had planned to radically redraw the map of Austria-Hungary, creating a number of ethnically and linguistically dominated semi-autonomous "states" which would all be part of a larger confederation renamed the United States of Greater Austria. The idea was set to encounter heavy opposition from the Hungarian part of the Dual Monarchy,

If you say Bulgarians, Moldovans and Greeks are uncivilized, let me give another example:

The department Pyrénées-Orientales from France, which was in the past a part of the Principality of Catalonia. Here the template is only in French, and nothing is in Catalan

The Hungarians may use Hungarian wikipedia The English wikipedia is for English-speaking users. Why do they need the Hungarian template? (Iaaasi (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Nomination for deletion of Template:Galánta (Galanta) District
Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--roamata (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mures template
I think it would be better to implement a single template with Hungarian names in parentheses. What you want to implement is 2 templates in 1(Iaaasi (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Iaaasi, sometimes you are reasonable, sometimes behave as if you had to defend Bucharest (together with Roamata) from the attacking Austro-Hungarians. If you think over the Mures (Maros) Template discussion and the decision, espacially if you analize the comments from the outsider "western" admins, you will agree with me that the whole was a waiste of our time, more than that proved counterproductive for both parties:

step 1.) Romanians and Hungarians, instead of looking for compromise, praised each other's good and sweet mother, then step 2.) Anglo-Saxon admins lectured us on our nationalistic agenda, then step 3.) One of them made a decision which, on the surface, favored you, but also had implications that you did not ant at all

Now, I tell you why I made a separate template. Not because, I hate Romanians or want pave the road for the re-attachement of Transylvania to Hungary by such a temnplate. The simple reason is that time has shown that Romanians and Hungarians do better if live side-by-side in parallel structures, without interfering with one anothers business. If you were at a mixed couple wedding you know what I am speaking about. So, in my view the best solution would have been if each of us had had a separate template with some more prominence to the Romanian, and we'd agreed how the Hungarian should look like, where and how to be applied. In this case, for example, we could have agreed that the Hungarian template will only be inserted to pages if the Hungarians are >20% or 50% or similar. Also, the Hungarian template would have not interfered with the Romanian.

Now, what is the suggestion from the admins: 1.) Make lists.

Yes, it is reasonable, there are many toponym (exonym) list, so it will be 100% legitimate to make a Hungarian exonym list and divide it not by alphabet but by counties in alphabetical order. Let us assume that I make a list of Hungarian toponyms for Transylvania by counties. And, I make reference to the list in the articles like: "See also: Hungarian placenames in Transylvania", your fellow editors who took part in the discussuion will go mad at the simple sight of the mention of the word Hungarian on the articles' page like this. It will look a lot more prominent than the closed Hungarian template. This is the same as with permitted alternative names in the lead as Chibed (Kibéd) which is in 100% in line with wiki rules, however, makes more prominence for the Hungarian name than the bolded Romanian as it is declared in blue as Hungarian, while the word "Romanian" is mising. What your nationalist wing do, fill up the lead with German placenames, no matter that Saxons never lived in that particular village, just to render relatively less prominent the Hungarian. 2.) Make a bilingual template.

OK. If we mix Romanian names with the Hungarian ones, neither you nor Hungarians will be happy, as Hungarians will say why the Romanian name is only navigable, why only Romanian names are in alphabetical order while the Romanians will say why the Hungarians make a dirt among their beloved official names by putting everywhere unreadable placenames.

As an experimental compromise, I would suggest to keep the new template (note: this is one template) as is, but, if you want,t let us make the Romanian side "uncollapsed" to give prominence or keep closed but delete the Romanian sub-title (Judetul Mures) so that on first opening only the Romanian part open, and so that the Hungarian remain closed until it is specifically opened by the reader in a 2nd step. There is sense in such compromise if Romanians including IP-s accept it and stop attacking the idea of grouping Hungarian placenames. If you have deleted my Mures River template deleted, I will make out of it a list, and will put it to articles with "see also", instead of the template.--Rokarudi 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The list of names in Hungarian seems useless to me, but if you want to keep it, so be it. I proposed a new version of the template (Iaaasi (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) Multumesc, Iaaasi. If we show good will to each other, this can make miracles (Not only on WIKI). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I want to ask you to express your opinion on the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Carpathians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 06:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion
I want to inform you that I nominated for deletion your template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tributaries_of_Mure%C5%9F_River_%28Hungarian_-_Romanian_names%29

The discussion page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_25#Template:Tributaries_of_Mure.C5.9F_River_.28Hungarian_-_Romanian_names.29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't understand your comment on the discussion about the template. There exists already a bilingual template with Romanian names and Hungarian names in parantheses. Why shoud be kept also one with Hungarian names and Romanian names in parantheses?(Iaaasi (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)) I know it well, as I made that template as well. I never prejudice against Romanian placenames...:). I understand your point, but I think that two template is better than one as it is more flexible in use, and does not interfere with anything. I understand that consensus doen not support my opinion now.--Rokarudi 23:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

?
"Please look after Hungarian biographies when edited by chauvinists like 71.192.241.118. We should mutually follow the same principles"

What fucking motivation is that? Do you want to follow the principles of a "chauvinist"? Itt's ridiculous what you wanna do: to avenge on Romanian personalities for what others to on articles about Hungarian personalities.

Iaaasi, do not use bad language and sign your messages. No, I have not intention to do that, I respect Romanian people more than that and, anyway, I was sure you would correct my edits within 5 minues. As you had left the IP number's edit unchanged, (although you regularly follow my edits), I thought useful to demonstrate the absurdity of his and (other's) ill ideas. It's easier to understand the problem when one reads about Russian-born Romanians when one reads about Romanian-born Hungarians. So I kindly ask you help to create formulas, which state the persons identity without 'nationalizing' him/her, at the same time making reference to the place of his/her life, activity, citizenship etc when relevant.User: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but will you kindly not throw out terms like "chauvinist"? Simply trying to describe people accurately by state of birth and state of citizenship does not make one a "chauvinist". - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) You simply vandalize Hungarian biographies with your agressive extreme nationalistic (not chauvinist at all) agenda, without applying the same principle for Romanians born before 1918 in Hungary, Imperial Russia etc. Why do you not edit Avram Iancu as an 'Austrian-born ethnic Romanian' politician, Transylvania belonged to the Austrian Empire at that time, dit it not? If we apply your theory, every single Slovak until 1867 is Hungarian-born and between 1967-1918 Austro-Hungarian-born which is a very sick idea. I never see any Hungarians (even chauvinists that we also have some) to set out to edit Slovak biographies ( eg. Ludovit Stur) nor biographies of people belonging to other nations of the Kingdom of Hungary saying he/she was Hungarian-born or similar User: Rokarudi.--Rokarudi 09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I'm afraid you're seeing things that simply are not there. No matter how you want to insult me, it is neither "vandalism" nor evidence of an "aggressive extreme nationalistic agenda" to label people by their state of birth and state of citizenship. Indeed, it's standard practice. Are English Wikipedians complaining of "aggressive extreme nationalism" on the part of Americans for labelling Sienna Miller "an American-born English actress", or for calling Terry Gilliam "an American-born British screenwriter", or Nicollette Sheridan "a British born American actress", and Jerry Springer "a British-born American television presenter"? Are Australians likewise up in arms over our description of Nicole Kidman as "an American born Australian actress"? Do you think calling Jennifer Granholm "a Canadian-born American politician" makes anyone's blood boil? What about our description of David Applebaum as "an American-born Israeli physician"? Or, for that matter, of Augustin Banyaga as "a Rwandan-born American mathematician"? Could it be that all Wikipedia is suffused with "aggressive extreme nationalism" of all stripes, or is it not more likely that you're chasing nonexistent ghosts?

Do you object to our calling Léon Blum and Pierre Mendès France &mdash; ethnic Jews both &mdash; "a French politician"? Or to our using the same description for Rachida Dati, an ethnic Moroccan and Algerian Arab? Because if you do, then the changes that will have to be implemented affect all Wikipedia, not just the small corner that interests you.

As for the whole "why don't you edit those articles?" line: two responses. First, we have 437,124 biographies of living people, and countless more of dead ones. I'm not obligated to tackle all (or any) of them. Second, remember this edit? And finally, no, there's nothing "sick" about noting that, say, Štefan Krčméry was "an Austro-Hungarian-born Czechoslovak poet", noting in the text that he was an ethnic Slovak who wrote in the Slovak language. Simply a neutral description of the state in which he was born and the state in which he held citizenship in later life. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You mix up different things. People you mention had had at birth a different (to be) identity than what they aquired later. They had been British and later became American. Or were born in Rwanda and were real Rwandan, but later became Americans. If I was born in Hungary, then emigrate to Bucharest, make a carreer as a TV star in ProTV, identify myself with the Romanian nation, I am a Hungarian-born Romanian. Poles born in Imperial Russia were never Russians and Russian refrain from making such edfits knowing it is nonsense. Likewise Hungarians in Transylvania are not Romanians unless assimilate. Romanians who born in Hungary prior to 1920 were not Hungarians, either, and not even Austro-Hungarians. You artificially emphasize nationality in the spirit of Communist Romania when it was propagated that Hungarians live in Hungary, while in Romania, there are only Hungarian speaking Romanians.--Rokarudi 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, your confusion continues. In the lead sections of our biographies, we identify people by state of birth and, if different, state of (later) citizenship. This is different from ethnic, cultural or linguistic identity, and is verifiable through birth certificate, identity card and passport &mdash; which are then reported by reliable sources. It is also different from loyalty to one's state of citizenship. For instance, Lucien Bouchard, Yvan Loubier, Louise Thibault and Louise Beaudoin, in spite of their membership in the Parti Québécois/Bloc Québécois (which officially calls for the independence of Quebec), are all "Canadian politicians", and identified as such. They don't want to be Canadian, but they are &mdash; by citizenship.

And yes, someone like Liviu Rebreanu was most assuredly an "Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian". Was he born on the territory of Austria-Hungary at some point between 1867 and 1918? Yes. Was he later a citizen of the Kingdom of Romania? Yes. Ergo, Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian, without any hand-wringing about how he personally identified.

Béla Markó, György Frunda, László Borbély would, I'm sure, prefer to live in a Greater Hungary that stretched to the Székely Land. Their native language is Hungarian, they have Hungarian names and culture, and practice one of Hungary's traditional religions. They are, without a doubt, Hungarians. However, their read "România" -  "Magyar Köztársaság". They also sit in the Parliament of Romania - just as Éva Tófalvi, equally Hungarian, carried the flag of Romania at the recent Olympics - not the flag of Hungary there. Try to wrap your mind around the concept, because it's really not that difficult. From a civic identity point of view, which is what concerns lead sections here, all these people are Romanian - citizens of a state called Romania. They are not Romanian - ie, ethnic Romanian, and no one says they are. (This is where Wikipedia differs from Communist Romania's policies, and rightly so.) Are you getting closer to understanding the difference between citizens of Romania (100% of those counted at the 2002 census) and ethnic Romanians (89.5% of those counted)?

I might add that in no country today (that I know of) are 100% of citizens also 100% part of that country's titular nationality or identify as part of that country. We know the Nuremberg Laws did that in Nazi Germany, stripping Jews of German citizenship, but I couldn't name any contemporary cases. Ethnic minorities with citizenship of states other than their own homelands are simply a fact of life. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki guideline says that in the normal case nationality means the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. However, common sense is applicable and there will be occasional exceptions.

As to citizenship, Wiki article aptly says that "with the rise of the nation-state, citizenship is most closely identified with being a member of a particular nation." However, this is the point where common sense must guide us as Central-Europe with its historical background is one of the sure exceptions.

The term 'Romanian' may refer to a member of the 'Romanian nation' but also to the fact that someone is from Romania without being a member of the Romanian nation. The English language can not make the same distinction as е.g. Hungarian, Romanian, or Russian languages (magyar-magyarországi, român-din România, русский-российский) Consequently, the term Romanian is ambiguous, therefore, disambiguity is needed. The easiest way is to use a formula which makes it possible to avoid ambiguity. In biographies of people where citizenship and 'membership in a nation' are not the same, we must find expressions that make clear that the person in question is the citizen or inhabitant of Romania but is not the member of the Romanian nation.

Note, that Romanians were also not enthusiastic of the notion of the 'Hungarian political nation' between 1867-1918, when the Hungarian concept was that citizens of Hungary all belong to the Hungarian nation in the political sense, but otherwise may belong to different nationalities.

Moreover, please note that if citizenship should provide guidance, between 1867-1918, there was no Austro-Hungarian citizenship, only Hungarian citizenship and Austrian citizenship. So, when you write that someone was Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian politician, you are not in line with your citizenship obsession. --Rokarudi 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing a key point, which is that spoken English is different from the hyperlink-laden English written on Wikipedia. Say I was talking to someone from China who knew very little about Eastern Europe, and commented that "György Frunda is a Romanian politician". In that situation, the term "Romanian" would indeed be ambiguous: it could refer to citizenship, ethnicity, or both. But if that same individual were reading Wikipedia, he'd see that "György Frunda is a Romanian politician" and, once he clicked that link, he'd be left with no doubt whatsoever - Frunda is a citizen of Romania, with no reference to his ethnicity. (That comes just below, in the body of the text.) You are still oddly reluctant to acknowledge this truth, that the use of hyperlinks can leave no doubt as to whether one is speaking about citizens of Romania or ethnic Romanians. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: linking: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement." It means that linking the word Romanian is not necessary. For that matter, if someone wants to read about a Hungartian writer (e.g. György Dragomán you edit with great pleasure), he is not much likely to be interested at that point to read about Romania. Hyperlink is not to disambiguate, but to provide oppurtunity to get to further related information. So, if you add that György Dragomán was born in Transylvania, Romania, the reader can easily get relevant information about the context of his origin. If you add Romanian-born Hungarian, you do not make anything clearer. The problem is not that you use a formula which refers to the fact the an ethnic Hungarian person has a close relationship to Romania. The problem is with the misleading form and the obvious motivation. Obvious for every Hungarian knowing the background, les obvious for someone from China who knew very little about Eastern Europe. If you speak to this person, is it not easeir to say the György Frunda is Hungarian (or ethnic Hungarian, if you want) politician in Romania. This will give the opportunity to your Chinese partner to understand the gist of the matter, that he works is Romania representing the Hungarian community. --Rokarudi 09:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course hyperlinks may be used to disambiguate. To take one obvious example, "Galicia" is an ambiguous term. Linking Galicia won't do much good either. Only by linking Galicia and Galicia will readers be pointed to the right article. In a similar vein, "Romanian" is ambiguous; linking Romanian doesn't help; linking Romanian and Romanian does. And sure, if a term is obvious in meaning, then no link is required: Alexander Pentland doesn't need a link to Australian in the lead, because it's pretty clear what that refers to, there being no Australian ethnicity. But at Khalid Mahmood, it makes perfect sense to link British, lest someone should happen to think he's British in the other sense (he's ethnically Kashmiri). Or at Thierry Henry (a featured article, I might add), we do link French, just to make clear the reference is to citizenship of France and not to French ethnicity (again, he is of Caribbean and ultimately Black African ancestry).

We write our articles based on the facts regarding a subject, not on what you speculate readers may or may not be interested in reading about a subject. If a Hungarian writer happens to have been born in Romania, then we mention that, as is standard. Someone interested in the current viceregal ruler of Canada will have to read about Haiti in the lead section, because that's where she was born; there's no compelling reason to make an exception for a Hungarian writer born in Romania.

Finally, as I've explained ad nauseam, there is nothing at all "misleading" about the "Romanian-born Hungarian" formula; it is standard on Wikipedia, and clicking a link resolves all ambiguity, if that was ever present. And do review WP:AGF and avoid absurd speculation about my "obvious motivation"; my motivation is simply to denote, in clear and concise fashion, essential biographical data. There is nothing at all controversial or sinister about doing so, and that you have expended so much energy trying to make it seem thus reflects poorly on you. 71.192.241.118 (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am tired of writing essays on our obviously ill ideas.--Rokarudi 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rokarudi, you are an intelligent editor, and the IP above makes a compelling, eloquent case. It is equally eloquent that, in your crusade against commonplace designations, you have found a sympathetic ear only in an editor like Iaaasi, who has proceeded to do the same for articles on people he believes should/should not be identified as Romanians, regardless of being/not being Romanian citizens. Fine, we all can live with a few exceptions to that norm where the case is far too complicated, as long as the result is readable, informative and properly formatted (alas, something you still don't seem to care much about). But this type of sectarian editing is not only harming the project by removing encyclopedic info and replacing it with the logic of ethnic nationalism, it also results in apartheid. At no point was this system intended to harm Hungarian sensibilities or push a Romanian view into the mix - the same has been applied consistently to articles that have nothing to do with Hungary, and indeed to articles on many Romanians (of which I can name Iuliu Maniu as a prominent example, for all the fuss this caused among Romanian editors who edit "patriotically"). The purpose here, the ultimate purpose, is to identify the where and when, for the benefit of our readers. It is most certainly not to encourage the proliferation of sectarian conflicts. Now please, make an effort to see the bigger picture. Dahn (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, I am always happy to read your comments. I will be thinking about the considerations you have exposed. However, I would like to remind you that, in reality, we can not speak of a universally followed practice on reference to nationality in biographies. Poles, for example, are almost never referred to as Russian (German, Austrian) Polish, or Russian-born Polish persons although it is well-known that Poland did not exist for almost 130 years. Taking into account the great number of Polish biographies, this is a relevant practice. See: Adam Mickiewicz, Juliusz Słowacki, Henryk Sienkiewicz. Similarly, prominent Czechs are most often referred to as simply Czechs and not Austrian or Austro-Hungarian-born Czechs. The same applies for Slovaks. As an example see: Jaroslav Hašek,Antonín Dvořák and Andrej Hlinka respectively. Germans from the Czech land, in their turn, are mentioned as Bohemian Germans, Bohemia being more of a geographic designation than national. Romanians like Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea and Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea and many others, born in the Imperial Russia are not mentioned as Russian-born either. If we leave behind our troubled region and look for examples in the civilized western-world, we find that Irish people, born even after the unification of the Kingdom of Ireland with Great Britain, are never referred to as British-born Irish, or British Irish, see: Daniel O'Connell, Austin Stack. And we have also examples from the exotic east with Abdullah Öcalan whom I read to be Kurdish without Kurdistan existing as a country to which nationality/citizenship can be linked. These examples show that whenever and wherever national sensitivities (warranted or not making no difference) are involved, they become a real factor influencing the way of formulating the lead section. I agree with you that standard format as part of the big picture should be respected, but first we have to ascertain whether what we consider standard practice is really a standard one or only the widest spread practice with exceptions every time when the circumtances are not as standard as that. In contrast to your opinion, I am not sure that presenting Iuliu Maniu as an Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian politician will prove a more informative and readable edit for readers not closely knowing our region than giving a formula which clearly states that he was (1) Romanian and (2) he was born / he spent his life (a period of his life) in Transylvania, Austria-Hungary or similar. Seeing your perfect English, it can not take much time and effort for you to find the proper formula satisfying both big picture requirements and bringing peace to eastern-European minds overwhelmed by the wish to save their respective nations on Wikipedia. User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Iancu de Hunedoara
To say "Hunyadi is a Hungarian[4] noble family of probably Romanian origin." has no sense. We can`t say probably because we know 100% of what origin he is. In the article are many other opinions there is no sense for the word "probably" here. oxymoron - noun - expression with contradictory words: a phrase in which two words of contradictory meaning are used together for special effect, e.g. "wise fool" or "legal murder" iadrian (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC) I am not against of mentioning his Romanian ancestry, I am against of over-emphasising his ethnic background and edit-warring over it. For Romanian editors, I would suggest accumulating historical data, if available, which support, in their view, Hunyady's special relationship to Romanians in his active life, or as to how his Romanian heritage appeared in his life and work instead of bringing up the mere genealogy. Moreover, I sympathize with the idea of giving a proper 'share' for Romanians in the Hunyady tradition from a practical point of view, too. Beside the many conflicting themes, this could be, if handed properly, something we could work on jointly, and, in absence of this Romanian tradition, the statue of King Matthias would have ended up in a furnace like other Hungarian-erected statues in Transylvania. Unfortunately, the joint effort to improve the quality of the article has so far resulted in the quality of a Dacia combined with current Hungarian football.--Rokarudi 10:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Tell me if you prefer not to receive talkback templates.  Bramble  claw  x   21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names in Romania.
Hello, I want to ask you ,since i saw you made some changes regarding this matter. The problem is EX: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harghita_County, administrative division section. As you can see there are Hungarian names present there Ex: municipalities Gheorgheni (Gyergyószentmiklós) etc... The problem is that other language names can be present at that particular village/town article, but not when ever that location is mentioned on the other article like this. We can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mureş_County that this is a common presentation in the article (in the administration section too). In this particular case, the other language name is not necessary for the understanding of the article therefore it should be all removed. Waiting for your answer. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Hi Iadrian. I see you are taking care of the articles abandonned by my old friend Iaaassi. I will check this issue and come back to you.Kind regards

Ok. You can take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfântu_Gheorghe changes i made, you can compare history revision(and what i wrote in history) to see what am i talking about. Of course, this does not apply to history section when the use of particular names is as when it was in that period (Austo-Hungary or Hungary), as we should use Romanian names in this period(Romania). Of course we can use other language names on that location article, but not in other instances where it is mentioned. iadrian (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contacted one of the administrators and there is no wiki rule that require bilingual names or other language names in that form in the article. On the contrary, the standard wiki policy is that other language names can be present on that location article(in parenthesis), not in every instance of that location.In other articles when we talk about that locations, we use the official name, not other language names. Of course this does not apply to the history section or to the name section. As i said in my previous comment, this does not apply to history section when the use of particular names is as when it was in that period (Austo-Hungary or Hungary), as we should use Romanian names in this period(Romania). Plus, there is down at the categories "Covasna/Kovászna County (In Hungarian)". I think that is more that enough having in mind that we should use only official names. You don`t see in that kind of use of Romanian names for places in Hungary just because they exist :). Greetings.iadrian (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a new message on my talk page.iadrian (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a new message on my talk page.iadrian (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names and Romanian names
I asked an administrator to express his opinion about the format you try to implement for Transylvanian cities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjroots#Question and the advice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Umumu was to respect this format

Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)

So it would be nice if you would stop implementing other format. Thanks for understanding. (Umumu (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

User:Iaaasi (Umumu), please stop sockpuppetry and wikihounding. I have tried to be with you very friendly so far, and always had a good word for you, but, please stop vanadalizing my edits.--Rokarudi 15:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know who is User:Iaaasi, but you are the second person who thinks that I am him. I repeat that I am not him, whoever he is (Umumu (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC))


 * Rokarudi, why are you not respecting the naming format ? I don`t understand? I am not changing articles in Hungary and putting Romanian names..? In this case it is clear, that is Romania and Romanian names should be applied as a first name, as if it would be Hungary and the same thing apply. Do you agree ? iadrian (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

???? False accusations
I see that you are becoming a little bit paranoid. Do i need to do a check user for you ? iadrian (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC) Please read the naming conventions and opinions of impartial respectful editors.--Rokarudi 16:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the links you showed me, and even there there some strong arguments like "The current local name, meaning the current official name, in Romania's sole official language, which is Romanian, is xxxxxxxxxx. Hungarian has no official status in Romania;", that is in the constitution of Romanian , and the constitution is the highest law in any country , as far as i know. "That" is not a compromise. Please take a look here here is the question and answer. Please respect the standard naming policy and the constitution of one country. iadrian (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not vandalize anything, I made edits only according to admin's advice. Iadrian presented above my discussion with the admin. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question it is another opinion of an admin (Umumu (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Please take a look here too [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iadrian_yu#A_question. Another consult].iadrian (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And waiting for another consult here (section Hungarian names in Romania). iadrian (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning
If you continue writing in articles about Romanian localities that they are in Hungary, like you insist to write here, I will report you. (Umumu (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

Wikiquette
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names in Romania, WP:PLACE
Hello, i just want to warn you that you are violating the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule. If you don`t stop with your edits with Hungarian names in Romania, the form you are using i will report you. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From wiki rules: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.".
 * So the Hungarian names (which are used in administration according to Local Public Administration Bill: "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.") should be listed before German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics (Umumu (talk) 09:28, 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) 09:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature.
Hi Rokarudi, just a quick message on your signature. Par Sign, a username should contain at least one link to the users space (Either Userpage, Usertalk or contributions). Your signature seems to be flat text only. Could you fix that please? It is rather cumbersome to navigate to your userspace this was. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Ok, thanks User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian related edits.
Can you please stop with your edits until this problem is solved. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC) The whole situation is created by your mass editing. The status quo ante should be restored and wait for the the decision. I personally do not think that uninvolved admins may analize the problem as deep as was done by 14 mainly Hungarian and Romanian editors (including respected editors eg. Dahn and Biruitorul, far from biased towards Hungarian aspirations).--Rokarudi 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian names
Hi I want to say that this is an artificial conflict and we can solve the problem by ourselves (me, Iadrian and you), without the involvment of anyone else

I don't see why you feel offended when Iadrian tries to insert the standard format, because the Hungarian name has the same visibility if it is in Italics or bolded

I think it is confusing and not fair to give the same proeminence to the Romanian and the Hungarian name, because the only official name is the Romanian one (Umumu (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

For example in Basque Country, which is an autonomous region and the Basque language is even official, the format is this Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilbao; Alegría de Álava (Dulantzi in Basque) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alegr%C3%ADa-Dulantzi Bilbao (Basque: Bilbo)

And it is nothing to negotiate, it is a standard format which respects wiki policies. What would happen if everywhere would be created custom formats according to agreements between specific users? It would be chaos on wikipedia...

Kind regards and i hope you will be cooperative

P.S. I hope you will also retract the sockpuppet investigation against us, because we are good-faith editors and we have no connection with Bonaparte (iaaasi). I see also Nmate falsely accuses me and i don't want to be blocked when I am not guilty

(Umumu (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Ok, my friends I think we should take a break to think things over. Its soon Easter, I will try to get away fromm the computer, and reccomend you the same. I am confident that we can clarify this situation without the involvement of admins and the cultivated West in general. I think, however, that it is worth for you reading soem of the 2007 Odorhei discussion as it was conducted ny many and mainly Romanian editors, and very experienced ones. I think that we must try to find ways in order to make aricles better, more informative not giving way for more politics than unavoidable. Sorry to say, but we edit these articles to give a good impression from our community but by such edit wars we do the opposite. As to Iaaasi, unlike most Hungarians editors, I had a good personal relationship with him, so I do not care too much whether he is Bonaparte or not. He was hot-headed sometimes (like me), so I was sorry when was banned for that ominous user page design which I think he created in desperation not for hatred for Hungarians. Happy Easter next week. Kind regarsd: --Rokarudi 11:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * can you please name the users who reached the consensus you claim? because the discussion from Odorhei seems to have been abandoned before a conclusion(Umumu (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Dc76, Ronline, Dahn, Zello, Eurocopter tigre, Turgidson, KissL, KIDB, afil, Alexrap, Koppany, Olessi, Originally, Hungarians wanted to rename the article to Székelyudvarhely as in South-Tirol. After the discussion, the voting was only on the % above above which Hungarian placenames should be bolded (in the infobox there had been Hungarian names before). The above-written editors voted, Birutorul expressed his opinion that he does not agree but will not launch a counter-offensive. As a good example of respecting consensus, he never changed edits reflecting the above compromise whenever he edited a pages concerned.

The problem is that now Iadrian yu came and made 120 edits in two days, turning everything up-side down. He not only deleted bolded Hungarian names, but deleted Hungarian name from the infobox as well. More than that, when deleted, he did not pay attention to delete the Romanian names from the parenthesis which became superfluous once bolded Hungarian names were out. Further, as he was cutting off bolded Hungarian names, he did not pay attention to insert a space between the bolded Romanian name and the first parenthese. He also deleted Hungarian names where the sub-villages of a 'commune' were mentioned. As these do not have a separate article, their Hungarian name is not mentioned instead of the 'article name' by the Hungarian name but they only give the alternative name upon the first and single occurence of Romanian name. All in all, he did not look for consensus (only imitated), he deleted arbitrarily and on a large-scale, made editing mistakes, then reported me to admins, although, I only reverted what is challenge of status quo.--Rokarudi 17:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The admin finally solved our dispute. I hope since now we can cooperate for improving wikipedia and don't waste time in artificial conflicts anymore (Umumu (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Policy on signatures
I'm only here because I noticed you were violating it. Your signature must either have a link to your user page, or your user talk page. This is required.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Little mistake
Hi. You have a little mistake in your edits: you write Hungarian ponounciation instead of Hungarian pronounciation (Umumu (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Bilingual toponyms in Italy
Hello! Referring to this correction, please note that almost all the comuni/Gemeinde of the province of Bolzano are written in bold type (e.g. Bolzano, Merano, Bressanone). In this last case (Bressanone) the title of the article is in German, and this in incoherent. I think that wikipedia in English should choose, as all other wikipedias, one version. For example, wikipedia in Dutch has chosen to put the toponyms in German, following the instructions of the Taalunie, and the similarity of German with Dutch. Anyway, seeing things how they are now, there are no reason to delete the bold type for Aosta/Aoste, which has a bilingual status exactly as Bolzano/Bozen. --Simoncik84 (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is true, German and Italian are both official languages of the province of Bolzano-Bozen. In the region Aosta Valley Italian and French are both official languages. Admin's advice is not applicable here In Transylvania the only official name is the Romanian one. It is a difference. (Umumu (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

My question is this: Only Hungarian placesnames in Transylvania can not be boldfaced although there are 6 times more Hungarians in Transylvania than Germans in Bolzano, not speaking about Aoste Valley? Hungarian is locally also co-official >20% and was boldfaced until admin decision. I think Wikipedia in theory based on consensus building, in reality on bureacratic decisions.

Admin User:Mjroots ruled against bolded minority names even if 95% of local population belongs to a linguistic minority. He also ruled, however, that constitution and laws of the country in question are not decisive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive605 ("Hungarian names for Romanian places" sic)

There is total incoherence in Wikipedia on this matter, created by the fact that minority language usage is largely dependant on how agressively dominant ethnie editors want to impose their views in specific articles. I would be happy to hear a logic explanation for the selective treatment (other than reference to laws of a specific nation state). I generally support boldfacing minority names but dissapprove selective treatment. Western-Europe boldface, Eastern-Europe italics. This is Wikipedia 2010 (unfortunately). Rokarudi--Rokarudi 09:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene here, but I have only one specification:

"Hungarian is locally also co-official"

This info is not accurate. Hungarian has a special status, but it isn't an official language, please check Romanian laws. Kind regards and Happy Easter to you. too (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Umumu please don`t answer to Rokarudi`s comments and disruptive edits anymore. If this continues there is a noticeboard and wiki rules to deal with this. The discussion had place, everybody had a chance to say their arguments. He is trying to prove some kind of a point in Itally now with some kind of disruptive edits and i am really not interested what some user personaly supports or not, it is important what wikipedia rules support and all users should respect it, like it or not. If this "rythm" continues Rokarudi could get a warning for vandalism or simmilar, if more of this edits occur. Best wishes.iadrian (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is my talkpage, so as long we remain civilized we can discuss this or any other topic with Umumu without a time limit. It is edifying to see how much you take care of boldfaced minority placenames if they are not the Hungarian ones in Tranylvania. I only applied the ruling to other relevant places but if there is opposition to it, I will not insist and accept that boldfaced minority language names are acceptable elsewhere for one reason but not acceptable for Transylvania for the same reason. And I still feel free to expose here my opinion that this admin ruling lacked the necessary grounds as I disagree in general with replacing compromises by arbitrary administrative decisions especailly if based based on votes from close zero-edit editors whose account was created 5 to 8 days prior to 'edit-skirmish' started. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article you are editing in Itally has no connection with Romania because of the teritorial organization there and the official language status. Itally is basicly composed of autonomies, Romania has no autonomies and the WP:PLACE is very clear on this matter. Of course you can express your opinion, but this kind of edits, with no connection at all, trying to prove WP:POINT is called disruptive editing. The discussion had place, you could (and you did) express your opinion on that matter and that is closed, there is no need to talk about it anymore. Please constrain your self on this kind of comments "lose zero-edit editors whose account was created 5 to 8 days prior to 'edit-skirmish' started" since that has no importance in this discussion. I would rather say that you are in a campghain for the "maghiarization" of Romania with no valid rule or reason. As i said, we had the discussion and we talked there, i don`t plan to talk about this every day and explaining it. Of course you are not happy with the decision but that is no reason for you not to respect the wiki rules and the standard naming policy. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole edit campaign was staged by you as from 23rd March, 2010 after you were unblocked from the John Hunyadi article. Most of the edits you deleted (90%) had not originbally been created by me but by other editors who happened to be absent this time. I realized that in the absence of currently active editors who would share my opinion I can not win this dispute now, therefore, I have no intention to continue it. If you want to stop talking with me, it is your choice and do not come back with a comment three times a day. As to your arguments, they are non-existent. In Italy, we can have bolded names, as it is composed of autonomies, The Netherlands is not, still we can have, also Germans names in Belgium or in case of Danzig in Poland, or Slovenia or Austria. One thing is sure, you won the discussion not because your arguments were so strong, but because my old friend Umumu with his 8 days old account and zero-edit Amon Koth with 5 days old acount happened to be new editors who happened to be interested specifically in placenaming issues in Transylvania. I was civil and did not even put the discussion on the Hungary noticeboard, on the assumnption that status quo, existing consensus and practices of 3 years + other countries' example + previous opinions of editors whom you and friends had interviewed would be enough. This time I was wrong, that's it. By the way, you were not forced to emigration from John Hunyadi article to Hungarian placenames because of the quality of your arguments there, but because, here, I am working currently alone while at John Hunyadi you faced the opposition of 3-4 permanent John Hunyadi editors resulting in a quick block. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 13:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion and you are entitled to have one, respect the WP:PLACE and just remember that with this kind of edits you are violating the WP:POINT rule. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Never mind. As we say: More vas Lost at Mohács Happy Easter!


 * Yes, i forgot (i was at work so i was kind-a lost :) ) in a few days it is Easter , Happy Easter everybody!!! PS: That is the point, you haven`t lost anything, i did`t try to force Romanian names in Hungary :-) .Greetings iadrian (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian vs Wallachian
Contemporary sources: 

1. "it may be taken as proved that the family of Hunyadi was of Rumanian origin" Catholic Encyclopedia    (neutral source)

2. "a petty Transylvanian nobleman of Romanian descent, Hunyadi" Babinger, Franz. et al. Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time. Princeton University Press. 2nd Edition. 1992. page. 20 (neutral source)

3. "Johannes de Hunyad may equally be called Iancu de Hunedoara (Romanian) or János Hunyadi (Hungarian), because he was born a Romanian, but became a Hungarian nobleman and also regent of Hungary.” The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526 - Pál Engel,Pal Engel,Andrew Ayton,Tamás Pálosfalvi  (Hungarian source)

4. "a Magyarized Romanian from Transylvania, János Hunyadi, became regent of Hungary." Ronald D. Bachman, ed. Romania: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1989 http://countrystudies.us/romania/8.htm (neutral source)

5.“Hunyadi was a descendant of a Vlach (Romanian) noble family that had moved to Hungary." A History of Hungary‎ Peter F. Sugar, Péter Hanák, Tibor Frank - History - 1994 page 63 (Hungarian source)

6.“Hungarian general and regent. The son of a Romanian noble granted the estate of Hunyadi in Transylnvaia by King Sigismund…” [Sandler, Stanley. Ground Warfare, an International Encyclopedia, Volume 3. p. 391. http://books.google.ca/books?id=L_xxOM85bD8C&pg=PT427&dq=] (neutral source)

7.“On the face of it, his father was a Wallachian (Romanian) knight who was awarded the Transylvanian fortress of Vajda-Hunyad for his services to King Sigismund and henceforth went under the name of Hunyadi.” [Bodeleux. Robert and Jeffries, Ian. A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change. P. 197. http://books.google.ca/books?id=6Eh9KQTrOckC&pg=PA197&dq=] (neutral source)

8. “The glorious political and military career of Matthias’s father John Hunyadi marked the social rise of this Romanian family of lesser nobility.” [Vauchez, Andre et al. Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1. Routledge Publishing. 2000. p. 706. http://books.google.com/books?id=qtgotOF0MKQC&pg=PA706&dq=] (neutral source)

9. “Nevertheless, a warlike Romanian elite led by regional voivodes and knyazates still existed around Maramures and other parts of eastern Transylvania, defending these regions against nomad infiltrations well into the 14th century. The great Hunyadi Janos came from such a background.” [Nicolle, David and McBride, Angus. Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe, 1000-1568. p. 11. http://books.google.ca/books?id=PmZmOkfkr9oC&pg=PA11&dq=] (neutral source)

10.“Led by their greatest general, János Hunyadi, a Magyarized Romanian noble from Transylvania, in 1441 and 1442 they attacked Murad’s skeleton Balkan forces and penetrated deep into Ottoman territory.” [Hupchick, Dennis P. The Balkans : From Constantinople to Communism. New York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. p 116.] (neutral source)

11.“John Hunyadi's Romanian origins were not forgotten. Quite apart from the “de Hunyad” name, foreign historical narratives often refer to him as “John the Romanian”.” [Tringli, István. “King Matthias and the Medieval Hungarian State”. The Hungarian Quarterly, 190, 2008. http://www.eurozine.com/journals/hq/issue/2008-07-03.html] (neutral source)

12. "It is hardly coincidental that the mass ennoblement of Romanian cnezes is linked to the name of János Hunyadi, for this great general had grown up among them and understood their aspirations" http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/84.html "History of Transylvania" and is written by "INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES". (neutral source)

13. The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 23‎ - Page 669 Janos Hunyadi ( John of Hunedoara), the governor of Transylvania, who was of Romanian origin; (neutral source)

14. "the son of a Romanian noble" Ground warfare: an international encyclopedia, Volume 1  By Stanley Sandler  (neutral source)

15. "the indisputable Romanian origin of John Hunyadi"

16. "Hungary's greatest military figure, John *Hunyadi, a native of Transylvania born to a family of lesser nobility of Romanian origin" ( Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages)

17. "John Hunyadi, a Hungarian nobleman of Romanian descent, led Hungarians in defeating the Ottoman Empire in 1456" ( Encyclopedia of Slavic Myth and Legend:

18. "his father was a Wallachian (Romanian) knight" ( A history of eastern Europe: crisis and change De Robert Bideleux,Ian Jeffries)

19. "Even though Biondo knows of the Rumanian descent of János Hunyadi" http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/chk/chk01.pdf (Hungarian source) (Umumu (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Umumu, te rog, format your message. Other people will also se it. Romamanian schoolbooks on history teach many controversial things as undoubtable and unquestionable truth eg. Daco-Romanian continuity, Gelu and Menumorout as historical figures, 'unification' of the three Romanian principalities by Michael the Brave, Horea, Cloşca and Crişan were innocent heros, Transylvania 'joined' Romania in 1918 by the decision of Alba Iulia meeting :) If you do not agree, feel free to rvt. I am happy that Romanians also respect Hunyadi. I will not go to the incident board.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also consider that the the theories that suggest a non-Romanian ancestry are Fringe theories, and I will try to make steps to eliminate the phrase family — according to most sources — of Romanian origin and to replace it with family of Romanian origin (I think everyone knows that this is a certain fact which is supported by all serious historians from Rom, Hung, and the rest of the world) The Hungarian ethnicity has as a reference a book about literature, while the Cuman ancestry is supported by a Hungarian (possibly biased) source I would be glad if you would express your opinion on this subject(Umumu (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)) I did it already. Maybe one day I will do it again, after studying the problem.--Rokarudi 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Saxony
I'm not sure that Coat of arms of Saxony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saxony.svg = the coat of arms of the Transylvania Saxons (Umumu (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)) Yes, I think it ought to be removed from the Hungarian wiki article as well. My favourite epoch was also 15 years war.Rokarudi --Rokarudi 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rudolf_II_Arms-imperial.svg is other version of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dubbele_Adelaar_door_Strohl.jpg. I don't know which is better. Rudolf II was Holy Roman Emperor. not only Archduke of Austria (Umumu (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)) Neither the Kingdom of Hungary nor Tansylvania was a part of the Holy Roman Empire.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 10:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. For me it's quite strange how Royal Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania were not included in the Holy Roman Empire, even if they shared the same ruler (Rudolf II). A part of the Austrian Monarchy http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/europe_map_1600.jpg was inside the Holy Roman Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imperial_Circles-2005-10-15-en.png, while other part was outside. On this map http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1600/index.html the border of the Holy Roman Empire (in purple) splits the Austrian Monarchy (green) in 2 parts. (Umumu (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Yes, the constitutionally separate status was always important for Hungary. Hungarians never rtgarded themselves as part of Austria. Until Leopold I, the Habsburgs were formally elected to the throne by the Diet. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit of IP
An unregistered user insists to insert here this (unreferenced) infromation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&action=historysubmit&diff=353575786&oldid=353531400

I think this affirmation, even if it true is unsuitable for the article about the History of Transylvania. What do you think? (Umumu (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)) I agree with you.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you correct that please? I don't know how to proceed without breaking wiki rules(Umumu (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umumu (talk • contribs) 18:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Székely article.
I can`t see the reason for your incivilty like this example and i would like to ask you to stop with the occasionally rude attitude you have toward me. Respect the WP:CIVIL. About the article, there is no place called Transilvania, no legal form or territorial organization that carries this name, in the modern time, there is only the historical region of Transilvania and that is the right form to write it when talking about it in other articles. iadrian (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but is your unwarranted obsession that I am uncivil with you. The problem is that you desperately insist on certain political concepts. For example: the word Transylvania in your concept may not be used without the epithet ornans "historical". Le us have a look at other regions in present-day Romania. "Iaşi (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈjaʃʲ]) (also historically referred to as Jassy or Iassy) is a city and municipality in Moldavia region..." Trasylvania is an existing geographic notion, the concept that Romania is a unitarian state is something unrelavant in this context for the general reader.User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 23:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don`t see anything obsessing about you calling my edit an "inanity", but Ok, i don`t want to talk about that remark anymore, i just ask you to be polite. About the article, you don`t understand that if someone from Australia reads "Szekely people live in Transylvania". They think that Transylvania is a country, or some form of territorial organization, i already had many observations like that. Iasi is not a region, it is a city, it can`t be a country or that kind of confusion. I think that in the leading part of the article we should use the full notation of Transylvania to avoid any possible confusion that the general reader might have. iadrian (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)"Iaşi (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈjaʃʲ]) (also historically referred to as Jassy or Iassy) is a city and municipality in Moldavia region..." What about Moldavia region? Anyway, I am not in particular sensitive on this issue, unlike, when outing out from Wikipedia Hungarian names even in historical context (Scaunul Ariesul, Mico Castle and similar).  By the way inanity. I also received such comment in the past from Biruitorul, and am still here. I may be wrong but I think it is not as tough as stupidity. If it is, sorry for that. User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moldavia region differs because when pointing to Moldova (country) we say the Republic of Moldova. I am not sensitive about this, but i seriously had many observations from people who are not familiar with the European history, asking me what is Transylvania and if it is a country. Hungarian names are present in many examples in a confusing manner for the general reader. Some unfamiliar reader might (i had many examples, even in the "Top Gear" show, when it was in Romania, they said that Romanians speak Hungarian :) ) think that in Romania, Romanians speak Hungarian and that the Romanian is some form of the Hungarian language. I am just reacting by the general reader opinion and confusion. By the every Romanian city mentioned there is also a Hungarian name represented by it, i don`t know how everybody else thinks, but i have read many historical books and there is only the official name in use, the historical name is mentioned only at the beginning as a note, where on wikipedia, other name notations we can see on that location/article. I don`t know if we can see the same kind of example`s in the Hungarian history, or any other. The Serbian history is closely mixed with the Montenegrin/Bosnian/Croatian and you don`t see by the every Serbian location in history in Montenegrin, Bosnian or Croatian language anything. To be clear, of course that the Hungarian names should be represented in the period that particular city was a part of the Austro-Hungary, that is also a wiki rule. I am sorry if Buritorul expressed himself like that but with my knowledge of the English language, inanity means meaningless quality: meaninglessness or senselessness that suggests a lack of understanding or intelligence: . I am sorry if i reacted a little bit harsh , but i am nice (or atleast i try) with everybody on wikipedia, i expect that attitude in return from other users. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Kaplony_Templom.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Kaplony_Templom.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Numbers
A word of advice. In English, decimals are separated by periods (6.2 or 3.8), while thousands are separated by commas (27,652 or 53,891). And it's spelled "ethnicity". - 71.192.241.118 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Görbepataka002.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Görbepataka002.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 02:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Magyarization
I thought you are a good-faith editor. I find with sadness that I was wrong... (Umumu (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)) Umumu, I generally like your edits, sympathize with your work as you may have noticed and appreciate that you keep what was openly or tacitly agreed. I do the same. However, you are sometimes you are out of range. This mass editing on a sensitive topic was not a good idea. Why you do not discuss it first on the articles talk page. You know who are the editors who will find this edit within 2 hours, we are a small ethnicelly mixed-family, aren't we?:) Rokarudi --Rokarudi 15:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Stema tarnaveni.png
Thank you for uploading File:Stema tarnaveni.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  fetch  comms  ☛ 18:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally wrong template
In this template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%C3%89rsek%C3%BAjv%C3%A1r_(Nov%C3%A9_Z%C3%A1mky)_District, why are Hungarian unofficial names put in the first place?:

Can you explain? Please change it ASAP. Do not put Hungarian names in a template at all, please.

Of course, you shouldn't have put it this wrong way in the first place. But nice try, sorry it didnt work out and somebody noticed.

--62.24.94.79 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) This is Wikipedia and not Slovakia where ethnic dominance is legitimized on a constitutional level. [User:Rokarudi|Rokarudi]--Rokarudi 11:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tributaries of Mureş River
Hello, i am sorry but you have to respect wiki naming policy and don`t force Hungarian names in Romania. I understand that you made that template, and it is really a lot of work but if you want for it to be used in articles then without Hungarian names, Romania is not a bilingual country and only 6.5% of the country population are Hungarians. If you disagree then it will be removed from the articles where it is used. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Bilingual templates are allowed. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not in templates like that. Other language names are allowed not bilingual. If you put Hungarian name like that then why not German names too? Serbian? I think that you get the point. Anyway, the rules speak for themself, official names please.iadrian (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Next time please inform me if there is a process involving me, not like this, to say it is all right and then ... Nevermind, next time please inform me.iadrian (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Mures river like this. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) You provoke edit warring wherever you start editing. You appeared at Mures river and without consensus building started to push your POV.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I enforce wiki naming policy not my POV. You didn`t saw me adding Romanian names in Hungary so please,.. You are the one who started all this. I am just asking to stop since this is wikipedia and wiki rules say clearly that your bilingual template is not according to rules.iadrian (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR
Hello, it is my duty to inform you that i have created this. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mures river
Please stop editing all the rivers of Mures with your template and in some cases event to over emphasize the other language(Hungarian) name. Both are in violation with the WP:NAME and WP:PLACE. Please try to respect this. Again, this is English not Hungarian version of the wikipedia. I already explained to you a couple of times this rule and you still violate this with some invalid response. There are wiki rules and all of us should respect them, this case is no special from others. When you are informed of a rule breaking and you continue to ignore it becomes a case of vandalism or even worse. I don`t have the time to revert all your edits now but i will. I hope that i explained here in details the problem. If you continue to violate this policy i will make a request on ANI board. Please consider this message as an informational one and a friendly warning. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I explained in details my opinion on the relevant template deletion discussion. You avoid consensus building, instead, prefer lawyering with arbitrarily interpreted naming rules. I do not over-emphasize Hungarian names as: article name is always Romanian, the alternate Hungarian names are always in second place and in most cases in brackets. In the case of Mures river, the fact is that the names of most tributaries in the headstream are Hungarian in origin and Slavic in the downstream. Such information may be interesting for those who look for information on historical-geography. I expand Transylvania and Székely Land-related articles regarding settlements not only by adding Hungarian names but many other information (Romania map, images, Coa, population data, area, postal code, telephone acces code etc.) On the contrary, your main activity in this field is provoking edit wars as you did in John Hunyadi, and with the bolded Hungarian placenames with Covasna, Harghita, Murees and Satu Mare counties 'building consensus' with the help of suckpuppet Umumu/Iaaasi/Bonaparte and zero edit Amon Koth. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 10:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You must understand that has nothing to do with wiki rules that we all have to respect. The only thing that matters here are wiki rules and they say that your bilingual template is in violation with the standard naming policy. Everything else can be written on the article, the origin of the name and everything that is relevant, not in templates like this. You can make a new section at every river and explain the origin of the name and everything, that is according to wiki rules.  Regarding your accusations for other users that also has nothing to do with this problem. If you have some problem there please write an ANI report. I repeat, all that matters are wiki rules on English wikipedia, and they say that you are in violation of the WP:PLACE and WP:NAME, official names.iadrian (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Mures river 2
Please consider this as the last warning for possible vandalism on Mures rivers articles. I will repeat it, please respect the WP:PLACE and WP:NAME as we all do. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC) You started vandalism, when changed the template that you disliked after Markussep reverted you.--Rokarudi 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please respect the rulesWP:PLACE and WP:NAME. iadrian (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are doing has nothing to do with civil dispute resolution. You first change 100 articles, then come to speak about rules. Only the admin Mjroot did not notice that whenever you are in danger of block, you vandalize the area where I edit, as with other articles you would be soon out because there are many editors over there eg. John Hunyadi.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian, seriously, stop harassing Rokarudi: you are getting nowhere with this, at least part of your edits are way more controversial than his, and your claims about policies are desperately transparent. While the template does look bloated and is an eyesore, there isn't a real "goes against policies" grounds for not having the Hungarian names there (at least it's an improvement from the earlier apartheid version, where we linked them twice under different names...). Trust me, you're doing yourself no service by pestering Rokarudi with faux warnings, and these sort of ventures more often than not end up nasty. Dahn (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if enforcing wiki policy is "harrasing". We all respect wiki naming policy, only he can`t, that is harassing. Imagine if all of us would ignore naming policy like Rokarudi does.iadrian (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He's not ignoring naming policy, he's ignoring your interpretation of naming policy. Neither of your approaches is exceptionally constructive, but yours has the added risk of being perceived as detrimental to the project - you tagged the man's page with some 4 templates, all of which are bogus. Let me now introduce you to this policy, and we all hopefully move on. Dahn (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit that when we talked a while ago my approach was not so good, but that is changed now as you can see. There isn`t any interpertation of the rule, the rule clearly states the use of the official names. An administrator confirmed that Rokarudi constantly violate this rules here, there isn`t any interpretation. Everybody respects this, Rokarudi should too. iadrian (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your approach here is not constructive. Examine the problem at least before "taking sides". Let me introduce you with WP:PLACE that is the problem here and i hope that we can all move on. iadrian (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then take it up with admins, but leave the guy be. If you believe there'll be sanction based on that decision, then there is really no sense to: a) refer to this as vandalism; b) consume his nerves over this type of rubbing it in. (PS: I'm not taking any sides here, as I'm sure is quite clear from my earlier message. Please step out of this sectarian perspective: whether you're right or wrong, and whatever opinions you hold, this type of interaction through faux warnings is excessive and demeaning.) Dahn (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will. I have nothing with Rokarudi, he is a good wikipedian he just ignores this rule constantly which can create a lot of chaos, after all that is the reason we have rules. I just got the confirmation that i can`t take this to vandalism section so i will try to find the right place. Rokarudi is informed a couple of times about this rule and he continue with his work, ignoring it. I have nothing against the guy but he must respect wiki naming policy (wiki rules), as i do, as you do, as everyone else does. iadrian (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dahn and Iadrian, thank your for your comments. Dahn, you are an authority and sort of witness of great times on naming policy issues as you already took part in the Odorhei discussion back in 2007. It was a laudable effort by good faith editors to find a compromise. Most of them (both Romanians and Hungarians) are not active, now. I read you were not a protagonist of Hungarian placenames. If you have the time, please have a look at Mures, Harghita, Covasna County templates. I think these templates are less of an eyesore, give prominence to Romanian names by giving place to Hungarian section as well. You are right, the tributary template may be modernized. The only reson I did not do that I did not want to disturn status quo. By the way, it was my first template, and it was quite a big work to collect Hungarian brook names, as this piec of info is not so easily available as settlement names.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You still don`t get it? I`l try to explain it like this. Wikipedia is the God here, wiki rules are all that matters here, if you don`t like the rules nobody is forcing you to be a part of wikipedia community. iadrian (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy Gd in vain!.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize if i offended somebody by this comparison but it is the one all of us know. Again, i apologize if i offended somebody with this but it was the best and the fastest way to explain it. iadrian (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, I must confess I'm quickly losing track of this discussion, but allow me to note a couple of things. 1) Whatever the alternatives, the least practical one is a duplication of the links into two different sections (Ro, Hu) of the same template. This is no solution at all, and is probably the worse scheme one can apply here. Not only does it part with WP:OVERLINK and the various finer points of WP:MOS, but the word that yet again comes to mind in such cases is "Apartheid" - "your place, our place". It says "this is the best we could find as an alternative to inclusion". 2) If you were to ask me, the solution that is easiest on the eye, if we have to have both names in the template (and that is ultimately irrelevant to me), is to include them in the link: Borzont (Nagy-Borzont). 3) Concerning rivers in general, this overlaps with another peeve of mine: I know there are zealous users, from the field of hydro-whatever, who decided we should have an entry on each and every glorified stream, but their rationale is dubious. It may turn out that we do not need, and should not have, many of the articles on the various tributaries, and that we could simply redirect them to more generic articles on the tributaries in general. I'm not saying more on this issue, and would not want to engage in more serious discussion about it at the moment, but it may turn out that this is a "much ado over nothing" situation. And though I see your logic and respect your arguments, you might want to give some thought to this aspect as well. Regards, Dahn (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, thanks for spending your time on this issue. As you can see I was reported at ANI as below, so this issue is not primarily on bilingual templates not even ditch stubs but how to discipline me or put out of business. + there is the dispute on Template: Mureş County, Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names). As things are progressing, Iadrian have good chances to perform the goal. Until I am blocked, I am ready to change navigation templates if there is consensus how to do it, but my understanding about consensus is not that hardened zelotes trumpet together some other zelotes and sockpuppets and by the naive assistance of uninformed outsiders declare the "new consensus" as per their POV. The ongoing discussions are not aimed at finding an acceptable presentation of alternate geographich names, they are nothing more than caricatures of consensus building and prototypes of gaming the system. What is consensus for me: Consensus span over currently, recently, and formerly active editors. It can change but not like the wheather. The opinion of former respected editors, like in the 2007 Odorhei discussion that of Biruitorul or KIDB has to be taken into account somehow even now, even if they are not present at the current voting. As you can see, I am harassed, drawn into an edit war, putv to ANI and about to be tagged as WP:Naming violator. The bilingual templates are about to be deleted just because they contain Hungarian names, so we are going back to point zero in consensusu building. No problem, in one year, many of the current editors will be on pension, and there will be new guys around, and some of them may be talented enough to game the system even into renaming Bucharest to Budapest, or vice versa. I do not edit placenames, I edit settlements. I have edited many articles on Mures and Covasna County and started Harghita. I would be interested what nationalistic content or offensive edits I made. Off course, if I receive advice what would be important from Romanian point of view to be mentioned or not mentioned with respect to Székely villages, I will take it into consideration. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 13:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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. iadrian (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ciceu article
I'm evading my block just to tell you that I think you made a mistake here "In 1992, of the 2502 inhabitants 2543 were Hungarians and 40 Romanians." PS. Please be fair play and stop identifying me in discussions with Bonaparte ,because we are different persons. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.160.204 (talk) 06:12, 8 (User:Umumu/User:iaaasi/User:conttest)

Hi, my friend, I am really happy to hear about you. Thanks for the advice I corrected the article. I am happy you follow my work. Sorry for this Bonaparte reference, I know you are separete. I was the first to know that Umumu=Iaaasi as no one worked as much with you I did. Sometimes I am thinking Amon Koth is also you, but I do not undestand then why he supports deletion of Mures County bilingual template that I modified with your help and understanding after the February Mooonriddengirl ruling. That much about consensus building and nationalism, we built consensus, respected it, then you are banned for nationalist edits, and the template we created upon consensus is deleted. It makes me laughing. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Darjiu comment
I am sorry, but somebody who has a clear nationalistic agenda started a crusade against all rules to force minority language in Romania (next Slovakia, i guess next is Vojvodina and Croatia) is commenting at me that I hate something. Well that means that Wikipedia hates that too since it has rules that bother you so much. It must be the guys who wrote the naming policy that are out to "get you" since they support my "POV"... You are acting like a hypocrite, you claim how all you want to do is to improve articles, acting nice when you have too, but in fact you are doing an electronic policy Magyarization and i end up like a somebody who "hates" Hungarian names. I guess I should do the same in Hungary articles what you do here and then accuse everybody for "hating" me since i violate naming policy and they revert me, then complain " how is that possible??? Everybody is wrong i am right, the naming policy needs to be changed since i don`t agree with it" You create chaos, do something that it is nowhere do be done on Wikipedia and then complain "How can this be wrong"? Stop acting like that and respect the naming policy you hate so much and i guess then we can see if somebody really "hates" Hungarian names or whatever.iadrian (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If have no doubts about your good intentions in this respect, and recommend to others too as compulsary literature the following fetching discussion from the past on non-European Hungarians as colonists in Transylvania . What a coincidence, your ally in the discussion was Scooter20 another Bachelor of Computer Sciences from Temeswar who has just voted in our discussion, although he had never edited before in this topic. I do not mean it is sock- or meatpuppetry, nor canvassing, just mention as an intereting co-incidence Rokarudi.--Rokarudi 12:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are trying to do is so obviously inappropriate that it doesn`t take a historian to see this. Not are you only breaking the rules but you are doing it constantly for changes that don`t even belong in an English Wikipedia. One of the main characteristics of Wiki is that it favours consensus over credentials, not that you are some world-famous historian :-). Assuming bad faith is somewhat of an standard for you, WP:ABF, i am sure that at some level you already consider Scooter20 a sock puppet of mine or something similar, you are just a little shy. In the WP:ABF there are several sentences that perfectly describe your attitude : That editor who's supporting my opponent is either a puppet or a friend called in to help. After all, could more than one person oppose my natural good sense? or Policies are only guidelines! Unless they support my position, in which case they are, of course, set in stone. iadrian (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian, honestly, could you explain me why certain Romanian editors can not do without editing in permanent interaction with me. The first thing some seem to do is checking my contribs every 6 hours. If you look at my talk page you can make sure that first Iaaasi, now you are the daily guests here. In the meantime nothing is edited except for deleting Hungarian names from Székely Land articles + John Hunyadi. If you would not be like a prosecutor with your dogmatic interpretations of naming policies, we could use our time more efficiently. By the way, when I created the bilingual template, I agreed on this with Iaaasi. I don't care if he is Bonaparte, you or Amon Koth, or the alterego of himself, in his Iaaasi period, he was a creative editor. Something else. You will be surprised how much inspriration will be taken from my edits by Serbian editors once Albanian editors will be present on Wiki in the critical number to enforce the dominant ethnie interpretation of naming policies in your style with respect to Kosovo by replacing systematically unofficial Serbian names to official Albanian placenemes? Do not have illusisons, it is a question of months, maybe a year. Yugoslavia is defunct (like Austria-Hungary as you like ti put it), is not it. The majority there is clearly Albanian, is not it? Then, many Serbians would be more than willing to approve bilingual templates for Voivodina just to have the same treatment with respect to Kosovo. When it happens we will speak. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

iadrian (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC) iadrian iadrian (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) iadrian (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC) iadrian (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) iadrian (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC) iadrian (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think that, i really tried talking with you but you gave inappropriate examples. Maybe we should stop and simply respect the WP:PLACE at Darjiu too.iadrian (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI - WP:PLACE_-_use_modern_names.
I can`t find the proper template to inform you so i did it like this. I hope that is all right. iadrian (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Butka
Hi there! I've just discovered that Butka redirects to Budkovce, but the latter article does not mention "Butka" at all. Could you, please, clarify the reason? I need to set up a disambig page at Butka (it's also the name of a village in Russia), and would like to do it properly. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 12:08 (UTC) Привет, там! Butka is the Hungarian name for Budkovce. I added the Hungarian name to the lead. Regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 20:02 (UTC)

Participate in discussions for changes in Articles
Hi, I'd like to ask you to express your opinion on this issue discussed. Of course, if you are interested :). Thanks, Aregakn (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Irredentism
Please, could you stop with expressing irredentism feelings on Romania-related articles, after all we went thought. Do we really have to make a big deal on every matter that you misunderstand on Wiki? Don`t get me wrong, but when you saw that you can`t force Hungarian names in the lead of the article you started on templates, now you put maps of so-called "Szekely land" in inappropriate places... That would be like putting a map of Ottoman Empire on every place/village that once made a part of it. Please stop. For the record, Szekely land doesn`t exist and it represents irredentism. "Szekely land" is a "reality" only for Hungarian irredentism supporters. Could you please stop with ethnic-motivated edits. I understand that you want to represent the Hungarian minority but this is not the proper way. I hope you will come to reason and understand that putting "Szekely land" maps on articles like that is irredentism and that we don`t have to go thourgh wikipedia channels just to show that. Thank you. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Searching for English language results, Székely Land has 88.300 results on Google, while Szekler Land has 26.100, this is 108.400. I am editing articles related to the Hungarian minorities, especially in the Székely Land, so I have to add Szekely Land related material. By the way, one of the maps you objected was created by a Romanian editor and I put it on the article where the settlement was shown on the map. It contains facts not irredentism, it is clear that the map shows the territory as forming part of Romania. As to the discussions, I know that I lost and will lose other disputes to be initiated by you since there are more Romanian editors on wiki than Hungarians, and third party editors are rarely members of any national minority, therefore, the realities of great politics are reflected here too. However, I belive that on the long-term tolerance and civility will prevail.I always respected and will respect declared consensus or rules but I will keep add Hungarian-related information to Hungarian related settlements. I know that your problem is basically that I add Hungarian-related information to "Romannia-related" articles, but in this respect I can not do much. Thanks and best regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we started on the wrong "foot" so i`l explain it with arguments. This edit is irredentism
 * "Szekely land" don`t exist even as a geographical region (like Banat, Transylvania and others) as you use it in the lead sometimes. It was just a political entity that existed some time and now it doesn`t. It can be taken only as a cultural region at most. - Székely Land was never a political entity as such. It was and is the area inhabited by Székely people. The Székelys were one of the 3 nations in the medieval Transylvania.
 * "Szekely land" - the concept of teritorial entity is illegal by the constitution of Romania. See this  for further explanation. The constitution of Romania does not provide guidance on wiki, especailly not on academic disputes.
 * "Szekely land" is listed as one of the irredentism movements in Europe. Please see this under Europe/Hungarian. It is not listed, more than that the notion of the autonomy of Székely Land contradicts to irredentism as it is conceived to be part of Romania. Rokarudi---Rokarudi 19:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope this answers all your questions. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The usage of political or "geographical" maps outside of the Szekely artice is considered irredentism. iadrian (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, you are clearly denying to understand this matter like some others we had. Understand that it is listed as irredentism movements that in short give us the answer to this problem. I quote : ''Hungarian claims to parts of the neighbouring countries inhabited by the ethnic Hungarians (including parts of Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine, etc.). The claim is based on historic criteria for some regions (such as Transylvania, where Hungarians are a majority in two out of sixteen counties), and ethnic for other regions. Hungary actually lost 2/3 of territories according to the treaty of Trianon in 1920.'' I believe that "Szekely land" is a part of the Transylvania region. And it is written as "Such as Transylvania" which addresses other possible regions like "Szekely land". This is no dispute since it is very clear. iadrian (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

An clear example. If I insert map of the "Greater Romania" on Cernauti article it is irredentism. iadrian (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Székely settlements
Rokarudi, no worries - I would love to contribute to these articles to the best of my abilities. I have learned first-hand that it is an extremely difficult task to phrase things in ways that offend neither Székelyek/Hungarians nor Romanians (I am neither one but I have some loyalties to both sides) and would welcome the chance to help build consensus with you. What exactly was wrong with the Sândominic article, from your perspective? Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning
This is the first warning for making irredentism edits and edit warring without any arguments and without consulting the discussion pages on various articles where is it indicated where is the error in your edits. and ,. Please stop with this kind of edits or I will report you. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC) You report me on a permanent basis. You wikihound and harass me. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC) You should consider respecting various wiki policies and then maybe you will not be reported anymore.iadrian (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning for your blind reverts, edit warring and irredentism edits. Consider reading this WP:PROMOTION. Please review your attitude on Wikipedia and stop using it for promoting your various political views or you will be reported. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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. iadrian (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello, i would like to inform you about Mediation process I started to solve this dispute. . Please stop with edits about "Szekely land" maps and mentioning in the lead until this dispute is solved. I don`t know if you are familiar with the procedure, since this is my first time also so I will try to explain it. You need to express your opinion if you want this process to start in the section Parties agreement to mediation (Agree or Disagree), if agree afterwards we express ourself on the discussion page of this process and reach a decision. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you to maintain status quo until this is resolved. . Please don`t use "Szekely land" in the lead or political maps in inappropriate places until this is clarified. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to solve this dispute
Hello, i would like to invite you to try to solve this dispute. Consider participating please in the interest of solving this dispute. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus not reached ?
Hello, I have read the whole section again and it looks to me that we have a consensus about the "Szekely land" issue. I am correct? Can you please have a vote at the end just to be clear and to avoid any further possible confusions. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Thanks for your message on my talk page. I want to invite you to take part on this discussion about the formulation from the lead of the article Szekely(DerGelbeMann (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Sumuleu Ciuc

 * I think this text "Johannes Caioni was a truly talented man having many skills" is not very suitable for WP
 * Why do you link printery to printer, instead of linking it to printery? (DerGelbeMann (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)) I agree with you, feel free to re-edit the style of your sources. You did a good job with your article. I made some changes where I thought I can improve, but did not want to alter it too much into my style. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks(DerGelbeMann (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Lunca de Jos, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Lunca de Jos - resolved?
Please see my comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Lunca de Jos. Regards, AGK   20:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Hello. Consider this a friendly warning for edit warring and. Till now you are very familiar with the naming policy, please respect it, the same goes to commons too. If you continue I will consider reporting you for edit warring. Please reconsider your approach to editing. Adrian (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wass Albert
Why do you persist in defending a war criminal accused by Wiesenthal Center? Just because he was Hungarian? He was not extradited to the Communist Romania only because of the Iron Curtain... Please try to be more reasonable (79.117.195.65 (talk) 06:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC))
 * You miss the point. I am not a fan of Albert Wass, neither politically nor in literature. BUT, the whole issue was raised (more precisely re-heated) inappropriately with so much emphasis by proven Romanian nationalists in this article with the only aim to tag Oderheiu-Secuiesc, the most "Hungarian" town in Romania, as a place promoting nazism, and thus tagging the whole Hungarian community. This is the POV that must be made NPOV. It would have been enough to say that the stutue park gave rise to controversy in Romanian press because one of the sculptures was thought to be the portrait of A.W., usually regarded a war criminal by Romanians, albeit regarded a victim of nationalist post-WWII retribution by Hungarians, or similar, and the details can be discussed in the relevant article. The Iron Curtain was never a problem for extradition in the US in case of proven war criminals, Wass was not a missile expert. The opinion of Jewish organizations was not deleted.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Targu mures talk page
Hello, I think it is more than obvious that Targu Mures is not a Hungary wiki project since it is not a part of Hungary. Please don`t change this anymore, or to add the Hungary project sign. Places in Hungary are a part of Wiki Hungary project, not places in other countries. Please check other examples. It is not like river Mures that goes through Hungary and Romania, then it is both or more country`s project, Targu Mures is in Romania only. As for Transylvania, that project doesn`t exist (as far as I know) because it is a part of Wiki Romania and there is no need for that to exist since this is practiced per countries not regions.Adrian (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have started a new thread about this problem on the talk page. Adrian (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Covasna
Hi. Please, reply here. Christomir (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Miercurea Ciuc talk page - regarding the removal of comment of the disruptive user
Hello, As I said before, you are not neutral here. Even this you see as a battleground for some kind of "rights" for the Hungarian minority in Romania. The talk page is not there for the right of speech of any minority group on this planet, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. There are places where you or anybody else can discuss/fight minority rights and that isn`t Wikipedia. What this IP user is talking (as it can be seen from the beginning) certainly isn`t anything related to the Wikipedia project. In this case, Transylvanian Hungarians are not "silenced", quite the opposite, they are free to make contributions as they already had and not promoting some ultra-nationalistic, irredentist ideas like this user tries to do. You can check his talk page, I told him twice to come back when he is ready to make constructive contributions..now I don`t think that is refusing him any kind of rights everybody should have. Adrian (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not fighting minority rights anywhere, but unlike you, whose main concern is censorship in naming issues, I put my focus on, so to say in order that you have a good day, editing articles on Romanian places having alternative Hungarian names. As an ethnic-Romanian editor and with your edit-war record (eg. John Hunyadi), you are not the ideal-typical representation of the Neutral Editor, either. Unfortunately, this topic does not attract others than Hungarian and Romanian editors. The latter group is 99% is represented by you, the former by me. The mutual inspiration has proved fruitful as we can see the improvement of Székely Land related articles.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 23:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not censoring alternative names, in this case, Hungarians are over-emphasizing their importance due to centuries of time being a part of kingdom of Hungary and elevating them to the level of official/main names. I can`t tell you in how many instances I found cities in Vojvodina(Serbia),Slovakia and Romania under their Hungarian name only, in moder day usage of course while there should be only that nation`s language name present... About my behavior at John Hunyadi article, true, but as you can notice, since my last block over that article I haven`t made a single edit there, nor do I intend to do so in a very long,long time.Adrian (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The title was in Hungarian (only) by the IP vandal, but this is the talk page of Miercurea-Ciuc article (Romanian name) and there are also non-Hungarians who comment and read this so the Hungarian name, no matter by whom it is written (user or IP) should be altered. I don`t know what Csíkszereda is, nor do the majority of readers do. It seems only reasonable to at least add it`s official name so the wider audience can know what are we talking about. Don`t mix user talk page`s and article talk page. On our talk pages we can say Temeswar because it is our personal page and not some article conversation that by the way doesn`t have anything to do with what talk page of one article exists for (improving the article). On our talk page`s we can say whatever we want, or call one place however we like, but not on the talk page of some article (Miercurea-Ciuc talk page in this case) to use the alternative names only, with what is familiar with only one ethnic minority in one country. Like on John Hunyadi article, where I created many threads only by it`s Romanian name where it was changed because of the wider audience. About the content of the comment, I don`t think we need to analyze whenever somebody with personal problems says something regarding Hungarian minority in Romania? I don`t understand your implication in which appears to be a vandal usage of article talk pages..., and even more, in some instances taking the vandal side.... Adrian (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the fact that what was added/created by a vandal should be reverted/deleted. Adrian (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not underestimate the capabilities of the wider audience. Both wider and narrrower audience is sure to understand within 5 seconds what is the town we are talking about. Your IP vandal's made his point setting a topic under a title he deemed fit the topic. His point is that Miercurea Ciuc should be under Csíkszereda title. Feel free to argue againts the IP's opinion, but please do not change the title as this is censiorship. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I as a Romanian and I doubt others know what Csíkszereda is. When I made new threads on John`s artricle that was changed.... I don`t see why should this be any different ? And we are talking about a city in Romania and we can`t have i`ts Romanian name??? Ip vandal made his "speech", he has no opinions nor article`s talk page is a forum to talk about that. Please understand that this is unreasonable. The name this city is unknown as Csíkszereda. You are forcing everybody who wants to read this, me included to search and lose time for alternative names? I think it is only resonable for it`s official name to be present too because there are non-Hungarian readers also..Adrian (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sâncrăieni/Szentkirály
Rokarudi - I just wanted to thank you for all the work you've been doing recently to improve articles on Székely settlements, particularly the article (now with pictures!) on Szentkirály (a village I always enjoy visiting). Keep up the good work and don't hesitate to let me know if I can help with the project in some way. Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of Gesta edit
I am dissapointed that you, as a even-tempered user, make use of blind reverting. My edits where totally reasonable and I thought it is not necessary to explain them, but it seems I need to::
 * I don't understand your edit summary: An unduly particular attention is given to Anonymus. Why not include also the Székely story with Csaba and the return of the Hungarians as the descendants of the HUnspeople of Attila can also be g... I did not make a substantial content addition on this subject, I only made a few touches on the form of presentation, so I don't see what is the connection between the revert and your text.
 * If you took yourself some time to read the phrase  	According to the controversial 13th century Gesta of Anonymus, Gelou (in Hungarian: Gyalu, in Romanian: Gelu) is a figure in the Gesta Hungarorum, а medieval novel written by an unknown author, you would have noticed that it is gramatically incorrect
 * The details about the alternative names: Gelou (in Hungarian: Gyalu, in Romanian: Gelu) are not required (they are present in the Gelou article)
 * The formula а medieval novel, which refers to the idea that it is pure fiction, is biased, because at least some historians consider it a trustable source
 * the term chronicle is used by many authors, including neutral and Hungarian ones

PS You are free to revert me now if you want, because I will not continue the discussion (I know your unfair tactics when you don't like my POV - see Mures discussion and block attempt for sockpuppetry ) (RomanianCadrilater (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) OK, (RomanianCadrilater.
 * This issue is not so important at the moment. My opinion is that Anonymus is only one of the many historical sources that deal with the era, more than than his Gesta is not a contemperary source. This is why I say unduly particular attention is given to it. Moreover, Romanian historians use Anonymus in a one-sided way: they give credit to Anonymus when he says Gelou was quidam blachus but disregard his main point on which his whole book is based ie. the Hun-Székely-Hungarian identity. The very concept of his book is that Hungarians returned to the land of king Attila to take posession of the land duly belonging to them as heritage. The Székelys in their turn are Huns who never even left the land of Attila and stayed for centuries on the field of Cigle and finally joined their brethren, the returning Hungarians led by Árpád. All in all, if we want to present Anonymus' story, we must present it in the relevant context, not only those points which are traditionally used by supporters of Daco-Romanian continuity. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edit on Tutrakan; PS you added by mistake an extra ")" (79.117.139.178 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

Images from Hungarian Wikipedia
Hi! I noticed that you have transfered an image (or more) from the Hungarian Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia. It is better to transfer images directly to Commons because then images can be used at all wikies. There is a tool to do that (http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php) and that way all relevant information is automatically copied to Commons. The date the image has been uploaded originally is relevant because of this Image license migration. --MGA73 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved the original here File:Kaplony, Templom.JPG. You are most welcome to fix description. --MGA73 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always had difficulties with this tool. I always received an error message like sorurce file doen not exist, or insufficient copyright information. I will try again...Rokarudi --Rokarudi 10:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1848
In your articles you inserted the link Hungarian Revolution instead of Hungarian Revolution of 1848. I made the correction by myself in 2 places (79.117.171.58 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)) Thank you very much! Rokarudi--Rokarudi 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Adrian (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Adrian (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN
There is currently a discussion on WP:AN concerning the unblock of a user you had interaction with on Wikipedia; User:Iaaasi. If you could provide input that'd be great. Killiondude (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Eastern name template
This template indicates that the article uses Western name order, for cases when the native (natural) form of the article subject's name is family name followed by given name, but the English-language Wikipedia article uses the opposite order.

It applies for example at the article about Lugosi Béla, where the name appears almost 10 times in the unnatural westernized form Béla Lugosi

In John Hunyadi article the Western form János Hunyadi appears 0 times (Daccono (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Greetings Ok Daccono, you win, I agree. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was not the only multinational state in 1867
Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900.

Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Székely Land
Hello! Thank you for your advices, I will use them. When I have time (or I'm not in the hungarian wiki) I will care with the articles about Székelyföld (just I need to practise my english, because I'm not speaking and writing very correctly). I hope I won't have too many problems with this certain romanian editors, but since I'm here I had luck to meet with some anonym editors, who wrote very provocative things and big tales about székelys (Like: "The székely's are romanians by nationality, just they were assimilated.") and this contributions were'nt removed for months, just were queried by the editors with a "citation needed" template. So I'm ready for everything, but I'll do my work without conflicts, of course if this will be possible. Best wishes, --Szabi237 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Transylvania, part (or not) of Hungary
Hi, I am not sure if this is correct or not. Do you know if Transylvania was an administrative part of the K of Hun before 1867? According to it seems not (Iaaasi (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)) Welcome back my friend! Transylvania was not an administrative part of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1802, otherwise, the declaration of their Union would not have led to a sort of civil war in 1848/49.Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC) :Thx, I thought the same thing, but I wanted to be sure (Iaaasi (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Talkback
Adrian (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation
I'd like to invite you to participate at this discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC))

Naming conventions
Hi. I want to inform you that there is current voting about name of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Momcsilló_Tapavicza#Requested_move Perhaps you can say your opinion there if you wish. PANONIAN 13:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this and this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC))


 * I saw your input on Talk:Székely and I was wondering if you read carefully the thread. Hubacelgrand was not against the plural form with the desinence -s, he disagreed only with renonuncing the Hungarian spelling with é
 * I've already proven that the form Székelys is the most utilised on Google Books (even by Hungarian authors, which are "native speakers").
 * On the site of the Szekler National Council the Székelys use the word Szeklers to identify themselves
 * I understood you are against Szekelys, but I am interested if you would support Székelys (Iaaasi (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)) I am not against of Székelys if English speakers accept it.kind regards:Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Location of Székely Land
Template:Location of Székely Land has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Szekelys vs Szekely
Hello. I saw you've reverted the move. Have you at least read my reasons? (Iaaasi (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)) Hello, what I saw was that a clear majority of votes opposed the requested move, therefore, the status quo ante should be restored. Kind regards Rokarudi --Rokarudi (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal was Szekelys and I've moved the article to Székely‎s. It is not the same. However, the version Székelys is supported by THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
 * The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
 * -|"the székelys were" has 189 results on google books
 * -|"the székely were" has only 26 results on google books
 * -|"the székelys have" has 26 results on google books
 * -|"the székely have" has only 2 results on google books(Iaaasi (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Székely
I am really sorry that you bring such accusations. The first move request was to Szekelys and thsi one is to Székelys... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.173.237 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)  This initiative is like if Hungarians kept pushing discussions as to whether Roumanian or Romanian should be used. The recent discussion showed that there is no consensus behind any change of the status quo. I do not say the naming here may not be put under discussion even less that the current naming should stay forever, but not every two weeks should we have a similar discussion. Rokarudi (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the form Székelys is used even by Hungarian authors, including Hungarian academy of Sciences. This is not a vote, not the majority decides what to do. It is a discussion on arguments. If you don't want to accept a widely utilised form, it is your own choice (79.117.166.108 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Hungarian IPA transcription
Rokarudi, I saw something on the Parajd page that looked a little strange, but before I corrected it I wanted to get the opinion of a native speaker. I have always heard the "aj" in "Parajd" said like in "baj," but on the page it's now written in IPA like the áj in "fáj." Is this a mistake or is it correct? Hubacelgrand (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC) You are correct, it should be |’|p|a|r|a|j|d|, both "a" sounds practically the same way. Feel free to correct it. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Orangutan
Template:Infobox Orangutan has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, I saw you reverted some of my edits regarding the other name position in the template. The Hungarian names are not official anywhere in Romania therefore they should not be in the same position in the template. Per other examples(the most simmilar situation is Slovakia related articles, and there all other names are 50% smaller), other names should be a bit smaller. Other names can`t have the same importance/size as the official one, regardless if that is Romanian or Hungarian name. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Correction, in Targu Mures also, according to the Romanian law, quote Art. 17.In unitatile administrativ-teritoriale in care cetatenii apartinand minoritatilor nationale au o pondere de peste 20% din numarul locuitorilor autoritatile administratiei publice locale vor asigura folosirea, in raporturile cu acestia, si a limbii materne, in conformitate cu prevederile Constitutiei, ale prezentei legi si ale conventiilor internationale la care Romania este parte.  - The usage of other languages is decided according to the Constitution of Romania, and in the Constitution the sole official language in Romania is Romanian. PS: Sorry for the confusion in the text and edit summaries. Adrian (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, there has been a consensus for many years how the infobox in Transylvanian settlements should look like, which you are violating according to your well-known nationalistic  dedication. Your editing methods and inclination for running to admins for dispute resolution on the asumption that there are more Romanian than Hungarian editors are clear for me. By the way, an 'official name' should be indicated when the English name (titlle of the artcel) is different from official name like: Nicosia / Lefcosia, otherwise the official name is not used. I have no timr for these childish discussians, so I will be one of the many forner editors who gave up editing due tto the activity of zelotes like you. Regards RokarudiRokarudi (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I will avoid to comment on your personal attack (WP:NPA) - although I really thought that we have left this chapter behind... If you have the time and want to talk about this, can you please share the link to this consensus? The only consensus regarding this matter is that in places where a minority represent 20%+ of the population that version of the name should be included in the infobox too. I did`t saw anything about font size, which all Romania related articles violated with the Hungarian versions, inserting them in the field with the official ones. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC). If you look at the explanation of Infobox settlement, you will see that official name may be used in the absence of usual name in English which, according to the current wiki policies, is the name in the state language, therefore, 'official name' may not be used here. The Hungarian name is native name (or one of them besiude the Roumanian and/or German name), while 'other name' may be e.g Claudiopolis, or Varadinum (the same way as Mumbai/Bombay), if relevant, not the Hungarian name. So, if you have time to go through all Hungarian inhabited Transylvanian settlements, spare your efforts with this 'official name'/'other name' project, and change for 'name'/'native name'instead. As to personal attacks (WP:NPA), you can apply for the admins as you often did in the nice old days several times, I am not concerned about it any more, as I gave up active editig long ago, not having any ambition to lose my time with petty nationalistic edit skirmishes like this one. If you ask me, go ahead and do whatever you want, this sort of editing practices have brought wiki dieing.Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Targu Mures
Your recent editing history at Târgu Mureș shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please see this. I hope this solves this problem. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you still disagree, please leave the page at it`s stable version until discussion is over.Adrian (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It was you who changed the stable version of articles of Transylvanian settlements which was a move against the consensus that was reached many years ago by a great number of Romanian and Hungarian editors. See the naming discussion at talk page of Odorheiu secuiesc at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odorheiu_Secuiesc/Archive_1. As to threats of blocking, I do not care about it as I have stopped active editing a year ago due to fact that nationalistic editing started to prevail over consensus, of which you and sockpuppets like Amon Koth and others were the champions. I am testing Wikipadia now whether admins still prefer nationalistic edit stewards like you who edit nothing but patrol the watchlist to delete everything which you consider against your nationalistic point of view to editors with significant contributions. Kind regards (Rokarudi)

(Rokarudi)

The consensus you are talking abut is including Hungarian names to infobox where the population is 20%+, What does that has to do with the "native_name" usage in the infobox??? Please read this and continue the discussion there. Of course please stop with this unconstruvive editing or I will have to report you for edit warring. Adrian (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are urged to respond at WP:AN3. It looks like you have changed 19 articles so far and you must surely know that ethnic naming disputes fall under the Eastern Europe arbitration case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the result of WP:AN3 which contains a warning for you. I'm also leaving a formal notice of the Arbcom case so you are aware of the potential sanctions. If it is so important to you that the font size of the Hungarian names in the infoboxes of the Szekely towns be increased, please obtain a talk page consensus by a WP:Request for comment or some other method. Thank you.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 26 June 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 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Borsos tamas.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Borsos tamas.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 00:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Coa of Vajka.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coa of Vajka.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Preßburg/Pressburg listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Preßburg/Pressburg. Since you had some involvement with the Preßburg/Pressburg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Mezőceked ( listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mezőceked (. Since you had some involvement with the Mezőceked ( redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've just added Petele ( to the same discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tributaries of Mureș River/old
Template:Tributaries of Mureș River/old has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 left a message at 07:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)