User talk:Iadrian yu/Archive May,2010

Sarbi etc.

Buna, Adrian, si te rog in primul rand sa ma ierti ca n-am pututu sa-ti raspund in timp util la mesajul pe care mi l-ai trimis acum ceva timp: a picat in mijlocul unei perioade de inactivitate pentru mine, iar, cand m-am intors, mi-a fost foarte dificil sa ma dedica acelui articol (mai ales atata timp cat era greu sa-mi dau seama ce s-a mai intamplat intre timp, si cat timp am considerat interventiile de amandoua partile ca fiind contraproductive). Cat priveste ultima ta intrebare: mi-e teama ca domeniul insusi este de abia la marginea preocuparilor mele, si astfel ca-mi lipseste o bibliografie relevanta (in afara de o carte a lui Victor Neumann, in care nu stiu daca se gaseste neaparat raspunsul la intrebarea ta). Ce stiu este ca romanii erau probabil minoritari in Timisoara la inceputul sec. 20, si banuiesc ca sarbii ii depaseau ca numar - dar nu si daca sarbii erau cei mai multi din oras. Promit sa caut mai multe informatii, daca problema ramane deschisa. Cu stima, Dahn (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction of vienna awards, treaty of trianon, and that county article.

user:frazzydee has given you these diffs explaining why the template was added:

1. [1]
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Trianon&diff=355989603&oldid=355907171

If you look at the edit summaries, you will see why they are contradicting.174.3.123.220 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Vlachs of Serbia article

I've undone the damage by 79.101.146.215 by going into the article history, clicking the date before his edit to load the older version, going to "edit this page," and just saving it. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. iadrian (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting bilingual templates

There was a discussion of the use templates in alternate names. [2]

The result of the discussion was Delete. But:

Consensus of responders is that this template (ie. only Hungarian) should not be used. Romanian is the official language for the area, but several sympathetic to the need to recognize the prevalence of Hungarian alternate names for the locality support a single, bilingual template at Template:Mureş County. It is also suggested that a list may be appropriate. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is clearly against wiki naming policy. There is no prejudice against implementing either or both of these alternatives - I don`t see why should Hungarian names be present in Romania. We cannot see any other example for rivers in Hungary, and the same applies here. Official language is Romanian and the other language name is already present at the article of that particular river there is no need in Romania to place Hungarian names in bilingual form. I will make another form that follows wiki naming policy if you continue to disagree because deleting it is not a good solution. iadrian (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding is appreciated. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove the propesed for deletion tag

Please do not remove the propesed for deletion tag. It reflects a question of fact, not an opinion. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 19:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this process requires a notification i thought that it was vandalism. I have returned it and keep it until the discussion is over.iadrian (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning

Please refrain from violating 3rr rules, and please do not provoke edit wars as you di in the past with the support of sockpuppet banned editor Umumu/Iaaasi/Bonaparte. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not force Hungarian names in Romania. And respect the standard naming policy. You provoke edit wars with your actions.iadrian (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for edit-warring and vastly exceeding 3RR on John Hunyadi after warnings and a previous 55hr block for the same behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iadrian yu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because i understand where was my mistake. The warning was with other user, i didn`t know that this applies with other too since we both talked and did many edits.

Decline reason:

I might buy it, if it were your first 3RR block. It was your third. Tim Song (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|First block was a long time ago, second was with one user which shows that I clearly did`t understood that this applies with all users per total. I misunderstood the 3RR, i thought that it counts only edits with one particular user. I understand my mistake and it will not repeat again, i will not edit this article for a couple of days as a proof. I just misunderstood the 3RR rule. I have many constructive edits that shows that. }}

This ok?

Can you indicate if you are ok with the suggestion on AN/3RR? [3] --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, i am Ok with it. iadrian (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)

I've commented at ANI. The previous discussion was about Hungarian names appearing in the lede of articles, which is supported by wikipolicy and consensus. Templates were not discussed. I see no benefit in the replacement of {{Tributaries of Mureş River}} with {{Tributaries of Mureş River (Romanian and Hungarian names)}}. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Templates were introduces "silently" so not many people noticed then until recently. I know that the replacement is not the best thing, but since the user refuses to correct the old template, and he created it (i don`t have the right to touch other people work like maps or templates, it is their work so i created i new one). If there is a possibility to keep the old template but to be changed according to the naming policy that is fine. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As about the question of templates we can see here and here Rokarudi recently modified this templates also, before his modifications everything was normal, as any other template.Also another indication of Rokarudi`s violation of this rules, there was also a similar discussion here where it is explained to another user that tried to do something similar and recognized his mistake.iadrian (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Darjiu 2

Ok, let me explain:

• Most of your edits which are of dubious relevance and do not have a place on English Wikipedia are made in Romania-related articles about places which are in Romania. It looks like it bothers you a lot that those places are in Romania and now you are surprised that some Romanian editors may come in conflict with you. This is fantastic! I don`t know but if you really believe that i check your contributions at all you really have a big ego.
• In the meantime i deleted other languages names from article YOU added against wiki rules.
• There is no separate entity by the name "Székely Land" as you use it, in an irredentist fashion, those places are in Romania.
• What you are trying to say is that I as a Romanian editor should stop editing articles in regions where there is a Szekely + Hungarian minority as that is not in the field of a Romanian editor rather it is in the field of a Hungarian one, like you. So i should go and improve articles where there is no minority[4].
• Indeed we should use our time more efficiently , like for instance to respect wiki policy and make constructive contributions. You should stop using your time for nationalistic inspired edits.
• Vojvodina has six official languages, Romania has one (Romanian) The Romanian constitution, articol 13 states that the only official language is Romanian. The law that you are reffering to does not in any way state that Hungarian is co-official in places were the Hungarian minority is over 20%+. It only states that bilingual signs are mandatory and have only an informative aspect.The Burden of proof is on you. I suggest you stop citing that law indiscriminatly unles you prove otherwise. . I have already stated this numerous times, template for Vojvodina do not have alternative names included, except in the articles conform wiki policy.
• Beside the points i already made The ultimate puprouse of Wikipedia is to come with something better, to improve itself. With what is your template better than the old normal one? You only explanation for that was because of the Hungarian users, which have Hungarian wikipedia if they want to use Hungarian names as official. We should put Hungarian names just because there is a Hungarian minority ? We are talking about templates! With what does that improve the English reading Wikipedia? Taking that to the extreme, one could, include German names for every part of the Europe that was occupied by the Third Reich or include Turkish names for every region that was a part of the Ottoman Empire. That is called creating a major chaos and creating a unique template just to serve your personal POV. There are all kind of templates but none that have the official names and alternative names included in any form.
• Here you crossed the line. How can you even compare Kosovo with the region of Transylvania? Kosovo, an autonomous region which is de facto independent and recognized as such by various states and organizations and which has a clear Albanian majority. Transylvania is not even an autonomous region, there is nothing special about it, and the Hungarian + Szekely minorities do not exceed 20% (19.6%) of the total population. Most states have a certain compact area where a minority makes an important percentage of the population, like you try to do with Covasna or Harghita counties.

I have tried numerous times to engage in constructive dialog with you but you time and time again ignored my arguments and wiki rules without even offering a valid counter-argument. You showed your understanding of this problem when you compared Kosovo with Transylvania. Clearly this is not working. When you violate wiki rules i will come in conflict with you.iadrian (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I only encourage you to edit Székely aricles if you have relevant messages other than purging Hungarian names from the articles about places inhabited by Hungarian people. About the line I crossed: This was the line beyond which an excellent panorama is offered for hypocricy. Yes, "Kosovo is an autonomous region which is de facto (+ now de iure, too) independent and recognized as such by various states and organizations and which has a clear Albanian majority." Then, the question arises: Why you, [[WP:Naming|Guardian of WP:Naming] at Hungarian placenames in Transylvania, NOT feel it your duty to treat Kosovan articles the same way changing Serbian names to official Albanian names, used by a clear Albanian mjority. Just for your information, Kosovan articles of placenames are all under Serbian names. The number of Hungarians in Transylvania is almost as much as Albanians in Kosovo + Hungarians were always tring to enforce their rights peacefully. I only support bilingual names in Kosovo as well, if Serbians need it. But I can not stand hypocricy. It was told you by many that Romanian law is not applicable on Wikipedia. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I`l enumerate:

• I am not a "[[WP:Naming|Guardian of WP:Naming]" , sooner or later somebody would notice the problem. As a proof for that is the Administrator`s ruling on this matter , proving that you don`t respect the naming policy.
• Kosovo can`t be compared with Transylvania or any other region for that matter(sui generis). Kosovo, when it was only the autonomous region had Albanian language as an official and it also had an Albanian majority. It is not comparable with anything we have in Romania or any other country. Officially, Kosovo is not a member of the United Nations and therefore it is not an official country, De jure is only when it is recognized by the majority counties in the world and by UN. I quote you The number of Hungarians in Transylvania is almost as much as Albanians in Kosovo - this is false , Hungarians + Szekely are 1,415,718 persons according to the 2002 census and Romanians 7,221,733 ! In Kosovo there is between 1.9 and 2.2 million where 92% are Albanian and according to that there are only 80.000 Serbs (by majority of estimates). The percentage is an important factor for one region.
• Here you showed that you don`t have the slightest idea what are you talking about. As of 2010 the Hungarian minority is one of the most fortunate in the European Union (in this aspect), this is even confirmed by the Hungarian president László Sólyom and by various organizations in the European Union.
• It is clear that you see Wikipedia as a battlegroundWP:BATTLE for political points of view. If you want to discuss minority rights or to promote a certain political agenda this is not the place for that. This is an encyclopedia for crying out loud!!
• Romanian laws don`t matter on wikipedia but wiki rules does. Wiki policy states the use of the official names for one country by the countries constitution, and in this case, in the Romanian constitution there is only one official language (Romanian).iadrian (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Indent

The official POV is just 1 POV. For instance, officially, Taiwan is part of China. Of course, unofficially, a certain group of people with aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons think it isn't ;-)

There are a lot of language disputes. The Polish City names and river names are famous examples.

The general consensus is that if there are names in use in multiple languages, we might best use all the different names. That way everyone gets a say, and there's less conflicts.

Take it easy, and try to figure out ways to cooperate with people who think differently from you. (it's hard, I know!)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good visualization with the Taiwan example :-) but i don`t think that it compares to the problem we have here. There is nothing controversial about Transylvania or it`s official languages.
• The Polish language controversy is related to the usage of some names in different periods of history. In this discussion we are talking about the present names. I support using the alternative names conform wiki rules in standard form as anywhere else, however, elevating those names to official status by providing no legal argument I do not. Nor do I support exaggerating this practice of making templates(for example) in other languages than the official one. What would be the place of such a practice on wikipedia, which is in fact an encyclopedia. How does this improve the quality of wiki? How does this help an English user, because we are talking about the English wiki. A lot of editors seem to ignore this fact :-).
• The problem isn`t cooperation. Rokarudi wants to implement alternative names in Romania-related templates and "now and then" still forces the alternative names in inappropriate places like here. I don`t have anything against alternative names to be present in the article but according to the naming policy , when we speak about a certain location/town/city on other articles we use only the official name, minority names can be present at the article of that particular place - as we can see everywhere on wikipedia. The bottom line is if templates can contain alternative names and create a unique example or only official ones like any other normal template we have on wiki. iadrian (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for the option that provides the most information, personally. <scratches head>. Are you sure you're interpreting the relevant policies correctly? (Can you link and/or explain why removing information is the most useful or NPOV thing to do here? ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand perfectly your opinion here, however, I see things a little differently. I don`t want to be such a sticker for the rules, "that guy" that doesn`t like to reach a compromise. The WP:PLACE policy states specifically the usage of alternative names. I have never supported users who tried to remove completely the alternative names from the lead of the article. The problem is the inclusion of the alternative names for places everywhere else in an article, where the respective name is mentioned. Now the real trouble begins :-) because there are many places all over the world where different minorities live together and when an alternative name were to be mentioned(belonging to a certain minority) in places other than the lead of the article(which is against wiki policy) the other alternative names used by the rest of the minorities should also be used. And because we don`t want to offend anybody. any minority that at some point in history had constituted a significant percentage should be entitled to have it`s own name mentioned. For example Gherla; whenever the town is mentioned in another article it should be mentioned not only by it`s official name but also by it`s Armenian, German and Hungarian one (alphabetical order), because my Armenian friend would fell offended if it were not to be included :-) . Now I am pretty sure that mentioning this alternative names in places other than the lead creates a lot of confusion and needlessly assaults the English reading user with redundant information since if the user is indeed interested in Gherla, these alternative names are already present in the lead section of the article WP:LEAD. The point is we already have a functional rule which is widely used and accepted. Why try to change this in certain places , Transylvania , just because one editor fells insecure about this issue. If you have further questions please ask. iadrian (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian, you missed my point, if you like to work with me feel free to come to my page, but do not be at the same hostile with me. As to Gherla, what I propose is not to mention Gherla everywhere in all languagues; but it may be mentioned if appropriate. Eg. If another articles is the biography of a clearly Armenian person, the Armenian or if he belonged a to a Hungarian speaking Armenian community both names may be mentioned at first occurence. This is not redundent information. The same applies to templates. If we have aMures county template any kind of information can be put in a template relevant to Mures county into a separate section which may be opened when the opts to open it, such as: official names, alternate names, famous people, chinese opera composers from Mures county, battles in the county, spas in the county or any other information. Yes, and if you keep being hostile to me, we will not be friends and you can go back to Squach Racket and Baxter9 to Jogn Hunyadi if you prefer to work with them. Yes, and why you do not invite me to Temesvár, (or Versec) we could drink a glass of beer, I mean you, me and Iaaasi :) Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It may not be necessarily that i missed your point but you have failed in several occasions to understand mine. I have really grown tired of pointing the same problems and not receiving any valid counter-arguments. I have already explained why your solution(as described above) is not a viable one. I will mention that we are talking about the usage of alternative names in present times (not in past periods). In WP:PLACE we can see clearly the usage of modern names , obviously this apply to templates also. English wiki is for English users and the information is indeed redundant because it is already present in the lead of the article and you yourself stated several times that this is for the benefit of the Hungarian reading users who already have a Hungarian wikipedia. When i began my interaction with you i maintained a civil tone and responded in kind several times to your aggressive behavior. When i "responded with the same coin" you positively modified your attitude. About the drinking part :-) I would`t discard it, it is a good idea. iadrian (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Iadrian we agreed. But our case is handled one section below, at 'alternate names' which may be, by the way, bolded. Although English readers may not only be interested in official names, the problem is, as shown by statistics that are not interested in Eastern-Europe at all. When they read an article like John Hunyadi, they laugh at us both. I maintain that my Mures county template created with Iaaasi was a good compromise.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 13:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As i said before we are talking about usage in modern times. Even more so i quote from the rule[5] it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out , this practice as it can be clearly seen it is not enforced <list> Senta,Subotica,North Bačka District,Mali Iđoš - all places in an autonomous province where Hungarian is official; In Basque contry: Álava,Biscay,Gipuzkoa. I repeat, these are places in autonomous provinces where minority languages are official what we can`t say for Transylvania region; The capital of the federative state in Russia Kazan; In UK Wales,Cardiff; In Ukraine Crimea; In Sweden Gällivare; In Scotland Edinburgh; In Bulgaria Momchilgrad; and many, many others </list> with the exception of extremely controversial cases like Gdansk which is fact is one of the most controversial in all of Wikipedia. It is not important if Eastern Europe is visited a lot or not, the article is on English Wiki and everyone has it`s own language version. These kind of templates are a new addition to Wikipedia introduced by yourself. Well, you would be the last person that will say the Mures template is useless because you created it :-). iadrian (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian, in Wales rarely anybody speaks Welsh, In País Basco the articles are under Basque names. See eg. Mikolayiv or Nikolaev in Ukraine, to the contrary. In Italy see Aoste. Alternate names are modern names, in ancient times there were not Belarus, was it. We already spoke about this and you were shown many examples to the contrary, I can show 20 more but this will not convince you. User: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In Pais Vasco is a high level autonomy, but even so it doesn`t prove your point since alternative names are not in bold font either there are Basque names in use like you think. Also, Basque language is official there. At Mykolaiv it is an clear edit war over this policy edit war, a Russian user User:Toddy1 from Ukraine is trying to force Russian names, something like you tried to do a while ago in Transylvania. Aosta is an autonomous region where Italian and French are official languages. Well in ancient times France did`t existed so.. ? I quote you Alternate names are modern names - Alternative names are exactly what the word stands for "Alternative" certainly not modern names-official ones. So i guess in Romania modern names are still the old Hungarian one? Sorry, you are totally wrong there. I doubt that you can provide one valid example since this is all wrong. I quote from the WP:PLACE Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another;- which is the problem we have and explains what are the modern names. I would like to see 20 examples very much or even one please. For templates also. If there is anywhere on Wikpedia where there is an bilingual template that is not created by you. iadrian (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iadrian, here are 20 of the lot more examples. Usually not settelements inhabited by 20%< ethnic minority. There used to be a lot more exmaples in Romania but have been recently deleted. Aabenraa Municipality Abbeville Alicante Aoste Aurich Basel Bern Biel/Bienne Biella Bischofswerda Bolzano Cagliari Chernihiv Como Cottbus Dublin Dubrovnik Espoo Florence Fort Augustus Fribourg Galway Ganja, AzerbaijanGdańsk Geneva GironaGomel Good night Rokarudi Rokarudi--Rokarudi 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Examples in Romania don`t count since it is clear that it was against naming policy and the majority of those changes were introduced either by Nmate or yourself. I don`t know if you have read my last comment but i`l explain it again and analyze some of the examples you gave here.

• Municipality - I don`t really understand what are you trying to say with this example except that every country has it`s names derived from the official ones for municipality word proper.
• Province of Alicante where we have Alicante is the capital of the province where the official languages are Spanish and Catalan, so it is kind-a normal to see names in this form, if both languages are official.
• Aosta where we have Aoste is an autonomous region where Italian and French are official languages.
• Lower Saxony is a state in the federal republic of Germany where we have Aurich.
• Basel,Bern and Biel/Bienne are found in Switzerland where the country is a federal republic organized in Cantons of Switzerland where every canton has it`s own laws and we have 4 official languages (French,Italian,German and Romansh).
• Biella is in the province Piedmont were Piedmontese language is official as of 2004.
• Bischofswerda is in the state of Saxony , a federal republic.
• Bolzano is the capital of South Tyrol which is an autonomous province where German and Italian are both official languages.
• Cagliari is the capital of Sardinia which is an autonomous region where we can see clearly that there is more than one official language [6]
• Chernihiv - i don`t know why did you gave this example. Please read the note by the other bolded name. Chernigov is an alternative spelling from the Cyrillic alphabet not a minority one. We can clearly see that in Russian on any other minority language is written different.
• Como is in Lombardy were we clearly have local dialects of the Italian language that are used. Hungarian is not a dialect of Romanian :-).
• Cottbus is in Brandenburg which is a state in the federal republic of Germany.
• Dublin is the capital of Ireland and in Ireland people speak Irish which is in bold. Irish is official along with English.
• Dubrovnik was the core of the Republic of Ragusa which is well-known name in history by the English readers.
• Espoo - The city of Espoo is officially bilingual like we have Târgu Mureş were there that is respected. The Hungarian names are represented by the official ones.

I am sorry if i don`t respond to every your example but it is obvious that you did`t checked them. Either did i see any bilingual template at any of these locations. I repeat, Transylvania is not a political entity and has only one official language. Please check your data before posting it. Also after this i think that it is very clear that edits like this [7] are inappropriate by wiki naming policy. iadrian (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Iadrian, you are not serious. Ler us stop this dialogue here. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 13:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indent 2

You may pick out individual cases when I was wrong, but the thing is that if I wasted my time and went from A-Z, I could have found a great many more examples for bolded names. I only searched bigger places not vllages with nearly 100% minority population. Of course, in every case you would have a YES, BUT. Your main argument remains that Hungarian language has not country-wide official status in Romania and local official status is not enough in your interpretation for a bolded name in Wikipedia even if the local population is 97% Hungarian, the rest being Hungarian-speaking Gypsies. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not important to the Wikipedia. There is nothing special about it if some villages have 100% Hungarian or Szekely population (which they are not), we have the exact same thing in Vojvodina with the Romanian, Czech, Slovak or Hungarian villages but you see that kind of usage only occasionaly, since it is a political entity with six official languages. In Ukraine we have in the Chernivtsi region a lot of "pure" Romanian villages also but nothing of forcing alternative names for places that are now in Ukraine and where is the only official language Ukranian (except Crimea which is an autonomous province). We can see many similar examples in Europe, I don`t see the reason why should only the Hungarian minority in Romania be special. This is clearly just for the benefit of the Hungarian minority who already have a Hungarian Wikipedia. iadrian (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian language don`t have even a local status. It is not official in any compact region or in any local form and that applies country wide too. If you have some prof that Hungarian language has even a regional official status please present it. There is the constitution of Romania that addresses the whole territory of Romania. If there would be a regional language it would be mentioned there in some form, at least as some kind of note.iadrian (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi's Campaigns in the pre-Trianon borders of Hungary

This might be a good title for a book, wouldn't it? Anyway, on a more serious note I am appalled by his behavior. I am also a little amused by how many chances you had to clearly prove him wrong but failed to do so. For instance in his last comment, he compares the status of the Welsh language spoken in Wales with that of the Hungarian language in Romania. Wales, a bilingual country in which Welsh is spoken by around 20% of the population is compared with Romania, another country with a single official language where Hungarian is spoken by 6.7% of the population. I really fail to see the logic in this comparison. Could you please explain why did you not insist upon this extremely inappropriate example on his part? I am really curios why is that. Another interesting aspect is that he does not posses the necessary ability to properly distinguish alternate from modern names. If memory serves, this is crucial in your disagreements. Be that as it may I would not necessarily encourage you to be harsher because your discussion with him provides a certain comic relief for the past few days. Amon Koth (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please be a little more serious. As you can easily check we talk a lot, talks on the discussion page are public and anyone can see them. I am sorry if this is amusing for you but we are trying to talk about serious matters. Wales is clear, i did`t thought that it needs to be explained. Yes, but taken the region of Transylvania there are 19.6% percentage of population that is the Hungarian minority. Therefore i understand on some level Rokarudi`s points but that doesn`t make them valid ones. I insist on other examples on Wikipedia as a proof of the naming policy and templates.iadrian (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this a talk page, I allowed myself a little sarcasm, nothing else. I meant no offense. Why not add a userbox saying you don't understand sarcasm? :) Continuing to more serious and pressing matters, I have stumbled upon the list he sent you recently with all those cities, and the most suggestive example was the first: Aabenraa. In the article itself there is mention about the Danish spelling reform of 1948 which abolished the digraph Aa in favor of Å. So the bolded name (Åbenrå) is just an alternative Danish spelling in the same Danish language since the alternative minority names (German - Apenrade and South Jutlandic - Affenråe) are clearly not bolded. A similar case in Romanian would be Săpânţa and Săpînţa. I lost my interest in that list after this first totally inappropriate example which, in fact, sustains your POV. Anyhow, you skipped this city in your explanations, yet I understand why you don't want to lose more time on a wild-goose chase since he clearly didn't put any effort in providing substantial examples, the other ones being in regions where the language concerned is recognized at various levels. It is clear you are not very serious for disregarding the example which I elaborated upon. Your attitude is incomprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amon Koth (talk • contribs) 01:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I noticed in the Aabenraa example that there was something strange since it is obvious that the German name is different but i did`t know exactly to explain it. Thank you for the explanation. Perfectly said , wild-goose chase indeed. When i saw 3 places from Switzerland i was really surprised since that example of a federal state and 4 official languages are well-known to almost everybody and then I decided not to analyze the whole list since it is clear that User:Rokarudi don`t understand the difference. Well maybe i am a little bit "hyperactive" but i wanted to explain the obvious problem we are having here. I guess he did`t expected me to check any of them therefore he did`t wanted to talk any further because of the lack of the arguments i guess. iadrian (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw you are a new user but please try to sign your comments and contributions to avoid any possible confusion. WP:SIG. iadrian (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While I might have omitted signing my comments in a few occasions, I provided SineBot with concrete evidence towards his usefulness. You're a programmer, you know how dangerous bots are when they feel useless :-) Be that as it may, I am disappointed that this section, whose purpose was to analyze a certain editor's behavior, has been reduced to just another area where the two of you can discuss. Amon Koth (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to move the comments in to the right section. Moved it (indent 2 section). There is nothing to analyze since it is clear that all those edits are ethnic-motivated since it is clearly forcing Hungarian names (again,just in other form now) in some certain places even if that has nothing useful for the English Wikipedia. Like this [8] "ueful content to be preserved" - in that form, useful for the Hungarian Wikipedia maybe and in violation with the usage of modern names on English wiki. Or this [9] , user mixed up with the Romanian wiki so changed the text in Romanian, i don`t know. Looks like some users still can`t understand the difference between local and English wiki and some certain rules that states the use of official/modern names. iadrian (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Amon Koth, you should take a look at Rokarudi`s latest addition to Wikipedia [10] and [11]. I have tried time and time again to reason with him but failed. And after this latest addition I think I finally figured why. All of his edits are ethnic-motivated, in some instances even going to full-blown irredentism. I will avoid explaining him every erroneous edit he makes because being a nationalist he clearly does not see where he is wrong.iadrian (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This individual suffers from what could be described as "post-Trianon depressive syndrome" and, analyzing his contributions, it is clear he views WP as nothing more than a different medium for expressing his extremely biased POVs. You shouldn't take him to seriously. Amon Koth (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of his intentions, his edits reach a large number of articles and that I take seriously. I intend to take action. iadrian (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Vlachs of Central Serbia

There is no evidence in the article that most Romanians (Vlachs) of Central Serbia are subordinated to BOR. I read somwhere that until now 10% of the Vlach adhered to BOR until now, but the number of the adherents to BOR is growing very fast though. I believe that there is enough to simply say that they are Eastern Orthodox. --Olahus (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well at the BOR [12] we can see the that it is under their jurisdiction since 24.03.2009 when Serbia recognized the authority of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Valea Timocului [13]. I mean if the BOR has this region included and since it is recognized I thought that it should be changed, anyway I have nothing against Eastern Orthodox , just though that this would be more accurate. iadrian (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the sources doesn't mention the proportion of Romanians who adhered to BOR until now. --Olahus (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand. For now it is better to leave it as Eastern Orthodox. iadrian (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)