User talk:Criztu

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Whosyourjudas (talk) 23:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hungarian names, again

You just posted a message on my talk page about removing Hungarian names for contemporary Romanian counties, in which you refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). I don't see the justification for these removals in this naming convention. See note 3: "A relevant foreign language name is the one used by at least 10% of sources in English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place." Don't you agree that this applies to Hungarian here? Markussep 11:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i consider wikipedia naming convention still leaves room for interpretations, so i will address this ambiguity in the discussion page. however, my view on this matter is fully suported in Definition 1 both paragraphs: the name Harghita county is used in all articles of Britannica and Encarta, and 92% of internet pages return Harghita county (most of the remaining 8% are texts translated in english, hosted on hungarian servers, if u consider these as "sources in english language" they still are 8% (11 800 hits returning Hargita county as oposed to 154 000 hits returning Harghita county). Criztu 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i regard this effort in emphasising Transylvania and everything pertaining to the teritory of Transylvania (that was once under hungarian administration) as having a dual hungarian-romanian status is irredentism(revizionist propaganda). i am not accusing u of anything, i dont know your opinions, but if there is any relevance in providing the names of hungarian kingdom administrative divisions as "relevant alternate names" for modern romanian administrative divisions (shortened HU kgdom names for RO names), all i can see is irredentism Criztu 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the following convention is used throughout reknown encyclopedias like Britannica "river Mures(romanian) has an alternate name Maros(hungarian) since the river flows through both countries RO and HU. county of Mures (romanian) does not have an alternate name Maros(hungarian) since the county is not shared by both countries RO and HU". Criztu 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again: See note 3: "A relevant foreign language name is the one used by at least 10% of sources in English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place." Nothing revisionist about this. You're not denying that there are (many) ethnic Hungarians in Romania, are you? Markussep 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the formulation a relevant foreign language name is the one used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place is ambiguous and i will address it also in the wikipedia naming convention talk page. i think this paragraph refers to historical placenames (and in historical context, like "Battle of Stalingrad"(now Volgograd) and not to contemporary placenames, even less to administrative divisions, if your intentions are objective, u would easily see the names of administrative divisions of Germany in what is today Ucraine or Poland will not be provided as alternate name for an administrative division of modern Ucraine or Poland, even if there are plenty of germans living in Poland and Ucraine ; of course, since wikipedia is "free to edit by anyone" i guess there are editors who do exactly that, provide names of administrative divisions of Germany(even WW2 Germany) as "relevant foreign language" alternate names for contemporary divisions of Ucraine and Poland. well the wikipedia naming convention will eventualy clarify all its ambiguities and there will be no more such revisionist edits on administrative divisions pages. Criztu 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should the name of the Otoman Empire administrative division coresponding ruffly to an administrative division of contemporary Romanian state be provided as alternate name, just because during 1600 the Otoman Empire settled thousands of its citizens in what is today Romania ? Criztu 13:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. Hargita and Kovászna are not old Hungarian or Ottoman administrative divisions, they're the names that Hungarians, who make up a large part of the present population, use for the present adm. divisions. Again, from the naming conventions: "Relevant foreign language names[3] are permitted [in the lead] and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages". You can't seriously deny that Hungarian names are relevant here, can you? You may be bona fide, but this seems like some mission to erase all Hungarian names, backed by selectively interpreted naming conventions. Markussep 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i have nothing against, and i encourage you to detail the history of that county in its coresponding article, so that anybody reading the article should have as most information about that county as posible. however, Britannica and Encarta dont provide the name Hargita as alternate name for Harghita county. you dont seriously imply that Britannica or Encarta are denying the existence of hungarians in that county by having such a convention to not provide the HU kgdom administrative divisions as alternates for administrative divisions of modern Romania, do you ? Criztu 15:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think other encyclopedias deliberately leave the Hungarian names out, they're probably not that well informed. For instance, note the absence of the comma under the t in all Britannica articles about judeţ. And again, I'm not talking about KoH counties here. Markussep 06:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative name

For someone with such a long record here, you should know not to make nonsense/test articles. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 15:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am creating the article right now Criztu 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the {{inuse}} tag next time so your article is not seen as nonsense by others. Cheers. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I aint so used with wikipedia tags, so grant me some time before the article is ready Criztu 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you as an example. Please do this in the future. Have fun. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 15:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed it at AfD; it doesn't belong in the main space and it's a POV fork of the proposals being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). I don't think that making an article to push your POV really advances your arguments, but who knows... Carlossuarez46 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that an article explaining the meaning of an "alternative name" doesnt fit in the main space is your personal opinnion. u are invited to outline the subjectivity of my edits to that article, since i cant be totaly objective. if u could be more specific about how my efforts to align Wikipedia to the Britannica conventions and employment of alternative names is a POV, i would apreciate it, since i am already in process of forwarding this matter of "convention about employment of alternative names" to the Arbitration Comiteee Criztu 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numele alternativ

Salut. Dar judeţele Mureş, Covasna şi Harghita au toate nume maghiare actuale, nu istorice, care sunt folosite în uz contemporan. De exemplu, emisiunile maghiare de pe TVR folosesc aceste nume. Articolele la hu.wiki folosesc aceste nume. Covasna şi Harghita au majoritate maghiară, şi din cauza asta este un nonsens să nu fie listat numele maghiar acolo! Mai ales că în România există drepturile minorităţilor bine stabilite. Nume alternative se oferă şi în situaţii mai puţin importante, de exemplu multe oraşe maghiare oferă nume alternative în sârbă şi slovacă deşi ungurii sunt majoritari şi aceste numele nu sunt oficiale. Plus, ce pierde Wikipedia dacă numele maghiar rămâne? Aici nu este vb de regiunea Transilvania, ci de un judeţ unde numele maghiar este important fiind că ei sunt majoritate, sau că ei sunt minoritate semnificativă (cum e în Mureş). Nu implică iredentism sau revizionism. PS: Văd că argumentul tău este următorul: pentru că jud. Mureş nu este împărţit între RO şi HU, nu ar trebui să aibă numele hu listat în paranteze. Răspuns: aici nu este vb de Republica Ungaria, ci despre etnicitatea maghiară. Deşi jud. Mureş este în RO 100%, are minoritate semnificativă maghiară, deci numele maghiar trebuie să fie inclus. Ronline ✉ 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia este o encyclopedie englezeasca. nu am nimic impotriva ca wikipedia magyara sa foloseasca nume magyare pt diviziunile administrative ale romaniei, asa cum si romanii se refera la Debretin sau Segedin si nu la Szeged sau Debrecen.

Problema pe care o vad este "implicatziile folosirii numelor magyare ca nume alternative pt diviziuni administrative ale Romaniei". din punctul meu de vedere, acest procedeu (nume magyare ca nume alternative pt unitatzi administrative de pe teritoriul care a fost sub administrare magyara in trecut) induce ideea de "Romania e un stat multinational" sau "Transilvania are un statut administrativ impartzit de Romania cu Ungaria".

Consider ca editorii care folosesc procedeul respectiv invoca motivul "cititorul englez are de castigat din cunoasterea numelui folosit de magyari pt unitatile administrative ale Romaniei" dar io cred ca "cititorul englez primejte o informatzie care ii modifica perceptzia vizavi de Romania in sensul ideii ca aceasta ar fi un stat multinatzional, si ca Transilvania este o entitate administrativa impartzita de Romania cu Ungaria, sau ar avea un statut autonom in cadrul Romaniei"

in esentza, Magyarii traiesc cu sutele de mii si in occident, probabil in comunitatzi identificabile, dar nu vad nici un efort al editorilor care folosesc procedeul numelor alternative magyare in articolele despre Romania, de a folosi acelasi procedeu in articolele despre alte tzari in care traiesc. De ce nu este folosit acest procedeu in toate articolele despre locuri din occident in care magyarii traiesc in comunitatzi identificabile daca singurul motiv al oferirii numelor alternative magyare ar fi "pt ca in respectivul loc exista un procent de magyari care se refera la el cu un nume magyar" ? Criztu 08:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aici nu este vorba de a folosi numele maghiar ca un nume egal cu cel român, deşi maghiarii sunt în majoritate. Este doar vb de a pune numele în paranteze, care este perfect justificat prin faptul că maghiarii sunt în majoritate şi numele este folosit în uz contemporan, chiar oficial. În toate oraşele/unităţile unde există o comunitate semnificativă de o etnie x, numele este listat în paranteze. Uite de ex Vienna, Burgenland sau Bretagne. Dacă există maghari concentraţi într-un oraş occidental, ar fi OK şi acolo includerea numelui, dar de multe ori emigranţii când ajung într-un oraş sau cartier străin, adoptă numele local. Dar, de exemplu, dacă românii din oraşul Castello/Castellon din Spania ar avea un nume diferit pentru oraş, acel nume ar trebui inclus (deşi acolo nu sunt semnificativi istoric, iar maghiarii din Harghita sunt). Plus, aici este vb de majoritate sau minoritate semnificativă. Judeţul Bihor, de exemplu, nu are numele maghiar în paranteze, fiind că acolo ei compun doar 26% din populaţia (teoretic şi acolo ar trebui pus numele maghiar). Cred că numele maghiar nu face nici un "brainwashing" sau percepţia nereală - tocmai, este firesc ca într-o unitate administrativă unde maghiarii sunt peste 70% din populaţia, ca numele în limba lor să fie inclus măcar în paranteze, nu?! PS: numele românesc este listat la Hertza region şi la Hertza Raion şi Chernivtsi.

Ronline ✉ 08:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

da, vorbesti despre "procent semnificativ al populatziei intro localitate". in cazul localitatilor (nu al judetelor), acest procent relevant/semnificativ este stabilit oficial la 20%. sunt perfect de acord ca orasul Targu Mures sa aiba trecut in paranteze numele folosit de magyarii care constituie peste 20% din populatia sa. totushi, o diviziune administrativa a unui stat este legata de respectivul stat, exista cu scop strict oficial, legal, statal. O localitate poate fi intemeiata de o populatzie magyara, si ulterior sa devina localitate a statului roman, si invers. Localitatea respectiva exista fizic ca o entitate cu istorie proprie. Documentele orasului (cum ar fi actul de intemeiere), apartzin acelui orash ca parte a istoriei si identitatii sale. Iar populatia magyara continua sa locuiasca in acel orash.

Deci un nume alternativ magyar pentru o localitate a romaniei semnifica o continuitate a locuirii acelei localitati de catre populatzia magyara.

O diviziune administrativa a statului ungar insa nu poate fi separata de statul magyar, si nu poate deveni o diviziune administrativa a statului roman, sa aiba istorie proprie (cum ar fi actul de intemeiere a judetului Mures). In acest moment administratzia ungara nu mai are continuitate in teritoriul judetului Mures. Asa cum numele latin/cuman/turc/german al unei localitati de pe teritoriul romaniei si care a fost la un moment dat locuita intrun procent oarecare de latini/cumani/turci/germani si a fost sub autoritatea latina/cumana/turca/germana nu este considerat relevant ca nume alternativ al acelei localitatzi in acest moment, pt ca latinii/turcii/cumanii nu mai continua sa locuiasca acel orash, asa nici numele unei diviziuni administrative magyare nu mai este relevant ca nume alternativ al unei diviziuni administrative a romaniei in acest moment, pentru ca nu exista continuitate a administratziei magyare.

Deci, un nume alternativ magyar pentru o diviziune administrativa a romaniei semnifica o continuitate a administratziei magyare in acea diviziune. Acest lucru e posibil in cazul in care respectiva diviziune este autonoma, sau Romania este un stat multinational cu administratzie romano-magyara, sau respectiva diviziune este administrata de Romania si Ungaria in acelasi timp

sper sa ma fi exprimat suficient de clar asupra implicatziei existentei unui nume alternativ magyar pt o diviziune administrativa a statului roman. Criztu 11:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu prea înţeleg clar un lucru. Aici nu este vb despre administraţia maghiară, ci despre populaţie maghiară. Nu trebuie să există "continuitate a administratziei magyare" pentru a include numele, ci doar populaţie seminificativă maghiară. Numele nici măcar nu este inclus acolo pe motiv pur istoric, ci pentru faptul că actualmente, judeţele Harghita şi Covasna sunt majoritar maghiare. Asta nu implica nimic administrativ, mai ales controlul statului ungar asupra teritoriului românesc. Este doar inclus pentru că în aceste judeţe ei sunt majoritare, este firesc ca numele maghiar să apară.

Ronline ✉ 14:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mergand pe rationamentul conform caruia o unitate administrativa a statului roman poate avea nume alternativ magyar pe baza existentzei unei populatzii magyare in teritoriul acelei unitati, ar trebui ca numele magyar al Romaniei sa fie oferit ca nume alternativ al Romaniei in articolul Romania (sau si pentru Bucuresti, caci si in Bucuresti exista populatzie de etnie magyara). poti explica rationamentul pentru care nu exista un nume alternativ magyar pentru Romania in wiki-articolul Romania sau Bucuresti in acest moment, desi exista 1 440 000 de magyari in Romania ? Criztu 15:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sa nu ma intzelegi gresit, io incerc sa stabilesc nijte criterii obiective dupa care un nume alternativ poate fi folosit in articolele despre locuri care se afla in Romania. Criztu 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica ofera un nume magyar alternativ pt localitatea Targu Mures, dar nu si pt judetul Mures. La fel, Britannica ofera un nume alternativ magyar pt riul Mures (care curge si prin Ungaria) dar nu si pt riul Tarnava, care curge exclusiv pe teritoriul Romaniei, desi exista populatie de etnie magyara in zona, si care foloseste un nume magyar cand se refera la riul Tarnava. deci cred ca Britannica foloseste niste conventzii dupa care ofera nume alternativa pt locuri situate pe teritoriul Romaniei Criztu 15:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Este mare diferenţă între România şi Judeţul Mureş. În România, minoritatea maghiară este sub 10%, iar limba maghiară nu este limbă oficială a României şi nici nu este nepărat foarte semnificativă nici la nivel naţional nici în termeni istorici. Conform convenţiei, în articolele de ţări doar numele oficiale sunt listate. La articolul despre Belgia, numele german este listat numai pentru că limba germană este limbă oficială în Belgia. La fel, la Republic of Macedonia, numele albanez este trecut fiind că albaneza este a doua limbă oficială a republicii (acest fapt este disputat, totuşi, fiind că legislaţia poate fi interpretată altfel). Dar, vezi articolul despre Estonia: numele ţării nu este trecut în limba rusă, deşi ruşii sunt minoritate mult mai mare decât maghiarii. Judeţul Mureş este caz aparte, fiind că are nu numai istorie maghiară, dar şi populaţia maghiară actuală, care este semnificativă. În plus, numele maghiar este folosit des în administraţia publică, mai ales în Harghita şi Covasna. Adică, aproape tot consiliul judeţean este format din maghiar, deci sunt convins că numele maghiar "Hargita" este folosit des şi la nivel oficial. În plus, aceste trei judeţe fac parte din Ţinutul Secuiesc, majoritar maghiar, deci cred că ar trebui inclus acest nume. În alte judeţe nu este neapărat cazul.

Ronline ✉ 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

o conventzie incerc si eu sa stabilesc. din informatzia buna cu Belgia, intzeleg ca limba germana este o limba alternativa in Belgia, deci numele german al locurilor din Belgia este un nume alternativ. Limba magyara nu este o limba alternativa in Romania, deci numele magyar al locurilor din Romania nu este un nume alternativ. Criztu 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

conventzia pe care cred io ca o aplica Britannica in cazul mentionarii numelui magyar al Tg Mures, dar nementionarii numelui magyar al diviziunii administrative a statului roman, Mures, este ca un oras poate fi creatzia unei populatii, putand fi intemeiat de acea populatie pe teritoriul unui stat strain, pe cand o diviziune administrativa este creatzia unui stat, care nu poate fi intemeiata de acel stat pe teritoriul unui stat strain. Criztu 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

judetzul Mures nu are istorie in afara istoriei statului roman, asta e POV-ul meu (si cred si al Britannica). Judetzul Maros-Torda are istorie magyara. pe baza istoriei, tot teritoriul Romaniei are istorie magyara, turca, austriaca, rusa, bulgara, cumana, nici un editor al wikipediei nu se kinuie sa mentioneze numele turcesc al nici unei diviziuni administrative a Romaniei. Criztu 09:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

daca vorbim de procente semnificative sau majoritate locala in judetzul Harghita, atunci ar trebui sa vorbim si despre folosirea in procent semnificativ sau majoritar a numelui magyar al judetzului Harghita de catre statul roman. Criztu 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uitete si tu, nici un editor care mentioneaza numele magyar al unei localitati din teritoriul care a fost sub autoritate a statului magyar in trecut nu se kinuie sa mentioneze numele magyar al Bucurestiului, desi traiesc magyari in Bucuresti.

Da, dar în Bucureşti minoritatea maghiară nu este semnificativă, fiind că românii compun peste 96% din populaţie. În judeţele maghiare, este acelaşi lucru, minoritatea română ne fiind foarte mare. Dar, dacă te uiţi la paginile despre oraşe ungare de pe hu.wiki, cele cu semnificaţie petru români au toate numele românesc. Aici este vb doar despre Mureş, Covasna şi Harghita, unde magharii sunt ori foarte semnificativi ori majoritari. Îmi poţi oferi un exemplu unde o grupul majoritar al unei entităţi administrative nu îşi are numele nativ listat? Judeţele Harghita şi Covasna sunt diferite de Bretagne fiind că în Harghita şi Covasna, limba maghiară este limba majoritară, şi este recunoscută oficial în judeţ, de marea majoritate a localităţilor. Aceste nume maghiare sunt folosite şi de emisiunile TVR în limba maghiară. Dar, uite de exemplu că la Cornwall este listat şi numele în kernewek ("cornish"), deşi este vorbită de foarte puţini şi nu are statut oficial. În plus, vezi că la ro:Bretania, este trecut şi numele breton şi gallo. Am ales după aceea cinci alte Wikipedii, aşa "random": vezi pl:Bretania, de:Bretagne, sv:Bretagne, et:Bretagne şi ka:ბრეტანი. Toate în afară de cea estonă includ şi numele breton, unele includ şi numele în gallo, altă limbă regională.

Ronline ✉ 10:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cele 5 editzii straine ale wikipediei consider ca sunt traduceri ale versiunilor succesive engleze, fara prea mare discernamant. Criztu 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vorbejti despre minoritate etnica majoritara intro diviziune administrativa care ar justifica un nume alternativ al acelei etnii pt respectiva diviziune, cred ca este eronata tratarea in felul acesta. Diviziunile administrative ale romaniei au acelasi statut pe tot teritoriul tarii. Mures este administrat de statul roman prin cetatzenii sai de orice etnie, nu este administrat de magyari pentru statul roman. O minoritate etnica de pe teritoriul romaniei are acelashi statut in orice diviziune administrativa a romaniei. magyarii din Mures nu au alte drepturi decat magyarii din Ialomita, indiferent de numarul lor. consider necesara gasirea unei conventzii incontestabile pentru folosirea numelui alternativ magyar in wikipedia, pentru lucruri care se afla pe teritoriul Romaniei. Criztu 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

imi poti indica vreo neclaritate, sau vreo tratare nedreapta a Bretonilor in cele 2 articole despre Bretagne din wikipedia franceza ? este modelul pe care cred ca trebuie sa il adopte si articolele de pe wikipedia engleza si romaneasca. Criztu 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da, problema este că numele nativ al regiunii - Breizh - nu este listat, deci asta este o informaţie în minus, nu? Deci eu nu cred că este un model bun. Şi eu consider aceasta o tratere nedreaptă, poate chiar un expanionism francez asupra culturii locale bretone. Situaţia română este bineînţeles un pic diferită, dar nu mult. Secuii trăiesc pe pământul lor natal şi sunt majoritate, deci există o implicaţie de expansionism românesc, dintr-un punct de vedere.

Ronline ✉ 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

numele Breizh este listat in articolul Bretagne din wikipedia franceza. vorbejti despre un nume nativ pentru un nume al unei diviziuni administrative. cred ca pui discutzia pe o directie gresita. pamant natal iarasi duce discutia in directie fara legatura cu o conventzie asupra inmplicatziilor oferirii unui nume alternativ in lead paragraph. nu poti acuza Britannica de expansionism romanesc, iar Britannica foloseste conventzia la care vreau sa aliniem si noi articolele despre Romania Criztu 12:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

situaia din Cornwall nu are implicatiile pe care le are situatia din Mures. Nu exista un stat Cornish vs. o etnie cornish in statul England asa cum exista un stat Magyarorszag vs. etnie magyara in Romania. situatia e mai degraba similara cu o etnie daca in judetul Hunedoara in statul Romania(la ultimul recensamant sau declarat daci nu stiu ce nr de Deveni) Criztu 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Şi dece statutul este schimbat numai pentru că cornezii sunt "stateless"? Dacă un judeţ din România ar avea o populaţie 40% sau 60% (r)romă, ai accepta ca numele în limba romani să fie inclus, numai pentru că nu există un "stat rom vs. o etnie romă în statul România"? (by the way, statul England nu există ca şi stat propriu-zis, ne având administraţie devoluată). Cât cu etnia dacă, aici ai menţionat un punct interesant, deşi nu ştiu cât de relevant. Aceşti daci au fost număraţi ca "români" sau ca "altă etnie"? Întotdeauna am vrut să ştiu acest lucru, mai ales că au fost argumente despre existenţei unei "etnii moldoveneşti" la nişte articole. Dacă o persoană se declară "dac", "ardelean" sau "moldovean", este automat inclus ca "român"? Mulţumesc,

Ronline ✉ 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu as ridica nici o obiectzie daca numele pe care il folosesc magyarii sau romii pentru o diviziune administrativa a Romaniei ar fi trecut in paragraful in care se vorbeste despre populatia acelei diviziuni. Dar in cazul mentionarii numelui magyar sau romales ca nume alternativ al acelei diviziuni in lead paragrraph consider ca sugereaza un statut diferentziat al acelei diviziuni fatza de restul diviziunilor administrative ale Romaniei. in cazul in care Cornish people fatza de England nu au acelash statut ca Moldovenii fatza de Romania, as putea sami explic prezentza acelui nume alternativ in limba Cornish in lead paragraph al articolului Cornwall ca pe o lipsa de contributori interesatzi de calitatea enciclopedica a acelui articol. Criztu 14:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

standardul la care vreau sa aliniez articolele despre tot ce tzine de ROmania este Enciclopedia Britannica, iar nu un articol de pe wikipedia care nu are garantzie a calitatzii sale enciclopedice Criztu 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

points:

1.)consider ca mentionarea in lead paragraph a numelui alternativ magyar pt o diviziune administrativa (ex Mures county) a Romaniei are implicatzii politico-legale si poate fi contestata. Criztu 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.)consider ca mentionarea in sectiunea Population of Mures county (sau alta sectiune) a numelui alternativ magyar pt aceasta diviziune administrativa a Romaniei nu are nici o implicatie politica legala si nu poate fi contestata. Criztu 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unde există această politică? În afară de articolele despre ţări, n-aş crede că un nume alternativ are neapărat implicaţii politico-legale. Dacă ar avea, atunci dece sunt foarte multe oraşe (vezi Vienna) care oferă nume alternativ fără absolut nicio implicaţie politico-legală (de ex, romii nu au nici un statut politico-legal în Viena).

Ronline ✉ 13:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

implicatzia politica este data de sugestia de administratzie impartita de statul roman cu minoritatea magyara a unei diviziuni administrative a Romaniei prin mentionarea numelui magyar al respectivei diviziuni in lead paragraph ca nume alternativ pt acea diviziune. nu contest mentionarea in orice limba a numelor oraselor din romania in orice limba, contest neutralitatea asocierii unei minoritatzi etnice din Romania cu o diviziune administrativa a Romaniei Criztu 13:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Această sugestie ar fi reală numai dacă numele maghiar ar fi echivalent cu cel român - de exemplu, dacă nu ar fi scris în paranteze, sau dacă "infobox-ul" de judeţ ar include şi numele maghiar direct sub cel român (de exemplu, vezi cum este la Oradea, unde şi RO şi HU sunt limbi oficiale). Fiind că minoritatea maghiară din Mureş este semnificativă, şi cea din Covasna şi Harghita au majoritate, este normal să fie asociate cu judeţele respective. Aici nu este vorba de conceptul de judeţ într-un sens strict legal-politic, dar şi demografic. Numele maghiar în paranteze - evident nume alternativ, secundar - nu implică administraţia împărţită între statul român şi minoritatea maghiară, deşi în realitate judeţele Covasna şi Harghita sunt administrate de majoritatea maghiară prin simplul fapt că consiliile locale sunt compuse majoritar de etnic-maghiari, şi după câte ştiu şi prefectul din Covasna este maghiar. Dar, în orice caz, includerea numelui acolo nu face implicaţie politică, în acelaşi fel cum numele romani la Vienna sau numele sârbesc la Eger nu fac implicaţie politică.

Ronline ✉ 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ce spui tu ar fi corect daca nu sar face confuzia cu conventzia pe care am exemplificato in cazul riului Mures. Britannica listeaza riul Mures cu nume alternativ Maros. asta inseamna ca riul Mures este impartzit de Ungaria si Romania. Britanica nu listeaza numele ucrainean sau turcesc sau sarbesc al riului Mures pt ca acele tzari nu impart riul Mures cu ROmania. Criztu 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dar de ce propunerea de la punctul 2) pe modelul articolului despre diviziunea administrativa a Frantei, Bretagne nu ar fi acceptabila ? este ceva contestabil in aceasta forma pe care o propun ? Criztu 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vezi răspunsul meu de mai sus.

Ronline ✉ 14:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inca o data, judetzele HarCov sunt administrate de Romania prin cetatzenii sai de orice etnie. judetzele HarCov nu sunt administrate de etnia magyara in partaj cu Romania Criztu 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criztu, sunt de acord cu ceea ce a scris Ronline mai sus: atât localităţile, cât şi zonele care sunt locuite acum de unele minorităţi etnice (cu un procent mai mare de 10-20%, să zicem), ar trebui să aibă numele alternativ (în limba folosită de minoritatea respectivă) menţionat în articolul respectiv. Un judeţ nu este doar o unitate administrativă, ci reprezintă şi o anumită zonă geografică. Atâta timp cât populaţia din acele zone foloseşte şi acest nume pentru a se referi la zona respectivă, ar trebui ca articolul să menţioneze şi numele alternativ. Aici nu e vorba de numele istoric, nu are importanţă dacă în trecut zona respectivă a avut o altă administraţie, mă refer doar la faptul că numele respectiv este folosit în prezent de o proporţie semnificativă din locuitorii acelei zone. Razvan Socol 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sa nu fiu intzeles gresit. io nu propun inlaturarea numelui magyar al judetului Mures din articol, ci doar din lead paragraph si amplasarea sa in sectiunea in care se vorbeste despre minoritatea magyara, dupa modelul existent in wikipedia franceza (Bretagne (region administrative) si Bretagne historique, si in Britannica (judetul mures nu cred ca necesita separarea in doua articole, deci ar avea o forma colapsata) anume, lead paragraph sa contzina informatzii clare, neinterpretabile, care respecta o conventzie clara despre un lucru. ex.

Targu Mures is the capital of Mures County, in central Romania

Geography

The city lies in the valley of Mures river in the Transylvanian Plateau at the base of the Eastern Carpathians etc.

History

First mentioned in historic documents as Marosvasarhely by the magyars [...] a city of Transylvania, a city of Habsburg empire [...] a city of Hungarian kingdom

Population

Mures county has a population ... etc. Ehnic Hungarians reffer to it as Maros. etc.

the following convention exists in Britannica about river Mures

Mures (in romanian; Maros in hungarian;) is a river in south-central Europe, rising in Romania (etc.) and flowing into Tisza in Hungary. this means Romania and Hungary share authority over Mures river.

Targu Mures (romanian; Marosvasarhely in hungarian) is a city in Mures county in central Romania. i am not entirely sure about the convention in this case, i supose it is "Marosvasarhely appears in documents of recent history, and is kept as legacy name

Mures county is situated in north-central Romania, area ... capital Targu Mures. this means Mures county is solely administrated by Romania.

asta inseamna ca Mures este impartit fizic si administrativ de romania cu ungaria. daca lead paragraph in articolul despre judetul Mures ar avea aceeasi forma, conform conventziei pe care o vad io aplicata de Britannica ar insemna ca judetul Mures este impartit fizic/administrativ de romania cu ungaria. acest lucru il contest io Criztu 07:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hai sa plecam de la o conventzie deja folosita de Britannica, si sa demonstram de ce ar fi necesara mentionarea in lead paragraph a numelui magyar al judetzului Mures, si nu ar fi satisfacatoare in sectiunea in care se vorbeste de etnia minoritara magyara care traieste in judetul Mures. Criztu 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cred că numele alternative trebuie să fie în secţiunea introductivă a articolului (înainte de cuprins). Nu neapărat în primul paragraf al secţiunii introductive (e bine şi în primul paragraf, dar e bine şi în următoarele, atât timp cât e înainte de cuprins). Razvan Socol 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cred ca numele alternative in limba magyara/romales/germana/turca/italiana/etc a oricarui lucru care nu e impartzit de Romania cu alt stat sau nu are o forma de autonomie trebuie oferit in articol in paragraful in care este vorba despre minoritatea etnica magyara/romales/germana/turca conectata la acel lucru. io am dat ca exemplu de conventie enciclopedica Britannica. Britannica ofera numele alternativ magyar al riului Mures in lead paragraph, ofera numele alternativ magyar al orasului Targu Mures in lead paragraph, dar nu ofera numele alternativ magyar al diviziunii administrative a statului Romania, Mures, in lead paragraph. nu poate fi acuzata Britannica de nationalism roman. Criztu 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Din alt punct de vedere, ar trebui să remarcăm că cei care vorbesc breton sunt 10%-17% din populaţia regiunii Bretagne (300.000-500.000 din 2.906.197), în timp ce ponderea populaţiei maghiare din judeţul Mureş este de 39.3%. Razvan Socol 08:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conventia este urmatoarea, din nou :"orice nume alternativ in limba magyara si romana pt un lucru in lead paragraph semnifica ca respectivul lucru are statut impartit intre romania si ungaria. Riul Mures e impartit intre romania si ungaria, pe cand judetul Mures nu e impartzit nici fizic nici administrativ intre romania si ungaria" e atat de simplu. nu poate nimeni acuza pe nimeni de nationalism roman daca numele alternativ magyar al oricarui lucru (in acest caz o diviziune administrativa a statului roman) care nu se afla sub autoritatea statului magyar este trecut in articol in paragraful in care se vorbeste despre minoritatea etnica magyara Criztu 11:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

consider ca Britannica pastreaza numele magyar alternativ al Targu Mures ori ca legacy (multe documente recente cu numele Marosvasarhely) ori pt ca exista o conventie internationala ca localitatile cu minoritate etnica relevanta (peste 20%) sa aiba nume alternativ in limba acelei minoritati Criztu 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French Wiki

I looked at the 2. Neither has a Breton name cited. And Brittany (modern) is a region of France and as the fr Wiki says: "La France étant un État unitaire, les régions n'ont pas d'autonomie législative ni réglementaire." Simply put, in English, Regions aren't autonomous, nevertheless in the English Wiki, I would expect the Breton name in the modern article, and whatever equivalent there may have been in the historical one. Carlossuarez46 21:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article about administrative division of France, Bretagne, has no breton alternative name. the article about historic region of France, Bretagne, u can see the Breton alternative name of Bretagne in the paragraph about the population of Bretagne : - from [Bretagne_historique : - Ses habitants sont les Bretons, que l'on parle de la nation historique ou de la région administrative actuelle. Son nom breton, Breizh (sans article),... if u'd expect the Breton name in the article about Bretagne administritative region, there is no breton name, if u'd expect the Breton name in the article about Bretagne historical region, it is there, with plenty details, but not in the lead paragraph, as Bretagne is not share by France with a Breton state. this is the model i am in favour of. Romania is a national state as France is a national state, no administrative division of Romania has autonomy as France has no autonomous region. mentioning the magyar name of an administrative division of Romania has its place in the population paragraph not in the lead. Criztu 21:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sallut

As vrea sa te rog sa te implici si tu in articolele Minority groups in Greece si Hellenization (vezi history pentru detalii), si daca vrei sa participi in proiectul grupul roman pentru initiativa electronica (mai multe detalii despre asta mai incolo) 10:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Critzu, in stilul asta o sa fii cat de curand blocat indef pentru ca esti un sock de`al lui Bonaparte. Asa e pe Wikipedia: daca contributiile tale nu se incadreaza in "sablonul" userilor si moderatorilor greci, filogreci, sau rusi, atunci esti pierdut. Nu conteaza ca checkuserul arata ca nu esti Bonaparte. Ei se ghideaza dupa politica "if the pattern repeats, than there is no need for Checkuser". Te rog sa nu ma consideri ultranationalist sau şovin. Nationalist sunt: cred intradevar ca "each nation is entitled to its own state.". Acum vreo luna, userul Telex avea scris pe userpage cum ca el ar fi un "cosmopolitan": ce ipocrit!!! Eu sunt cu adevarat cosmopolitan, nu ultranationalistii aia greci, pentru care sulioţii, armânii, arvaniţii, bulgarii (pe care-i numesc "slavofoni": ce aberaţie, ce nesimţire), sărăcăcianii, etc, sunt toti de fapt greci care trebuiesc, (citez) "re-hellenizati" (inchei citatul). Si cand vine vorba de romani, aceasi useri greci (ex. Telex), au viziuni diferite despre romani: ba ca sunt "vlahi din Serbia", ba ca sunt "Moldoveni", etc. Sunt orice numai romani nu. Si nu se opresc aici: cand vine vorba de Transnistria, "moldovenii" inceteaza sa mai fie "moldoveni", ci devin deodata "imperialisti romani"... Ehh... as putea vorbi mult despre asta... Greier 10:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Eu incerc sa aliniez Wikipedia la conventiile Britannica. Wikipedia a fost construita plecand de la Britannica 1911. obsolete information from Britannica 1911 sa perpetuat in paginile despre Romania, cum ar fi, impartirea romaniei in regiunile Transylvania Valachia and Moldavia. From my own experience on wikipedia stiu ca e greu sa scapi de efectul "propagandei", acum un an nu concepeam ca Romas ar trebui trecuti ca Romas si nu ca Gypsies in Demographics paragraph in articolele despre ROmania, la fel de greu e si pentru contributori care nu cunosc Britannica sa intzeleaga standardele encyclopedice, in orice caz nu voi fi banat pentru ca respect standardele Britannica Criztu 10:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu fi asa de sigur de ce se poate intampla. Eu am fost bannat permanent ca find Bonaparte pentru ca am adaugat ghilimele la vlach language de la articolul Vlachs of Serbia. E clar ca limba e romana, ca se cheama rumanesce (accent banatean)/ rumaneshte (accent oltenesc), dar asta nu conta pentru userii sarbi si greci... Dar eu despre altceva voiam sa-ti vorbesc: despre grupul roman de initiativa electronica (cred ca numele spune totul...) 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Incerc sa stabilesc o conventie despre articolele despre ROmania. dupa aceea voi incerca sa stabilesc o conventzie despre articolele despre Romanii din afara Romaniei. va dura catziva ani pe Wikipedia, dar asta e Criztu 11:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De ce sa dureze? Si cum crezi ca o vei face? Singur? Singur, pentru ca pana atunci, cei care te`ar putea ajuta vor fi de mult plecat/bannati. Cu aj. adminolor romani? Ma indoiesc... cu exceptia lui Bogdan care se mai implica din cand in cand si da un revert la editarile ultranationaliste grecesti, ceilalti admini sunt la cules... Cand esti singur, o sa fii blocat pentru 3RR, pentru asa zis vandalism, o sa ai de luptat contra haitei te utilizatori greci, etc... Oricum, faci ce vrei... Shi deci sa inteleg ca nu te intereseaza grie? 11:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

multumesc ca miai spus de acel user banat, intzeleg ca as putea fi banat de admini rau intentionatzi, hmmzz..., Acum un an am fost in situatia de 3RR, si am fost atentionat de un admin. probabil ca in cele din urma wikipedia se va duce de rapa, dar pt mine e un exercitiu bun deocamdata. ma uit kiar acum pe articolele respective, voi contribui atat cat ma pricep (ma pricep mai mult la a identifica propaganda) Criztu 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

te mai intreb o data: te intereseaza grie? da sau nu? pana raspunzi, poti sa verifici ca ce vorbeam se intampla: aici greier 11:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Te rog sa dai revert [1]. Mersi 12:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Roma

Cuvintele "Roma" şi "Rroma" nu au plural în limba engleză, deci formele "Romas" şi "Rromas" nu există sau nu sunt corecte. "Rroma" deasemenea este incorect în limba engleză, fiind folosită această formă doar în limba română (unde şi acolo este dezcurajată). Deci, în engleză se foloseşte "Roma" ca plural - the "Roma people", "Roma make up 2.5% of the population". Ronline ✉ 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania

Hi.

saying "Transylvania was principality, then province of the Hungarian kgdom, of the Habsburg Empire, vassal to the Ottoman Empire, one year under authority of wallachian ruler Michael the Brave, then back to Habsburgs and Hungary, then proclaimed union by Romanian council of Transylvania in 1918 ratified by Treaty of Trianon in 1920" shouldnt be NPOV or anything wrong with it.

I have answered on the talk page. Also, I need to to add two things: you have stated on the talk page that Transylvania was independent before being part of Hungary - it was not, and was only remotely autonomous until the Ottomans set it free (btw, this implies that Ottoman rule is already covered by the statement "principality"); Michael the Brave not only had a brief rule (which is more than covered by the history section), he also did not challenge Transylvania's existance as a principality (did not annex it, just ruled it - and ruled it without much savoir-faire, if you ask me) - if you consider that, in fact, Wallachia was ruled by his son in his name, all the "unity" established by Mihai begins to sound altogether mythical.

I know what the situation of Transylvania was before Stephen the Saint. added another point in the "Convetion about Transylvania" where i said "ROmanians may not be aware of the history of Transylvania outside romanian history and Hungarians aware of the history of Transylvania outside hungarian history". I dont want anything being censured in the article. the rule of Michael the Brave and the 1918 proclamation have a major significance in romanian history, so these points must be included in the lead, altho my formulation may have imperfections. I dont think i implied Transylvania united with Wallachia and Moldova by saying "Michael brought Transylvania under his authority" Criztu 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they both fail to answer to the very fact: sovereignty (which is what the common denominator of events ennumerated in the first line is and should remain). I'm not going to argue Mihai's lack of significance, I am going to state the obvious again: his rule did not signify anything for Transylvania's sovereignty, lest a brief episode of Habsburg overlordship (which he himself botched) - ennumerating all such twists and turns in the Habsburg-Ottoman Wars would be sensless, especially since Mihai's rule is adequately presented in the History section and the (still chaotic and partly abhorrent) History of Transylvania one. Dahn 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see the lead paragraph of Transylvania ? should there be mentioned only Kgdom of Hungary and Habsburgs ? should the formulation be "was conquered by.." or "was given to.." ? I want to have a lead paragraph of Transylvania that would be balanced. perhaps using Britannica as a guide would be a solution ?

I like the form I last left it in. The revelatory moment regarding Transylvania's union with Romania remains the Treaty of Trianon, and not Alba Iulia (for reasons I have specified on the talk page). The verb, I believe, is "awarded" - both accurate and NPOV (may I add: if the union was less elegant for not being in fact the creation of the Alba Iulia group, it still would not make the Romanian cause less or more right - let us state facts, and not interpretations).

again, Proclamation of Unification of Transylvania with ROmania in 1918 ratified by Trianon 1920 is a significant romanian history moment. Trianon 1920 taken Transyvlania from Hungary (i think this is how hungarian history view) is a significant hungarian history moment. so having both reflects both sides views. I will object to formulations "awarded to, given to, annexed by" Romania, as they are formulations regarding ROmania. i will not object to formulations "was taken from, separated from, etc" Hungary, as they are formulations regarding Hungary Criztu 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again: the Romanian view was, at the time (and not in bombastic retrospect), that Romania had taken Transylvania, and that this had been confirmed by the Treaty of Trianon. Romania's government (not Hungary's) dissolved the Directory Council at gunpoint. Dahn 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a balanced way of writing the lead paragraph of Transylvania. I am prepared to discuss the matter on Transylvania talk page until everything is sorted out.

I believe the current is the balanced way.

I think a balanced way should express hungarian view of Transylvania in relation with Hungary, and romanian view of Transylvania in relation with Hungary. as u can see, i never touched the sections "Transylvania during Habsburgs" (btw i was expecting a "Transylvania during kgdom of Hungary" so i can put the info "Administrative divisions of Hungary" there, but couldnt find such section) where there are no subjects relating Transylvania to Romania Criztu 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why would that be necessary? Who is otherwise in peril of believing that the Habsburg Monarchy still exists (lest it be made clear)? Dahn 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope u dont see "romanians proclaimed union with Romania" an insignificant moment in the history of Transylvania, and I dont think anyone would support formulations like "Transylvania was given to Romania" on wikipedia. I invite u present your reasons to such formulations.

Just above. About the significance of the moment: it suffices to say that, for all the importance I am prepared to give it, three successive Bucharest premiers and a king did not give a shit about it at the time. Dahn 10:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article refers to contemporary Transylvania. as of 2006, the 1918 moment is regarded as significant by romanian history. that a man like a king or a premier or a wikipedia editor dont realise the significance of historic events, that still doesnt alter how the romanian history treats that historic event Criztu 10:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant in a schematic review of past sovereignties. It should stand as self-evident that the legitimate government of Romania did not recognize the bodies elected in Alba Iulia as legitimate (I'm not ggoing to argue that they were in any way right). The significance is not at all elluded in the history section: when I'll have the will to go through these articles (Transylvania and History of Transylvania) properly, I'll add more relevant info about all these things, so we stop using relative terms - just now, I tend to get sick at the ammount of nationalism invested in the latter article. Dahn 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let us please continue this conversation on the Talk:Transylvania page. Dahn 11:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Havas

It seems I forgot to respond to you on this one, sorry. "Havas" literally means "snowy", you got it right, but the same word is also used to denote certain high-lying areas (probably the word took this meaning because such areas tend to be snowy in winter, I'd guess). I remembered having heard the word "Havasalföld", but I wasn't sure what it referred to until I read the lead in hu:Havasalföld. That article says that "Havasalföld" denotes the same area as Ţara Românească, sometimes including Dobrogea. It also says that Ţara Românească = Muntenia, though I guess it's rather Muntenia + Oltenia, isn't it? K issL 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has sent for the cabal!

A Mediation Cabal case in which you are named as a participant has been opened. Please read and participate at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania. Your friendly cabalist, Stifle (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mai esti?--Eliade 16:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania mediation

Unfortunately, I am going to be taking a wikibreak soon and will not be able to continue the mediation any further. You may have to find some one else to finish it. However, I can make these remarks on the topic abstractedly:

You must always cite references, and if somebody opposes your verified view on the matter, and they cannot back it up, then their claims are dissmissable.
To give an accurate, NPOV, you must give both sides of the coin - contraversial views must be included somewhere.
And most importantly, the head section is a summary and should not go into great detail on subjects - it should say what is widely accepted and no mention should be made on trivial ans specualatory subjects.

Hope that helps you. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo

Bravo, I take a bow: you are now officilly "holier than thou". And what else do you have hunches about? That you can spell English? That you can cut out professional references and rename all Wallachian rulers "Basarab"? That you can remove the alternative names of all possible subdivisions? Great, son. Now, onwards, spread thine obscurities for the benefit of all mankind. Btw, I'd appreciate if you spam your own page in the future. Dahn 21:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it wasnt me that put Basarab after Vlad III Criztu 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the bleeding fuck was it, then? I find no reference to him under this "name" other than totally obscure or biased ones. Not to mention that, in any event, the legitimacy of its use is wishful thinking - the only princes to use "Basarab" after their names lived in the 1500s-1600s, and did so only because they were not Basarabs at all (just pretended to be). Dahn 22:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

What's the big deal with historical names, anyways? Has it ever occured to you that the names are actually helpful? Adding them doesn't make the counties "less Romanian". Rather, it provides the reader with more information. I don't get what the problem is. —Khoikhoi 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungarian name should not be hidden below, it should be at the top. We don't have to do everything that Britannica does... —Khoikhoi 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

u should have no problem with mentioning the name that the hungarian minority uses for administrative divisions of ROmania in the paragraph where mention to hungarian minority is given, but i have a problem with considering them as alternative names of administrative divisions of ROmania, when no modern english source use them, and when there is no legacy name for them. When Britannica will provide them as alternative names then i will have no objection to provide them on wikipedia as alternative names. Criztu 22:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not hear what I just said? "The Hungarian name should not be hidden below, it should be at the top." Here's one English source for you:

Baia Mare is in Maramures (in Hungarian, 'Máramaros') County of Romania.

Britannica does a lot of things that Wikipedia doesn't. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles that aren't in Britannica. I don't really understand your points Criztu.... —Khoikhoi 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hungarian name for the english city of London, there are plenty of hungarians living in England, yet there is no alternative hungarian name for the city of London provided by any encyclopedia (except the hungarian encyclopedias). there is no hungarian name for London in an encyclopedia other than hungarian one due to the conventions about alternative names, which i think are as follow:

a geographical place is shared by two states, it has two alternative names; otherwise an encyclopedia retains only the name it is known in the country that administrates that geographical place.

a city of a state has been administrated by other state in history, then the city has a legacy name in the language of the other state, and a current name in the language of the state the city belongs to; otherwise, an encylcopedia retains only the current name, that of the state the city belongs to.

an administrative division of a country does not have alternate name, even if the physical teritory of that administrative division had been under the administration of another state, and even if that administrative division has a significant ethnic minority unless that ethnic minority has autonomous teritorial status Criztu 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there's a big difference between London and say... Satu Mare County. The former was never part of Hungary, the latter was (and for 1000s of years!). Secondly, the conventions that you listed are essentially your own invention. You must accept that the majority of Wikipedians seem to disagree with you on this matter. Who says (besides you) that counties that do not have autonomous status cannot list the Hungarian names? What I want to know is why this is such a big issue. :( —Khoikhoi 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to dismiss the expertise of Britannica and the conventions of the encyclopedias. if you have the intention of keeping Wikipedia an encyclopedia, you will have to understand the naming conventions Criztu 22:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I fail to understand is your logic. And it's not what I want, it's what everyone but you wants. It appears that you won't be able to be convinced, however. —Khoikhoi 22:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Britannica as a guide, as i am sure Britannica has expertise in this matter, and since Wikipedia uses a similar naming convention as Britannica, with the observation Wikipedia Naming Convention Guide is still ambiguous and leaves place for interpretation Criztu 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I'm talking about is this: You say we should follow Britannica because it doesn't give the Hungarian names for Romanian counties. The article about Mount Ararat doesn't mention the Armenian name, so should we delete it from the Wikipedia article? Do you see what I'm saying? —Khoikhoi 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, your reason for providing the names by which hungarians refer to administrative divisions of Romania as alternative names seem to be "big difference between London and say... Satu Mare County. The former was never part of Hungary, the latter was (and for 1000s of years!)". i disagree with this aproach to an encyclopedia Criztu 23:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that another factor is that Satu Mare County has a large Hungarian minority.... —Khoikhoi 23:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania has a large Hungarian minority, yet it doesnt have a Hungarian alternative name in any encyclopedia except Hungarian language encyclopedias Criztu 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So because no other encyclopedia does it Wikipedia shouldn't either? —Khoikhoi 06:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because no other encyclopedia provides it as alternative name in the lead paragraph, its place is in other sections of the wikiarticle, i see it best fit to the paragraph dealing with hungarian minority in Romania. Criztu 06:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see u make efforts in mentioning the hungarian names of administrative divisions of Romania as alternative names, yet i see no effort from u in doing the same with the romanian names of administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary. Criztu 06:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So bascially you believe that the Hungarian name should be mentioned in the article, but it should be in a place where it is difficult to find it, and is not helpful to the reader at all. Answer my question to you about Mount Ararat: Should we remove the Armenian name from that article? —Khoikhoi 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an english encyclopedia. It helps the English reader. Britannica, Encarta are english encyclopedias. They have expertise, they cant be accused of "hiding" information, i use them as guide. A Geographical name does not provide information on Demographics or Ethnicity of a population, wikipedia does not say "Mount Ararat is a mountain in Turkey, 10000 people live in the area, 5% armenians" Criztu 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do I even have to answer the second thing you said? How long was present-day Hungary part of Romania? What is the % of Romanians there, past and present (in it's current borders). —Khoikhoi 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think u should understand the use of alternative names and the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia does not offer information based on percentage of a population or the period of time a teritory spent under administration of a particular state. It offers information based on contemporary realities and usages, meaning an english traveler to Romania will have an english map with the name Mures county, not an english map with the name Maros County. Yet there will be a River Mures in Romania, and the same river will have the name Maros as alternate where the river enters Hungary. there simply are no alternative names for the administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary(except the dual monarchy period perhaps), likewise there simply are no alternative names for the administrative divisions of Romania(except when Romania would become a multinational state, or a particular division aquires teritorial ethnic autonomy). Criztu 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have just defined the word chauvinism. Congratulations. —Khoikhoi 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have just defined the word Anti-Romanian. Congratulations. Bonaparte.

Bravo Criztu! Bonaparte te sustine si la fel si patria! --203.109.33.34 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lupta in continuare!

Congrats also on your new supporter. ;) —Khoikhoi 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trianon and Banat

Ok, move my comment if you want. Also, regarding your changes in Banat article, difference between terms "geographical" and "historical" is that all geographical regions exist now (and Banat exist today as geographical region), while historical regions existed in the past, but they do not exist any more. Thus, the Banat article speak about geographical region, while Banat of Temeswar about historical one. This term "historical" is too much used on Wikipedia in completelly wrong sense. Even the Transylvania article is about geographical region, and there certainly should be separate article named Principality of Transylvania that speak about historical one. PANONIAN (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No

If we want to go by Britannica we should also remove the Armenian name from Mount Ararat, right? Answer me that. —Khoikhoi 18:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I answered to you on that Criztu 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hand't noticed. My point is that all Armenians that live near Ararat are in Armenia, not Turkey. Therefore it's not an issue of present-day population, but historical population...and yet we have the Armenian name right up there! :( —Khoikhoi 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you dismiss Britannica naming convention regarding administrative divisions of states. the hungarian names for places entirely administrated by Romania are not alternative names. U dont seem to understand the concept of statal "Sovereignty" and the respect of it Criztu 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're using a logic that doesn't make sense. Let me give you another example. Look at the Britannica article on Udine. It gives no mention of the Friulian and Slovenian names, yet we have them in the Wikipedia article because they're helpful. That's why I don't understand you when you say "we should follow Britannica". —Khoikhoi 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia lacks explicit Naming Conventions does not make Britannica less expert in encyclopedical conventions Criztu 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have complete respect for Romanian sovereignty over Transylvania. However, these names are useful and...aw forget it. What's the point anyways in discussing this? —Khoikhoi 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These names may be useful, but they are not alternative names, they are simply hungarian names, as Londra is the romanian name of London, not the alternative name of London Criztu 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cluj

I've replied on my Talk. Also, it's rather foolish to refer to a RfA to back you up when it seems things are going rather badly for you there. CRCulver 18:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names in Romania

You have already been explained that alternative names are encyclopedic information and its deletion borders with vandalism. If you don't like the names placed side by side suggesting equivalent usage, please take a look how I changed Satu Mare County. `'mikka (t) 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names

Hello Criztu! I see you have removed the name of Timiş county in other languages from the Timiş county article. Your reason was that "Hungarian and Serbian and Bulgarian names are not alternate names in English sources". You are right. It is though not totally uninteresting to mention somewhere in the article (not necessarly on the first line) that Timiş is written/spelled differently in other languages. Just for the sake of information. Timiş is Romanian and will always be. Similarly you can mention in the Budapest article that the Romanian spelling of the city is Budapesta, even if this is the English version of the encyclopaedia and "Romanian names of Hungarian cities are not alternate names in English sources". I am a Romanian from Timişoara and I don't find the name variants of Timiş particularly bothering. I hope my opinions are objective, and if you think they're not or if my commnents seem offensive to you, please accept my appologies. Tavilis 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmz, i think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) proposal provides a procedure to listing the different spellings and names of a place "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Relevant foreign language names[3] are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative namesNames). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." Criztu 21:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria

În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul Willian Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) http://0.bypass-filter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZGx1Y2FzLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8yMDA2LzA4L2dvdGNoYS0yLmh0bWw%3D

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"--MariusM 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC(GN)

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Votaţi împotriva cenzurii

Împreună cu EvilAlex (un tip din Tighina - Transnistria) am creat un articolul Heaven of Transnistria despre propaganda regimului de la Tiraspol. I s-a cerut ştergerea. Vă rog ajutaţi-ne să păstrăm articolul, votînd contra ştergerii [2]. Destul a fost şters din articolul principal Transnistria, Wikipedia e plină de propagandă a Tiraspolului, să avem măcar un articol care explică această propagandă--MariusM 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dude

I am from Arizona but I live on land stolen from the Native Americans. It always felt natural, did not even think much about it. Why can't you admit the same is true in Erdély, I mean the Hungarians were there first, you stole their land. We Americans admit, I mean enough of constructing Dacia-Roman lies and pretending you have a history.

Reading that you reside in Arizona, it is obvious that you are an American, hence stupid. So, how about some reading, and learn to spell the name of TRANSILVANIA. And then read some EUROPEAN history, something eleste than Roesler. --ES Vic (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong!

Wrong about trolling your user page! Look again, genius; I reverted an anonymous IP user who was vandalizing your page. But when I think about it, you probably deserve it. You are an ass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypothetical BS (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Roumanians more.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Roumanians more.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. ww2censor (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

I believe that Hutzuls, Transylvanian Saxons, and even Szeklers etc. do not have a common origin, culture, history, etc. with the Romanians, thus they are same nation. But, let's say I am wrong and you are right. Why did you revert some other changes I made, like data on ethnicity for Moldova (which I updated from 1989 to 2004), and me moving 1 sentence from third to first paragraph? That has nothing to do with the definitions of "nation".Dc76\^talk 07:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Medal gauntlet.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Medal gauntlet.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceva

Salut, am ceva de zis dincolo. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI notice

See Wikipedia:ANI#Disruptive_edits.2C_nationalistic_POV_pushing.2C_removal_of_references_and_edit_war. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

In English names like Romanians, Hungarians, French are capitalized, please make an effort to follow the convention. man with one red shoe 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, try to make an effort in your edits, it's "Dacians" not "dacians", it's "82 BC" not "82BC", don't force others to clean after you. man with one red shoe 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear hungarian person, do not feel forced to clean after me. there are over 9000!!! editors on Wikipedia whom u can clean after. Criztu (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imi place pagina ta

Si imi plac paginile despre Dacia si istoria Romaniei la care ai lucrat.

Am lucrat si eu la cetatile dacice.

Vad ca nu e usor cu unii aici pe Wikipedia cand e vorba de istorie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codrinb (talk • contribs) 21:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e groaznic, n-are nici un viitor wikipedia Criztu (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dacian names

I saw the article you created with the List of Dacian names. That is a great archaeological discovery, but the article needs citations or others might challenge and delete it like is happening with the Dacian script now... Do you happen to have that book?--Codrin.B (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Dacia

This user helped promote Roman Dacia to good article status.

Well done. It would be worth the time and effort to put in the page numbers on the cites - but that's not really a GA issue, so that doesn't hold up the pass. SilkTork *^YES! 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Development regions of Romania

A tag has been placed on Template:Development regions of Romania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TheImaCow (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Development regions of Romania

Template:Development regions of Romania has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]