User talk:Iadrian yu/Archive December,2010

Tribitaries of River Mures / Maros

Hi Iadrian, I read somewhere we became buddies (although we did not have the beer during the summer as agreed), so I thought I come to you with this river issue. What do you think about the style of river articles:

• 1. You are right with the general format of rivers but why do you think it is a good idea that 'other names' are smaller than the name. The geobox format is not compulsary, this was only the preference of those who created it. If someone creates an infobox /river, this can look totally otherwise or if easier we can apply bigger fonts in a particulary geobox. The only thing we can not do is to change the template as it is used in many different articles. I think equal fonts simply look better regardless of prominence. Our case is not Danube with several names. In our case, there is no problem of multiple names, maybe in a small number of cases, the german name can be relevant. If you approve I can hardly believe that someone else will come to revert.
• 2. I do not know why we multiply the word 'river' in the infobox as the word 'river' is anyway automatically generated with small fonts.
• 3. I do not see any reason to name ditches or brooks as rivers especially when both native names state them as "creek". We should change the word river to stream or creek after maybe consulting with someone knowledgeable in river issues, like Markussep. Kind regards: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 20:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Well for beer drinking I am always in the mood :) , this year was the year of moving (from one city to another in another country :-), university and others ) so I was very busy with all the obligations moving and everything, but now if you have the occasion to see Vrsac we could have that beer, just send me a message I will be here for a while.

• 1. I am sorry, but I can`t agree here because of the following examples: Ibar river that flows within Serbia,Montenegro and Kosovo and as you can see there isn`t a Montenegrin or Albanian name in the geobox; Timiş River,Olt River,Siret River,Someş River,Argeş River,Drin (river), Timok (river),- in Romania or Serbia; Hron, Žitava (river) -Slovakia, also Lake Skadar and others, that doesn`t have minority names in the geobox either, international rivers like [Amazon],Nile,Tisa, - that has only Hungarian name as the general name even if it flows through many countries from which in 7 languages, 5 has the same name and this name even used in 5 out of 7 languages is not used as a general one. I can`t remember more rivers to search now, but there are little rivers in Europe that flows only in one country. In this case, following other similar or same examples on Wiki, considering a river/creek/lake that it is only in Romania I think that it is only appropriate to follow this general rule, alternative names in minor font as per geobox. If we write it in equal size font it elevates it`s importance like the official one. I think there is a difference between official and alternative or local names and having in mind that in many cases alternative names are not even present in geoboxes(when a river flows only in one country) I think this "composition" is OK for everybody. In places like cities/towns etc it is general practice to write them the same size, but on geographical places it is not the same practice.
• 2. I don`t know. Probably a common mistake.
• 3. I agree here, if we are talking about as a creek we should state as such.

Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, Iadrian. I agree with your points. kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

About having a beer or a glass of wine (in Vrsac wine is popular and it is very good :-) ) I am saying this for real, If you have a chance to visit Vrsac contact me, I can help you to show you the sights. I will be living here for now (I can`t talk about my private life here in public) so just send me a e-mail from Wiki, it is active and I will give you my cellular phone from Serbia where you can contact me. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Thanks in advance. If I have the chance to get there, I will not miss. Until then, I improve my Romanian. kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

szekely

excuse me, Mister. There are 150 Szekely people in Romania. That's what the referendum says, and it;s consistent with the one in 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.223.112 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Correction, only 150 of them declared as Szekely people in Romania, that doesn`t change the fact that a good part of Hungarians in Romania are a part of the Szekely subgroup. Adrian (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Croats

Hello there. I saw on the Croats talk page you were discussing the total population figure. I've started a new discussion on it to try to reach a new consensus and thought you may like to get involved. Check it out here. Cheers. 58.166.186.39 (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Romania

Stop reverting my edits without bothering to understand them. I have 1000 edits on the page, so presumably I know what I am doing. Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to be nice? You can have a million of edits that doesn`t mean almost anything. You can`t remove that much of data from an article, especially an article of one country, deleting it`s history parts etc... Try to find references for that data rather than delete it, or if it bothers you that much please insert citation needed template and if in some time references don`t appear then you can delete it. As I can notice many data you deleted had references. Adrian (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I can`t manage to see the logic in deleting various images form this article, like the famous Brâncuşi's Endless Column in Târgu Jiu that represent a vital part of the Romanian culture.Adrian (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Adrian TM??? Sorry if I was abrasive. Anyways, most of what I am removing is present in the subsections. I want/hope/think of giving it a shot at GAN. I have tried at least 3 times before, and I am sure that somebody will complain that it already has too much information and that details should go into subarticles - and I kind of share this point. As for the images, the article loads realllllly slowly even on a good computer with with broadband. As much as I would like to have a picture on the infinite column, the reality is that it is not even the original one, and at least within Romania, nobody actually gives a damn about it.... Nergaal (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I will not revert text changes anymore, but I don`t understand your conception about the Brâncuşi's Endless Column? How do you mean it is not the original one? Nobody cares about it? I care and I would like to reinsert that image into the article because it represents a vital part of the Romanian and European art/culture. I don`t have problems loading the article and I have standard broadband, nothing special. I doubt that one image influences that much or if me must choose to delete one image we could delete the NATO summit image or military and reinsert this very important image.Adrian (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The original is in Paris. To a regular person Becali is more notable. I wouldn't care much, but at previous GANs the reviewers consistently complained about the article being tilted towards the pompous achievements as opposed to the everyday life. A copy of a sculpture of which a person on the street probably does not know which city is it located in is towards the former. Nergaal (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but persons like Becali are not really important to one country :-). Are you sure that the original is in Paris? As I can see the original one is this one in Targu Jiu where it is incorporated in this city coat of arms [1]. wiki1; wiki2; non-wiki 1; non-wiki 2. Adrian (talk) 09:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is in New York. Nergaal (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Iadrian yu. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon

Romanians Serbians and Slovaks were little minority in the towns/cities of Kingdom of Hungary. All major cities had Hungarian majority. Please correct the form of government in the Austria-Hungary article. It was constitutional monarchy (all major wikipedias: French German Italian Spanish Polish Russian etc...) considered A-H as a constitutional monarhy.

All real academic Encyclopedias also considered AH as a constitutional monarchy. Read Encíclopedia Britannica 1911: http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit13chisrich#page/894/mode/2up

Even if that is backed-up with references, your changes are still nonconstructive and can be considered as a POV pushing. Majority of cities had a non-Hungarian majority, especially German... but even by that "standards" that isn`t the point here. We are talking about what Hungary lost and while a part of Hungary those cities were Hungarian, every inhabited location in it`s pre-Trianon borders. Even the sentence says "Hungary lost ..." there is no need to add dubious meaning here by adding to the territories/cities where other nations live/lived as "Hungarian" ones. About the government that can be changed of course, if there is a valid reference. Everything can be changed with valid references. Adrian (talk)

Can you please be more specific about the form of government ? Austria-Hungary was a dual monarchy. Can you please explain it more precise ? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dual monarchy is not a government form. Somebody changed the constitutional monarchy to absolute monarchy, which is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw the history of the article but appears that you are a sock puppet and that as a result of your edits this page was protected [2]. I am sorry, but even if you are right I can`t help you. My advice is to try not to see this to seriously, think it over, and if you have valid references for your changes there is nothing that can stop you to change anything on Wikipedia. Wait for your block to expire or appeal to unblock and then make all the changes you have reference for it by constructive conversation. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragi Iadrian

This you can understand, because it exists in Serbian, Vlach and Romanian. Pošto vidim da govoriš srpski, onda ću ti pisati na srpskom. Hvala ti na dobrodošlici. Mulţumesc! Pretpostavljam i da živiš u Srbiji.

Prvo, to što sam ja uradio nije vandalizam i nije korektno što si to napisao. Drugo, pomenuti tekst sam uglavnom ja i pisao, pre nego što sam bio prijavljen pod ovim nickom. Tako da su neki termini koje sam ja uneo preuzeti od drugih. Vidim po tvom profilu kakvi su tvoji stavovi. Tvoje je pravo da budeš rumunski nacionalista i da se zalažeš za ujedinjenje Rumunije i Republike Moldavije ili za Veliku Rumuniju, ali nije moralno da se s druge strane zalažeš za maksimalnu autonomiju Vojvodine, koja i ovako ima autonomiju kao malo koja evropska pokrajina, uz velika prava za nacionalne zajednice, što i sam dobro znaš.

Da ne širim priču. Možeš i Vlahe da smatraš za Rumune, pa da maštaš i o njima kako god želiš, ali ono što piše u tekstu koji si ti vratio je neistina, počevši od prve rečenice. Vlaški nije rumunski, niti ga ijedan tako naziva na maternjem jeziku. Vlaški je prema zadnjem popisu u Srbiji uveden u kategoriju jezika i priznat kao regionalni jezik, tj. jezik nacionalne manjine. Nazivati Vlahe Rumunima takođe je protivustavno, a samimi tim i kažnjivo, jer ako neki Vlah podnese krivičnu prijavu i tuži te, imaš velike šanse da budeš dobro kažnjen, zato što su Vlasi priznati kao etnička zajednica u Srbiji po Ustavu Republike Srbije i ne mogu se nazivati Rumunima, niti bilo kako drugačije.

Ako mi kažeš da nisam konstruktivan, onda je to licemerno, a ako želiš da zaista budemo konstruktivni, onda možemo da tekst prepravimo da bude što neutralniji i realniji, jer to što ti radiš je širenje pro-rumunske ideologije, pisajući laži na engleskom i predstavljajući svetu Vlahe kao Rumune. Svrstavanje jednog priznatog naroda u korpus drugog naroda je, osim što je protiv zakona, mnogo veći vandalizam, nego što sam ja onako izmenio tekst.

Ja imam drage prijatelje Rumune i Vlahe i žao mi je kad se neko tako ponaša. No, ipak, ako želiš, možemo zajedno da poradimo na tom tekstu.

Pozdrav Ljuboni (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

First we must speak in English on English Wikipedia.

• 1) My personal opinions don`t matter on Wikipedia, that applies to yours too, so if you think that "Vlachs" - Romanians from Serbia constitute some kind of a separate ethnic group - that is your problem. We are dealing with facts here, and facts + references says otherwise. Not to mention that the Romanians of Serbia consider themself as part of the Romanian nation. As for Moldovans that is a separate story and not a subject of this conversation. The bottom line is, you can believe whatever you want, but when it comes to write something into an encyclopedia, please stick to the facts only, leave your personal affiliations aside.
• 2) What you did is Vandalism therefore I would like to ask you to stop.
• 3) Calling "Vlachs" - Romanians from Serbia is not against the Serbian constitution because they are recognized, in that same constitution as a part of the Romanian nation. The word Vlach is an exonym.
• 4) If you would like to press charges against me, fell free to do so, but just to inform you that threating it with it is against Wikipedia policy therefore you are breaking another rule WP:NLT. Having in mind that I cooperate closely with the Romanian community in Vojvodina and Central Serbia (since I am a part of it) - it would be really "interesting" suing me for using their official name. Their official name in English is Vlachs/Romanians of Serbia, in Serbian: Vlahi/Vlasi, in Romanian: Romani,Rumani...
• 5) All your contributions, for now, are not constructive and if you do not change your attitude while editing articles I will have to report you.
• 6) Also, naming some group "Vlachs" is the same as calling them Romanians therefore your opinion about this has no sense. Please consult some data for better understanding of the term "Vlach" and it`s usage outside of the Romanian state.
• 7) Here are some interesting links to look at: 1; 2; 3. Also check their official web site to learn more about this [3]. Also take a look at the Council of Europe report about this 4.
• 8) Also please take a look at: WP:NLT, WP:HOAX , WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA. Because you are violation all these rules with this kind of behavior.

I also have a lot of friends , Romanians form the "both side of the river", therefore your understanding of the "situation" is not needed. If you like, you can contribute to the already existing, fact verified article about the Romanian varieties in Serbia. Greetings from Vojvodina. Adrian (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Magyarization and removal of referenced info

Hi. Any reason for removing referenced info from Magyarization? At least state some factual reason, otherwise it is quite offending to mark edits as vandalism, while your own edits aren't very far from it.147.175.158.189 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, as you can see you were changing information in this article without providing any reference [4] therefore , since it is unlikely to be a valid information (according to other examples in the Austro-Hungary) I reverted your edit. The second time I reverted it I reported it nonconstructive (automatically became vandalism) since it wasn`t a mistake - you repeated it. If you want to change this information regarding the domination of languages on the Austro-Hungarian bill from 1849 please provide some valid reference. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I provided a reference (even if just internal wikipedia article). And you reverted it to a state, where no reference is present (ok, there is something that looks like a reference, but is not pointing to anything). Please explain, why the previous edit with no reference is better than my edit with at least some reference. By repeated removing of referenced info, you commit vandalism by your own definition. Cheers.147.175.158.189 (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You provided an internal wiki article as a reference. You can`t use wikipedia article as a reference to another wikipedia article, there is a rule about that WP:CIRCULAR and from WP:CLONE - "Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself" , it is in some extent a self-reference therefore it has no logic. I agree, there is a reference but it isn`t pointing to anything. The previous reference is better because the info was initially inserted based on some reference that it is probably removed by now, or maybe just from visual look at the bill while the information you are trying to add is not sourced at all. This can be a little confusing but if you consult some wikipedia policies you can see the difference between nonconstructive and constructive edits. This of course, isn`t vandalism anymore because you have shown a constructive approach to the problem (talking about it). Greetings.Adrian (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So in few points (please be patient with me)

1. This is hardly a circular reference. But OK, let's say the photographs of austro-hungarian banknotes from Wikipedia are not reference enough, I can live with that.

2. At least the "some reference that it is probably removed by now" should be removed to remove the feeling that the information is referenced while it is not. I went through the page's history and found that the original reference ([5]), supports "my version" and the text was changed a long time after this reference was removed. The edit removing this reference is here ([6]), you can see the referenced text of the paragraph at that time.

3. If "just from visual look at the bill" is reference enough for you, then you could perhaps take a look at the bills from my reference and say, whether the information you are protecting is true or not.

So what I propose is to either (1) remove the "dead reference fragment" and add a "Citation needed" or to (2) change the paragraph according to the initial reference (perhaps also adding a "Citation needed"). Would one of these possibilities be OK for you? My intention is the improvement of the article, not vandalism. I know, that there is mistrust to IP-editors in general, but the goal is to provide correct information, for both of us I think. Cheers. 147.175.158.189 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Circular in sense that it is self-referencing itself - I was saying that when you were trying to add another wikipedia article as a reference to this one. The photographs can/would be reference enough of the Austro-Hungarian banknote. I don`t understand German or Hungarian, nor can I recognize them very well when I see it in use. With my limited knowledge(about German and Hungarian) this banknote, I see, on the banknote there is only in German?

I didn`t checked the history of the article to see if there was a version like this, I just took the last version as a stable one since major removal of content or POV pushing is done by IP addresses. Looks like the version you were trying to add is the right one. I am sorry if I caused trouble. Since you tried to introduce the correct version(therefore I assume that you agree) I will revert my edit to your version since I was wrong here.Adrian (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

If you want to identify at least the main inscriptions on the post-1900 banknotes, you can look for the German or Hungarian equivalent of "Crown", which is the name of the currency, preceded by a number (also a text) saying the value of the banknote. In German, the currency name is "Krone" (or "Kronen" in plural), while in Hungarian (Magyar) language it is "Korona" or "Koronat". The German name is usually on the front side (obverse) together with smaller German inscriptions (saying things like "Copying of these banknotes will be punished by law") and there are also smaller inscriptions saying the value and name of the currency in several other languages (I was able to identify Czech, Polish, Serbian, Italian, perhaps Croatian and there are few which I cannot identify exactly). On the reverse side, there are only Hungarian inscriptions, which probably say the same like the German ones, but I only have limited knowledge of Magyar language, not enough to read whole texts.

Oh and the banknote from 1849 which is directly included in the article says "Kreuzer" instead of "Krone" (both in German language), as it is a smaller note for 10 "Kreuzer", being equivalent to 0.1 "Gulden", which was the name of the currency at that time. There is no Hungarian inscription visible, maybe it is on the reverse side, which is not visible in the image, but I cannot tell. There is only an inscription in German, which says that it is equivalent to a silver disc coin, which will be taken in all public Hungarian cafes (I was quite surprised to find there a text like this, btw.).

Thank you again. 147.175.158.189 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Np. It was my mistake. At least I could do is to revert to the right version. Sorry if I caused trouble. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, just a short remark. I once had a look at Austro-Hungarian banknotes in Commons looking for some evidence to support the generosity of the erstwhile Hungarian language practices in the field of banknotes. I was dissappointed to see that while Austria issued banknotes with multilingual (without Hungarian) text with the German having prominence, the banknotes issued in Hungary bore only Hungarian text. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It looks like it was my mistake here, but I don`t understand what is written on this banknote, can you please take a look if it is in Hungarian? I also have the impression that while Austro-Hungary existed, German language dominated on official stuff like that. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there were 3 types of banknotes: 1 ) issued in the Austrian part in German + in languages used in the Austrian part of the Empire 2 ) banknotes issued in Hungary looking exectly the same but only with Hungarian text 3 )Dominant text bilingual (German left side and Hungarian right side) with text in minority languages with smaller fonts ( e.g. 1 crown note). Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to participate at this discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC))