india n map

I will surely file a report, rest assured. Everything I put into the opening header is historical fact and its undeniable. Expect a good hearing, may I request that you find another article to tamper with as the editor-in-chief, we will not allow editor-in-chiefs in Wikipedia, you just deleted all my content, this constitutes total vandalism and monopolization. Wikipedia is open-source, and I am positive many people will not allow you to monopolize articles. My complaint will be filed in a few days.

Ok. Adrian (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adrian,

I don't think that my submission was in any kind advertising etc..Szekely Gugel a.k.a lamsza.com is a search engine used by Seklers living in Transylvania, it has more than 250.000 monthly users since 2009, so it is a well established, well known search engine in our region. Istvan.Docze (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Istvan.Docze[reply]

Hello. This web page is advertising and a hoax for several reasons:

1) Google engines exist separately only for countries, as far as I know , Szekely land don`t exist under any policital aspect, except as an ethno-cultural region.

2) All Google search engines are registered under "www.Google. -country code" and since "Szekely land" isn`t any political entity it can`t be an official search engine for this region.

3) This page is registered under "www.lam***.com" which is some web page that has nothing to do with Google.

4) Also this looks like a promotions for the Szekely "cause" since there isn`t a place such as "Szekely land".

5) Another hint for a hoax is that this web page is registered to some "Alexa" [2] and 94.7% of visitors from Hungary and not from Romania (from counties) where Hunarians and Szekely people live. It is an obscure web page at-least.

6) Also an official search engine that has a facebook page don`t looks like really good.

7) If Hungarians from Romania wish to use Google in the Hungarian language, www.Google.ro is offered in Hungarian and German also.

All in all, this kind of additions are considered as advertising and hoax web pages and as such I would like to ask you not to add it again. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the lead "Székelyfőd" is written with the letter "L", Székelyföld ,, this is another hint that this is some sort of promotion and amateur page. Adrian (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adrian,

• 1. This is not an official Google search engine, it is an independent Search Engine developed for the Seklers.
• 2. Hungarians and Seklers are an official minority in Romania as you may know.
• 3. It is lam***.com because it is an independent search engine that has nothing to do with Google
• 4. This is not a promotion of any cause, it is a community for Szekelys.
• 5. As you may know there are several other search engines besides Google for example: Yahoo, Bing etc..
• 6. I don't think that just because it has a Facebook page connected to it, makes it unnoficial in any kind, by the way who are you to judge what is official and what isn't?
• 7. This is a registered company and trademark in Romania, a company just like Google.
• 8. It is Szekelyfod because this Search Engine is based on the funny accent and Hungarian language style of the Szekelys.
• 9. What the hell do you mean by Google.ro is offered in German???Based on this answer I can quickly see that you are a Romanian ultrantionalist idiot!
• 10. I will keep posting articles regarding Szekely Gugel because it IS the search engine of the Seklers whether your nationalist mind can take it or not!
• 11. Please note that I am going to file a report against you for being so sarcastic and hateful.

Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Istvan.Docze (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you ignored my explanation. But I will try to explain again, as a sign of goof faith.Adrian (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to answer thing I did`t already answered in my previous answer according to the numbering in your comment.

• 1. It has a Google trademark - another sign of a hoax
• 2. I never said these minorities aren't, or anything about this subject. Please comment on the subject only
  WP:NPOV
  .
• 3. It is an independent page that has one purpose only, to promote Szekely land and as such promotional web page it has no place on wikipedia.
• 4. A community for Szekely people may be something else, not a hoax of a Google engine. There are numerous pages for that and this is not one of them.
• 5. Yes, and all of them are official, not some kind of obscure copies that aren`t even real. B
• 6. Any respectable web page doesn`t have a facebook account of this kind.
• 7. So what? I can register a company too, that doesn`t make it credible nor official.
• 8. I have never heard of this accent, but if it is to be a "community" for the Szekely people this isn`t a serious start.
• 9. www.google.ro is offeren in Hungarian and German language. Please check it for yourself.
• 10. Number 9 and 10 contain heavy personal attacks on me so I would like to ask you to stop with that. Please read
  WP:NPA
  .
• 11. If you wish, you may submit a report on the ANI page. [3]

I explained your every point in hope that you will understand why this web page is a hoax. Also bear in mind that 94.7% of visitors are from Hungary and not Romania - yet another indicator for a promotional background. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

]

Mihai Viteazul and "Romanian principalities"

Adrian, I see there have been some disputes on the Mihai Viteazul page and, remembering our successful collaborations in the past, I'm hoping I might be able to help. I think there's a good chance that everyone might reach a consensus on this obviously important figure with one little change: some kind of change to calling Transylvania, Moldova, and Wallachia the "Romanian principalities" in the lead.

All the sources I've checked indicate that from the best anyone can tell, all three principalities had Vlach majorities. I don't like projecting a unified Romanian identity backwards onto the ancestors of today's Romanians, but this is a preference linked to my own preferences in writing and thinking about history and I realize that in the end, calling them "Romanian" is probably the least bad way to go. We could even call Wallachia and Moldova "Romanian principalities" because of their ethnic composition. Still, calling Transylvania a "Romanian principality" is problematic; the ruling class in 1600 spoke Hungarian and identified as Hungarian, and there was a numerically significant Hungarian minority (especially if we count the Székely as Hungarian). Now, everyone knows that Transylvania is important to Romanians and that Romanian historiography post-Bălcescu tends to call it a "Romanian principality" in Mihai's period. By the same token, Hungarian historians almost never do the same, Austrian-German historians do so extremely rarely, and everyone else takes their lead from one or more those three groups.

At issue is calling Transylvania a "Romanian principality" a) before the idea of a unified Romania existed and b) despite its being ruled by, and to some extent populated by, Hungarians. The historiography section does a very nice job of explaining how very important Mihai's rule over Transylvania was to subsequent Romanian historians and Romanians in general, and it should probably stay more or less as it is. But it can certainly be argued, and I think you will have no trouble agreeing, that calling Transylvania a "Romanian principality" could conceivably be seen as a violation of NPOV. (I have read your sources and while they certainly meet Wikipedia guidelines, I am sure you'll be the first to admit that the first two are not exactly scholarly and certainly not neutral, and furthermore that Britannica very rarely does well with Central Europe.)

What I would suggest is the following: either delete the word "Romanian" from the phrase "Romanian principalities" (since in 1600, notwithstanding its probable Romanian majority, Transylvania was not ruled by Romanians and hadn't been part of a Romanian state since at least Gelou's time, if he even existed) or specify that when we speak of "Romanian principalities," we're using a 19th-century construction. How about something like:

Michael the Brave (etc etc etc - let me mention how much I hate translating his name) was the Prince of Wallachia (1593–1601), Transylvania (1599–1600), and Moldavia (1600). These territories, later known as the "Three Romanian Principalities," were briefly unified under his personal rule, marking the first time they were ruled by a single Romanian leader.

I am not in love with that lead, but I think it would be an improvement over what we have now. (The first sentence as it stands in the current article needs a minor English grammar fix.)

Sorry for taking up so much room on your talk page, but I hope my suggestion is helpful. Please let me know what you think - we might be able to figure this out after all. Hubacelgrand (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am glad to talk to you. I understand your explanation and I agree with your suggestion. When the page is editable I will made the change. To be precise, I will remove the word Romanian from the lead where it currently says was the Prince of Wallachia (1593–1601), of Transylvania (1599–1600), and of Moldavia (1600), the three Romanian principalities were united under his reign for a short period of time.[1][2][3]. Of course the 3 sources I added should remain. Is that ok? About the "dispute", I don`t really know how to talk with users that use the talk page as a forum and claims that their personal opinions are more important than sources.. Np. I am always happy to talk to you. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that will be good. In my opinion the sources you found should certainly stay, as the first two provide good insight into how important Mihai's accomplishment has become to modern Romanians, and the Britannica is always welcome on Wikipedia (that encyclopaedia is good as a starting point anyway). I think that just with that change, we'll have a good lead and mostly a good article that is well-sourced and will not offend too many people (which is important because as we've seen many times, if we word the leads a certain way we can avoid most edit wars and establish a good solid page that doesn't change too often.) Thanks for your response and your continued contributions. Greetings, Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Np. I will make the change as soon as possible. Thank you for your input. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the problems continue with this 1; 2 user I would like to ask for a favor? Since I represent the "bad guy" maybe if you make the change we talked about will make more reason for this user? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, gladly. Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems you were a bit faster than I was - sorry, I haven't been around for a few days. Let's hope things settle down now. I have taken the liberty of making a few minor, mostly English stylistic, edits to the page - but I've also deleted a couple references to the "Romanian principalities" in image captions and the explanation of Mihai's seal. (I kept the one in the mention of the film since, in the world of that film, which I saw a long time ago, it's pretty clear that it's appropriate to use the term.) I hope this isn't a problem. See what you think of the changes. Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INFORMATION

I have to inform you I added an answer in the page you reported me.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hello!

I've added the required translation.

Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See new 2011 census results: http://media.popis2011.stat.rs/2011/prvi_rezultati.pdf In that official document there is no Central Serbia. Instead of it, we have 3 new regions listed. Note that I have same document from 2002 census that listed population for Vojvodina and Central Serbia. This 2011 document is listing population for Vojvodina and 3 new regions. That means that Central Serbia officially does not exist any more. Otherwise, it would be mentioned in this official document. PANONIAN 14:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

QRpedia is a project of Wikimedia UK, to help people find Wikipedia articles in their preferred language. Please can you translate QRpedia into Romanian, and Serbian, or encourage others to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can translate then into Romanian, Serbian (Montenegrin, Bosnian, Croatian also) if there is no rush because I am somewhat busy now-days. I am just not to sure what is QRpedia? How can I use it and translate it? Or do you mean to translate this article QRpedia ? Adrian (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just translate the en.Wikipedia article, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Np. Tomorrow during the day I will start. I had a long day so I am done for today. Greetings. Adrian (talk)

I have just finished the page at the Romanian wiki [4]. I hope it is alright. If it is not a big rush, tomorrow I would do the Serbian wiki page ? Adrian (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great; thank you. And yes, please do! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [5]. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could translate it in Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin as well but I am kinda busy this days at work. In a couple of days if you can`t find nobody to do this languages contact me and I will try to do it. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You must be very talented to speak so any languages! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Np. I use this 3 languages (Eng, Srb and RO) on a daily basis. Croatian,Bosnian and Montenegrin have a lot in common with Serbian, there are a few key differences that I learned and that`s it :). Adrian (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nikola Pašić (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aromanian

Serbianisation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aromanian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Repaired and will watch for this in the future. Adrian (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. Adrian (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for joining WikiProject Romania! Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Vlachs of Serbia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adrian, you have recently uploaded a map by Heinrich Kiepert showing the distribution of Romanians at the end of the 19th century. This map is VERY misleading as it uses the same color for areas with 10% Romanian population and for areas where it was over 90%. A similarly misleading map could be created which uses the same color for areas inhabited by Hungarians, no matter if the percentage of the population was 90% or 10%. Please, instead of this, use the map that contains the official census data of 1890 regarding Romanians within the Kingdom of Hungary (I have included both maps here). This map is much better as it uses color coding according to the percentages of the population. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map I uploaded is from a respectable author and indeed it doesn`t show the exact percentage of the population, but it shows areas populated by Romanians (significant Romanian population) - while the other map uses the data provided by the Hungarian government from 1890 (Having in mind the strong policies of Magyarization I am reluctant to see this as the most valid data). I am not claiming that this significant population is 50%+ but this is not the reason not to use this map but I believe it can be included if the data from the Hungarian government can too.

The map you are referring to is already used to create this map

, except the version you used is in Hungarian only, and it is usable only to the Hungarian readers. It can be used on Hungarian Wiki, but on English I would prefer the one that was today names included as well. And the map created on the base of the one you refer to is already present in the article.

I don`t wan`t to make a big deal about Heinrich`s map, or the

Reclus`s map. Both authors are respectable and they have almost identical data which only confirms the validity of this maps. True that they do not represent the exact percentage of the population, but I never said it did nor this map contain such claim. Adrian (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion I am not saying to remove the map based on the questionable Hungarian census, but I also want to include this map that indeed doesn`t clain the exact percentage but neither the description or the map claim to do. I never thought that this could be a problem, nor still I can`t manage to understand why, when the Hungarian data still stands at the article and this cannot? Adrian (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply. Regardless of whether the authors are respectable, the maps are highly misleading and will give rise to nationalist edit wars. There is huge difference between having some Romanian population or being the majority. Those maps treat these two as the same (giving the false feeling that Romaninas were the majority in all of these areas) which is unacceptable. I understand that for some Romanians these maps can support that the borders set after WWI are fair. However, irrespectively of what somebody thinks about Trianon, these maps do more damage than help. Those who think that setting the borders as they are were unfair will be reinforced in their feelings by the fact that you use very misleading maps (and will talk about Romanian propaganda). On the other hand, those who think that the borders are fair do not want to be accused of using manipulative maps. The question of Trianon is (unfortunately) still a hot issue for many Hungarian and Romanian nationalists, these maps will give them reason for edit wars. The best would be not to use these maps at all, but the absolute minimum is to state that these maps show by red the territories that had at least 10% Romanian population at the end of the 19th century. Moreover, the maps that you have uploaded are also neither in English, nor have the modern names. If the official Hungarian one is not suitable for English Wikipedia, neither are they. We should use the "RomaniansInHungary1890.png" map (created by a Romanian user, by the way), since it is more precise (has color coding), contains the modern names of the places as well as uses English text. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this may be a reason for edit wars. I suggest not to use this maps at this article (Union of Transylvania with Romania) and other problematic Romanian-Hungarian articles. I really don`t see a reason to exclude them totally because there are numerous maps like this, and they are in fair use. Removing them as I noticed you tried from Romanians article I do not support. It is a valid map, by non-Romanian or non-Hungarian - as such it has more credibility than any Romanian or Hungarian map. An this maps are created , colored the most important ethnic group in this area, and by that standard in this map the Romanians are represented. So we can talk about 33.4% atleast. As for the map you inserted, it doesn`t matter by which user it is created, it is an exact duplicate of the map you are talking about, just with readable names. Do we have a deal :) ? Adrian (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the maps were published by a third party (not by Romanians or Hungarians) does not make them more reliable. Especially, since they are based on the official census data. If an ethnographic map contains no color coding (just uses one color) then the colored regions almost always indicate that the given ethnic group formed the majority in that region. It is precisely why your maps are highly misleading and should be avoided. Could you provide any other example of a map that illustrates the distribution of an ethnic group by only using one color (without shades or stripes) and not only colors those areas in which the ethic group was the majority? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can`t say that the data from the Hungarian government (1890, when the Magyarization policy was still at large - also on the other side the desire of the Romanians to unite in one state) to say that has the same reliability as third party source. By me it can`t be compared (nor I am too sure that it should be used - but don`t want to raise that issue now), If you wish we can ask for a third opinion on this. The interpertation of the Kepler`s map is clear, especially at that time when the exact percentage wasn`t shown, that the group represented as one color represent atleast the most important ethnic group in that area (33.4%). Examples of use (of similar or same) maps on wikipedia: [6]; 01; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9. Also at this article [7] , several maps like: Ethnic map of Eastern Serbia based on the 1866 census ; Ethnic map of the territory of present-day Serbia (1867) ; Ethnic map of the territory of present-day Serbia (1868) ; Ethnic map of the territory of present-day Serbia (1880) ; Ethnic map from 1918 by nationalist Serbian author Jovan Cvijic[4][5] - that are even for the same period and they are represented exactly like Kiepler`s map or Reclus`s. Acually some maps like this are used at Hungary related articles: 1; [8] - Ethno-linguistic map of Austria–Hungary, 1910; At the galery section, there are also some maps that are like this one: [9] - map names:Hungarian ethnicity in the Kingdom of Hungary (without Croatia-Slavonia), 1910; Hungarian ethnicity in the Kingdom of Hungary, 1880; I would understand if you asked for maps with exact percentage if we would talk about 1950+ year till now, but as you can notice, almost all maps before 1900 are represented like this, simply one color for the most important ethnic group. I think that compromise not to use this map at the article Union of Transylvania with Romania is somewhat a middle ground here. Adrian (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing examples and links. They, however, do no prove that there are many maps which use only one pure/simple color and color even those regions in which the ethnic group in question did not have absolute majority. There are some that use shades/stripes, which is OK (the problem with your maps is exactly that they do not use such things), but the ones that only use one simple color are, I think, only color regions where the ethnic group was the absolute majority. Do you have a counterexample to this (you can include the most convincing one(s) here)? Even the ethnic map of the nationalist Jovan Cvijic does have some kind of color coding, it does not use homogeneous colors for regions where Serbs were not the absolute majority. I have included the two Hungarian maps you have cited. The left one (from 1880) uses stripes (so it is not similar), the right one looks much more precise than your maps, since it uses many small blobs. Moreover, it shows another misleading aspect of the maps you uploaded. Namely, your maps denote by pure red even those territories which were uninhabited or very sparsely populated (giving the false impression that the whole area had clear Romanian majority). This should not be done. Moreover, I do not think that you should question the census results of Austria-Hungary, since these are the only available data regarding these questions, every map builds on these data. Of course, I do not deny that there were Magyarization, but this does not mean that the censuses were cheated. Similarly, there were (I hope there aren't any more) Romanianization, Serbianisation, Slovakization, etc. Should we question all of the censuses then? If you prefer, we can ask for a 3rd opinion about your maps. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, maybe I did`t listed them right. Of course, but Romanization,Serbinization, Slovakization started ( and some of them still ongoing in some places ) after Magyarization. Also I don`t believe that any of this policies can compare with Magyarization by strength. Austria-Hungary was an important power in Europe, who dared to question their data back then :). Nowdays we have OEBS, EU, other organizations that check the censuses conducted by all countries, when Austria-Hungary made it`s census, there was nobody to check if that data wasn`t manipulated or some data simply ignored. Also please note that Heinrich Kiepert too did`t ignored "minor bloops" on his maps, comparable to the Redmap]. Please check this maps (some of them have stripes indeed but except that they are identical). I will list them here in a galery and will bold any comments in that map description for readability reasons ( don`t get the bolded letters the wrong way),

• 
  A reconstruction of the 3rd millennium BC "Proto-Greek area", according linguist V. I. Georgiev.
• 
  This map has stripes for only one ethnic group, the rest are without stripes
• 
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps
• 
  It doesn`t have any indication of the population that it is with one color, so it can be 99% or 33.4%.
• 
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps
• 
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps
• 
  Spots inhabited by Russian has no data or indication of the percentage, Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps
• 
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps
• 
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps
• 
  Has stripes for only one ethnic group
• 
  Only Greeks have more precise representation with stripes, others do not
• Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps - link: [1]] - SVG can`t be added in galleries.
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps - link: [1]] - SVG can`t be added in galleries.
• 
  Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps

I have checked only European maps, I guess there could be more examples if I searched outside Europe. Please review my post and tell me what do you think. Adrian (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer and for including some maps which you think are similar to yours. You have labeled some of them as "Identical as the Kiepler and Reclus maps". Why do you think that any of these maps color even those regions in which the ethnic group in question was not the absolute majority? Do some of them even color those areas which were not or very rarely populated? The last one (Ethnic Groups of Austria-Hungary in 1910) is indeed similar - an so similarly misleading.

The main question is: why should we use maps that apply the same color tone independently of the actual percentage of the ethnic group in question when we have much more precise maps available? Just because this kind of simplification looks good from the viewpoint of one of the ethnic groups? Assume the ethnic distribution of a town in 1890 was as follows: 32% Romanian, 30% German, 29% Hungarian, 5% Serb, 4% Jew. Your maps would simply color this town 'red', since Romanians were the largest ethnic group of the town. Don't you find it quite misleading? Especially, since there are much better maps available. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These maps use the same standard for the population on those areas (one color, populated or not and no data for percentage or similar). I want to say that except the Hungarian censuses, in that time we don`t have maps with clear and precise population data. We have maps like this that can be misleading but I believe if we describe the map when it is present in an article we can avoid confusion. I agree it can be misleading but if we exclude this maps, except from the data provided by the Hungarian government we have no other sources. I am not saying that we should replace some of maps with this one, nor that this maps should be used exclusively, but it is nice to see maps from as much sources as possible. I propose not to use this maps in problematic articles and when used to include a clear description, something like Etnhnological map by Heinrich Kiepert 1876 - note that percentages of the population is not presented and areas colored by one ethnic group doesn`t necessarily means that they constitute the majority in those areas - something like that. I don`t know. Adrian (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at our dispute at Talk:Vlachs of Serbia, I realize that I have been too personal and harsh towards you. I still stand by a lot of my assessments, including the one that you have biases, but many of us do, after all. I really did not assume enough of good faith from you. Since there is no point of going back and striking my problematic statements, I would like to offer a general apology for my tone and approach.

There is probably no point in producing further badly structured walls of text on the article's talk page, by both of us. I suggest that in the future, we use normal

cycle, by more adding and correcting of source-based material and less stonewalling on the talk. That would be generally more productive, I believe. I am short on time these days to devote to the article, though.

Regards,

]

No hard feeling. It was partially my fault also. I just hope that in our further contact you can see that I am really not any taking sides. I agree, as for the time being maybe the current version of the article is all right, of course if some new event happens to update the information (like Dragojevic`s statement). There is no rush, from our talks and this media circus, maybe it is best to leave it as it is for the time being. I believe we can improve this article in the future. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Union of Transylvania with Romania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page, that's what it's for. Squash Racket (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did`t know that... Adrian (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Svilajnac have the "Romanian" pronounciation, Svilajnac is a Serbian city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does

WP:LEAD, [10], alternative names could be present in the first sentence. Quote: These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. . Adrian (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Yea that is kind of strange — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t believe that`s strange. It is just a little feature of wikipedia, according to it`s guild-lines (rules). I myself have mistaken sometimes in the past wikipedia as something else than an encyclopedia -and not a representation of that particular place. We must bare in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such it should contain various informative data, such as names of various places in other local/significant languages. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know when it is appropriate to add a different name to a city or remove a name from a city? --MoravaiDrina (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we include other languages names when that place is important to some ethnic group, it was a part of that state or there is a significant population living there. But that isn`t necessarily the rule (other languages name can be included for other reasons too), just some guild-lines that are generally respected on Wikipedia. You can read the rule specifically here [11] and [12]. Usually we don`t delete any other language name unless it is really strange. For example if for Novi Sad we include the Japanese version :). Adrian (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olimpia employee signs up for Wikipedia, and his second edit is to spam the article? That's not how things should work. Now, if you think this should be included, please do so. Personally, I'd like to see some more information on it. When was it founded? What's the circulation, or how many visitors does the site have? (It seems to be online only.) What kind of editorial policy does it have? It looks self-published. So think about it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Iadrian yu. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Normal ca te atac, nu e frumos sa distrugi munca altora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.203 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nui nimic normal sa ma ataci (in ce lume traiesti?), si nu distrug nimic pentru ca tot exista in history. Daca te uiti mai atent, o sa observi ca am dat revert din cauza ca intentionat si constant incerci sa stergi informatia despre originea lui. Nu am nimic impotriva sa adaugi informatii dar fara sa scoti informatii relevante si documentate. Noroc. Adrian (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, pentru ca ii Wiki EN, ar trebui sa vorbim in Engleza ca sa fie ok pentru toata lumea. Adrian (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This revert goes back to saying "domestic" and Latin + some Greek influences, without specifying, which were the "domestic" languages. The only language that is mentioned is the Greek, which actually has the smallest influence on Aromanian languages (as opposed to Albanian and Bulgarian). There has been mutual exchange of words especially from and to Albanian and Aromanian, so saying simply "domestic" is poorly phrased. Shqiptardhepike (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the latest addition of unreferenced info that can be problematic.

• The Aromanian language descends from the vulgar Latin spoken by native Balkan people subsequent to their Latinization by Rome. It is a mix of domestic and Latin language with additional influences from other languages of the Balkanik peninsula. - I understand that you added this info(and I reverted it), please correct me if I am wrong.

If you present a reliable source for this info then this info should be reintroduced. I noticed that you removed some unsourced info but just to add another piece of unsourced info instead? In my opinion Bulgarian had a very small influence (if any) on Aromanian language, but that doesnt matter if I also don`t have any valid source to support this claim.Adrian (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added the source, please check, and thanks for your help.Shqiptardhepike (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great ref. Thanks for the info. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the data is available, with two caveats: ethnicity only (religion will be released later), and it's on the site of individual county statistical directorates, so not all in one place. And some of those directorate sites hide the data a little, so you have to search a bit. Still, for any county, just Google directia statistica Dolj, Vaslui, whatever, and you'll find the link. The relevant press release will be titled "Comunicat de presa : Rezultatele provizorii RPL 2011" or something like that. Examples: Brasov, Maramures, Bihor. Nationwide data here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to explain these edits? [13] [14] [15] [16] I was astonished to see that you participated in a report concerning me even though it has been a long time that I have not been encountered you on Wikipedia ,viz, I do not edit articles you do, there was no talk page discussion between two of us, and nothing else that might be possible to mention...nothing and nothing..... I am looking forward to reading your response.--Nmate (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have your talkpage on my watch list from a while ago(I did`t unsubscribed) therefore I noticed a new problem you had created involving 2 other editors. It is very strange to see another editor manipulating other people`s comments without their permission therefore I thought I should see if I could help. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why eliminated Teodor II Muzaka from the list of leader? He fought in the battle of Kosovo in 1389 where he died together with his 4000 men. He was a leader and this is confirmed. You can see the ref in the page Teodor II Muzaka. Please add Teodor in his right position. Paulin Kola: The Search for Greater Albania. Hurst, London 2003,

, eingeschränkte Vorschau) [http://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-Albanais-Illyriens-lind%C3%A9pendance-Kosovo/dp/2213628947) Serge Métais: Histoire des Albanais. Fayard, Paris 2006 Friendly, ]

There is very little information about the Lordship of Berat to be added without a valid source. The first source, I can`t find the information that Teodor II Muzaka really participated in the Battle of Kosovo and the second source is just the cover of a book. Can you please provide a valid source for this info? Or the page number in the first source where can I find this info? Greetings.Adrian (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is i fact that Teodor II participated in this battle because he dead in this battle. Theodore II Muzaka of Berat who was killed during the battle. Another source from

talk) 00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]