Hello,
I see you speak many languages :) if you wish, we can speak in Serbian/Croatian/Romanian :). About the Secui article you wrote this sentance Nonetheless, Eberhardt's is a fringe opinion unsubstantiated by most other researchers, and the Székely emphatically do not consider themselves Slavic or ethnic-Romanian. I don`t know of that is true or not, nevertheless that is not important to the Wikipedia but it is important who said it? According to who Eberhardt's theory is a fringe opinion ? I personally know that Secui identify them-self as a part of the Hungarian nation but that doesn`t change what are they in fact. Greetings. iadrian ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
iadrian ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
iadrian ( talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
iadrian ( talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw you participated to this subject and have knowledge about this, I hope you don`t mind for inviting you here to help to reach a consensus. (i`l copy the invitation i sent to other users)
Hello, i would like to invite you to try to solve this dispute [1]. Consider participating please in the interest of solving this dispute. Thank you. Adrian ( talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have read the whole section again [2] and it looks to me that we have a consensus about the "Szekely land" issue. I am correct? Can you please have a vote at the end [3] just to be clear and to avoid any further possible confusions. Thank you. Adrian ( talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I try to improve some Székely Land-related articles, especially those on settlements. I saw that you made contributions to the Sandominic article. I partly reverted it, but I feel sorry now, as I would like to encourage you to participate, to the extent that you have time for it, in the improvement of these articles. I am working now on Harghita county towns and villages, I move according to the alphabet, so I already added info from A to L. As I am Hungarian, I am neither a native speaker nor an uninterested editor, so the advice and assistance of a neutral + native speaker editor would be a great help not only by having a better text but also in preventing edit conflicts and presenting the area in such a way which makes useful information available for English-speaking people ie. information useful for them and not information that Hungarians and/or Romanians consider important to be propagated. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My problem was with the sentence "It lies in the "unofficial" Székely Land area of the historic region of Transylvania. My feeling was that the word "unofficial" is more like an epithet than a simple adjective. The sentence must express that the village is in the Székely Land AND while it must not create the impression that the Székely Land is some sort of independent country or separate administrative unit but it should not confine Székely Land into the historical past either. The sentence reminded me 'Turkish Kurdistan as the unofficial name for Eastern-Turkey', although the term Székely Land does not have a primarily political sense, so we do not have to be so cautious to use it only with explanatory epithets. I personally felt a negative connotation in it: unofficial >not legal> illegal. By now, I am not quite sure I was right.:) Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely understand, it's not the first time this has come up (even among my friends in Transylvania). At least the way I was using it, and the way it is generally used in English, "unofficial" simply means that it's not "officially" recognized as a political entity, and doesn't make the Székelyföld any less real, important, or current a concept. (If we don't put in "unofficial" we will have Romanians misinterpreting it as irredentism, which is something I'd like to avoid if at all possible.) For us, Székelyföld isn't primarily a political thing, it's about culture and identity beyond politics - but for some Romanians, who are (understandably) misinformed about the autonomy movement by irresponsible Romanian media (or who have come across some of the really extreme and embarrassing irredentists), it sounds political, so "unofficial" seems like the best compromise - and lets them know we aren't currently considering it a political unit. Thoughts? Hubacelgrand ( talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you, this is exactly what I mean. The problem is that sometimes it is difficult to find the proper balance between avoiding giving ground to (unwarranted) suspicion of irredentism by our Romanian collegues and self-censorship by repacing what we think by what is politically correct in the Romanian concept. I have grown to love "unoffial Székely Land" Rokarudi.--Rokarudi 07:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, i moved my comment here , I hope you don`t mind, don`t want to confuse the subjects on the ANI board. My question was: If you don`t mind me asking, why do you use this format " Sândominic/Csíkszentdomokos" ? For instance when I write about Debrecen I use only the official Hungarian name not Debrecen/(Debreţin). Also we don`t use that format anywhere on Wikipedia. Why is that? Adrian ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair question, I don't mind your asking at all. I lived for a while in the Székelyföld and lived among mostly Hungarians, so I still think of the towns in terms of their Hungarian names. Furthermore, in most of these places, the Hungarian name is co-official with the Romanian name on a local level (the signs entering Sândominic give both the Romanian and the Hungarian names, the official buildings have signs in both languages, the local council produces documents in both languages, the meetings are usually in Hungarian). However, given that the towns are in Romania and have nationally-official Romanian names, I like to put those first. I am not apprised of the legal situation of the Romanian minority in Hungary, but I don't think there is a current Romanian majority in Debrecen or a significant Romanian minority with legal language rights (if there were, your using the slashed names would be a very good thing to do - I would probably do it myself too. If I ever needed to talk about Uzdin/Uzdâni, I would write it just so.) My using both names is an attempt to give maximum respect both to the majority Hungarian population and to the Romanian state - and an acknowledgement that while the inhabitants use one name, the Romanian central government uses another. Hubacelgrand ( talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw this [5], your comment about the capital of the Szekely land. The Hungarian names of villages from Romania are used only by the Hungarian minority (and you :-) ). What you are doing (in some instances using only Hungarian names) is called POV pushing , because not only an editor from Romania would`t know what are you talking about, but you are also forcing them to find and on some level learn Hungarian names for Romanian settlements. We are talking about a Romanian-related issue and we should use only official names like we would do for any other example (country). In real life this doesn`t matter that much, but on Wikipedia when you interact with non-Hungarian users I would advise to at lest use the official names in front of the alternative , as you did till now. As something very strange is your knowledge of the Romanian language (2), Hungarian(1), and you prefer the use of alternative (Hungarian) names. I hope you don`t understand this comment in bad faith, but you must admit that some things you do are indeed strange and inappropriate. Adrian ( talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Adrian, I only saw this message today, so I'm sorry I took so long to respond. If I used only Hungarian names for something it was either a) a temporary slip-up or b) because I was directing my comments toward a Hungarian editor who would be more familiar with them, and it's not a policy I generally follow. To be honest I am still a bit confused why Romanians would resist learning a bit more about a very beautiful and interesting part of their country (the lands inhabited by the Székely are part of Romania - Romanians should learn about that part of their country too, which is impossible without understanding the people who live there and what they call their settlements, whose official Romanian names are usually translations or transliterations of the original Hungarian ones). I prefer the Hungarian names because my experience with them is deeply personal, a product of actually living in the places, where almost everyone refers to them in conversation by their Hungarian names - it's just how I learned them in the course of my work, research, and trips to the bars :-). (When you're living in Western Europe or America, there's not much chance to learn these things.) You've already established enough good faith with me that I wouldn't dream of taking this comment badly, but try not to read my preferences as strange or inappropriate. I'm more careful in the articles than I am on the talk pages, necessarily. And try to understand my position: for almost every town in Harghita, I had to go and learn the Romanian names after I learned the Hungarian ones, which was certainly not a problem at all for me but which means that for me, personally, the Hungarian names are the ones I think of first for all of these places. (Strange? I have had the strange experience of being a person from the "West" getting to know and love Romania, including Harghita, so yes, some things I do or say might seem "strange." But "inappropriate" ? On talk pages I may occasionally slip up, but I hope I've established enough good faith with you for you to know that I don't mean anything inflammatory or anti-Romanian by it.) Hubacelgrand ( talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hubacelgrand, I was already grateful for your contributions as a mediator in the Székely Land discussion. And thanks for following these articles and improving them from time to time. I plan to visite the area soon and, hopefully, I can upload some nice pictures. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this ongoing discussion ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
The plural form Székelys is already adopted in English:
I've also provided a link: [6], so the usual plural form is Székelys. The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread: [7]. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys( Iaaasi ( talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
Adrian ( talk) 10:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Adrian ( talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I made some reactions on the talk page as well, but of course will answer you in private...I've written there as well "personal union" can be accepted because Michael The Brave's rule fulfilling the needed requirements, however, this expression was never used, neither in contemporary, nor in later sources. There are famous and openly declared personal unions in history, like Hungary-Croatia, etc. but I think, to have some compromise it's ok. I am considering to add some more info where Kosztin's refercence were inserted, because not only he "thinks" written there, many other sources, of course, the other side probably accuse them beacuse most of them are Hungarian (however, the value of a work does not depend on nationality or how many foreign sources state the same, as you can read my longer explanation on Anglo-Saxon-type methods). However, I won't make any further edit, if you have some other notice/advice to me please tell it, I am really grateful you helped to have a consense. Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC))
I am very glad as well, if you agree you could help me in the future to arrange such disputes, however, since my registration this was almost the first kind of "conflict", and this case (with all of its distractions) is very edifying, and this was only a minor topic, can be reinforced with Romanian sources also, I think I would place them. Unfortunately you can do everything, but the Romanian or Anglo-Saxon history writing deals with serious imbalance and if you support any other thing you will be immediately "pro-Hungarian" or "unreliable", although, only evidence and facts should talk. If you have problems to acces sources, tell me what you need, I would gladly help you if I can! Cheers ( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC))
![]() |
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry to bother you but you helped the last time I had this problem. I am wondering if you are wiling to do so this time too. There is a problem on this page [8], adding unreferenced data and writing really long and answers :). Apparently I am not able to explain to him how wikipedia works (WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:SOURCE). If you are wiling to help, I would appreciate it. Greetings. Adrian ( talk) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you speak many languages :) if you wish, we can speak in Serbian/Croatian/Romanian :). About the Secui article you wrote this sentance Nonetheless, Eberhardt's is a fringe opinion unsubstantiated by most other researchers, and the Székely emphatically do not consider themselves Slavic or ethnic-Romanian. I don`t know of that is true or not, nevertheless that is not important to the Wikipedia but it is important who said it? According to who Eberhardt's theory is a fringe opinion ? I personally know that Secui identify them-self as a part of the Hungarian nation but that doesn`t change what are they in fact. Greetings. iadrian ( talk) 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
iadrian ( talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
iadrian ( talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
iadrian ( talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw you participated to this subject and have knowledge about this, I hope you don`t mind for inviting you here to help to reach a consensus. (i`l copy the invitation i sent to other users)
Hello, i would like to invite you to try to solve this dispute [1]. Consider participating please in the interest of solving this dispute. Thank you. Adrian ( talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have read the whole section again [2] and it looks to me that we have a consensus about the "Szekely land" issue. I am correct? Can you please have a vote at the end [3] just to be clear and to avoid any further possible confusions. Thank you. Adrian ( talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I try to improve some Székely Land-related articles, especially those on settlements. I saw that you made contributions to the Sandominic article. I partly reverted it, but I feel sorry now, as I would like to encourage you to participate, to the extent that you have time for it, in the improvement of these articles. I am working now on Harghita county towns and villages, I move according to the alphabet, so I already added info from A to L. As I am Hungarian, I am neither a native speaker nor an uninterested editor, so the advice and assistance of a neutral + native speaker editor would be a great help not only by having a better text but also in preventing edit conflicts and presenting the area in such a way which makes useful information available for English-speaking people ie. information useful for them and not information that Hungarians and/or Romanians consider important to be propagated. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My problem was with the sentence "It lies in the "unofficial" Székely Land area of the historic region of Transylvania. My feeling was that the word "unofficial" is more like an epithet than a simple adjective. The sentence must express that the village is in the Székely Land AND while it must not create the impression that the Székely Land is some sort of independent country or separate administrative unit but it should not confine Székely Land into the historical past either. The sentence reminded me 'Turkish Kurdistan as the unofficial name for Eastern-Turkey', although the term Székely Land does not have a primarily political sense, so we do not have to be so cautious to use it only with explanatory epithets. I personally felt a negative connotation in it: unofficial >not legal> illegal. By now, I am not quite sure I was right.:) Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely understand, it's not the first time this has come up (even among my friends in Transylvania). At least the way I was using it, and the way it is generally used in English, "unofficial" simply means that it's not "officially" recognized as a political entity, and doesn't make the Székelyföld any less real, important, or current a concept. (If we don't put in "unofficial" we will have Romanians misinterpreting it as irredentism, which is something I'd like to avoid if at all possible.) For us, Székelyföld isn't primarily a political thing, it's about culture and identity beyond politics - but for some Romanians, who are (understandably) misinformed about the autonomy movement by irresponsible Romanian media (or who have come across some of the really extreme and embarrassing irredentists), it sounds political, so "unofficial" seems like the best compromise - and lets them know we aren't currently considering it a political unit. Thoughts? Hubacelgrand ( talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with you, this is exactly what I mean. The problem is that sometimes it is difficult to find the proper balance between avoiding giving ground to (unwarranted) suspicion of irredentism by our Romanian collegues and self-censorship by repacing what we think by what is politically correct in the Romanian concept. I have grown to love "unoffial Székely Land" Rokarudi.--Rokarudi 07:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, i moved my comment here , I hope you don`t mind, don`t want to confuse the subjects on the ANI board. My question was: If you don`t mind me asking, why do you use this format " Sândominic/Csíkszentdomokos" ? For instance when I write about Debrecen I use only the official Hungarian name not Debrecen/(Debreţin). Also we don`t use that format anywhere on Wikipedia. Why is that? Adrian ( talk) 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair question, I don't mind your asking at all. I lived for a while in the Székelyföld and lived among mostly Hungarians, so I still think of the towns in terms of their Hungarian names. Furthermore, in most of these places, the Hungarian name is co-official with the Romanian name on a local level (the signs entering Sândominic give both the Romanian and the Hungarian names, the official buildings have signs in both languages, the local council produces documents in both languages, the meetings are usually in Hungarian). However, given that the towns are in Romania and have nationally-official Romanian names, I like to put those first. I am not apprised of the legal situation of the Romanian minority in Hungary, but I don't think there is a current Romanian majority in Debrecen or a significant Romanian minority with legal language rights (if there were, your using the slashed names would be a very good thing to do - I would probably do it myself too. If I ever needed to talk about Uzdin/Uzdâni, I would write it just so.) My using both names is an attempt to give maximum respect both to the majority Hungarian population and to the Romanian state - and an acknowledgement that while the inhabitants use one name, the Romanian central government uses another. Hubacelgrand ( talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I saw this [5], your comment about the capital of the Szekely land. The Hungarian names of villages from Romania are used only by the Hungarian minority (and you :-) ). What you are doing (in some instances using only Hungarian names) is called POV pushing , because not only an editor from Romania would`t know what are you talking about, but you are also forcing them to find and on some level learn Hungarian names for Romanian settlements. We are talking about a Romanian-related issue and we should use only official names like we would do for any other example (country). In real life this doesn`t matter that much, but on Wikipedia when you interact with non-Hungarian users I would advise to at lest use the official names in front of the alternative , as you did till now. As something very strange is your knowledge of the Romanian language (2), Hungarian(1), and you prefer the use of alternative (Hungarian) names. I hope you don`t understand this comment in bad faith, but you must admit that some things you do are indeed strange and inappropriate. Adrian ( talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Adrian, I only saw this message today, so I'm sorry I took so long to respond. If I used only Hungarian names for something it was either a) a temporary slip-up or b) because I was directing my comments toward a Hungarian editor who would be more familiar with them, and it's not a policy I generally follow. To be honest I am still a bit confused why Romanians would resist learning a bit more about a very beautiful and interesting part of their country (the lands inhabited by the Székely are part of Romania - Romanians should learn about that part of their country too, which is impossible without understanding the people who live there and what they call their settlements, whose official Romanian names are usually translations or transliterations of the original Hungarian ones). I prefer the Hungarian names because my experience with them is deeply personal, a product of actually living in the places, where almost everyone refers to them in conversation by their Hungarian names - it's just how I learned them in the course of my work, research, and trips to the bars :-). (When you're living in Western Europe or America, there's not much chance to learn these things.) You've already established enough good faith with me that I wouldn't dream of taking this comment badly, but try not to read my preferences as strange or inappropriate. I'm more careful in the articles than I am on the talk pages, necessarily. And try to understand my position: for almost every town in Harghita, I had to go and learn the Romanian names after I learned the Hungarian ones, which was certainly not a problem at all for me but which means that for me, personally, the Hungarian names are the ones I think of first for all of these places. (Strange? I have had the strange experience of being a person from the "West" getting to know and love Romania, including Harghita, so yes, some things I do or say might seem "strange." But "inappropriate" ? On talk pages I may occasionally slip up, but I hope I've established enough good faith with you for you to know that I don't mean anything inflammatory or anti-Romanian by it.) Hubacelgrand ( talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hubacelgrand, I was already grateful for your contributions as a mediator in the Székely Land discussion. And thanks for following these articles and improving them from time to time. I plan to visite the area soon and, hopefully, I can upload some nice pictures. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this ongoing discussion ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
The plural form Székelys is already adopted in English:
I've also provided a link: [6], so the usual plural form is Székelys. The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread: [7]. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys( Iaaasi ( talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
Adrian ( talk) 10:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Adrian ( talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I made some reactions on the talk page as well, but of course will answer you in private...I've written there as well "personal union" can be accepted because Michael The Brave's rule fulfilling the needed requirements, however, this expression was never used, neither in contemporary, nor in later sources. There are famous and openly declared personal unions in history, like Hungary-Croatia, etc. but I think, to have some compromise it's ok. I am considering to add some more info where Kosztin's refercence were inserted, because not only he "thinks" written there, many other sources, of course, the other side probably accuse them beacuse most of them are Hungarian (however, the value of a work does not depend on nationality or how many foreign sources state the same, as you can read my longer explanation on Anglo-Saxon-type methods). However, I won't make any further edit, if you have some other notice/advice to me please tell it, I am really grateful you helped to have a consense. Thank You( KIENGIR ( talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC))
I am very glad as well, if you agree you could help me in the future to arrange such disputes, however, since my registration this was almost the first kind of "conflict", and this case (with all of its distractions) is very edifying, and this was only a minor topic, can be reinforced with Romanian sources also, I think I would place them. Unfortunately you can do everything, but the Romanian or Anglo-Saxon history writing deals with serious imbalance and if you support any other thing you will be immediately "pro-Hungarian" or "unreliable", although, only evidence and facts should talk. If you have problems to acces sources, tell me what you need, I would gladly help you if I can! Cheers ( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC))
![]() |
-- Codrin.B ( talk) 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Sorry to bother you but you helped the last time I had this problem. I am wondering if you are wiling to do so this time too. There is a problem on this page [8], adding unreferenced data and writing really long and answers :). Apparently I am not able to explain to him how wikipedia works (WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:SOURCE). If you are wiling to help, I would appreciate it. Greetings. Adrian ( talk) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)