User talk:Iadrian yu

The most beautiful parrot in the world :-)

Consider this please

The greatest escape action in the world :-)))

Genetics and the Origin of Berbers

Y-chromosome

The Y-chromosome genetic structure of the Berber population seems to be mainly Modulated by geography, The Y-DNA Haplogroups E and J, which are so common among the population of North African and the Middle East, Haplogroups E and J, are the most widespread among North African groups especially E1b1b1b (E-M81, formerly E3b1b) which is typical of the indigenous Berbers of North-West Africa. In some parts of Morocco E1b1b1b can peak at 80% of the population, its observe in both Arab and Berber-speakers, Followed by Haplogroup J especially J1 which is typically Middle Eastern, its highest density is Founded in the Southwestern Arabian Peninsula, it's also observe among North African Arab and Berber-speakers. Followed by Haplogroup R1 it has been observed in North African though with lower frequency.

Dear Iadrian yu "" Why Reverted MY edits what's Wrong Please in light ""  ???

Hello. I apologize if I reverted something that was all right but I saw that you removed a good part of the article and made some major changes without references. I don`t have problems with the content but since this article is a target of recent and constant vandalism I revert big unexplained changes. You could update your user/discussion page so people would`t think that you are here for disruption. Blank user/discussion pages are usually a bad sign. Please try to talk with someone regarding this kind of changes with some knowledge on this subject (that I don`t posses). If necessary I will revert myself since this looks to be a good edit but please try to provide some references for this kind of big changes. Please sign your post with four tiles WP:SIGN. Regards. Adrian (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello.Iadrian yu

There are indigenous Berbers i.e. E1b1b1b (E-M81, formerly E3b1b) which is typical of the indigenous Berbers ,and There are culturally Berbers i.e. Haplogroup J especially J1 Followed by Haplogroup R1 .

Haplogroup J especially J1 is Founded in Algeria (35%), Tunisia (31%), its most frequent in the Southwestern Arabian Peninsula especially Yemen(76%)

Haplogroup R1 is also found in North Africa where its frequency surpasses 10% in some parts of Algeria.

The data confirm that North Africa has mainly been a recipient of gene flow from African and Asian surroundingareas, thus because of Haplogroup J & Haplogroup R1 The Y-chromosome genetic structure of the Berber population seems to be mainly Modulated by geography. For example in the Berber Kabyle Genetics E1b1b1b (E-M81) is frequently founded (i.e.indigenous),J1 is founded, R1*(xR1a) is founded.

Haplogroups E and J have been detected as the largest haplogroups in North African and the Middle East in ME J is larger Followed by E, in NA E is larger Followed by J.

This Abstract is simple thus ,making it essayer for everyone. The other changes were made because this Abstract is the key for understanding Genetics and the Origin of Berber people.

Note : There is no pure ethnicity only if thy were living in an isolated island and thy also could be mixed.

fore example the Phoenicians (J2 and J1),the Romans,Roman Arabia ,etc... this are all a case in point that shows the historic and significant relation between North African and the Middle East.

Note:the Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the Phoenicians themselves were Arab tribes from the Arabian shores of the Red Sea.

Roman Arabia became the ideological power base for Septemius Severus in the Roman Near East. Arabia became such a symbol of loyalty to Severus and the empire, according to Bowersock , that during his war against Clodius Albinus, in Gaul, Syrian opponents propagated a rumour that the Third Cyrenaica legion controlling Arabia Petraea had defected. That it would matter to an issue in France/Gaul that a single legion in a backwater province on the other side of the empire would rebel indicates the political sway that Arabia had amassed.

Lastly: The Arab conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and to a lower extent Sicily and southern Spain, spread J1 and J2 in lesser extent far further than Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy symbol (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC) ("Tommy symbol (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)")

Székely origins

Thanks for the message - my edit to the Székely page may have been a bit hasty in all truth. I was trying to "soften" the Eberhardt reference for a few reasons, none of which are probably absolutely acceptable under Wikipedia policies. First of all, Eberhardt is a respected expert in Polish history, with other interests in the present-day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus', and his wide-ranging survey, while kind of impressive for its sheer scope, gives some evidence that when it comes to Romania, he's out of his depth. (For example: he claims that Hungarians are in the majority "only" in Miercurea-Ciuc and Tîrgu-Mureş "districts" instead of judeţele Harghita and Mureş, and not only names the Romanian units wrongly, but forgets Covasna entirely). His theory on the genesis of the Székely is not exactly widespread (I cannot recall another serious historian who makes the claim that the Székely are Hungarianized Romanian-Slavs) and is buried in his endnotes, not in his main argument. (He offers no support for his claim, and he doesn't really have to - his book is about populations today, not about ethnogenesis.) He also makes the contentious claim (again without explaining anything) that a "Romanian" population existed in the middle ages (there were of course the vlaşii, but were they conscious of being Romanian yet?) while the Hungarians (who had a kingdom, after all) were merely "Finno-Ugric tribes." Again, he could make a case for that point, but he would need to offer some evidence; as it stands, he's making a kind of explosive claim that runs the risk of putting Hungarians and Romanians on a collision course with each other again over their interpretations of history - this is something we all need to make sure to avoid. On top of all this we have the potential for people getting offended (some elements of the Székely would rather die than consider themselves ethnic-Romanian or Slavic) and, more troubling (since I'm not one to give in to chauvinists like the people I just mentioned), we could wind up with people reading the article, seeing that claim as the best-referenced (from one source), and taking it as authoritative. To sum up: Eberhardt is not a historian of Transylvania/Romania/Hungary, is not very comfortable with the region, makes some contentious points apparently without realizing it (Romanians before Hungarians in Transylvania), and is not even writing about ethnogenesis. Personally I don't think his view belongs in the article, especially since he never gives any references or explanations for it, but if it stays, there should be some kind of warning to readers that he is not an expert on Romania or ethnogenesis, let alone on the Székely - or at least that his opinions are not commonly accepted. Thoughts? Hubacelgrand (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well he probably makes this separation from Secui and Hungarians since by him they are totally separate ethnicities therefore he probably divided some areas where Secui are populated and areas where only Hungarians are. Don`t forget that those areas are pretty isolated and the has the lowest population index in Romania that is why some villages have "pure" Hungarian and Szekely presence. I can`t analyze his theory since that is beyond my expertise but if he is recognized (and his theory) there should`t be anything wrong with it as one of theories about their origin. If you have a couple of valid sources that states that this particular theory is a Fringe opinion please re-insert that at the article with references. Well about historical Vlachs most of them (except Aromanians,Mengelo-Romanians and Istro-Romanian) are mordern-day Romanians , it is just an exonym. I see that you analyze his theory in some detail which is quite interesting but beyond mu expertise to talk about it in such detail. Quote: some elements of the Székely would rather die than consider themselves ethnic-Romanian or Slavic - I wouldn go that far, only ultra-nationalists are sensitive about that stuff but to the normal people there isn`t any problem. Szekely people can identify themself with any nation in the world but only because they identify themself as that, it doesnt mean that they are really a part of that particular nation. While I personally think that they are a subgroup of the Hungarian nation that is not important on Wikipedia, facts and references are. Summary: I see that in the article we have several theories but it starts with this [1] Their origin has been much debated; it is, however, now generally accepted that they are true Hungarians (or at least the descendants of a Magyarized Turkic peoples), transplanted there to guard the frontier, their name meaning simply “frontier guards”. whichs pretty much states that they are accepted as part of the Hungarian nation, and the list with theories starts with this sentance There are various ideas about Szeklers' ancestry: i don`t see any authority or missleading information in this section. I really don`t know what to say more than this, if you want you can expand that first sentence and say that the one with the Hungarian origins is the most accepted theory or similar to be more clear, but again it would be nice if there would be some reference that support this. iadrian (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points, and just let me be clear: I am not Székely or even Hungarian (although many of the people most important to me are both), and I have no tolerance at all for the kind of ultra-nationalist viewpoints I said I was afraid of offending. Transylvania is multiethnic and I love it for that; I just wish everyone would get along. (For the record I ascribe to the theory that the Székely are descended from Turkic tribes who intermarried with Hungarians from Hungary sent to guard the Carpathians.) As for sources explicitly challenging Eberhardt, I find it unlikely that there are any, simply because Eberhardt isn't "on the radar" of people concerned with these questions (they are Hungarian and Romanian historians, he is a respected Polish demographer who in one book dabbled in the demographics of the Carpathian basin). If, for example, a highly-respected Japanese literary critic mentioned in the endnotes of one of his books (say, on Eminovici/Eminescu) that Romanians are all actually Serbs and Turks who were "Latinized" by the Crusaders (to give a ridiculous example), without explaining anything about how he arrived at that conclusion, I would not expect serious Romanian historians to mention how silly it was - he would simply not be on their radar. The reference seems to be here simply because it's easily found on Google books. Perhaps we could compromise by mentioning that Eberhardt is a Polish demographer (not a specialist in the region) and that he puts forth this (unsubstantiated, but we don't have to mention that) theory in his endnotes. Meanwhile I'll be looking for some explicit references to support the other, more mainstream theories. Thanks for taking this discussion so seriously and being so fair-minded about everything, and for wanting the Székely article to be as professional as possible. Hubacelgrand (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well in Transylvania there are no problems, except some isolated incidents mainly because of the refusal of some members of the Hungarian/Szekely minority to integrate in the Romanian society, of course there also and Romanian ultra-nationalists that see this as an insult. That kind of problems are mainly isolated and very rare. I have a friend that travels to Harghita and Covasna counties by business and by him everything is OK, incidents that happen are politicized and exaggerated on both sides. People there live a normal life like anywhere else. I understand your examples and they are valid. We could say something like this According to one of the studies of the Polish demographer Piotr Eberhardt the Székely formed.... No problem. Thank you. We should focus on mainstream theories more than alternatives. iadrian (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My my, the page for Domokos hasn't seen this much activity in a long time - my favorite village must be moving up in the world. Wikipedia's page on Székelyföld is apparently at Székely Land (not Szekler), so to keep things consistent let's call it by that strange half-English name. Furthermore, what exactly is your objection to mentioning that people call it Domokos? Hitting it with "original research" might be a bit much - after all, the articles on Cluj-Napoca and Sighetu Marmaţiei mention "Cluj" and "Sighet" without any objections, and, more to the point, there is no tag for Târgu-Mureş being called "Vásárhely" (which it generally is, at least by ethnic Hungarians.) If you are worried about accuracy, I can assure you that it's entirely possible to live in Sândominic for weeks without noticing that the village is called anything but "Domokos." Hubacelgrand (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have some articles in Transylvania on my watch list since the disruptive edits of one user. I saw that in English it is Szekler Land Székely Land , You can see there that there are 2 bold names , first in Hungarian and the second one in English use. Either way it is OK, as long it is used one of those 2 official names. It is not my objection but since it is added by a user who has a nationalistic agenda and I doubt in it`s accuracy since it is indeed a dubious sentence in that form: Because the majority of the population speaks Hungarian, the name Sândominic is generally used only for official governmental purposes; in almost all cases the people refer to the village simply as Domokos. - in this form , as it is composed it has some dubious thoughts. We could change this sentence to avoid weasel words The name Sândominic is generally used for official purposes; usually the population of the village refer it simply as Domokos.. The first version have some issues that if left like that it would need a valid reference. iadrian (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Székelyföld doesn't get written about very much in English, but the trend these days is to go with Székely Land rather than Szeklerland ("Szekler" is passing out of fashion in academia and it's a kind of odd hybrid Hungarian-German-English word anyway, so I'm not sorry to see it go. Some writers still use Szekler but it's old-fashioned.) More importantly, the wikipedia article on it is at Székely Land, so I think we should keep using that name. As for the second thing, you're probably right that it sounds a bit tendentious that way - I think a good compromise would be "The name Sândominic is used for most official purposes, but the population usually uses the shortened form 'Domokos'." Hubacelgrand (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is ok. Or maybe we should`t mention the official name at all since that is obvious. The version you proposed is OK, also we can consider this one too: The village is also known by the local name as Domokos. Please let me know what version should we use. iadrian (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Adrian, I left you a message on my own talk page in response to yours from a little while ago. Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Primul Regiment Secuiesc de Infanterie 1762-1851, pozitionarea in teritoriu.png

Thank you for uploading File:Primul Regiment Secuiesc de Infanterie 1762-1851, pozitionarea in teritoriu.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

There are two bodies which do mediation at Wikipedia. WP:MEDCAB and WP:RFM are the main pages of both, and both pages contain instructions on how to file a request. There's a neat little wizard you use which walks you through the process. --Jayron32 01:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You could also try for a less formal process like Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. --Jayron32 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of the nature of the problem, and I am specifically not taking sides here. My recommendation is that you try one of the methods above, and explain, with diffs, why there is a dispute at all. Your post an ANI seems to be directed towards people who are familiar with the political situation you are disputing with the other editor. Many people will be unfamiliar with the nature of the dispute, so whatever of the above pages you choose to list on, you are going to have to concisely and clearly explain what is going on. Try not to get too long-winded in your explanation, (see WP:TLDR), but also try to let others know the nature of the dispute so they can judge what is going on. It's obvious that this is part of a larger dispute in the Real World over a political issue; and that political issue is NOT going to be solved at Wikipedia. Instead, we should focus on solving the back-and-forth problems you two seem to be having in a way that reaches a mutual compromise. --Jayron32 01:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Try something else. If he refuses to accede to mediation, you can't force him. But you can still get a third opinion from other editors or use any of the other processes at WP:DR. --Jayron32 02:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should notify him that you are trying to see about working out your differences, and would like to see him participate. --Jayron32 02:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Lunca de Jos, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

I think this mediation could be canceled, because a consensus has been reached (DerGelbeMann (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

I will try to cancel it.Adrian (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Hello. Sándor Egeresi is live and was born in Serbia, but he is a Hungarian, so use the Hun. name. (The serbian version of his name equal the Hungarian version, just a transliteration.) When Avram Iancu was born, the official language was a german and latin - previously and later Hungarian - but not Romanian (officialy just from 1918). This is a historically article, so we must use historically names.

Outesticide (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right, the official name in Serbian administration the Serb. (transliteration). But

• I remember, I may ask for appear my name in minority language in the old paper Licna karta
• This is english wiki, my opinion we should use the native name (see István Pásztor, József Kasza ect.)

I think also we need somebody else to clarify this. Outesticide (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• • No problem. But, you should see Bojan Aleksandrović. Outesticide (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hm. I think you should ask admins or relevant editors about this problem (a lot of article poses this). Outesticide (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Boian Alexandrovici

I think that according to the Wikipedia policy, the most used name (which might be or not identical to the name from his identity card) should be used in the title of the article. --Olahus (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

re: Hello

Hi, according to the definition found on the main page of the project "WikiProject Hungary is a WikiProject whose aim is to increase the quality of articles related to Hungary and Hungarians." So if an article is related to Hungarians it's considered part of it. Also sometimes articles are related through sub topics, such as being super important to the history of Hungary, sport of Hungary, music of Hungary etc etc. But then it really must be important to that sub-topic, the most important rule is being directly related to Hungary or Hungarians. Hope that answers your question. Hobartimus (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom report

Hello Iadrian yu, I have reported you on ArbCom and I'd sooner you unfolded your standpoint there. --Nmate (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been charged at WP:AE that your edits violate the standards for Eastern Europe that were imposed by Arbom as a result of the Digwuren case. If you are willing to have your edits judged on their merits at AE, then you can reply at that noticeboard and waive the Digwuren notification. (It does not seem that you ever got an official notification about Digwuren). Otherwise the case will probably be dismissed, but if your edits merit attention in the future, it can be reopened. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. My edits violate the standards for E.Europe how? I did`t received an official notification and as I explained on the arbcom request this accusation has no sense because the basis for filing it are invalid per WP:TALK. I don`t understand , my edits to be judged? I don`t understand why should my edits be judged in the first place? I don`t understand, this "case" has wrongly opened in the first place, how can it be reopened because it doesn`t exist? I don`t understand all this with noticeboard and to waive the Digwuren notification. Can you please explain it to me? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nmates's allegation seems to be 'bullying behavior' by you. (He cites your block log as evidence you have misbehaved in the past). I haven't looked into this, but if you are actually bullying other editors, it would be a violation of the existing WP:DIGWUREN case. For example, see the principles which Arbcom laid down for Eastern Europe articles at Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Principles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then this accusation is false. All I did was that I deleted some Ip`s comment that wasn`t conform WP:TALK from article`s talk page and talked with this IP, explained were is the problem in that behavior. I haven`t had any contact with other editors recently(from 18 august, excluding Nmate who wrote a threat instead of an explanation for deleting my comment). Thank you for everything, I have read the principles and I consider that I am respecting them. I had 2 or 3 blocks over edit warring over one article(John Hynadi) where since the last block, I haven`t entered in contact with anyone involved there or edited that article as I promised after my last block. My behavior about edit warring has changed since then as it can be noticed. About bullying other editors that never happened nor do I intend to start doing it:-). I guess the case is closed and never existed. If I did, or am doing anything wrong please inform me so I can correct that because I really don`t see doing anything wrong except flowing Wiki policy. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

I see with this edit you reverted User:Quadruplum's change with the edit summary (Strubes99), i.e. a banned user.

I'm not convinced the two are the same user. Quadruplum has also been asking a lot for translating fragments of stuff on my user talk page (for Lajos Kossuth, Anyos Jedlik, and now Louis I of Hungary). He doesn't say where he gets the fragments from, so it is very painful for me to translate them out of context, he then slaps them into the article without sources and so on, actually I think he copy-pastes them from the "Read" version so it loses all the markup, and preserves the odd typo or question in the text – I had naively assumed he would read the responses and not just blindly copy-paste them in. He is now (see my talk page) not using his real name but using an IP again. I've warned him there to have a look at WP:SOCK.

As you can imagine, this is kinda frustrating and time consuming for me, but I am not convinced he is the same user as User:Strubes99. I am only guessing from being a somewhat different style. However annoying, I am not convinced the two are the same – but could be convinced by a checkuser or something, which I've been holding off asking for.

So, I'm not sure what to add except to ask your advice. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration sanctions warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)