The obsession with Matthias Corvinus of Hungary 's father is WP:UNDUE in his article. It is not the focus of the article, the focus is the life and rule of Corvinus of Hungary. The theories about the father is a passing sentence. And you have to understand that there are several theories about the father, the Walachian, the Slav, and the Cuman at least not to mention Serb and other minor ones. So trying to force a version in which there is only one theory is not the best idea to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you forget about the possible Slav descent? The point is that nobody knows the origins of János Hunyadi's father, but there are multiple theories. What's known is that the family was catholic which is highly unusual for Vlachs or from anybody from Walachia. Anything else than that is your pure original research. The Walachian theory is in all articles already pushing it further trying to exclude the others (or replacing the source's "Walachian" with "Romanian" will lead nowhere). This will be dealt with in the János Hunyadi article and will be removed of the Mathias Corvinus of Hungary article, where it is undue. The sooner you face the facts (multiple possible origin theories, when the source says Walachian follow it and write Walachian, there is no evidence to even to date of birth much less exact parents etc.). Hope you understand. Hobartimus (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hombartimus, I answered on your talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526 http://books.google.hu/books?id=vEJNBqanT_8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=romanian&f=false

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Stephen I of Hungary, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your ladt edit. Please study the wikipedia policies before you continue to edit.--B@xter⁹ 11:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> --> Squash Racket (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> -->--B@xter⁹ 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer honestly: do you/did you have other account(s) on Wikipedia? Squash Racket (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

before answering, tell me what it is the reason of the question(nauneim 17:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Hungary. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Template:Z9 The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Iaaasi reported by User:Baxter9 (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

contribs) (197,001 bytes) (this one won't) (undo) ("this one won't" is this a correct motivation???) 15:10, 12 January 2010 Iaaasi (talk

Decline reason:

This request is incomprehensible. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  12:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Did you previously have other accounts on Wikipedia or is this your first account? Hobartimus (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first account... why do you ask? (iaaasi 07:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

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.  Sandstein  12:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Hunyadi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THAT WAS NOT REMOVED BY ME

CHECK AGAIN !!! (79.117.152.247 (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry, you are right! I compared your edits (all) together, and the "basis" was that IP 142.166.195.160 (overlooked with the edit made on 15:57, 2010 January 14).--B@xter⁹ 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iaaasi. You have new messages at Baxter9's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the river has a relevant Romanian name, why not. I am not against of a freer use of alternative names as long as this does not disrupt an article and their use is not unproportionate with the relevance of that particular name. As the Tisza is a border river between Ukraine and Romania, I would not object it. I think that unless the excessive number of alternative renders the lead section confusing, it is usually better to give prominence to relevant alternatives names eg. names used by a group of people that inhabits or inhabited the region where it flows than to engage in permanent edit wars.

by the way, I think It would be a good idea to work out a mutually acceptable formula for the familiar background of John H. father of king M. This is an English language encyclopeadia, and for outsiders edit warring on whether his ancestors were Romanians or Cumans, he himself was Hungarian or Romanian or both and to what percentage, is ridiculous, and renders the person the object of a provincial debate. This makes no good neither for the reputation of H., nor Hungary and Romania. Kind regards Rokarudi 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You need not be advocate for Serbians or Ukraininians, they can edit if they need bolding for their toponyms.Its you who is obstinate to delete Hungarian content. Anyway, Tisza, is Тиса both on Serbian and Ukrainian, but under wiki guidelines we do not bold cyrillic names. On the other hand, this is not only a purely territorial isue but that of general relevance of a name for a community. Please stop deleting Hungarian names, look for river in Belgium, you can find names in French and Flemisz, or Frencs and German bolded.Rokarudi 11:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --> --> Do you understand that rule? Squash Racket (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what did i revert? (nauneim 14:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

You changed "English" to "neutral". I don't think that's the best description but that's not too important. The main point is arriving from a block and immediately jumping to the same article doing multiple reverts is usually not the best idea. Squash Racket (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buna Ziua Iaassi, The 'Gesta' and the 'Cronicle' are different types of writing. A chronicle is a historical register or account of facts or events disposed in the order of time. A Gesta is genre which is something of literature, something of historiograpy. Gesta is a genre like novel, or poem or sonette ior chronicle.Rokarudi 13:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaassi. I made some changes to the Hungarian article, I do not know for how much time itr will stay. The section was as a matter of fact rather one-sided.Rokarudi 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baxter9&curid=11451171&diff=339166912&oldid=339134872--B@xter⁹ 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Trans hungarian 12th.GIF requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hobartimus (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Trans 13.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [2], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Hobartimus (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hobartimus (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get more information on this link Wikipedia:Copyright violations. A very short explanation is the following : You cannot upload files to Wikipedia in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement. In other words you can't upload the work of others. Photographs and pictures taken by someone else maps drawn by others, text written by others etc. You can write your own text take your own photograph and upload it etc. What you contribute needs to be your own work, or be non-copyrighted (public domain) material.Hobartimus (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Romania, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 15:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iaaaasi,

There is voting on whether to delete or keep my bilingual template on Maros (Mures) County, additional ro Romanian Mures County template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County

As you are active in Romanian-Hungarian issues, you are kindly invited to participate.Rokarudi 16:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Vasile Lupu voivode of Moldava in 1650 wrote to the Ottoman Sublime Porte that one third of the population of Trsnyalvania were Romanians when he wanted to emphasize their great number. The fact is that in 1910 less than 60% of Transylvania was Romanian. The proportion of Romanians in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1910 was 16% that of the Germans was 10%. As undoubtedly lived both Germans and Romanians in Hungary before the great settlements and migrations of the 18th century, and as both in the case of Germans and the Romanians great masses immigrated from outside the country while Hungarians moved to the Hungarian Greate Plain, the Romanian became a majority by the end of the 18th century. Demographic growths was also bigger with Romanian, as a matter of fact. This is the reason why it would be a mistake to emphasize the Romanian majority.--Rokarudi 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Vasile Lupu voivode of Moldova in 1650 wrote to the Ottoman Sublime Porte that one third of the population of Trsnyalvania were Romanians when he wanted to emphasize their great number. The fact is that in 1910 less than 60% of Transylvania was Romanian. The proportion of Romanians in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1910 was 16% that of the Germans was 10%. As undoubtedly lived both Germans and Romanians in Hungary before the great settlements and migrations of the 18th century, and as both in the case of Germans and the Romanians great masses immigrated from outside the country while Hungarians moved to the Hungarian Greate Plain, the Romanian became a majority by the end of the 18th century. Demographic growths was also bigger with Romanian, as a matter of fact. This is the reason why it would be a mistake to emphasize the Romanian majority.--Rokarudi 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Galánta (Galanta) District has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.--roamata (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting for other people's edits (Wikihounding), more than that organizing coalitons for deleting other peoples work or nominating them for deletion in coalitions organized with fellow nationals or with people who belong to assumed allied nations from some political point of view is rather uncivil and forbidden by Wikipedia rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roamata

See: Wikipedia:Harassment

Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Template:Mureş County. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

WHY WAS I BLOCKED?????? NMATE IS THE ONE WHO REVERTED MY CHANGES WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON !!!! MY CHANGE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE PREVIOUS VERSION, ROKARUDI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rokarudi "The list of names in Hungarian seems useless to me, but if you want to keep it, so be it. I proposed a new version of the template (Iaaasi (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) Multumesc, Iaaasi. If we show good will to each other, this can make miracles (Not only on WIKI). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)" He even thanked for my version. Do you know what "multumesc" means in Romanian? I also participation on the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26#Template:Maros_.28Mure.C5.9F.29_County where the adopted solution was THE DELETION OF THE TEMPLATE IN HUNGARIAN User:Nmate came now, without participating on the previous debate, and deleted my version WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT[reply]

Decline reason:

Just because one editor agrees, does not mean you have consensus - in fact, the fact that one person reverted it means that consensus has not been reached. The BRD cycle may be of interest. I see no attempts to discuss with Nmate whatsoever either on their talkpage or on the article talkpage, simply reversions. Finally, shouting in unblock requests merely proves you need a little time away from the computer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The list of names in Hungarian seems useless to me, but if you want to keep it, so be it. I proposed a new version of the template (Iaaasi (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)) Multumesc, Iaaasi. If we show good will to each other, this can make miracles (Not only on WIKI). User:Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My change was made according to Rokarudi's proposal:
As an experimental compromise, I would suggest to keep the new template (note: this is one template) as is, but, if you want,t let us make the Romanian side "uncollapsed" to give prominence or keep closed but delete the Romanian sub-title (Judetul Mures) so that on first opening only the Romanian part open, and so that the Hungarian remain closed until it is specifically opened by the reader in a 2nd step. There is sense in such compromise if Romanians including IP-s accept it and stop attacking the idea of grouping Hungarian placenames. If you have deleted my Mures River template deleted, I will make out of it a list, and will put it to articles with "see also", instead of the template.--Rokarudi 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly was i did, i made the Romanian side "uncollapsed" (as Rokarudi recomended) and Nmate reverted it with any reason. Nmate is the one who started the edit war

Decline reason:

The only exception to the edit warring policy is blatant vandalism. That you try to blame another for your edit warring is further evidence that you do not understand why this has happened. It takes two to edit war. In the future consider requesting page protection and/or pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Attention: Administrator

I would like to confirm that Iaaassi was editing Mures Template in good faith. There was a dispute on the deletion of a template created by me, in which we exposed seriously opposing views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_26 After we received the admin's decision, we tried to work out a compromise, and as I see from the edits, Iaaassi wanted to implement a compromise that I proposed to him on my talkpage and I expressed my thank on his talkpage for the good intention. I think he may have simply edited more times than was good. This is not the Romanian-Hungarian edit war, but Romanian-Hungarian co-operation, so let us be happy with it. The template is good as is now. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are blocked. I left messages on the talk page of both admins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bwilkins&action=edit&section=29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PeterSymonds#Intervention_for_Iaaassi

I hope you are unblocked soon.--Rokarudi 14:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, thx for your support :) (Iaaasi (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you continue down this path, it is very likely that you will be blocked (again) the diff in question is here [3]. However if you do continue ignoring WP policies you just invite more and more scrutiny on yourself. Hobartimus (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hobartimus#My_recent_.22disruptive_activities.22(Iaaasi (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iaaasi. In this edit you've added a bit misleading fact. Lednice Castle is situated near to Moravian-Austrian border in South Moravia, it is a well known and important Czech monument, a part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The name of the castle located in White Carpathians is Lednica. I've fixed it. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just inform you, that I put Wikiquette alert against Nmate [4]. Because I mentioned some uncivility by him against you, maybe you want be part of it. --Yopie (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That term you are trying to push is not applicable for the whole existence of the state. You can't say that there was a Vlach-Bulgarian Empire in 1323 for example. I advise you not to do that again and not to revert my edit due to three-revert rule. --Gligan (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlach-Bulgarian Empire is not universally accepted, it is used rarely and cannot be applied after the reign of Kaloyan in any case, so saying by 1261 is ridiculous. And second - the map you posted is wrong and above all there are enough maps in the article. Stop it already. --Gligan (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the French version and I would have corrected it but I don't know a word in French... but generally, according to the rules of Wikipedia, we cannot use Wikipedia itself as a source and that article in the French Wiki is absolutely wrong saying for instance that the Empire ceased to exist in 1280 which is ridiculous. The map is made by the same user who wrote the article and is wrong because for example we lost Macedonia (which appears as Bulgarian there) before we lost Belgrade and Branichevo (which are outside the borders) and there are other inaccuracies too. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is mentioned in one of the notes and it should stay in a note because the term is neither widely used nor applicable for the whole existence of the state. Some Romanian historians because Kaloyan was sometimes called Emperor of Bulgaria and Wallachia but that does not mean that the country is called Bulgaria and Wallachia. For example the title of the Portuguese kings was King of Portugal and the Algarves but the country is not called Portugal and Algarve or Portuguese-Algarvian Kingdom. --Gligan (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to an old friend, I would advise not to add such information to the article for 3 reasons: - The article, due to the activity of some editors app. 2 years ago reached its current unreasonably blown-up format so that it does not have a proportionate structure and is full of unrelevant information. - we do not need confirmation from uncompetent western writers who do not understand the specific historical facts and theories in depths, and write what they think to be consistent with their common sense. We are big enough to solve this this problem here on on the spot - T think the whole early medieval part should be re-written, I will ask you to take part. I suggest you to go back into history of the article, and you will see that It used to be more reasonable until a certain point app. 2 years ago.

Uniunea Democrată Maghiară ’din România’ and not Uniunea Democrată Română 'a Maghiarilor' ( Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania and not Romanian Democratic Alliance of Hungarians) see: http://archivum.rmdsz.ro/

I think you understand the difference, and name was not chosen like this accidentally. This represent the same difference as between ’Romanian-born Hungarian’ and between ’(ethnic) Hungarian born in Transylvania, Romania’. This does not want to be an unfriendly gesture, just the expression of a matter of fact which is basically very clear for Romanians as well. All this Romanian-born Hungarian and Austro-Hungarian-born Hungarian is a nonsense propagated mainly by editor Dahn.User: Rokarudi

Please look after Hungarian biographies when edited by chauvinists like 71.192.241.118. We should mutually follow the same principles in biographies. Ethicity and citizenship must be kept separate, and its better to create a clear sentence explaining the situation than tagging people with misleading epithets. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 10:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Văd că înveţi limba maghiară cu sârguinţă...:)

Here is an important citation for your studies on Hungarian beliefs as heavy and light as guillotine:

"What is taken away by force and power may again be brought back by time and good luck, but the recovery of what the nation, fearing the sufferings, gave up herself, is always hard and always dubious. The nation will to endure, hoping for a better future and trusting in the righteousness of her cause." (Ferenc Deák, 1861) Kind regards: User:Rokarudi

By the way, the "bon mot' mocking Slovaks (although has several versions) sounds like this: 'Strapachka is not a food, wheel-barrow is not a cart, Slovakian is not a man.' Although certain may be offended, it can be an interesting project to collect similar proverbs in central-Europe as they give a very reliable picture on the stereotypes persistently surviving in the region.--Rokarudi 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

All nations of the world take part in a competition. As the Romanians got the last place, they began to cry. They are asked why they are crying. - Because the Hungarians were ahead of us (Romanian joke).--Rokarudi 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Iaaassi, the Csángó anthem is not so widely known among Hungarians as the Szekler anthem. I think your translation missed the point, here is my version (not intended to be an artistic translation):

Because Hungarians also we are, Torn out of Asia at one time, Lord, change our fate for the better, Do not perish the Csangó Hungarian!

Please note, reference to Hungarians' alleged Asian origin is sometimes intended to be an offense, but many Hungarians, especially most people from the 'patriotic' bunch, are more often than not proud of it.--Rokarudi 13:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Iaassi, I regret you have been blocked. I do not agree with the decision, although your last userpage edit was a bit sharp. I always appreciated that you edited in a straigtforward way, and did not disguise your real opinion behind artificial argumentations on wikipedia guidelines in a lawyer's style. I do not agree with some of our friends who hold you spread hatred, I think you are really interested in Hungarian history, culture and tried to understand the motivation of Hungarian editors. I think you are just a bit hot-headed and should think twice before pushing the enter button (sometimnes so should I), otherwise, you can be easily misunderstood. La revedere, baráti üdvözlettel: User: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you went on to being pretty open about it everywhere, in your edits, on your userpage [5], wherever. However ethnic hate mongering is not viewed very positively on Wikipedia, especially if done as a continuation of old behavior by a sockpuppet account. Cheers. Hobartimus (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a beginner on wikipedia and I understood why I was blocekd, but I ask you to be unblocked. Some arguments in my defense:

First of all, the complain that generated my block:

1. I was accused, based on the ortographic similarity between the usernames "iaaasi" and "Iasi" that my account is a sockpuppet of User:Iasi

• False, because i have many id-s wih this name; one example: the youtube acoount http://www.youtube.com/user/iaaasi, created in 2007
  

My ip id from Craiova, not from Iasi

2.I was said to be famous for "edits to weed out all references to dual citizenship for some Romanians and Hungarians"

• False, because I only reverted only a 2-3 edits of the user Rokarudi, who was engaged in an edit war on this subject and started modifying Romanian biographies after others reverted his edits on Hungarian biographies. When I uderstood the problem I stopped reverting.

Example:
original:[6]
after 1st edit by Rokarudi: [7]
after my revert to original: [8]

3. I was accused of anti-Hungarian behaviour

• False, because

I. I added the German and HUNGARIAN names for Timisoara [9] [10] and for CFR Cluj [11]
II. I corrected the description of a Dutch map representing Hungarian settlements in 12th century and modern Romanian ethnographic zones from Transylvania (and not "Hungarians and Romanians in 12th century Trasylvania" as it was suggested before) [12]

I also replaced the map with its English version (which was meanwhile deleted) ,even if its content was against my "anti-hungarian" interests

III. I commented about a fancy map of Romania [13] [14] [15]

V. I created a really inappropriate xenophobic profile page when I was angry on the Hungarians users:
- Nmate, who asked to be blocked, even if my assumed edit-war enemy recognized that my edits were made in good faith[16]
- Squash Racket (in this case maybe without reason))

I also deleted it after a single day (it wasn't anyway accordind to my fellings for Hungarians)
4. I made many constructive edits:

• I reverted vandalism on Hungarian pages [17] [18]
  
• [19]
  
• I corrected Matthias Corvinus' ethnicity : "the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful military leader of Hungarian[3] and Cuman[4] descent" before my edits to "the second son of John Hunyadi, a successful Hungarian General probably of Romanian[4][5][6][7][8][9] descent" now

• I corrected wrong link [20]

5.

I will bring more arguments if necessary

Please appeal your blocks on your own talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iaaasi, I see some newcomers started editing in your style. Please continue the good traditions of our efforts for mutual understanding. Kind regards, your friend Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: unblock requests below are over 6 months old. --slakr^\ talk / 07:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. When your first sentence consists of conspiracy theory, you have virtually no chance of being unblocked. Smashville^talk 14:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

Same as the one below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There can't be the same reason, because I've rephrased the request(Iaaasi (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

I see that you have removed past unblock requests from your talk page. The situation is now very confusing. I would be willing to evaluate this if you would restore the full history. Frankly, there seems to be little chance you will be unblocked when you are behaving in such an eccentric manner. It would help if you would leave your unblock requests at the bottom of the page, so we can see the normal chronological history. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I readded them(Iaaasi (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

New motivation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaaasi#Unblock_request_preparation

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear you're here to push your racist POV, rhetoric (now removed) and not to contribute constructively. Removing talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per your request on #wikipedia-en-unblock, I've re-enabled your talk page to allow you to appeal your block. Any admin is free to re-disable talk page access, and you should not remove your prior unblock requests. --slakr^\ talk / 07:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

These are some changes that I propose to the article Radu of Afumaţi. My work is not 100% finished, but still... Please take into consideration my unblock request. Please let me show that I am here to make constructive edits. Thanks in advance

Decline reason:

You are blocked for Eastern European history-related nationalistic battleground conduct, as seen here. You do not address this at all in your request above. A very mediocre addition to an article in the same topic area is not enough to convince me that you won't start misusing Wikipedia as a battleground again.  Sandstein  20:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Iaaasi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

verifiable]] references from reliable sources, but you are at least on the right track. I have also reviewed the data presented at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive217#Proposed_unblock_of_User:Iaaasi, where there is a mild support for unblocking - but some opposers did say that was too soon (then) - however time has now moved on and you have waited. I will unblock for now, but you must realise that a lot of editors will be watching your every move, and any leaning back to your old ways will almost certainly result in re-blocking which will be far harder to remove.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have to say that there is some improvement to the page in question, although I would urge to to improve on the amount of references to the data - remember all the data here should be backed up by [WP:V

Please let my request to be reviewed by Ronhjones, the user who made me the offer. I respected his instructions. }}

• Since Ronhjones made you an unblock offer, I have invited him to assess your latest unblock request. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]