User talk:Norden1990/Archive 10

Category:Bánfi family

Hey! What do you think if we delete "Category:Bánfi family" in favor of "Category:Bánffy family"? 1st one contained only "Katalin Bánffy" page which I moved to the 2nd one. Name "Bánfi" also looks wrong since all interwiki I've found are using "Bánffy" instead. So maybe we could recreate a different subcategory for some Bánffy families under the main category when there will be enough pages about the family members. PeterLemenkov (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I strongly oppose, since they are two different families. The Bánfi (also Bánffy, indeed) originated from the Hahót kindred; it became extinct in the 17th century. In medieval families, Hungarian historiography uses phonetic writing (i.e. Bánfi), due to the many simultaneous spellings. The Bánffy family, which came from the Tomaj kindred and became prominent by the 18th century, is a different family. Katalin Bánfi (or Bánffy) was not related to them. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the noise. I agree with you here. Looks like it worth adding some clarification in "Katalin Bánffy" someday. PeterLemenkov (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize. In the future, I will create several articles about the notable members of the Bánfi family, most of them held several important positions (e.g. palatines) in the 14-16th-century Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:15th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Hungary

There is no agreement that these categories are to be non-diffusing. Category:Hungarian Roman Catholic bishops is going to be renamed Roman Catholic bishops in Hungary as are all the other former nationality categories. Rathfelder (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"all the other former nationality categories". I agree. That is why, this category is nothing to do with 15th-century Hungarian people category, which primarily denotes nationality. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Bálint Alsáni

I think being a cardinal trumps being a bishop. He was also a priest. We go for the senior title, dont we? And the cardinal categories are definitely tied to nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not. There were also cardinal-deacons and cardinal-priests in Medieval Europe. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We dont have categories for cardinal-deacons or cardinal-priests. They are all categorised as cardinals. Even cardinal-deacons are superior to bishops, arent they?

Category:13th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Hungary is a subcategory of Category:13th-century Hungarian people. Categorisation is hierarchical. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Pongracz

Regarding your recent edit a consensus was reached a year ago that the English variant should be used. MOS:SAINTS says that an English Wikipedia should use the English variant for the names of Catholic saints, and WP:COMMONNAME reinforces this case, as the English variant of his name has double the results on Google over the Hungarian variant. Azure94 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Azure94:. It is interesting that this is only always validated for Hungarians. Marko Krizin could keep his Croatian name and Melchior Grodziecki could keep his Polish name. "Pongracz" is a misspelling of a Hungarian surname (derived from a forename Pongrác, equivalent to Pancras), and just because English sources often don’t use accents, there’s no reason Wikipedia uses this variant as well. Or what will be next? "Viktor Orban", "Ferenc Puskas" or "Bela Bartok"? And what about Bystrík, who is regarded as "Slovak" saint in Slovakia? I do not think this name variant meets the criteria of MOS:SAINTS and WP:COMMONNAME. Anyway, @Evrik: moved the name of article István Pongrácz to Stephen Pongracz arbitrarily in 2020, without a valid move request. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

P.s. Even the only source, which actually deals with Pongrácz in the article, uses the "István Pongrácz" variant. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean "it's only validated for Hungarians"??? MOS:SAINTS clearly shows that this applies to more than just Hungarians. Franky, I've yet to hear an actual reasoning why this saint should be an exception to MOS:SAINTS. Saying that you found two other saints who are also breaking the rule is not an argument to dump the rule. It's an argument in favor of fixing them too.Azure94 (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The article was moved to the current title without valid move request, that's the point. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the talk page for Stephen Pongracz? --evrik ^(talk) 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

magyarszemle.hu

Do you have any third-party information about the reliability of this website? I've so far only found wikipedia articles about it on the Hungarian and Romanian websites, the latter mentions it was first founded before WW2 as a revisionist and irredentist journal. Here is an academic paper on this topic. It makes me suspicious about its content when many decades later, this journal ends up being resurrected under the same name, despite its odious history. Azure94 (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not a website but a monthly journal with paperback version. You can reach the volumes and issues here. Between two world wars, every reliable Hungarian journals, newspapers, books etc. were revisionist (even left-wing Népszava). Further information about the Slovak involvement in 1848: József Demmel (a Hungarian historian in Slovakia) ed.: „Egész ​Szlovákia elfért egy tutajon…”. Kalligram, Pozsony, 2009. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Jobbik position

Hi! I saw you changed my edit on the position of Jobbik. I was just trying to make it more inline with what information I have read suggested it currently is. I am not a big expert on the issue though, and would love to learn a little bit more about it if you have better information. Thanks! --Et64 nova (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Et64 nova (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding PROXYING

Regarding this, a reminder that Wikipedia policy says at WP:PROXYING:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, when KIENGIR wrote on my talk page, I didn't even know he was blocked on English Wikipedia. In light of this, of course, no e-mail correspondence and nor proxy editing have taken place. If you see my contributions, my relationship with editors since my return in 2015 is already limited, I don't take part in various editing wars. --Norden1990 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to say regarding this episode that my only intention was to ensure that the banned user wouldn’t be editing through anyone else. I suppose I panicked when I saw his message and references to e-mails. I should have pinged you, and I don’t have any excuses for failing to do so. So, all I can do is apologize and move forward with more productive work. — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing happened. I wish you good work in the future. The few editors who edit from Eastern Europe should at least assume good faith between each other, this is the only way to avoid permanent edit wars are flooded with nationalist overtones. Sometimes it’s difficult for a variety of reasons, I admit that. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Green Party of Hungary

Hello, sources for ideologies and political positions have to be cited in the article, especially for "Ecofascism" and the text below. There isn't a source "Vida 2010" in the article but you probably meant to say "Vida 2011" so that's alright, it happens. I can't read Hungarian, so if you can, leave me the translation here and I'll promptly read it. In the future, be sure to add sources for ideologies and such in the infobox, or in the article text. Thanks, Vacant0 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I added source when created the article. You can see: Vida 2011, p. 432. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the source, however, the infobox nor the "When Zoltán Medveczki became Party President in March 1993, the party gradually changed its political position from moderate to radical right-wing. The MZP adopted anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-Semitic and pro-fascist elements to its program and also criticized privatization and market economy." doesn't have references besides them. As I have previously said, I can't read Hungarian, nor I can read the book in any possible way. If those ideologies are actually cited, then you can add the source to the infobox and the sentences. Vacant0 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Profile for Mayor of Budapest

Why reverting the public profile picture and replacing it with ugly zoomed photo taken by mobile?

Because of copyright issues, your photo is definitely not free. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lawrence Nánabeszter

Hello, Norden1990,

Thank you for creating Lawrence Nánabeszter.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The article on Lawrence Nánabeszter is very well done - I've only added the more references tag in the hope somebody is able to find fully digitized sources, which are more easily verifiable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|ThadeusOfNazereth}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DK Caucus

are you sure that there are 9 DK MP's in the parliament? Isn't it 8 DK + 1 MLP? --Arasakacorp (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Anett Bősz joined the DK caucus, her party affiliation is irrelevant here, as MLP did not run the 2018 election under its own banner. Several members of the Fidesz caucus are, in fact, members of Fidesz-ally organizations (e.g. Magosz) but not the Fidesz party itself. Nevertheless, we do not reduce the size of the Fidesz parliamentary group just because of that. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well MSZP and Párbeszéd caucus together and yet we distinguish these two, so I think that the same rule should apply to DK + MLP and LMP + UK. --Arasakacorp (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No, because there are separate MSZP and Dialogue for Hungary parliamentary groups in the National Assembly, similarly to Fidesz and KDNP. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hajnal Miklos

In Hungarian the names appeared in a different order, so I just put it that way. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed? Yes, I know, because I am a Hungarian. However, Hungarian names are usually "switched" when people who have such names are mentioned in media in Western countries. See Ferenc Puskás, Lajos Kossuth or Béla Bartók. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I learned something today. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Béla Horváth (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ken Tony was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Béla Horváth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Béla Horváth, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Norden1990! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 17:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake

Sorry for this edit it was a mistake of the visual editor. --RaphaelQS (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem! --Norden1990 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Croatian issues

Why are you retreating my changes ? Im not a new person in editing wikipedia, i have a long experience in doing so... Which excaty mistakes do you see in my work ?

Here are my arguments for the few articles on Josip Jelačić:

- hungaryian army had a ceasefire with Jelačić after battle of Pakozd, as described on wikipedia on relevant article about the battle of Pakozd, so they werent pursuing him after that battle towards Vienna. They went to war with him after the suppressing of qvienna revolt...

- Vienna had little soldiers in that moment as mentioned in article and as can be seen from the given sources on wikipedia; There was 20 000 Austrian soldiers given to Jelačić while he still had some 40 000 of his troops after sending home 10 000 croatian soldiers. 53 000 he had on the beggining of the campaign as described in wikipedia articles...

- In the battle of Schwecwacht croatian soldiers were fighting in the first lines of the battle, a s can be seen on the map of the battle that is shown in the article, while austrian soldiers were fighting behind them. Most of austrian troops didnt even engage in the battle, especially Windshitz-Gratz troops.

- Austrian troops werent acapable of protecting their own emperor in the Vienna, who had to flee during the events...

- After Jelačić had left Hungary Austrians lost everything he conquered in Hungary and flee back to Austria...

So we cant describe in those articles as the Austrian troops were the the dominant force in the battles, and the articles are written in that manner. Jelacic forces were crucial in the battles. We have to tell the truth on the wikipedia, and not use it for spreading of myths...

Dear @Adam Keva:, this page is my talk page, so I moved your entry to this section with your subsequent permission. I (and other ediors) reverted your edits (Charles I, battles at Pákozd and Schwechat) because of unsourced claims and poor English, which did not increase the quality of the article. For the Charles I of Hungary issue (my expertise in the medieval subject is much more extensive): By 1302, a large number of Croatian and Hungarian nobles/prelates supported his claim to the throne. However, Croatian lords (Subic, Babonic, Frankopan) did not participate in further conflicts in the war of Hungarian(-Croatian) succession after his arrival in 1300. Charles' claim was actively supported by Amadeus Aba, Ugrin Csák, the Borsas – all of them were Hungarians. The unsuccesful siege of Buda was also commanded by a Hungarian lord Stephen Csák. Of course, there were Croatian nobles in Charles' army, but not at all in the vast majority. --Norden1990 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ugrin Csak was the main force behind Charles Robert, he was a Hungaryian, however his oligarch domain was dominantly in slavonia region which explains his close ties with the croatian nobility. Also, his soldiers were mostly Croatians from his domain in slavonia region. Stephen Csak had his lands also south of Danube. If Stephen Csak commanded the siege of Buda it is a logical presumption that soldiers in this siege were his own soldiers from his oligarch domain in slavonia, so we can expect that most of his soldiers were Croatians for that particular siege.

"Logical presumption" --> original research. Anyway, Stephen Csák possessed lands mainly in the northern part of Transdanubia (primarily Fejér County), he had no interests in Slavonia nor Croatia. Ugrin Csák was the dominant oligarch in Syrmia, present-day Serbia and small section in eastern Croatia. Slavonia was divided between the Babonici and Henry Kőszegi. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Before Yugoslavia slavonia was everything south of Danube all the way to Zemun/Belgrade - before Ottoman conquest Croats were living therw, not Serbs, and that was the domain of Ugrin Csak. As for Stephen Csak, we are talking about Stephen II Csak. You say he had no interests in Croatia, but Csak dominion split in power south and north of the river. I quote wikipedia article here:

"Stephen's economic interests were different from his cousins'. He acquired lands south of the Danube, while Matthew III and Csák built dominions north of the river. As a result, according to the genealogy, Stephen founded a Transdanubian side branch within the Trencsén branch."

Yes, that covers the distinction between Transdanubia (today Hungary) and Upper Hungary (today Slovakia). Stephen Csák possessed estates in Fehér, Veszprém, Tolna etc. counties, but he had no interests beyond the Drava river. Norden1990 (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

SME

Why is SME not an acceptable source? This article is an interview with the historian Ľubomír Bosák, who's been studying Maurice Benyovszky for over 20 years. I don't have a strong opinion on what nationality he really was, but I do think it's weird that right now the article on wikipedia mentions that he's highly regarded in Slovakia, but not WHY. There is no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned why Slovaks claim him as one of their own. The Article on Nicola Tesla does say that multiple nations claim him as his, why can't we do this here? Azure94 (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, it's really bizarre that the article right now mentions how Slovaks also lay claim to him, without giving any source for that. All I'm doing is giving source for that one sentence, and you're removing it to leave it unsourced? --Azure94 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Móric Beňovský was a Slovak. hungarians were abusing Slovaks. Jakub Galbavý (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Választókerületek (List of Hungarian constituencies)

Szia! Örülök, hogy tetszik, a "választás közeli" időszak ösztönzött erre. Bizony, mondasz valamit a 2011 előtti válastókerületekkel kapcsolatban is... (mondjuk az tényleg hatalmas téma). Ahogy van egy kis szabadidőm megpróbálok haladni ezzel a projektel. Minden jót Neked! --Kov 93 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, Norden. Regarding this edit the source was removed because the book in question was written by Krunoslav Draganović, a fascist official in the Independent State of Croatia, and doesn't fall under WP:RS. Besides this obvious disqualifier, the book also falls under WP:OLDSOURCES, so this move doesn't strike me as being particularly controversial. Your thoughts? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Given your lack of response, I'll assume you agree that the source should be removed. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amanuensis Balkanicus:, Yes, I'am sorry, I forgot to answer. I agree with the revert. Nevertheless, I would like to note that a Nazi collaborator can also be an excellent scholar whose work has been regularly cited and used ever since, see, for instance Bálint Hóman, an expert of medieval Hungarian history and economy. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As I mentioned, in addition to him being a Nazi collaborator, the sources in question are seven or eight decades old, so WP:OLDSOURCES applies irrespective of his wartime record. I don't know anything about Bálint Hóman, but I'll leave it to other editors to make the judgement call regarding his use as a source. Best wishes, Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sal Hahót moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sal Hahót, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  ||  Tajwar.thesuperman  ^💬 12:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited András Fekete-Győr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HVG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Stabbing of David Amess

See the talkpage, where article name is being discussed. But "Assassination" is an Americanism, and not widely used in UK articles anyway. It's already been moved about three times, can we please discuss this instead od unilaterally moving to controversial names? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Checking

Since there's at least someone who knows Hungarian, I need an ask to check the Ministry of Internal Affairs III structure section. Shamefully, I had to rely on online translations. Ominae (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Civil War (1264–1265)

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Hungarian Civil War (1264–1265) has been completed.

Please read through the article carefully to make sure any changes have not altered the correct meaning. I did find a number of issues detailed here that I feel need fixing:

In the Preparing for war section the following appears (3rd paragraph):

Stephen Rátót also left the royal court and defected to Duke Stephen in 1264, because of his fear following the dismissal and imprisonment of Csák[clarification needed] from the Ugod branch of the gens Csák (Csák clan). Which Csák is this referring to? Is it Peter mentioned in the next section?

Csák is also a forename, this guy (Csák) originated from the namesake kindred ("Csák Csák", which, however, sounds quite amusing in this way). There were no surnames at the time, individuals with same forenames were distinguished by genus.

In the Prolonged siege at Feketehalom section (2nd paragraph):

This sentence needs clarification. During the retreat, his army dispersed with reality.

When Stephen was forced to retreat to the eastern edge of his realm, the retreating army gradually disintegrated (the nobles returned to their own lands or surrendered to Béla), only a few dozen young knights remained faithful and followed their lord to the castle of Feketehalom.

In the final paragraph this sentence As a result, Stephen intended to send a special envoy, Demetrius Rosd, to his parents to seek mercy, but the besiegers captured him and Lawrence tortured the prisoner "bitterly". needs explaining. "Bitterly" makes no sense. Since the word appears in quotations, it needs to be cited.

The contemporary charter use the phrase "grauiter fuit tormentatus ab eodem", which emphasizes the brutality of torture. I used the wrong term in the translation, so I prefer to omit this token in order to avoid OR.

In the Peace process section this sentence She urged her niece to intervene with her husband Ottokar II to provide military assistance to Béla IV, what her husband – i.e. Bolesław the Chaste – is also ready. needs clarification.

Stephen's sister Kinga of Poland was the wife of Bolesław V the Chaste. Kinga and Boleslaw supported Béla against Stephen through diplomatic means. Bolesław intended to provide military assistance to his father-in-law Béla during the civil war, if necessary. Kinga wrote a letter to his niece Kunigunda of Halych (granddaughter of Béla IV), the spouse of Ottokar II of Bohemia. She wanted Kunigunda to lobby her husband (Ottokar) to support Béla militarily. In the end, no foreign intervention took place.

In the Ongoing strife section (1st paragraph) This sentence The Cumans decided to leave Hungary, which, however, the political leadership could not afford because of their essential military strength. needs clarification.

the Cumans were a militarily indispensable people in 13th century Hungary. After Stephen's victory, a significant portion of them wanted to leave the country (because they had supported Béla in the civil war), but Stephen – despite their disloyalty – prevented it because of their military importance.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best of luck with the article moving forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Twofingered Typist:, thank you for your hard and precise work. You will find the answers wedged between the lines above. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Norden1990: You're very welcome. I enjoyed working on the article. I have taken the liberty of clarifying the points I raised with the information you've provided and removed the remaining tags. I hope I have summed things up the way you intended. Regards Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Maurice

Why did you canceled my changes about Móric Beňovský. He was a SLOVAK, he was king of Madagascar and he WAS NOT hungarian. Jakub Galbavý (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There have to be "?" in the firt sentence. Jakub Galbavý (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

He was definitely not Slovak. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mszdp logó.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mszdp logó.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 21:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Split

Why??? --Panam2014 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Because it's not true, Volner was never member of the Our Homeland, only joined its parliamentary group for a short time, from Nov 2018 to Sept 2019. He is formally an independent MP since left Jobbik in October 2018 (two years before establishing his own one-person party). --Norden1990 (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

See here. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

He was never member of the Our Homeland, see here. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MDF party logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MDF party logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 05:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)