User talk:Norden1990

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.

Iaaasi is active again with vandalism of referenced contents

IP USER's address: Postal code 00712 City: Craiova RCS-RDS 73-75 Dr. Staicovici, RO, is clearly identical to banned user:Iaaasi. https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=86.120.179.32 [1] Geolocate: https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/86.120.179.32

HE is now active in the following articles: Hungarian–Romanian War HE write his fantasy numbers in the article, despite the references of the academic authors of the books are clear about the number/size of the active soldiers of the Hungarian army, the references also contain direct links (URLs) to the contents of the books. See the talk page of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War#Hungary_was_a_military_colossus_before_the_self-disarmament_in_a_comparison_of_Romania

HE is also repeats his vandalism in the following articles too: Béla Linder and Aster Revolution. --Kitcheners (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Cealicuca is a possible meat puppet, or at least he sometimes serving the vandalism of Iaaasi

He also make a direct false statement about your edit too.

user:Iaaasi often use meatpuppets of his compatriots, who are informed via e-mail.

Banned user:Iaaasi is active and vandalise these articles and write his fantasy numbers in Hungarian–Romanian War , Aster Revolution and Béla Linder articles. Iaaasi invented fictive fantasy numbers, removed the original old referenced numbers in the mentioned articles.

user:Cealicuca made a direct false statement in the edit comment of the article of Hungarian-Romanian war, where he stated that you "restored" User:Norden1990's edit. Here is the link of Norden's last edit from 14:19, 10 April 2021‎ , which is vastly different from Cealicuca's version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War&oldid=1017049395

In the reality, Cealicuca carefully preserved the new fictive fantasy numbers of Iaaasi's edits, which contradict the old cited references of the article. --Restore the referenced old version with original numbers (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Both academic historians ( Ingnác Romsics and Martin Kitchen wrote that Hungary had over 1,2 Million soldiers before the self-disarmament order of Béla Linder.

Direct URL for Romsics' book: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22December+some+1.2+million+soldiers+had+been+demobilized%22&biw=1889&bih=2052&tbm=bks&ei=ockLYdSxD-r5qwH5_KCgBA&oq=%22December+some+1.2+million+soldiers+had+been+demobilized%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...31340.35169.0.35351.3.3.0.0.0.0.109.245.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.tl9OdOamQqk

Direct URL for Kitchener's book: https://books.google.com/books?id=36WsAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA190&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

--Restore the referenced old version with original numbers (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

1.2 Millió magyar állampolgárt szereltek le ami decemberben elérte az 1.6 milliót is

NEm "osztrák-magyar" leszerelt seregek létszáma volt ez, hanem az aktív katonai szolgálatot ellátó magyar állampolgárok száma. Linder Béla a Magyar Királyság utolsó 14. és utána a köztáraság első hadügyminisztere volt. HA ő elrendelte a leszerelést, azt csak a Magyar állampolgárokkal kapcsolatban tehettek, az osztrák állampolgárok felett a Magyar Királyság hadügyminiszterének nem volt semmiféle joghatósága.

Bizonyíték: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22and+by+the+end+of+December+about+1,200,000%22&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7jZa907ryAhVagf0HHWwQCZAQ_AUoAXoECAEQCw&biw=1889&bih=2052

Itt pedig a teljes könyv a 1.2 és 1.5 M számokról ami kizárólag Magyar állampolgárokat érintett.. http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/mocsy/mocsy11.htm

Most pedig a magyarország vs. cigányia háborújának a cikkébe be lehet illeszteni, és kivenni a fantasztikus semmilyen referenciában nem szereplő számokat, meg az osztrák-magyar fantáziát, mivel csak magyar állampolgárokat érintett a magyar hadügyminiszter rendelete, ahogy a könyvben is világosan le van írva.--Registeredname123456 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

---