User talk:Norden1990/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Chief Justice of Hungary

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

György Kézdy

Hello

Where in the reference does it state that he committed suicide? - Michael David (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It is in the source that I gave. [1]. --Norden1990 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia. I, and many, many more of the editors and readers of this encyclopedia, cannot read the language in which this source is written. - Michael David (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no English source, I checked. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I wasn't questioning the validity of your edit; I assumed, in good faith, that it was correct. I'll keep looking for a reference to his suicide in English. - Michael David (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. English translation of the article's title: Öngyilkos lett Kézdy György - "György Kézdy commits suicide". Another sentence for the fact of suicide: Szombat éjszaka azonban az egyik harmadik emeleti ablakon kivetette magát és meghalt. - "In Saturday night, however, he jumped out of the third-floor window [in the hospital] and therefore died." --Norden1990 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this. To help those persons researching and collecting data on suicide, it would be a good indea to post this translation on the Article's Talk Page. - Michael David (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

MAIL CÍM HIÁNYA

Hello! Neked miért nincs a wikis adatlapodon beállítva e-mail, ahol kommunikálni lehetne veled? Köszi a választ! --Balkony (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Azóta sem történt változás, elvileg beállítottad, gyakorlatilag semmiféle -email gomb nem látszik a lapodon--Balkony (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Remélem, most már jó. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see my response

Hello, Norden1990. You have new messages at Nlu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Norden1990. You have new messages at Nlu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

3RR Warning, again

Your recent editing history shows that you were engaged in several edit wars. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

When an addition of content is contested, don't insist on inserting it.in lack of consensus, as you did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Jozef_%C5%A0af%C3%A1rik&action=history --Omen1229 (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Picking socks? What are you doing?

Hello,

I see that you are a wikipedian for a long time and I imagine that you know how the community works. I am very confused by some of your latest edits, I am wondering did you simply made a mistake or you are picking which SOCK edits to keep and which to revert?

Please explain the logic in your last couple of edits, where you keep User:Stubes99 edits:

While here you remove Iasi`s SOCK edits:

  • [4] - You revert this even when correct data is presented while at Stubes you justify that with a comment "This edit corrected an error, I don't care about the user's identity" [5]. So if the data is correct by Stubes99 it remains while Iasi`s edits, correct or not are removed?
  • [6] unverifiable addition.

You do understand that keeping any SOCK edits is against wikipedia rules [7]? You can`t just choose which to keep and which not. If you are reverting one SOCK`s edits, revert ALL of them. Adrian (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very interesting that Newnou (Iaaasi) was also banned but his edits were not reverted by anyone... I'm just against the double standard. Obviously I did not know who is Stubes99, I had never met with him before this conflict... I just saw a sockpuppet deleted another's sockpuppet edits, so I reverted the article to stable version.
  • [8] - see my reasons in the page history. I checked the sources and reformulated the sentence, moreover, I corrected the referenced pages.
  • [9] - so this error never would be fixed, because a sockpuppet once corrected?

--Norden1990 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[[10]] - Removed what appears to be a correct edit by Iassi`s SOCK, but edits made like this by Stubes99 you keep?
Iaaasi was not correct, because he renamed a category without consensus and there is also exist an appropriate way: speedy renaming --Norden1990 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is asking why are you removing Iaaasi`s edits (I support that), but I am asking why are you removing Iaaasi`s edits while keeping Stubes99? Under excuse that one is "correct" and other not.
You are using double standards while choosing which edits to revert and which to keep. The category you added was faulty [11] and many others, there is no "Category:Burials at Gyulafehérvár Cathedral, Alba Iulia", if you check the correct name is in English, since this is EN wikipedia ([[12]]). As far as I know Hungarian, Gyulafehérvár is Hungarian name for Alba Iulia, so even translated this is a faulty category and YET you removed this.
Please avoid choosing which SOCK to keep and which to remove, if it is a SOCK use same criteria. Either remove them all or keep them all. Adrian (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Avout this [13] , it is still SOCK data, you just moved it a little. Adrian (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: "[14] - so this error never would be fixed, because a sockpuppet once corrected?"

I did not choose among the socks' reliability, this choice was already happened when Stubes' edits were deleted and Iaasi's were not. And If you can see, the reverted paragraphs were checked and rewritten by myself. For the Gyulafehérvár case: yes, Iaaasi's method was incorrect, because the category of Burials at Gyulafehérvár Cathedral already had been existed. Newnou or Iaaasi should have been request to renaming this category at the relevant WP page. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case, why did`t you simply remove Iaasi`s data and be done with it? Instead there is all this confusion and reverts. I for example have on my watchlist Stubes99 favorite articles and it is natural that I will notice his SOCKS before Iaaasi`s. Nobody is saying that you should not watch and revert Iaaasi`s SOCKS. But now, you choose to keep Stubes99 data and remove Iaaasi`s. That is double standards. Analyze this example], Iaaasi did a correct edit here according to WP:EN and you reverted him, on the other hand where Stubes99 was correct [15] you supported his edits and kept them in the article. In short, both SOCKS had constructive edits, and you deleted one and kept another. You see the double standard here?
It doesn`t matter if you rewrote the data by Stubes99, it is still data that Stubes99 contributed. You did`t came with anything new there. Adrian (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I reverted Iaaasi's edit, because no one contested his edits, interestingly. I just showed the double standards, according to arguments of Omen. Anway the sockuppet Newnou was the first who deleted Stubes' edits. So two opposing sockpuppets' edits, hitting each other, like -1 X -1 = +1?
Yes, and just because nobody contested them you decided to keep Stubes99 edits? It has no logic to me. It is not my, or your fault that one SOCK edits are removed and another not. But the solution certainly isn`t to pick which to keep and which not. As I said in my first comment, don`t pick them, simply remove all of them. If you pick them, we are "fighting" Stubes99 and Iaaasi`s "wars". Me, you and anyone who participates in this manner become in some way their SOCKS, because we are supporting one of them. Wikipedia policy states to remove all banned users contributions, so please keep that practice.Adrian (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

[16] This was also a sock edit. This is clearly a correction of an error, but, according to your logic, the wrong version is should be keep until doomsday, because a sockpuppet corrected this error once a time... --Norden1990 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So by this logic, this one too? Why did you choose to keep Stubes99 correction and remove Iaaasi`s correction? And what about this [17], this was pure data added by SOCK, not a correction. Adrian (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I revised my position in the first case (however whole Banat was part of Hungary before 1920, so both versions' appearance is reasonable), and I have said my point of view about the latter edit: Western publications, and I modified lot of things. If you have further problems, then report me, I am no longer interested in this miserable affair. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I don`t have any problems, I am just trying to explain what is happening when we choose SOCK edits. At the end, we end up "fighting" their "wars". SOCK data is SOCK data even if it is constructive. There is a rule about this, and it is best to respect it (simply remove all SOCK contributions). I will not revert you about the remaining User:Stubes99 data, but don`t be surprised if other users do so. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ban (title), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement discretionary sanctions warning: Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This warning relates to the ongoing ANI thread, where I have explained the kind of misconduct you must desist from.  Sandstein  09:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ilona Kudász for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilona Kudász is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilona Kudász until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Article nominated by Ashegearesockpuppet (talk · contribs), who should've sent you the notification himself. At the moment I have no opinion on the merits of the AFD.
— PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 22:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Norden1990, you were mentioned on ANI by user Hortobagy. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=554420174#The_harmful_speech_of_Norden1990 oh it's not nice what you do Norden1990..Hortobagy (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Be careful not to make similar badness. ;) --Norden1990 (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Voivode of Transylvania

I think the last version proposed by our Romanian co-editor could be accepted, provided that the reference to the Maros river follows the same pattern. What do you think of this? Borsoka (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I also could accept this version. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Stockholm riots

Hi, you added a category to the 2013 Stockholm riots article indicating that the riots would be ethnic in nature. That's something that'd need to be pretty well sourced. I've, for now, removed the category. Please add sources and/or discuss on the talk page if you disagree. /Julle (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll borrow the section since it concerns the same article. Can you please explain to me why an article in Deutche Welle (from AFP, Reuters and dpa), an article in The Wall Street Journal (by a Johannes Ledel who has 12 articles in wsj if I'm to believe their search engine) and an article in the Guardian (by someone actually positioned in Stockholm) are "worth" more than what a professor in criminology, in Sweden, states about the events? GameOn (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The majority of the sources mention this case as the starting point of the ongoing riots. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Voivode of Transylvania

FYA Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voivode of Transylvania/archive1. Maybe :) Borsoka (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Captaincies

Hi Norden, I think I "belenyultam a lecsoba". I simply do not understand the superior/subordinate relationships between the captaincies. A dunantuli resz meg ertheto az altalad adott Palffy anyag altal, de Upper Hungary az egyszeruen erthetetlen. Palffytol meg egesz jo angol anyagot is talaltam[18] de meg igy is "kinai" (nekem)... Fakirbakir (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Tehat akkor a dunantuli "nemesi" kapitanysag "alatt" volt a kanizsai es a gyori kapitanysagok, viszont a "Dunan-inneni (Cisdanubia)" alatt csak az also-magyarorszagi kapitanysag, a felso-magyarorszagi "nemesi" kapitanysag alatt pedig ugyancsak egy, a felso-magyarorszagi kapitanysag tartozott??? Azt tudom, hogy a "nemesi" kapitanysagoknak mas jellegu volt a feladata (hadtap es rendvedelem).
  • ...nem a dunántúli főkapitányság oszlott két részre 1566-ban, hanem az 1556-ra létrejött győri főkapitányság mellett az 1560-as évek végére kialakult a Kanizsához tartozó várak alkotta végvidéki főkapitányság is, miközben az állandó székhellyel nem rendelkező dunántúli kerületi főkapitány hadügyi kérdésekben továbbra is parancsolt az országrész vármegyéinek, miként ezt az 1540-es évektől kezdődően elődei is tették...." (Palffy)
Lehet rosszul fogom fel, de a "kapitanysag" az alarendeltje volt a nemesi keruleteknek...

Fakirbakir (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș

Hello! I don't think you see the real point of the argument. You may not agree with me, but i think the real point of the argument is, that, just like IRL, they are trying to separate MVH from székelyföld. Here perhaps they don't do it on purpose and only follow the IRL tendencies but the result is the same. In 1990 they could have beaten the Hungarians in many other places but they went for the cultural center of the solid ethnic enclave of Székelyföld. Here they are desperately trying to avoid the direct associaton of MVH with székelyföld. --Rob.HUN (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Raysdiet's proposal also contains this information: "[...] Located in Székely Land, it is an important cultural and political center for the Hungarian minority in Transylvania." So I think it is acceptable. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!--Rob.HUN (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

3rr

Hello, please be aware of the 3RR. Greetings Adrian (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The 3RR is a "blind" rule to whomever reverts more than 3 times in 24 hours. The rule encourages to solve problems, not to continue them. I am sorry, but I have reported you. Adrian (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at John Hunyadi. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rátót (genus) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *Ladislaus, [an of Slavonia (1297)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian help needed

Hello Norden1990, I'm contacting you because we need some Hungarian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on hu.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Hungarian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Julius I Kán

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -Darouet (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Norden1990, the link to the dispute resolution page is here: WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ferenc Szaniszló. I removed the description of why Szaniszló was given the award, in the lead, because it is the reason given by the awarding minister but not by most media sources. Hopefully through discussion at the dispute resolution we can all come to some agreement. -Darouet (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Epic Barnstar
For your hard work on creating quality articles on voivodes, bans and other dignitaries with strange titles of the Kingdom of Hungary. Szép munka, gratulálok! Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Domonkos I, Archbishop of Esztergom

Szia! Are you sure that he was a cardinal? As far as I remember the first Hungarian prelate who was appointed cardinal István Báncsa in the second half of the 13th century. Borsoka (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it was my mistake. To tell the truth, I did not deal much with those articles, my only goal was to create them, at least to the stub level (jobb, mint a semmi alapon :D). So if you want to re-write, rename, expand, go ahead. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kató Hámán may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • active in the [[Hungarian Communist Party]] serving on a leading committee in 1922 with Károly Őry] and Ignác Gőgös.<ref name=short>{{cite book|last=Molnár|first=Miklós|title=A short history of the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rufus review

I note on a DYK nom of yours that your QPQ is of Rufus the Hawk. However, you haven't made any comment on the nom page yet. Could you please take a look? Cheers, violet/riga [talk] 22:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:AntallJozsef.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:AntallJozsef.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Michael of Hungary

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

RFAR:Manning naming dispute - Formally added as party

The drafting arbitrators have requested that you be formally added as a party to the Manning naming dispute case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ákos Farkas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazi occupation of Hungary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Kata Tisza

The article you created on Kata Tisza is a good start, but it badly needs more inline citations to establish notability, and some other efforts.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bertalan Andrásfalvy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Romváry, Ferenc, Pécs Lexikon Kulturális Nonprofit Kft. 2010, Pécs. p. 38. ISBN 978-963-06-7919-0}</ref> is a former [[Hungary|Hungarian]] ethnographer and politician, who served as [[Minister of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bernadett Szél

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Norden1990/Archive_3&oldid=1146652791"