User talk:Dardanus 75

Hello bro

Medieval national flags
Hi, you have been adding national flags to the pages of some medieval states. All of them are unsourced, modern interpretations or just plainly modern flags of other groups. National flags are a modern concept. Many medieval states did not have a national flag so one should not be added to the page. In the future, please only add flags for which you can find reliable sources. Kardoen (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Iraq War into List of wars involving Albania. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Baia
Hello,

Could I ask you why primarly sources are not important about the battle in the wikipedia page of the battle?

The page is already using many primarly sources, for example the image of the battle and the Moldavian flag is from the contemporary Chronicle Hungarorum. Why we need to ignore the text from the same document and use only the images? The contemporary text says clearly this battle was a Hungarian victory, also I can show you at least 5 contemporary documents what say cleary the same: Janus Pannonius, András Hess: Buda Chronicle (1473), Johannes de Thurocz: Chronica Hungarorum (1488), Antonio Bonfini: Rerum Ungaricarum Decades (1488-1497), Petrus Ransanus: Epithoma rerum Hungarorum (1490). I can copy-paste the text about the battle from these documents. It means the victory of Stephen is not clear, why many contemporary Hungarian sources say different? King Matthias fought in this battle, why do you want to ignore the sources from his court about his battle? Why do you want to see only secondary later sources and only from the other side? I think it is not fair to ignore the other side. I would like to see a balanced wikipedia page about the battle where all sides can show their sources. Romanian sources can it was Moldavian vitory, Hungarian sources can it was Hungarian victory. Why it would be a problem? Furthermore I have strong primarly sources about my statement.

Best Regards, OrionNimrod — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orionnimrod (talk • contribs) 13:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of wars involving Azerbaijan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

AA2 advisory
- LouisAragon (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Visariun Puiu
Can you please explain this edit, which appeared to remove content referring to information properly cited in the article? -- Zim Zala Bim  talk 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, there's a discussion on the relevant talk page; I likely will revert your edit as a result so the sourced material remains. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 18:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Armenian Infancy Gospel


The page Armenian Infancy Gospel has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://naasr.org/products/armenian-gospel-of-the-infancy, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3104&context=auss, and https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-armenian-gospel-of-the-infancy-9780199541560?cc=gr&lang=en&. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. DanCherek (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)