User talk:Dragovit

Welcome!

Hello, Dragovit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Prince-elector. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Green Giant (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect talkpage consensus

About your edits to Byzantine Empire: Please respect the results of previous talkpage discussion. The use of those infobox fields has been debated repeatedly, and in fact debated ad nauseam. I can tell you that people familiar with the page are all thoroughly sick and tired of rehashing the same points over and over again. Before you make edits like these, please be polite enough to first check what the outcome of the various discussions on the talkpage was. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my mistake. It is little bit of problem of appearance and structure of this article. Many articles are commonly used flag and emblem in infoboxes, if really exist. In articles about older Roman Empire flag is missing and that is understandable, but it is a fact that the Byzantine flag really existed. Why coin instead of flag? Why can not the article look like the others? There are too many differences between the articles about "normal states" and the Roman/Byzantine Empires, it will encourage next users to edit this strange condition. In other historic articles about states and countries are normally used flags and emblems of last period of their existence. Dragovit 12:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Byzantine Empire. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must repeat, that file "Flag of the Ottoman Empire (1453-1844).svg" is fictitious, please visit Wikimedia Commons and make sure about it. Dragovit 08:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dragovit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Duchy of Bohemia

added a link pointing to Slavic religion

Principality of Hungary

added a link pointing to Slavic religion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Viking expansion

Hello, Dragovit. You have new messages at Talk:Viking expansion.
Message added 15:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Flag

Hello,

Do you have a source for the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Flag you uploaded?

Sincerely, Dbrote (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dragovit. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment on the flag issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Flag of German Reich (1933–1935) is a well-known historical fact, it isn't flag of the Weimar Republic, because colours are different, is indentical with flag of former German Empire (1871–1918) and there is no reason to revert editation or write comments for long-term discuss. Stop revert, thanks. Dragovit 21:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dragovit. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dragovit. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus under the Knights Templar moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Cyprus under the Knights Templar, does not have enough sources and citations 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. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Cyprus under the Knights Templar

Hello, Dragovit. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cyprus under the Knights Templar".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lands of the Bohemian Crown (1526–1648), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus'

Dragovit,

Thanks for updating the info box on Kievan' Rus. I notice that the section on religion in that article starts with the conversion to Christianity. Perhaps you could add a paragraph or two on the role of paganism in the creation of the Kievan state. Is there any academic work looking at how the Varangians' paganism blended (if it did) with the paganism of the Slavic tribes in the Rus'? Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of the Kingdom of Poland

The banner is already in all of the pages for the Kingdom of Poland, and the one you added is a very early banner, and does not match the time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxmizerski2000 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Grunwald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pokrzywno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comments for ANI? and WP:OWNTALK

Hello Dragovit, do you have no comments for my thread on ANI about Q douglasii Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and potential editing while logged out by Q douglasii? Also, I'd like to remind you of WP:OWNTALK - you need to stop restoring your edits to Q douglasii's talkpage, he's allowed to do what he wants there so long as it isn't a wp:attack page.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wrote a lot on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Q_douglasii_and_Dragovit, but nobody paid attention there. --Dragovit 16:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikimedia and en.Wikipedia are governed separately. Looks like your post finally got someone to act though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. --Dragovit 18:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guelphs and Ghibellines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lodi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Hi, Dragovit. per se, the time you spent in a particular edit is not a valid argument for overruling the current consensus (which, as you may find out, it is even closer to removing the whole infobox altogether). In any case read WP:BRD and act accordingly.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any argument, which could be against my edits. I understand, that your message makes some sense, but I've been doing such edits for years, and there's never been any problem with that, maybe hundreds of edits like this. So I will try to solve this matter by creating "collapsible lists" in the infobox to separate main belligerent states from others, as a solution and compromise. Please do not revert this edit. I believe this is the best way how to solve it than keeping infobox that contains only cc. 10 % of the whole information is useless, so there is no reason to keep it current content, which is obviously basic and low-quality informative value. I can prove my arguments. For example, taifa states like Badajoz and Zaragoza were much larger and stronger than Emirate of Granada, but Emirate of Granada is mentioned in the infobox and Badajoz or Zaragoza not. I've examined all articles about battles, and this is the result of my work. Just think about it. --Dragovit 10:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Because you did not do it, I have opened a thread in the talk page [1]. Everyone can address their concerns there. But please refrain from edit warrying meanwhile. Cheers.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

You need to stop it with the flags. They should be removed. Srnec (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish, do it according to your stupid rules or what is it. Before my edit there was the flag of Bourbon France and late flag of England, but you had no problem with that, you're probably blind or biased. Dragovit 1:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That's why the rule exists. Because people keep putting in anachronistic symbols. As for Barons' Crusade, I didn't even remove the flags, just the countries, since it makes no sense to say that France was a belligerent at all. Srnec (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the countries were there before my editing and until I did the edit, you didn't notice it, so it's weird. There is nothing anachronistic about symbols and flags, just see Template:Country data, there's states with flags, if it anachronistic, it wouldn't be ever created, so removing flags seems illogical by my view. Please show me the rules about anachronistic symbols and than I decide what to do correctly. Dragovit 9:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG

Can you explain how your recent edits conform to this guideline? Srnec (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms are used in many articles and many wikipedists return them as soon as they are absent, but often without accuracy, so their absence has no advantage. They are helpful to understand connections between the belligerents and the commanders below them. Without them, infoboxes are confusing, a mess of text in which there is a lengthy search. State symbols such as flags and heraldry can say a lot about the states. For example, Germany without a flag is not sure which one it is. It can be the current Federal Republic of Germany or Nazi Germany etc. I don't understand these rules to prohibit the use of all symbols and flags across the board, it doesn't help anyone. By the way, in this rule is written: "examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions..." so they are allowed in infoboxes about wars and military conflicts. So I didn't break any rules. Dragovit 18:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't clear to you, there is no consensus for these things in every article. Please stop it. And stop forcing image sizes in infoboxes. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disturbing the uniform appearance and form of entire Wikipedia, your interventions are like vandalism. I explained to you why this rule cannot be applied as you interpret it. Dragovit 00:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. And please, instead of ignoring the regular "bold, revert, discuss" process, take part in the discussion at WT:MILHIST. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please insert the same notice to user Srnec's talkpage, he just ruined several hours of my editing work, by reverting he continuously blocks the editing of articles, it's propably stalking. Thank you. Dragovit 08:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion about this is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms in infoboxes', where it would be in your best interest to participate (without casting aspersions as to the behaviour of others). I'll also repeat WP:BRD - you made a bold edit (adding coat of arms); it was challenged by being reverted (by Srnec and others); therefore now the burden is on you to get consensus for it (or otherwise, if that is the outcome, to accept that there is consensus against it) by discussing it, in this case since it affects many articles, at the linked discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge it and thank you. Dragovit 09:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Calling my contributions to the discussion at WT:MILHIST "demagoguery", "deceptive speech" and "vandalism" is an unambiguous personal attack, and you've been here long enough to know about AGF. Please comment on content and arguments, not contributors, and do not cast aspersions by (wrongly) assuming nefarious intent when that is clearly not the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And instead of posting an exact copy of the above I'm going to point out that there is a new discussion at the same place on this topic. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms

Hey, you have to realize that on this project, when all is said and done, consensus is law. Whether it seems right to you or not, that's how it is. On this issue, consensus is against you. You made your case, clearly and at length, and repeatedly, but consensus is still against you. There is no point in pursuing this any further. The best thing you can right now is let this go and move on. If you keep pushing this, I can almost guarantee you will be topic banned, at the very least. If you keep making negative comments about other editors, you will most likely end up blocked as well.

I know you have a lot to offer and I belive you want to help build and improve this project. But you can't do that if you're blocked and/or topic banned. There is much more you can do, other than adding coats-of-arms to infoboxes. Don't lose your access over this one issue. For now, let this go, work on other stuff. This is just a friendly heads up. - wolf 04:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coats of arms redux

I see this issue has popped up again, and is now at WP:AN. Dragovit, I can again only caution you to back off this. There are editors, and now an admin calling for you to be indefinitely blocked. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but you have no support in the debates you keep finding yourself in. There is also a sense that you are perhaps tone deaf to the opinions of other editors, the majority of which are against you. You also have a somewhat abrasive attitude in your comments that is not helping your case at all. All of this over infobox icons... ask yourself: is it worth it? Is it worth pushing this until you find yourself blocked? Because I can almost guarantee that is going to happen if you continue. I can also guarantee that you will not sway the community to your side on this.

As I see it, you have two options;

Post a comment that you have given this further thought, and even though you don't agree with the community in this, you will abide by the the consensus and you will let this matter drop. You will no longer pursue the issue of icons in infoboxes. This will hopefully allow you to continue editing, there are plenty of other things you can work on. Perhaps look at adding coats of arms to the body of articles instead, or creating a table of various coats of arms to link to. Anything other than infoboxes.
Keep doing what your doing. Push the infobox issue. Deny any consensus. Argue with everyone. And in short order face a likely indefinite block. It would probably be at least 6 months before you could return, but even then, it would only be after admitting you were wrong, apologizing to the community and promising to not bring up the icons in infoboxes issue again.

Like last time, this is just a friendly heads up. I have no dog in this fight. You didn't acknowledge my last comment here, so I don't even know if you read it, but it's in your best interests to consider what the advice being offered. - wolf 18:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Calling other's edits "vandalism" without good reason (WP:NOTVAND is clear on what is not vandalism) is not acceptable. Please apologise immediately. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I commit a personal attack? That is absurd. What is personal about describing your actions as vandalism when they are obviously? You turned several articles with pictures into vague plain text and ruined my work (and not just my) that lasted for hours even though you didn't have the permission or consensus to do it. Dragovit (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are perpetuating a dispute by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community. Nor does it justify the sunken cost fallacy. Nor does it make acceptable for you to call editors you disagree with vandals. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Radegast (god), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restriction

Per consensus of a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard ([2]), you are indefinitely topic banned by the Wikipedia community from editing in the areas of flags, coats of arms, or other national symbols, broadly construed. The process to request an appeal or modification of this restriction is found here. Any violations of this topic ban may lead to a block from editing without further warning. If you have any questions regarding this, please ask on my talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unfair and unfounded to me because much has been written in that discussion about me that isn't true. Some of my words have been taken out of context and given them a different meaning although it were made as considerations and questions to the community, they were presented in a completely different way as offensive, which isn't true. Dragovit (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give people more credit than that. They can see for themselves just what you did and did not write, along with what edits you did and did not make. I tried to warn you about this, twice, but you didn't ease off, (or even acknowledge the posts). You can't say you didn't know this was coming. I can only warn you, for a third time, to let this go. You were fortunate you weren't blocked indefinitely. Instead, you were only given a T-ban, which you can appeal in 6 months, and if successful you can resume editing flags and coats-of-arms, etc. In the meantime, there's plenty of other things to do on WP. But if you keep at this, you'll likely end up getting that block after all. (jmho) - wolf 23:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@wolf: Thank you for your previous warning, but what I wrote were reflections and opinions, also complaints, all of that for someone trustworthy who could respond and assess, because I was still expecting support of the community, but I received no meaningful answer, only condemnation. I rationally thought the community would side with flag icons and flag icon templates (country datas) which are a large number and which I modified and expanded over several years and it seems illogical to me that it's described differently only as my fault and misconduct, although it was mostly my work that was removed, then of course I wanted to defend it without even retaliate for that, so I will definitely appeal after that time. Although I've never been banned before, I've never vandalized an article or damaged someone's work, even I didn't name anyone specifically to make someone feel hurt. My edits were done in articles about military conflicts (mainly infoboxes), which concerned the flags, but not the flags themselves. That's why it seems illogical to me that the ban is on editing flags and coats of arms. Now I don't know exactly what I'm allowed to edit. So I can edit anything, but if I touch a flag somewhere in some editing, will I be penalized for it? That doesn't make sense to me. Please let someone definitely remove those flag icons in all the articles, I use the Wikipedia often and it's awful to watch how each article looks different, but the fact that articles don't have an identical style and without these interactive features, Wikipedia seems old-fashioned and partly loses its meaning for me. Dragovit (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear what a topic ban means, you should review that. Basically, it means you are not allowed to edit or discuss anything regarding those subjects anywhere on Wikipedia. (Which does include here; statements such as the above where you talk about the subject and encourage certain actions on it could also be considered violations. And yes, the topic ban does apply on this talk page as well.) So basically, don't add or remove them from articles, don't encourage others to do the same, and don't discuss the matter at all. Find something else to do for a while. If after six months or a year have passed, you believe you have an understanding of what went wrong and how you can improve, try filing an appeal and explaining that. But in the meantime, stay completely away from the subject, including discussing it or making suggestions about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I consider this to be informative, but if I'm not allowed to edit or discuss, it's also unrighteous and doesn't correspond to reality, when the TBAN speaks about "disruptive editing" and my edits were never disruptive (if you don't mean long comments in a discussion, which I don't), always been expanding by more information (expressed in higher number points in green sometimes worth thousands) and before when I started editing many years ago, these articles were in neglected condition. I added more information and images, created order, style etc and this lasted for many years without complications, as you can see from their history. It can be considered "disruptive" to remove them after many years of their presence. I was expecting a factual discussion and it was supposed to be about history when it comes to articles about historical topics. Even the consensus is not the result of a factual discussion about history, it's the result of opinions about the technical/aesthetic meaning of icons. That is why I asked that the discussion on this be renewed and now in historical way. If this current consensus is enough, then I have no problem accepting it, but it seemed necessary to ask to resume the discussion, because in some articles there may be icons of flags and for adding in others I got a ban, also I don't think I should get a ban for asking for a renewed discussion. What whent wrong is that prejudices and someone's gossips prevailed over the factual discussion, because I see that it doesn't matter what I write, whether it's self-justification or apology, nothing is taken into account. It should also be taken into account that my language skills are limited, which did not happen, my opponents were perhaps all Americans for whom English is their mother language. If I wrote something that was not accepted, it could be due to this. My ways of expressing myself are influenced by a completely different language, in which words sometimes have a different meaning or use. In any case I consider my edits to be fine and I should not be treated this way, I don't deserve a ban and to be included in the "same category" as malicious editors such as vandals, for example. So I'll ask for his appeal as soon as possible. Dragovit (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ran for substantially longer than the required time frame, and had a good deal of participation from uninvolved, experienced editors. So, since it seems like you are making an appeal to me as the closer here, I am afraid I stand by my interpretation of that discussion's consensus. You can appeal using any of the other methods at any time, and while I will caution you that it may not have a desirable result if you do not first show that you haven't considered and taken on board the feedback provided to you there, what happens next is ultimately up to you. I realize that you don't think you were disruptive, but I would ask you to consider how many previously uninvolved editors agreed that you in fact were, and to consider why they agreed with that assessment. That does not mean that anyone thinks you intended to do something wrong; quite the converse, I believe you that your intentions were good ones. But the outcomes were not, so please consider why, despite such good intentions, things ended up this way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

We are working on a Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times.

Please do have a look at Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları and help expand the draft with (East European) refs if you find topic interested in.

This request is being made to you since you seem to have worked previously on article Ottoman–Hungarian wars

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC which might interest you

Talk:Austria-Hungary#RfC: National flags vs Maritime Ensign --Havsjö (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dragovit (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 04:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have repeatedly violated your topic ban against any edits pertaining to flags or coats of arms. Accordingly, you have been blocked for one month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 2021

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Besides the two edits I linked in my block, the following are also breeches of your topic ban: here, here, here, here, here, here, and others. The only reason I didn't block for three months is that this is only your second block. You are not permitted to edit flags ... in any way. That includes things like "banners", coats of arms, etc. Find something else to edit. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to block me repeatedly. I never harmed Wikipedia and therefore next time I will ask for its cancellation. Dragovit (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is all pretty simple. Editing in violation of a topic ban is a valid reason to be blocked. If you don't want to be blocked repeatedly, don't violate your topic ban repeatedly. The only way you can edit topics you are banned from editing without being blocked is to first successfully appeal for your topic ban to be revoked. Agricolae (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for your contribution to Hittite Empire. The seal of the last king. I was wondering what to put there for ages. I really wanna improve that page and I struggled a lot for years. Thank you :) Metuboy (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :) I didn't expect this, glad to read that my edits are sometimes useful. It doesn't happen often. ;) Dragovit (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Omnism

I love your addition Omnism (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's my pleasure. I'm glad that you like it. Dragovit (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for three months for violating your topic ban against editing in the "areas of flags, coats of arms, or other national symbols, broadly construed". Special:Diff/1115593489 This edit to List of English flags is a very blatant violation from today. In looking elsewhere - I see Special:Diff/1115623745 this edit where you add in a "Reconstruction of the Harold's "Fighting Man Banner" mentioned by William of Poitiers" also from today, Special:Diff/1113987267 this diff adding a "solar standard" to Parthian Empire from 4 Oct, Special:Diff/1110639624 this edit from 16 Sept changing out the image of a flag in an infobox, and Special:Diff/1110414774 this edit from 15 Sept where you changed out coats of arms. I didn't dig deeper.

You are topic banned from the topic area of flags, coats of arms, or other national symbols. You should not be doing these edits and frankly, if you can't stop, you'll end up indef banned. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly what happened, that I'm banned indefinitely, because it's been a long time since I got banned and now I see, that ban is still ongoing, but why? There's honestly no reason to be banned indefinitely. Why am I banned again and for what? I have never harmed Wikipedia or its community. That ban was for some conflict with consensus and discussions, when I was reprimanded for saying something inappropriate although it wasn't intended that way. Will I be punished forever for this? I said that English is not my mother language and I find difficult to communicate. Why am I banned for flags, coats of arms and symbols if it has nothing to do with it? The ban seems illogical and too harsh to me and I don't understand why it hasn't been lifted. Dragovit (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For it to be lifted, you'd need to appeal for it to be lifted. You were topic banned because you refused to accept consensus was against your edits. And since then, you've not abided by that topic ban. To have a hope of the topic ban being lifted, you need to stop violating it, for at least six months, before you ask for it to be lifted. And a bit of advice, just going away for six months without editing much will not show that you're abiding by the topic ban nearly as well as editing for six months without breaking the topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably true that I refused to accept the consensus, but not a consensus in general, only that particular consensus for the specific reason that it was done in haste and by users who were not familiar with the issue. This is how it seemed to me and that refusal was my first reaction, because I had strong doubts about it, but it did not mean that I would insist on refusal or disregard consensus in general, I didn't want to cause trouble either. If I caused them, I am very sorry, it wasn't the intention. All I wanted was more time to more discuss and involve more users for consensus and then I would accept it, then there would be no reason to refuse it. That's all, I didn't mean to harm or cause trouble. I've been on Wikipedia for over ten years and I haven't been banned, I'm not a troublemaker causing conflicts. I didn't know that my refusal would have such consequences, but now It doesn't matter anymore. This is all I just wanted to say because it seems to me that it is still being taken negatively. I believe a six month or more ban did not violate, propably I didn't edit anything related to flags and coats of arms and I started edit again recently because I thought the ban was overdue, so it's my fault. Anyway, thanks for the advice, I will try to fulfill these conditions. Dragovit (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragovit. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I am asking you to unblock (unban). It's true that I used "sockpuppet" and I want to apologize very much for that, but let's talk about the two previous bans, how pointless and absurd they were. These bans were about "flags and coats of arms, state emblems etc" for disrespecting the consensus for avoid flagicons in infoboxes, whereas I see no context between this. How can these particular flagicons be related to ban of all flags and symbols? Then there is another important insight: How is it possible to respect the consensus created in two days by few users and which has absolutely no effect, because flagicons are used exactly by the same way as before. No effect or consequence of this consensus, the flagicons continue to be used unchanged. It follows that I have been banned without reason, because these bans had no effect on my editing of flags and emblems. I have done nothing wrong in their context before, so why did such a punishment come? I used my old account as "sockpuppet" to bypass the ban on occasion, because I was convinced that the previous ban about "flags and coats" was completely wrong and later also expired, I know that it couldn't be canceled without a request, but I was hoping it would be considered expired and cancelled. I'm still active on Wikipedia and only banned in the English version, but why? I've been doing with flagicons and infoboxes on Wikipedia for a decade without complications, then there was an artificial problem about the size of the flagicons that it was inappropriate to use them even though they have been used here for years before, this is because of the dubious theory that it provides no benefit to the readers. This was the main argument of the user who consensus called, but in my opinion he was just presenting his own personal view and vision which is questionable, but importantly the consensus left no effect or change in the rules about flagicon use. The flagicons and flagicon templates are still used by the same, they were only removed in a few articles, but in some they came back again as I noticed, so what effect did the consensus and my bans have? The answer is nothing. The user wanted to prevent me from editing some particual articles related to flagicons and watched which articles I edited, but he didn't solve any issue by it. The flagicons are still being used by other users without changes, only I was penalized, but why? It's user who doesn't see the difference between the French royalist and Canadian modern flags and speaks for all users assuming that they don't see the difference like he does. That's as subjective as it gets. Were the faults really only on my side? My edits have always been correct, in good faith and beneficial to the Wikipedia project for whole decade and I will continue to do so on other language versions of Wikipedia which use these flagicons normally, so I didn't notice anything change, anywhere. This current block seems too harsh to me. This problem of "sockpuppeting" is apparently serious, but it would not happen in some circumstances. I apologize for that, I don't know what to say next. Thank you for understanding.

Decline reason:

This lengthy request seems to be trying to relitigate the issues that led to the initial block, and also trying to justify the block evasion, not saying why it was wrong. You apologized, but it comes off to me as being sorry you were caught, not sorry you did it. I don't see grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused now, it's probably a misunderstanding if it seem disingenuous as "attempts to justify"... I wrote it the best I could and tried to describe everything truthfully and unbiased about what preceded the block. What else should I write about it or myself? I'm not proud that I used my old account as "sockpuppet", but what to write about it more than an apology, which is not enough anyway? Who can write how it seem, who among us is a psychologist or a mind reader? An apology means that I realize that it was a wrong deed. What more to say? Rather, tell me how it can be compensated. I wrote this because before that I was a ordinary user who had editing as a hobby for many years and never harmed Wikipedia in any way. I have never been blocked in the Czech Wikipedia for this or any other reason, while I edit there exactly as I edited here. In the Czech Wiki are the majority of my edits and no one there sees me as a threat or trouble-maker, no one restricts or penalizes me there, because I am a normal user all time and here it was no different except the one user. I don't know what else to do, even an apology is interpreted differently and means nothing. Why my words have no value here? What exactly is false about what I described? The flagicons and flag templates that started it all are used without changes or restrictions, that is obvious, also the other Wikis unchanged, so don't be surprised by it if those blocks seems unnecessary to me. Dragovit (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2023 (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.