User talk:Sigma.212

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Illyrian invasion of Epirus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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.

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. Thank you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ik that this is kinda old and kinda forgot to reply but I literally gave sources for my claims Sigma.212 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

something that I have realised is that people like you always remove changes like me and Drmapspetrova while we even gave sources and you change the results to look like a illyrian loss while in the start was a victory and after a lose Sigma.212 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to German invasion of Greece. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Illyrian invasion of Epirus, you may be blocked from editing. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man that edit is old and it has been already removed Sigma.212 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Please note that comments such as ...greeks like you always... are considered personal attacks and are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Please refrain from commenting on editors' nationality or personal motives and focus on discussion of the actual content of edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I understand my mistake and I understand that might also had been offensive but I don't know how to edit replys sorry Sigma.212 (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh never mind i did it Sigma.212 (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while I don't intend to weigh in on the substantive content disputes at Kosovo War, I will point out that adding "De facto decisive NLA victory" is contrary to the guidance for the result parameter of Template:Infobox military conflict. From the template documentation: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Is this not a form of meatpuppetry? (If not socking). Sigma reinstated the same edit copy-pasted on Kosovo War that Drmapspetrova added, seemingly to bypass the fact that the latter was blocked. They both share the same limited interests in adding Albanian POV results in military articles and write in a similar style. I'll also note beyond the misuse of the template, it's a misuse of the sources as none that were added state that it was a KLA victory. --Griboski (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not investigated this as a sockpuppetry case; you may wish to file a case at SPI so that this can be evaluated by a checkuser, as both accounts have recently been active and technical evidence is likely to be conclusive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Asilvering was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Siege of Scodra (168 BC) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

asilvering (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sigma.212! Having an article draft 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! asilvering (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sigma.212. Thank you for your work on Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC). Another editor, RedactedHumanoid, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Page required a lot of cleaning up but overall it looks pretty good, thanks for creating this article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|RedactedHumanoid}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RedactedHumanoid: This recently created article duplicates an existing topic; see Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC). It also includes original research. I would request speedy deletion per WP:A10, but a redirect seems more appropriate; I initiated an AfD, and would appreciate your input. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of upper Macedonia was a battle of the illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) so ofc it will have some similarities Sigma.212 (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) 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/Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have used many sources everything that I have put is sourced why are you crying so much is the greek mad ? Sigma.212 (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+ the article has already been reviewed and it dosn't have any problems why crying? Cause bardylis won against your ancestors and you are mad about it Sigma.212 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know im being very disrespectful rn but it just makes me angry how i put so many sources i sourced everything the page was reviewed successful and you just come trying to delete it Sigma.212 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also the sources are book sources not random sites sources so I believe that makes them more accurate Sigma.212 (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because sources exist does not mean an article is notable enough. The latter part I do not think applies here, but still. Sources are not the problem here. The problem is that Demetrios thinks that the article is too similar to Battle of Upper Macedon (360 BC). RedactedHumanoid (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that he targets alot articles about illyria and there wars with greece that might not be true it is just what i think Sigma.212 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so sorry for being disrespectful but the article itself it's pretty accurate and I don't believe it shoud be deleted Sigma.212 (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yk I would appreciate it if you replied instead of staying silent Sigma.212 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information about creating articles, and you may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. – Garuda ^Talk! 10:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there all sources where from books so i believe that makes them accurate and could i know which edit that was so i can revert it Sigma.212 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page was deleted I believe that is a little too far considering it was sourced well Sigma.212 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sigma.212 The page isn't deleted but redirected to an appropriate target. Feel free to work again on the topic, if it passes notability and certainty not a redundant fork. Best, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sigma.212! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Request for review of the page Illyrian invasion of Macedonia (360 BC), has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i fear there has been a mistake it has not been complete it just got removed Sigma.212 (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Page was edited it literally said 20m Katify (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page started saying 20m only after you edited it and you have been vandalising alot of pages and only Christian pages and you lowered the numbers in a Muslim page Sigma.212 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey could i know for which page are you talking about? Sigma.212 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 pages in mind that you might be talking about could verify which one so i can give the source? Sigma.212 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Alexander's Balkan campaign in this case, but my warning essentially applies to any unsourced information you might have added. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources check the pages Siege of pelion and battle of thebes Sigma.212 (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• pelium

Sigma.212 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIRCULAR, since it applies here. Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources as they are user-generated; confirm that the sources in the respective articles are reliable and support the content, then use them directly. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]