User talk:DbivansMCMLXXXVI

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Jim Cantrell
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jim Cantrell, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://stratspace.net/Cantrell.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Cantrell
Hello DbivansMCMLXXXVI,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jim Cantrell for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   22:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has now been deleted. Please don't bring copyright material onto Wikipedia, even for a short time to work on it. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. S warm  we ♥ our hive  07:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jimmy Doolittle, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This project is for the reader, it's not a place for you to see What can I change. I have removed the article from mt watchlist, knock yourself out, happy editing    Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 02:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kelly Johnson (engineer). 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.''You've been blocked for edit warring before. Though you haven't violated 3RR to this point, it would be better to discuss the issue on the talk page instead.'' BilCat (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Talkback: Talk:Kurt_Knispel
Please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback: Talk:Kurt_Knispel
Let's keep the discussion in one place. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to BA-64
Howzit,

I reverted your edit to BA-64 because you changed one spelling in the lead from British to American. The article is currently written in British English. If you want to change all the spellings in the article to American English, I have no issue with that - but please state your rationale for doing so, change the tag on the talk page, and be consistent. We're not going to have an article written partly in British and partly in American English.

The longstanding revision also used the following wording: "the placement of their wheels at the extreme corners of the chassis" as opposed to your wording "shorter wheelbase". I don't see how one translates to the other. It reads to me like the "the placement of their wheels at the extreme corners of the chassis" is a reference to track, rather than wheelbase, but since I can't be sure due to lack of clarity on the source's part, I think we should err on the side of caution and stick to the original phrasing.

Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Albert Speer‎. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I urge you to remove your repeated personal attacks and to refrain from further attacks. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
Your recent editing history at Panavia Tornado shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. McSly (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ghrelin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Such a statement requires high-quality clinical evidence, such as a systematic review of completed clinical trials per WP:MEDRS. No such review exists. '' Zefr (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It is already sourced, and I stated that when I made the change. Please actually read before blindly throwing around accusations. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There are 97 references to the article. Is it your intention to make us search all of them, or could you give us a hint? -Roxy, the dog . wooF 22:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The original edit here is sourced to outdated preclinical studies which fall under WP:MEDDATE, WP:MEDANIMAL, and WP:PRIMARY. The anti-inflammatory effects remain inconclusive and too preliminary to mention in the lede, if at all in the article. Further edits coming. --Zefr (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You did not even bother to read or even see the source before you removed it. How could you have known it was invalid if you clearly did not even see it at all in the first place? You are just bickering for the sake of bickering. In the future dont go challenging people if you haven't even read what they are referring to. Its unprofessional conduct. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * This edit summary was not helpful: . Separately, "...or we are going to report you for vandalism" -- "we" who? --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not the only member who has taken issue with your edits. You are posting childish and overly dramatic edits from a source that claims to be able to read the mind of not just Speer and everyone around him, but even believes he understands the mental state of RANDOM STRANGERS who were around Speer. Its almost a novelization of what happened. This is clearly not a valid source. You need to greatly increase your personal standards and stop the constant drama and misleading posts. Its unprofessional and outright childish.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from attacking other editors as you've done here: . Also, if you believe Kitchen to be unreliable, please use WP:RSN to gain consensus. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for WP:IDHT-conduct and casting aspersions in this and other comments at WP:AN. 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:. Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * And for the personal attack of accusing another editor of "making pro Nazi edits", you have now lost the ability to post here for the duration of the block. When the block expires, think very carefully before you say anything like that again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and let me just add that if you continue with this line of attack when the block expires, you will be facing more severe sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Community topic ban
Per this WP:AN discussion, you have been indefinitely topic banned from the history of Nazi Germany and related pages. Please see WP:TBAN for an explanation of what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban. If you wish to appeal against the ban, you can do so at WP:AN, but since it has just been placed by community consensus, you'll have a better chance if you wait a few months. You're free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, and the more constructive editing you do during the ban, the better chance you will have of eventually getting it lifted. Feel free to ask on my page if you have any questions. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC).

May 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for evading your community ban. See User talk:2600:100A:B01C:2427:186F:B1D0:2426:6261. 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:. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see WP:AN Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban
As a result of the discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=898001855#DbivansMCMLXXXVI_community_ban? here], you are now banned from the English Wikipedia by community consensus. You are not allowed to edit anywhere on the English Wikipedia, using this or any other account, or logged out, while the ban is in effect, and I have made your block indefinite as a result. If you wish to request an unblock/unban, that would require a new community consensus, and you should make an unblock request here in the usual way and your request would be copied to WP:AN for discussion. An unblock/unban request would be very unlikely to succeed soon, so I would recommend waiting at least a few months before you consider it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Request Unblock due to using incorrect information
--UTRSBot (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As you are once again falsely accusing another editor of making pro-Nazi edits, I have removed your ability to edit this talk page. Obviously I can not review this unblock request, but whoever reviews it is welcome to restore your talk page access without consulting me if they believe that is wise. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Some comments
I don't know if any of this will help, but I see a lot of confusion in the unblock request above, so I'm going to try to explain a few things as I see them... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a school of thought that some in the Third Reich were what some have described as "good Nazis", and as far as I understand it that means it is claimed they weren't fully aware of the crimes of the Holocaust, were not fully supportive of Hitler, and/or other things like that. There are claims that Albert Speer fits into that category, but those claims are controversial and have been opposed. Now, I have no idea of the truth of the matter either way, but opposing the "good Speer" school of thought is in no way pro-Nazi and is in no way supporting Hitler. I have no idea how you made that bizarre deduction, but you have used it to accuse others of making pro-Nazi edits, and that is completely unacceptable.
 * You keep bringing up a Reddit discussion. We're not interested in what people at Reddit have to say, and Reddit has no bearing whatsoever on decisions made at Wikipedia.
 * You claim that you did not evade your topic ban, but you clearly did at Talk:Albert Speer, here (I have since removed those comments as ban evasion). That is clearly you, bringing up exactly the same issues that led to your topic ban, only not logged in.
 * You say the IP addresses brought up in the ban discussion are all in different geolocations. They all geolocate to Kansas City, or to Overland Park (which is less than 12 miles from Kansas City by road). Kansas City is right on the border between Kansas and Missouri, and the border runs between Kansas City and Overland Park, so your argument that they are from two different states is disingenuous. What's more, the edits were all clearly made by you - in a number of blatantly obvious ways.
 * You say I brought up some edits that were not related to Nazi Germany for the community ban discussion. Yes, that was to show that your apparent inability or refusal to engage in a collegial manner with other editors is not restricted to the subject of Nazi Germany, and that your response to disagreement in an unacceptable and attacking way is more widespread. I wanted to show it in order to support my proposal for a full site ban, and show that your topic ban from Nazi Germany was not in itself sufficient to stop your disruption.
 * If, at some time in the future (which really will need to be at least the six months of the Standard Offer from now), you have your talk page access enabled in order to make an appeal against your ban, you will have to address your behaviour and not start attacking everyone else again. Specifically, any further accusations against anyone of making pro-Nazi edits will quickly lose you the ability to edit this page again, and will probably lose you any hope of ever being allowed back to edit Wikipedia. I strongly recommend you read and absorb WP:NPA before you post a single further word in any Wikipedia medium.

Sockpuppet
As a note, I've just blocked as a sockpuppet of this account. The vendetta against Martin Kitchen's book on Albert Speer and other aspects of their editing strongly indicate that the two accounts are being used by the same person. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)