DbivansMCMLXXXVI

Welcome!

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:

• 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: ~~~~ (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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for the three revert rule, but all of my reverts were to stop unsubstantiated revisions. The logs for the NACA page show that users were reverting pages and information not related to the claims being made. For instance, one reported grammar and multiple links, and so reverted large unrelated additions to the page. The same exact user had directed the information be posted on the page IN THE FIRST PLACE. That is correct, he stated that the information did not belong on the NASA page, but the NACA page. Then attempted to delete it completely. I warned those involved and gave detailed explanations of why their edits were not valid according to guidelines, and they retaliated with unsubstantiated warnings and edits that did not change what their edit logs claim they changed. The information removed under a supposed consensus was not mentioned even a single time, and the only reasons for reversion given AT ALL were grammar or linking errors. In accordance with the guideline page, I reverted these changes despite the other users continuously reverting or editing pieces of the page unrelated to their claims, and being completely unwilling to abide by ANY guidelines they were asked to observe. The logs show that not a single reversion was in fact related to the issues being stated. The information removed was not discussed on the talk page, and no reasons besides small grammar or duplicate link removal could be given for the valid removal of the information. Not a single piece of information removed during the last revision was mentioned directly in the non-existent consensus that was used to revert it. This leads me to believe that the warnings and reversions were retaliatory in nature, as they have not been able to actually specify a reason for removal. There was no consensus on the information actually removed, and none of the edits involved any information or flaws that were discussed or listed as reasons for revisions. Specifically, the information removed about the NACA involvement in the development of supersonic aircraft. The removal of the agency's most important contributions of the last 50 years is not an appropriate response to minor spelling errors or duplicating a link. The same members have been attempting to remove all information involving NASA aviation developments, which is the second largest NASA division. This is highly suspicious that they are concentrating on removing all known mentions of aviation in NASA and NACA pages, and their edits simply do not correspond to the revisions and edits actually made. Not only is the information removed, but any possibly links that would lead to NASA or NACA contributions are removed. This is clearly not something the guidelines was designed for, and is highly suspicious in general. Because of this, I believe my temporary ban was in error, and that the revisions should be reviewed in order to determine if the users are intentionally vandalizing the pages to remove mention of NASA/NACA involvement in aviation development. Thank you for your consideration DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Substantially, your unblock request is a long screed of protestations against being blocked for edit-warring on the grounds that you think your edits were right. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

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 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:

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.

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)

Talkback: Talk:Kurt_Knispel#Unsourced_material

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

Talkback: Talk:Kurt_Knispel#Now_cited_to_Franz_Kurowski

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, --Katangais (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[1] 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—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. 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 Wikipedia: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: [2]. 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: [3]. 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 Wikipedia: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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for pointing out that a member making accusations against me is making pro Nazi edits while pretending to be anti Nazi. His history shows HUNDREDS of edits that attempt to smear opponents of Hitler and paint them as unreliable. In fact, he states that he believes none of the Germans who opposed Hitler are genuine and that he is set out to prove so. He has absolutely no interest in making posts against actual proven German war criminals, he is obsessed with smearing their opponents and claiming he is anti nazi as a cover. Smearing their opponents is the exact opposite of being anti Nazi. He has made mass deletions of information on roughly a hundred wartime pages, almost entirely of Germans who can claim they opposed Hitler. On others he has posted conspiracy theories to try and discredit Hitler's opponents within the government. He has even resorted to using a source that relies on MIND READING as its proof. It literally claims to be able to read thoughts of the subject and those around him Pointing out this incredibly unprofessional behavior is not an insult. I am not the first member to notice his odd behavior, and if you google his user name there are multiple forum discussions about his unprofessional behavior and mass deletions. He is abusing the Admin board to try and punish anyone who notices his actions. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for what others did, but for what you did. As this request only talks about others, I am declining it. If you choose to make another request, you must address your own conduct. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

• 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 | 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Please see WP:AN#DbivansMCMLXXXVI community ban? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Community ban

As a result of the discussion 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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

After being accused of a topic ban evasion I have been banned site wide. But almost all of the information provided is false, and this can be seen simply by clicking the very links provided as proof. They do not agree with the claims being made. Most importantly, he claimed I was evading a topic ban on Nazi Germany, when not a single post by the offending users were even on that topic. How can it be a topic ban evasion if its not the same topic (or anything even remotely similar), and why would the admin lie about that?

The information was presented by an Admin who I have previously called out for similar behavior. We previously had an argument when he defended a user who was caught making pro nazi edits, and a significant amount of disturbing behavior was found by the reddit wikipedia community when this subject was brought up. The admin who issued the sitewide ban, "Boing! said Zebedee" previously banned me from defending myself, and threatened a total ban if I even talked about the subject again. If he banned me from even defending myself then he is clearly not objective enough to be making the decision on final bans. This is extremely unprofessional behavior.

Secondly, he falsely claimed the geolocation information was the same. In fact, there are no less than 4 different locations for the IP addresses he claims are using the same geolocation data. This can be easily verified by entering the addresses into the following website. Two in Missouri and one in Kansas, so his claims are clearly false in that regard as well. I am a thousand miles from those locations.

He also claimed the edits were similar. They are on VASTLY different topics and do not involve ANY of the previous topics I have discussed. Why does he feel the need to lie about that? Its not like you cant look at them and see for yourself. Hes expecting nobody to actually read his examples and just take his word.

Lastly, the original ban was for topics involving Nazi Germany, and I had been trying to stop vandalism. During the ban debate they quoted three examples of NON German topics as proof that I should be banned from Nazi Germany topics. Topics involving aircraft from other countries. This can clearly be seen by simply clicking the links provided on the original complaint, and they have nothing to do with Nazi Germany at all. The only topic involving Germany was from the 1970s and was not political in any way.

As "Boing! said Zebedee" clearly repeatedly lied to the other administrators and presented false information, I request the ban be lifted. And I highly suggest his behavior be reviewed by the other admins.

References

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is the same behavior that got you community banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

• 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)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #25337 was submitted on May 25, 2019 00:05:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:05, 25 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...

• 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.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

As a note, I've just blocked 207.141.33.19 (talk · contribs) 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)