indefinitely banned 11 August 2018

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This user is in college. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while. They will be back on Wikipedia when college is over.

Hello, thans a lot for posting on Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 February 18! As you seem to have sound knowledge on the subject, would you mind improving the article in question accordingly (if you can arrange it at some point)? Best wishes--Boczi (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at it. I'm sort of busy right now so it may be awhile before I make any changes. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Narva Offensive (15–28 February 1944)#Tieke, Landwerh, etc., is a Waffen-SS apologist who’s written for the Journal of Historical Review and a notoriously pro-Wehrmacht publisher really a hill you want to die on? A genuine question: are you not familiar with such authors / publishers?

Separately, if you could consider responding to my comments at Talk:Erich_Hoepner#Eastern_Front before reverting my edits across multiple pages, I would appreciate it. You also stated you’d address similar comments at Talk:Wilhelm_Ritter_von_Leeb#Leeb_and_Einsatzgruppe_A. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I've reviewed Tieke and Landwerth. Tieke was a participant in the war and any material he has written as memoir is fine as long as it's properly attributed in context and not demonstrably false. I'd take a pass on anything else he's written. Landwerth seems to be wholly inappropriate, not necessarily because of any perceived bias, but because he's non-credentialed and, as far as I can tell, not cited as a reliable source by credentialed historians or other recognized subject matter experts. Yes, I'm familiar with J.J. Fedorowicz and the JHR, but the willingness of a publisher to put out what could be characterized as apologist literature is largely irrelevant to the reliability of a source. All that matters is the pedigree of the author. That said, I'm not familiar with any reliable sources who have published in JHR. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you "mostly agree", why did you revert my edit then? In any case, please see note below. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#German war effort of 1939–45 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in this, subsequent to the recent article in of the Bugle - which is how I came upon this. Coming to your page, I also noted the ArbCom request. I had a look at things and find it quite disturbing. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you know the current Arbcom case request includes references to the article on Erich Hoepner, as an example of the alleged issue. I recently did a GA review on that article, in my capacity as a random member of Milhist. Am also in a position to vote on the case request in my capacity as a random member of Arbcom.

I haven't (yet) recused from the case because I don't see this piece of fairly minor content analysis as impinging on the likelihood of a fair hearing. But am keen to get your views either way, as a principal participant in the request as it stands. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to review the review, so to speak, or really do much other work of late. I have no issue with you participating in any capacity. Actually, your perspective would likely be valuable and I don't see any conflict or reason to recuse yourself. I appreciate you asking, though. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LargelyRecyclable. Just a note to advise I've closed a good article review you initiated, at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rommel myth/1. Regards, Fish+Karate 09:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also tried to log into my account. I reported it here. -O.R.^Comms 21:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a comment of yours on the evidence talk page. Firstly, threaded discussion is not permitted on case talk pages. I realise you are not the only offender in this regard. Secondly, your comment appeared to be little more than an attack on another editor. You are expected to act with decorum on arbitration pages, and your comment there did not meet that standard. You are welcome to contribute to the case and to participate at the talk page, but please remain civil and focused on the case. GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People have been blocked in the past for using the Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks feature for harassing others with obviously insincere thanks. Don't "thank" me again or you'll be in trouble. Bishonen | talk 11:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, thanks. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at User talk:LargelyRecyclable. 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 ~~~~}}.  GoldenRing (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you early to allow you to participate in the current arbitration case on the condition that you do not interact with Bishonen other than to present evidence on the evidence page. GoldenRing (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edit on this article. The dispute is under discussion on the talk page, and per WP:BRD, the article should remain in the status quo ante (i.e. before yesterday's edit by IllegitimateBarnstar) while discussion is ongoing. You're perfectly welccome to express your opinion about it on the talk page, but your edit has the effect of short-circuiting a consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving it your full consideration. Please enjoy the topic ban that is heading your way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As always, you're a delight. Thank you for your well wishes. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision. 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 ~~~~}}.  Alex Shih (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, I think you have made your points clear enough. I think your participation in the final deliberation is no longer necessary. Feel free to revert this message. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, only a coward would ask a question in an open ArbCom case and then ban that user before he could answer. You're an impressive guy. Good job, everyone believes you. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: Oh, wait. Did you need me to provide all the extensive attribution for what a huge piece of shit the editor in question is? Of course you don't. Because that's not what this is about. Go ahead, finish me off. You have to know how your fellow MilHist editors feel about you. They almost all know what a sell-put piece of shit you are. Was it worth it? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, since the MilHist sell out @Alex Shih: blocked me, where should I file an appeal on the (to start) basic grounds that my request for an extension was ignored? Anyone? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was planning to come by and say it's a shame we're heading for a ban, as over time there's been plenty of good edits mixed in with the others. But that probably sounds patronising, so just the facts:

• Theres no mechanism for appealing a decision by case drafters not to grant an extension to a case phase. Arbcom has an "inquiry" model rather than a court one; it's not so formal that every action must have scope for appeals and this is one of those actions that is really at the discretion of the Committee at the time. It's also hard to see the point of an extension as evidence closed months ago and there's been ample opportunity to raise rebuttal points in the workshop or during the PD.
• Theres also not much point in discussing extensions as your account is now blocked. The options for a block appeal are in the template above, but it's likely a waste of time given the impending ban.
• After the ban happens, it can be appealed at WP:ARCA or direct to the Committee via email. If there's a technicality you think has been overlooked you can raise it right away; if it's just that you think the ban is unfair or the conditions that caused it no longer apply then I suggest waiting awhile as an immediate appeal will be declined. The random personal abuse above probably doesn't help, but to put it charitably we all say unnecessary things when irritated.

Lastly, if you don't wish to appeal then that's up to you. The Committee (me included) has found your recent editing disruptive and is asking you to leave. It's a volunteer website and its understandable if that outcome makes you unwilling to try to come back at any stage. If you do choose not to appeal then there's nothing to be said but thanks for those edits which added useful content, and good luck with wherever the internet takes you. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
2. Cinderella157 is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
3. Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
4. Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
5. While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access was not revoked by me; not sure why you are e-mailing me. If you want your talk page access, send an e-mail to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]