User talk:Knispel

Please stop vandalising pages because you are a Michael Wittmann fanboy that cannot stand any critism made of him.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Model

Please read the talk page Talk:Walter_Model#Maintaining_article_quality. Hohum (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Your recent editing history at Erich von Manstein shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Erich von Manstein. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Please do not continue edit warring and making statements like "I will be relentless in deleting the stuff." These will lead to you getting blocked for edit warring, if not 3RR. I'm watching your edits; kindly desist right now and continue your discussions on the talk page of the article concerned in a civil manner. Wifione ^Message 09:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint about your edits has been filed at the 3RR noticeboard

Please see WP:AN3#User:Knispel reported by User:Binksternet (Result: ). It is possible that you may be blocked unless you promise to stop edit warring. You can respond to the complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caution regarding Erich von Manstein

You have removed sourced content from this article repeatedly in the last few days. If you continue to remove information critical of the article subject as you did here, on 30 November without first getting a consensus of editors on the talk page to support your change, you may be blocked for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Erich von Manstein. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

After my above warning you have continued to remove material cited to Smelser and Davies. You are not the sole judge of which published sources are to be used in this article. That depends on consensus, which you never received. Nobody else agrees with your verdict on Smelser and Davies. Any historical figure is bound to look better if all criticism of their record is removed. That is not the way to construct an objective encyclopedia:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. .

EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

a biographical article cannot be based on one book,particularly a book which is not only not a biography but also overtly negatively biased.In addition,it cannot be used to support inaccurate statements about the contents of a memoir particularly when quotes were offered which proved the inaccuracy and also because the statements are even in contradiction with the wikipedia article on the memoir and other wikipedia articles.Reaching consensus requires a willingness to discuss openly. The opposing opinion wanted me to simply shut up and accept a particular book as the only valid source on the content. Knispel (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the accuracy or lack thereof of your desired edits. Even if you're in the right, edit warring is unacceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:48, 1 December 2011 (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.

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

After expiry of your previous block, you immediately returned to the article to remove a properly-sourced statement that von Manstein had forged some documents regarding his war record. This shows no regard for consensus and indicates you plan to continue pushing your point of view. In my opinion you should remain indefinitely blocked until you express willingness to follow Wikipedia policy. An agreement not to edit any articles related to World War II would be a reasonable offer from you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

another editor found out that a phrase in the manstein article was a misrepresentation of the source referred to (see Manstein talk page).From then on there could be no objection anymore to the removal of the phrase as obviously phrases written have to be an accurante reflection of the source referred to. The editor that consulted the source had seen a clear and unequivocal inconsistency and in addition what was really stated in the source was even historically irrlevent--Knispel (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC) Knispel (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being "right" never excuses WP:EW. That's why we have WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 4 December 2011 (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.

You fail to type in proper sentences or use proper sentence and spacing structure, including proper capitalization, and you manage to misspell every other word. However, you change to a misspelling of "authoritative" here. What is going on here? –MuZemike 08:48, 4 December 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

removing a statement that was not consistent with the pagenumber and book given,is not editwarring. If it were then any editor could get away with stating anything as long as you put a pagenumber and book behind it. Administrators should really worry about the neutrality of an article being put into question by an editor who does not find it abnormal to misrepresent what his sourves actuallly say. Rather ironic that I get blocked while the other gets away with blatant misrepresentation. Knispel (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only irony here is self-inflicted. You were in a garden-variety and trivial content dispute. If you are unable, or unwilling, to convince other editors that your position is correct through dispute resolution or simple discussion, then this may not be the best platform for you. Until you can be bothered to read our policies and adhere to them, this block does seem to be the only method to prevent your disruption. Kuru (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2011 (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.