User talk:Sein und Zeit

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Sein und Zeit. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

This is an encyclopedia, so remember that it's a necessity to include references listing reliable websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. Please understand that these sources should verify the information in a fair and accurate manner. However, you must not copy and paste text you find anywhere, except for short quotations, marked as such with quote marks and carefully cited to the source the quote was taken from. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced or referenced poorly or if they are copyright violations. See referencing for beginners for more details.--Moxy (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Adolf Hitler, 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Hello, I'm FlightTime. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Adolf Hitler. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! - FlightTime (open channel) 01:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL

Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited,--Moxy (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Themes in Nazi propaganda into Scientific racism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Moxy (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing archives

Please do not edit archived discussions, as you did at Talk:Joseph Stalin/Archive 19. If you wish to address a topic, please start a new discussion on the article talk page (in this case, Talk:Joseph Stalin). Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sein und Zeit. I just wanted to say that I unwittingly prompted this by posing a question at the Village Pump, but I did so out of curiosity, not because I objected to your edits. Unfortunately, people at the Village Pump tend to insist on examples before giving an answer... Please don't take this the wrong way...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and direct quoting

Sein und Zeit: I thought I should tell you a couple of things since you have not been editing on Wikipedia that long, yet. First, secondary WP:RS sources should be used and cited over primary sources; "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". They are more WP:NPOV and considered more objective. See: WP:PRIMARY. Second, adding large sections quoted directly from sources, such as books, is frowned upon due to copyright reasons. So please consider these things when making additions and enjoy editing herein. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kierzek: Thanks for the advice. I'm curious, are there any of my edits that don't follow such rules?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding long quotes from "Mein Kampf" to articles is what led me to write you as to the matter. Just best to keep it in mind. Please see: MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:QUOTEFARM. Kierzek (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Sein und Zeit, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Adolf Hitler have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Consistency

Hello Sein und Zeit (Heidegger fan I presume). When contributing to pages that use the harv reference style as you recently did at Operation Barbarossa, please cite your sources so that they are consistent with the rest of the page. For your convenience, I converted your most recent edit reference to the Calvin College webpage accordingly. Compare the Online sources on that page and how they look in the edit mode for examples when referencing online sources in the future. Do likewise for the text edits as well. If a hodge-podge of citations styles appear on a page, Wiki-editors strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with and use the harv reference style being used on this page (both in-line citations and the bibliography) for Wiki-articles that are historical in nomenclature. Your cooperation is appreciated and happy editing. --Obenritter (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My apologies. Thanks for sorting out the citation.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've noticed that you have an interest in Third Reich related articles. Some of the one you've chosen are already pretty healthy so let me guide you to some place that could use work; that is, if you would like to assist. If so, there's a page that I was working on that could stand to be finished: Responsibility for the Holocaust My time is about to be very limited due to real-world research activities but I would like to see that page finished up. As you'll be able to discern, about 75% of the page is complete, but I got to Other states and worked my way down to Poland (still incomplete but almost done). If you could pick up from there (following the general format I was using preceding that segment and insert the requisite content about responsibility), it would be appreciated. Remember, these countries/regions have their share of complicity, so do not focus too much attention on what the Germans/Nazis did in each place, but what groups in those nations did to either perpetrate the Holocaust themselves (through collaboration or carrying out their own policies) or what they did to save people. Read the preceding information on some of the other countries like Denmark, France, Hungary, or the Netherlands to get a feel for what type of information is appropriate. Your assistance is appreciated (should you choose to accept this mission).--Obenritter (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be judicious about the content you include for this sensitive subject, as solid scholarly content and neutral objective editing is a must for subjects that traverse such terrible things. --Obenritter (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Interesting to know others are experiencing the same thing. [1] [2] [3] [qub/x q;otta] ▤▧ 01:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@QubixQdotta: Yes, I'm allegedly a sock puppet now *shakes my head*.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shake it a bit harder. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:Editor Interaction Analyser.---Moxy (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)-[reply]

@Diannaa: Thoughts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's some fairly recent checkuser data, so I have filed a case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/English Patriot Man. Please feel free to add any additional evidence or observations to the case page. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more overlaps with other EPN socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]