User Talk: Lazarbeem

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

Hi Lazarbeem! I noticed your contributions ↗ and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia ↗ page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  '''Jay8g''' <small>[<nowiki />V•T•E ↗<nowiki />]</small> 04:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Italian occupation of Corsica ↗

Greetings, would you add a citation to Italian occupation of Corsica for your edit please? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Yes I can. I'm sorry that I didn't do it immediately Lazarbeem (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Bare URLs

In citations could you wrap links in some kind of citation template? WP:BAREURL ↗. You could use the automatic reference generator in visualeditor at least. seefooddiet (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Malformed citation on decimation (punishment) ↗

Hi. You made this edit ↗ and left an {{t|sfn}} error. Please reformat it not to be an error or otherwise consistent with the rest of the article. Ifly6 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:How do I reformat it? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
:Update: I changed sfn to ref and /ref. I hope that this fixes the error. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Balkans or Eastern Europe''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia ↗;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines ↗;

follow editorial and behavioural best practices;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system ↗.

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'', you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}} TylerBurden (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:See also WP:DUE ↗ weight and WP:SYNTH ↗. TylerBurden (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. I got one quick question though, how should I use the information from those sources on the articles that I edited? For example, this article -> https://kyivindependent.com/suicide-missions-abuse-physical-threats-international-legion-fighters-speak-out-against-leaderships-misconduct/ from the Kyiv Independent ↗ talks about misconduct in the International Legion. I originally put it on the articles Looting ↗ and War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine ↗. Should I have been more specific about the events that are described in the article or should I have kept it short? Furthermore, if another article talks about the same incidents can I put it in a cite note beside the Kyiv Independent source or should I write more about the incident and put the cite note beside it? Lazarbeem (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't really know what's going on with edits like this ↗ or this ↗.
:::In the first one, you add that “Some people come to Ukraine with a motive to fight for freedom, for what is right. Others want to make money or are running from the law" to "extremism".
:::Not only is the fact that money is a motivating factor mentioned literally right before you placed the sentence, but I don't see what any of it has to do with extremism.
:::In the second one, you add this "Aguila-7" character as an example of a criminal in the legion, apparently ignoring that the source doesn't confirm him as one, nor did you make it clear that the source was about criminals infiltrating the legion, not them being purposefully accepted.
:::This kind of stuff seems to keep happening with the same theme, and it's starting to appear pretty WP:TENDENTIOUS ↗. Remember that as said above, this is a CTOP, and you should be taking extra care instead of editing like you did above, apparently being more concerned with painting a narrative than actually representing the source you're citing correctly. TylerBurden (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm taking quotes from the sources provided. The "Some people come to Ukraine with a motive to fight for freedom, for what is right. Others want to make money or are running from the law" should probably have been put under the "Leadership and criminality" subsection. The only reason I put it in the "Extremism" subsection is because I thought that it would pair well with the quote from Patrick Messmer. As for Aguila-7, I put him under the "Criminals who joined the legion" subsection because the source from the Kyiv Post said, "One case mentioned was that of a volunteer from El Salvador with the call sign Aguila-7 who, following a full drone training cycle conducted at Lviv’s “Killhouse Academy,” was serving with the logistical support team for a drone unit in Kharkiv. After investigation, it was discovered that he was a Mexican who previously served with the country’s “GAFE” Special Forces Airmobile Group, several former members of which are known to have become members of the ultra-violent Zetas cartels." And lastly, I added the infiltration of the 3 former members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia ↗ because the source from the Kyiv post stated, "According to Intelligence Online, citing a Slovakian security source, at least three former Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas joined the International Legion using Panamanian and Venezuelan identity documents. One was eventually identified by the SBU at a drone training center in Dnipro after his gang tattoos and accent gave him away." I put the former FARC members under the "extremist" subsection because it was a communist terrorist organization and because one of the three was identified by a gang tattoo per the Kyiv Post. If you have any advice as to where I should put all this information please do so.
::::Also the Kyiv post article is right here -> Latin American Drug Cartels Send ‘Volunteers’ to Ukraine for Drone Training ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::Also to add onto the FARC stuff, it was recognized as a terrorist organization by Colombia and Brazil and is still recognized as a terrorist organization by the United States. As for the FARC dissidents ↗, it's successor organization, I do not know if any countries recognize it as a terrorist organization. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Now compare it with what you're actually adding to articles, you're making your own conclusions instead of summarizing what the sources concretely state.
::::::"Aguila-7" was never explicitly mentioned as a criminal, it only mentioned that he was part of a unit where several former members had later become cartel members, for you this is enough to label "Aguila-7" a criminal, potentially opening up a can of WP:BLP ↗ worms as well. I'm not sure why you omitted the rather key part of the source describing that the criminals were infiltrating the unit rather than being willfully accepted either, you only added that fake passports were used. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Here's what I'm thinking, I'm going to completely exclude the Aguila-7 stuff, I'm going to put Lavrenyuk's quote under the "Leadership and Criminality" section, and I'm going readd the FARC stuff to the "Extremism" section. I'm also not going to make that edit unless you tell me that you're fine with it because I don't want to make another mistake. Lazarbeem (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Also on the topic of contentious topics, can you do me a favour and mark the List of battles with most Ukrainian military fatalities ↗ as protected. The reason as to why I am asking this is because I don't know how to mark articles as protected and because it contains topics relating to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Lazarbeem (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm not an admin, you can request protection for any article you'd like on WP:RPPI ↗, I look forward to your creation of List of battles with most Russian military fatalities ↗. TylerBurden (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::I'm actually planning on making that list next (it's almost as if you read my mind lol) Lazarbeem (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Also, like with the list for Ukraine, it's probably going to need to be marked as protected due to "current events" Lazarbeem (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you for creating this list. I look forward to your creation of List of battles with most Turkish military fatalities ↗. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from :Looting ↗ into :War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine ↗. 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., <code>copied content from <nowiki>page name ↗</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thank you. — Diannaa <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you sincerely for your contributions! :) <span style="font-family: century gothic;">'''x'''<u> RozuRozu </u> • ''<sup>'''t'''ea</sup><sub>'''c'''ups</sub> ↗''</span> 04:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
|}

:Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of :Albania vs Serbia (2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying) ↗ for deletion

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Albania vs Serbia (2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying) ↗, to which you have significantly contributed ↗, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or if it should be deleted ↗.

The discussion will take place at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania vs Serbia (2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying) ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by ''SDZeroBot'' (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia ↗;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines ↗;

follow editorial and behavioural best practices;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system ↗.

I want to ask for something.

I want to ask for something. I saw your edits. I wonder if I asked you to create an article, would you do it? Unfortunately, the articles I want don’t get created because I don’t know how to make them. Ömereditss (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

:What's up? Lazarbeem (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
::If I asked you to create battle articles, would you do it? Ömereditss (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
:::Which one? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
::::Would it be okay if it’s about the Russo-Turkish wars? Ömereditss (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::What about them specifically? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you create battles that are not on Wikipedia? Ömereditss (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sometimes I do. Is there a specific battle you want me to create an article for? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah
::::::::Siege of Beyazet (1829) ↗
::::::::Battle of Dervish Cevan ↗ Ömereditss (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I can do that but it will take awhile Lazarbeem (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Okey no problem Ömereditss (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry for taking so long. I've been busy with irl stuff and have been having a bit of a hard time translating the Russian language sources. can I publish what i have and then we both work on the article? Lazarbeem (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yeah Not Problem NEMURO (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Ok here it is Siege of Beyazet (1829) ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Poorly explained removal of sourced content

In this edit ↗ you claim to be removing "information related to other units", however every single source there cited includes mention of Shkval units and their performance.

If you are trying to make the argument that the article should only cover a Shkval Battalion connected to a specific brigade, that makes no sense, the article title is simply Shkval Battalion. TylerBurden (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

:The picture in the infobox is the patch of the 59th Brigade's Shkval Battalion and the person listed as the commander is the commander of the 59th Brigade's Shkval Battalion so I assumed that the article was only referring to that Shkval Battalion. If that article is meant to represent more than one Shkval Battalion a few changes should be made Lazarbeem (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::Otherwise, maybe the article should be renamed to something like: "Shkval Battalion (59th Assault Brigade)" Lazarbeem (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:::You shouldn't be basing that on pictures, you should be basing it on the article title, the content and the sources that support it, which quite clearly shows that is not the case. TylerBurden (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
::::The problem with that is that the current article title is used by multiple battalions. Is there a solution we could work out so that more people don't get confused? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Maybe a move, since sources appear to describe it as more of a type of unit associated with multiple brigades each with their "own" "Shkval" unit, for example two recent sources here ↗ and here ↗ describing a Shkval unit connected to the 141st Separate Mechanized Brigade. I can agree right now it's a bit confusing as it appears kind of like a single battalion.
:::::Something like "Shkval unit" or similar perhaps. TylerBurden (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::As I mentioned above, maybe something along the lines of "Shkval Battalion (59th Assault Brigade)" for example Lazarbeem (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::But then we're limiting it to one brigade. Are there enough sources to create separate articles for each unit? TylerBurden (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Most likely though they'd probably be in Ukrainian Lazarbeem (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

UAlosses Bakhmut

They are attributing losses in chasiv yar from 2025 to battle of bakhmut, i dont think thats very accurate to use them as source for ua loses there. ~2025-31867-63 ↗ (talk) 09:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:They aren't, UALosses has a filter to sort by battle Lazarbeem (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::Yes and they include people who died in chasiv yar to bahmut loses. Also their MIA list is extremely dubious. But you know what? It doesnt matter, its pretty obvious whats going on here and what is your intention. ~2026-56481-9 ↗ (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::My intention? You are making claims about a source without provide a source yourself? Are your intentions to discredit me or UALosses? Lazarbeem (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
::::UAloses was heavily promoted by TWK group. People who often post dead ukrainian children with gloating comments, their MIA list is extremely dubious and they keep adding people who died elsewhere to bakhmut. There were instances of soldiers who died in chasiv yar and were moved to bakhmut for some reason. Yes its dubious source and given your edits its pretty obvious you are some kind of lefty chud with pro russian tendencies. ~2026-56481-9 ↗ (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::The what group? Also, UALosses has been found to be reliable by Mediazona, Meduza, the Book of Memory group, BBC News Russian and The Economist Lazarbeem (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you add the Battle of Cranberry Creek or the siege of fort Madison to the war of 1812?

I find these battles interesting and I think these battles would be a great addition to the list of battles of the war of 1812 and I like your work. LucyGermanDog (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah I can do those in a bit Lazarbeem (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:Created Battle of Cranberry Creek ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Lazarbeem. Thank you for your work on Battle of Cranberry Creek ↗. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Thanks for helping to build content related to the War of 1812. A rather small conflict, referenced with two historical markers and two commentaries (by the same author). It would be great to find find the reliable sources from which the historical markers were put together. I considered a merge to the War of 1812 ↗, but that's too large-scale for this small part; perhap a merge to a locality; Alexandria, New York ↗ is the obvious one, where the battle is already mentioned.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Klbrain<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

Klbrain (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think that a merge was necessary. However, maybe some more sources would be beneficial Lazarbeem (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Nomination of :Nationalist-13 ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Nationalist-13 ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article will be discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nationalist-13 ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.</div> PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add original research ↗ or novel syntheses ↗ of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source ↗ for all of your contributions. ''Recently on both Pokrovsk offensive ↗ and Russian Volunteer Corps ↗, and these are not the first instances of this.'' TylerBurden (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

:I got the source for the RVC from the article Active Club ↗ and only added it to the RVC because I thought that it was reliable. Do you want me to remove it from there too? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::No, I want you stop making WP:SYNTH ↗ edits adding content to articles citing references that do not say the things you claim that they do. TylerBurden (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::What I mean is that I got the source from the Active Club article, if that source is unreliable should I remove it from the Active Club article? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I didn't say the source was unreliable, this isn't about you using unreliable sources, it's about you repeatedly misrepresenting what sources are saying in favour of your own inserted narrative, if you don't understand that at this point, we have a problem. It's not enough to include a source, it needs to actually say what you're adding. TylerBurden (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No means No

Not yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:So then what's the solution to the article body and the infobox being in conflict with each other? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::That is a subject for the articles talk page, and does not change anything about what I said. If I say no, do not ever act as if I have said yes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I am trying to discuss it there but everyone keeps going off topic. It got to the point where I had to ask again Lazarbeem (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you know how I can ask what I need to ask without other editors getting off topic? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::You have asked repeatedly. The answer is NO. The article body and the infobox are clearly not in conflict. This is becoming WP:DISRUPTIVE ↗. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::They are, the header and infobox describe antifa as left wing while the article body, categories, and sources present describe antifa as far-left Lazarbeem (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Err no it does not at "worst" we say "some say it is far left". Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
You need to read wp:bludgeon ↗. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

:But how am I forcing an opinion if I'm just describing what the sources present in the article are saying? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::Because every point you have made has been addressed (by multiple users) and you are just saying the same things over and over again. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I keep repeating myself because nobody seems to understand what I am trying to say or why I am saying it. Lazarbeem (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Not agreeing and not understanding are not the same thing, we do not agree that the article says anywhere they are Far-left, only that "some have said they are far-left". If we do say it, quote it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::You want me to quote the parts of the article body that I see that are in conflict with the infobox and the header? Lazarbeem (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I am asking for the quote where WE say (in our words) they are far-left. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Here are the quotes from the article and the section where they are from:
::::::Movement structure and ideology:
::::::* The ADL states that most antifa come from the anarchist movement or from the far left, though since the 2016 presidential election, some people with more mainstream political backgrounds have also joined their ranks.
::::::*Similarly, Bray argues that "it's also important to remember that these are self-described revolutionaries. They're anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum."
::::::* ABC News notes that while antifa's political leanings are often described as 'far-left,' experts say members' radical views vary and can intersect with communism, socialism and anarchism."
::::::* According to CNN, "Antifa is short for anti-fascists. The term is used to define a broad group of people whose political beliefs lean toward the left -- often the far left -- but do not conform with the Democratic Party platform."
::::::* Antifa activists' ideologies, as well as their involvement in violent actions against far-right opponents and the police has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left, as well as militant.
::::::Per academic sources cited in the article:
::::::* During 2016 and 2017, far-left movements in the U.S. such as Antifa were actively engaging in violent actions attacking alt-right demonstrators ... . While the antifascist movements seemed to be disappeared with the end of WWII, they are on rise in the United States and Europe, in part due to the growth of neo-Nazism (LaFree, Arlow). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjds/s13688-019-0193-9
::::::* Antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement. ... The American Far Left includes 'groups or individuals that embrace anticapitalist, Communist, or Socialist doctrines and [seek] to bring about change through violent revolution' (Department of Homeland Security 2009, p. 6).
::::::Lazarbeem (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::OUR article a quote from OUR article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::What article? I'm talking about the antifa (United States) article and how it's described as left wing in the header and infobox but described as far left by the article body and sources Lazarbeem (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::OUR article a quote from OUR article that says they are far-left, not "most antifa come... " or "bray" or "often", we need to say, is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::But the article body and sources says that antifa are far left while the infobox and head says they are left wing. That's the issue here Lazarbeem (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Also you did give a source from the BBC which said: "Antifa is short for anti-fascist. It is a loose, leaderless affiliation of mostly far-left activists"
:::::::::https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ced5gqn0p6jo Lazarbeem (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::No we do not, Here is a clue "is far-left" says they are far left "some have called them far left" Does not. Is that clear enough? Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::No because a lot more than some sources have referred to antifa as far left Lazarbeem (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Bludgeon

This is now a warning; drop it, or I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

:Ok I'll drop it. But if you want we can talk about it at a later date. Lazarbeem (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
::All that can be said has already been said. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Battle of Villeré's Plantation ↗

50px|frameless ↗   An article that you have been involved in editing—Battle of Villeré's Plantation ↗—has been '''proposed for merging ↗''' with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion ↗. Thank you. Keith H99 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2026

25px|alt=Warning icon ↗ Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy ↗ by adding your personal analysis or synthesis ↗ into articles, as you did at :International Legion (Ukraine) ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗.  TylerBurden (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

:What did I do wrong? Durranistan made an edit saying that it had been disbanded and I added the category: "Military units and formations disestablished in 2025" Lazarbeem (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
:Update: I just took a look at Durranistan's talk page and you seem to have talked to him about doing this exact thing 4 days ago. Is there some kind of edit war going on? Lazarbeem (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
::You are both claiming the units have disbanded citing not a fresh source confirming this, but the report from 9 December. If I am going to add something that happened on 17 January, I am not going to cite a reference from 9 December, this should be common sense and you're both violating WP:SYNTH ↗, hardly the first time either. TylerBurden (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ You may be '''blocked from editing ↗ without further warning''' the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy ↗ by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at :Foreign fighters in the Russo-Ukrainian war ↗.  TylerBurden (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

60px|left ↗
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the '''Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗''' regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Battle of New Orleans ↗". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Keith H99 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC) <small>'''(DRN Volunteer)'''</small>

:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Proposed merge of Battle of Villeré's Plantation into Battle of New Orleans ↗ Keith H99 (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::There are two sides to every story. I have put forward my side, it would be worth putting your argument forward. Keith H99 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Summary of dispute by Lazarbeem ↗ Keith H99 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Just out of curiosity do I reply here or somewhere else? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
::::If you click on that link, it takes you to where you can comment. Keith H99 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::Ok thank you, I'll do it later today Lazarbeem (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
{{clear}}

Nomination of :Wolfenstein III ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Wolfenstein III ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article will be discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfenstein III ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.</div> <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' <span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span><span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span></span> 17:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Lazarbeem. Thank you for your work on Ukrainian penal military units during the Russian invasion of Ukraine ↗. Another editor, Scope creep, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Great article. Ref 38 seems to be broken.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Scope creep<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small>

'''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus"><span style="color:#3399ff">scope_creep</span><sup>Talk</sup></span>''' 17:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Please stop edit warring as you are at Antifa (United States) ↗ where it is very clear you do not have consensus for your "designation" edits and other associated POV pushing. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

:Do you mean the arrest of Kyle Wagner? I never said he was charged, just that he was arrested and the grounds which he was arrested on Lazarbeem (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeune Garde Antifasciste ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antifa ↗ was added. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Easter Rising

There was Zero involved by Canada.... the one Canadian soldier that was killed was on leave at the time of the incident...Neville Fryday was not deployed to the area by the Canadian military. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''Moxy'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">🍁</span> 04:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:Is he the one Canadian soldier who was listed as being killed in the casualties section of the article? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Easter Rising

Hi. In relation to this edit ↗ (since reverted by another contributor), it should be noted that the Easter Rising:

wasn't a war. Not akin to Second Boer War, WWI, WWII or others listed.

wasn't a "war involving Canada".

Neville Fryday was a 16-year-old from Tipperary who lied about his age to enlist in the Canadian army ↗. He was shot, while on leave in Dublin, near his mother's residence at East Wall in Dublin. While he happened to be wearing his uniform at the time, he wasn't involved in the fighting ↗ and/or representing Canada in a "war".

If you are relying on Fryday's death to support the inclusion of the Easter Rising in the "list of wars involving Canada" ↗, then it is insufficient justification for that change. Or, frankly, for the inclusion of "Canada" in the infobox in the Easter Rising article itself.

If you feel it should be included, then please do provide reliable sources which list the Easter Rising as a "war involving Canada" (and/or Canada as a party to the Easter Rising). Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

:(Sorry. My comment overlapped with the above by @Moxy. Apologies for duplication. Point stands though. The guy just happened to be back in Ireland on leave. He wasn't representing Canada in a war. Officially or otherwise. Guliolopez (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC))
::Sorry I got confused there. But if that's the case who was the one Canadian soldier whom the article lists as being killed in the casualties section? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Contentious topic reminder

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to the Troubles ↗. This is a standard message to inform you that the Troubles ↗ is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours in this topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗.  FDW777 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

I've noticed you've been POV pushing the idea that antifascists are broadly seen, throughout various Western countries, as terrorists. This has included both unsubstantiated claims that Antifascist groups perpetrated specific crimes as well as broadly acting as if Trump's executive order had a legal impact on the status of antifascists in the united states. Please halt this rather clear example of POV pushing as it's creating messes on disparate pages that need cleaning up. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:It's based on how certain states have been classifying them as of recently Lazarbeem (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:And I now realize this is the second time I've had to warn you about this pattern of behaviour this month. And, no, it is not. Your edits have largely propagated the false claim that the United States has made such a designation. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::How is this a false claim?
::Designating Antifa as a Domestic Terrorist Organization – The White House ↗
::Designations of Antifa Ost and Three Other Violent Antifa Groups - United States Department of State ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Because Trump's executive orders do not have force of law. It's just propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::What about the about the bottom one? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::The ones that are specifically international groups so that Trump's cronies could squeak around his impotence to directly criminalize antifascist activism in the United States? Secondary sources are required for inclusion because, frankly, you're uysing primaries seemingly to avoid the context of this in terms of Trump's souring relations with Europe. Most secondary coverage points out that Trump made this move without consulting Germany, Italy or Greece, where the affected groups operate and situate it as another example of aggressive US foreign policy interfering with European affairs. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::# You seem to be bias by how you're talking about Trump
::::::# There are several secondary sources in regards to those designations: - US to designate Germany's 'Antifa Ost' a terrorist group ↗ - German Antifa group is a ‘terrorist’ organization, US declares – POLITICO ↗ - US designates four groups in Europe as terrorists, calls them 'violent Antifa' | Reuters ↗
::::::# It doesn't matter how he did it, he's the president, he has the power to do this whether we like it or not
::::::Lazarbeem (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::More secondary sources:
:::::::- Trump administration designates four European Antifa groups as terrorists | CNN Politics ↗
:::::::- Trump recasts foreign terror list to focus on ‘Antifa,’ cartels - The Washington Post ↗
:::::::- Trump administration targets European antifa groups as ‘global terrorists’ | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera ↗
:::::::- AfD hails US ban on European leftwing groups as historians fear crackdown on anti-fascists | The far right | The Guardian ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::Our job as editors is to keep articles up to date, even if the events around them are against what we would like them to be Lazarbeem (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Did you actually read those last two sources? This is precisely what I mean about secondary sources and context. Which is why WP:PRIMARY ↗ is a policy. Your interpretation of primary source material is leading to Wikipedia just parroting the Trump regime. This is a WP:NPOV ↗ violation. On one page I even mentioned that inclusion of discussion might be due but with secondary sources. However edits like this ↗ have me quite concerned about your interest in neutrality. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The French interior minister (Laurent Nuñez ↗) stated on 15 February 2026 that based on testimonies, the Jeune Garde were involved in the Killing of Quentin Deranque. The "Reactions" section of the article also mentions this.
::::::::Mort de Quentin Deranque : Laurent Nuñez n'a "aucun doute sur le fait que les services de police identifieront les auteurs" - franceinfo ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::A claim by a politician is not sufficient to just say "antifascists did it". Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::The French interior minister reported it based on testimonies, it's not just him saying it for the sake of saying it Lazarbeem (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I added the last two for additional context. Also how am I "parroting the Trump regime" by reporting on actions that Trump did? Lazarbeem (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ '''You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗.''' This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, avoid editing disruptively ↗, and try to reach a consensus ↗ – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:
# {{strong|Edit warring is disruptive behavior ↗ – regardless of how many reverts you have made;}}
# {{strong|Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.}}
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page ↗ and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. {{strong|If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked ↗ from editing.}} 

Edit warring with multiple editors, and repeatedly re adding non-sensical Iranian claim of 560 US soldiers being killed to the infobox of 2026 Iran conflict ↗. Ecrusized (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:How is adding a claim a problem? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::List of reverts, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1341352072 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1341354106 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1341354526 ↗, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Iran_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1341355381 ↗. WP:4RR ↗. Ecrusized (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I mean how is it a problem being there? We have casualties claims for Iran from the US, Israel and Qatar Lazarbeem (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh my bad I didn't know there was a '''revert rule'''. However can we talk more in depth about claims and where they should be included? Lazarbeem (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Self reverting might help your case in this noticeboard report I linked below. Your editing pattern, original research additions, POV pushing and tendency to edit war alongside the pre-existing warnings still remain an issue. Ecrusized (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::In the meantime, can we talk about certain things in regards to that article? Lazarbeem (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Hi {{u|Lazarbeem}}, talking about the article is fine. Probably best on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Thank you. For now, I want to talk about two things mainly:
:::::::# Canadian involvement
:::::::# Iranian causality claims made on 2 March 2026 Should I make two separate sections on the talk page for these topics?
:::::::Lazarbeem (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I didn't check if there are already sections for at least one of these topics, or if it had been in the archives of the page. I doubt there hasn't, but if you've checked and are 100% sure, yes. Please make sure to include links to reliable sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I added the one on Canadian involvement just now. I'll create a topic space for the Iranian causality claims made on 2 March 2026 when the Canadian involvement one is settled Lazarbeem (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗
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 ↗.  Thank you. Ecrusized (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

<div class="user-block uw-pblock" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(--border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px">40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock ↗<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''blocked ↗''' from editing from certain pages (:2026 Iran conflict ↗) for a period of '''2 weeks''' for edit warring ↗. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions ↗. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">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 ↗.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks ↗, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)</div></div>

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗ is a designated contentious topic. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days ↗, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗.

Edit warring dicussion

Hi,

I saw the edit war noticeboard and you should read the full discussion to see what happened in the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#c-ToBeFree-20260303075600-Ecrusized-20260302195800 Guz13 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1st Guards Infantry Division (German Empire) ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guards ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

List of attacks on ICE facilities ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of attacks on ICE facilities ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because '''it has no sources''' and '''The article as it stands uses a non-neutral definition of "attack" and is biased towards the perspective of US law-enforcement and governmental authorities'''.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to :Al-Andalus ↗. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ↗ and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

:@R Prazeres You may want to note that this is not the first time this kind of thing happens, not sure about this particular topic though. TylerBurden (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
::I did notice. @Lazarbeem: I'm not involved in the other topics you're editing, but if this ↗ is an indication of your regular editing behaviour even after a 2-week block and many interventions/warnings from other editors, then you are building a case for administrators to block you long-term the next time you are brought to their attention. It is extremely difficult to view this editing in context as anything but tendentious ↗. R Prazeres (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
:::So no using the word liberated to describe territorial changes? Lazarbeem (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Or is it because certain topics related to the Reconquista ↗ are controversial? Lazarbeem (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Looks like you're back to making WP:SYNTH ↗ edits as well, with reducing the amount of accounts to the number of specific officers identified ↗. At this point, I'd report you straight away if it weren't for a lack of time, because it's very clear this is never going to change because at the end of the day, you're a very polite WP:TENDENTIOUS ↗ editor, but I'll document it here nonetheless.
:::::TylerBurden (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Oh sorry I think I mixed up the number of incidents with the number of officers. Thanks for catching that Lazarbeem (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Come on now. Using {{tq|liberated}} to describe the Reconquista is quite obviously and flatly non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

:May also be of note to other recently involved editors: @Slatersteven, @Simonm223 and @R Prazeres. TylerBurden (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
::Do I need to say anything? Lazarbeem (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Well, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS ↗ lists "ignoring community input" as a problem, but also "rejecting community input". Both silence and bad answers can backfire. This sounds scary, I guess, but it's the most honest answer I can provide. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::What you definitely must strongly avoid is continuing to edit in ways currently under discussion at ANI. If your recent edits are continuing something that {{u|TylerBurden}} has complained about, that would be extremely problematic. I didn't check if this is the case, I'm just saying. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::::@ToBeFree Does inserting WP:UNDUE ↗ content into inboxes (as they have repeatedly done before) like they did here ↗ count? There is no support of the content in the article body either, further contradicting WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE ↗, and this is done well past the report at ANI. TylerBurden (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::I could add what those sources mention to the article body. I just didn't do it earlier because I didn't think it was immediately necessary Lazarbeem (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Furthermore, I saw that the DSA and the Human Rights Campaign hadn't been mentioned anywhere in the article body at the time so I thought that it was fine to just add the CPUSA and counter protesters to the infobox with sources Lazarbeem (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::Hi {{u|TylerBurden}} and {{u|Lazarbeem}}, I don't intend to take action at or about that ANI discussion. Whether Lazarbeem's editing is a problem is something to be determined by others; all I can say is that my advice is for {{u|Lazarbeem}} to undo their contribution if still possible and if controversial. Creating or upholding a dispute is something that could be displayed in a "Other users who ended up being blocked also did the following" list like below a product in an online shop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::My edit on the March 2026 No Kings protests ↗ article was already undone. If I should have added information to the article body about the two groups that I added to the infobox somebody could have just told me to Lazarbeem (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::::::So one thing I think everyone engaged here has noticed you do a lot is to use primary sources to either portray far-left groups as being more active in mainstream political events than they likely were or to portray far-left groups as more violent than they really are. And to do this in the context of American contemporary politics in infoboxes means these edits are within at least two sets of contentious topics (I'll give you the official infobox notice momentarily). In cases where you're dealing with multiple-CT-topics it's especially important to be careful with sources, to avoid even the slightest hint of edit warring and to try as hard as possible to make edits neutral. If multiple editors are going "this person has a habit of POV edits that follow a specific pattern" you might want to consider adjusting your approach. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I did the edits on the antifa page because sources said that the President of the United States had classified the group as a terrorist organization Lazarbeem (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes ↗, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes ↗, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗.  Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
::Unfortunately the discussion was archived before it could be closed, and unfortunately you're still making problematic edits in the space, cherry picking ↗ a quote out of this source (quoting it in full in article) about monetary motivations while ignoring the account about fighters going on principle, while also adding repetitive death estimates not even linking directly to the cited reference. This kind of narrative painting and WP:DUE ↗ problems are exactly what the complaints were about, and you're still doing it, so it seems the discussion may need to be reopened. TylerBurden (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::That edit mentions nothing about monetary motivations, it's about an estimate from the by the Atlantic Council dated February 2026 about the number of Colombians KIA and the percentage Colombians represented in terms of all foreign volunteers fighting for Ukraine. The link to the source is right here -> Why Colombians Have the Highest Combat Death Toll in the Ukraine War? ↗ Lazarbeem (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
::::As for the quote by Hector Bernal, that was added on <bdi>27 October 2025 ↗</bdi> Lazarbeem (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::Once again, you're adding a repetitive figure, as the literal sentence before where you inserted it already gives an almost identical one, it's poor writing and if you think the Atlantic Council is a better source then you should replace it actually citing it directly, not adding a different source claiming AC said something, per WP:RSCONTEXT ↗.
:::::I now notice you did indeed add the monetary portion in October and now moved it, it's nonetheless a WP:NPOV ↗ violation by you, but at least you didn't add it in conjunction with the above. TylerBurden (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :Political violence in Canada (1918–1938) ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Political violence in Canada (1918–1938) ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political violence in Canada (1918–1938) ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''Moxy'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">🍁</span> 18:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Siege of Beyazet (1829) ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Lazarbeem. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Siege of Beyazet (1829) ↗, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted ↗, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it ↗ again or request ↗ that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted ↗ so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion ↗ of :Toronto anti-immigration protest ↗

left|link=|alt=Notice|48px| ↗

The article :Toronto anti-immigration protest ↗ has been proposed for deletion ↗ because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''Not notable per WP:NEVENT ↗, also serious WP:NPOV ↗, WP:BLP ↗ issues'''</blockquote>

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary ↗ or on the article's talk page ↗.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process ↗, but other deletion process ↗es exist. In particular, articles for deletion ↗ allows discussion to reach consensus ↗ for deletion based on established criteria ↗.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion ↗ of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history ↗ for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

British Occupation of Michigan

I really like your occupied-Michigan article you made for the Woodward article, I will find more articles/citations and help you expand it. I am going to link yours in Detroit and Michigan history. If you find anything on British colonial (pre Jay or 1812) Michigan history feel free to message me, I have some sources I have found relating to that topic. I want to expand Fort Shelby too. ChuckDabs (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Siege of Beyazet (1829) ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello, Lazarbeem. This message concerns the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "Siege of Beyazet ↗".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy ↗, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Siege of Beyazet (1829)|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can '''request its undeletion''' ↗. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Orlach edit

That wasn't vandalism. I am not going to get into whether it's a better or worse representation of sources at this time; I didn't revert them but I am not going to revert you either. But please do not call good-faith edits, even ones that are weakly sourced, vandalism. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:In fact, the sourcing for calling the Dominion Society white-nationalist is strong. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::He added it in without a source. That's why I reverted it Lazarbeem (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
:::The sources are already in the article. And adding a statement without a source is insufficient to treat an edit as vandalism. I've started a content discussion at article talk; I support attributed inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
::::ok Lazarbeem (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of :List of controversies involving Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus ↗ for deletion

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :List of controversies involving Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article is being discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversies involving Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.</div> ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to :Daniel Tyrie ↗ when you modified the page, you introduced {{cl|Unknown parameters|unknown parameters}}. Just because you specify {{para|some_param|{{var|some_variable}}}} does not always mean that variable will display. The {{para|some_param}} must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a '''Show preview''' button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history ↗ of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk ↗ for assistance.
Thank you. '''<span style="color:#00d5ff !important">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94 !important">mann</span>''' (<sup>Talk to me ↗</sup>/<sub><span style="color:orange !important">What I been doing</span> ↗</sub>) 16:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

30px|link=|alt=Copyright problem icon ↗ Your edit to :Conscription of disabled people during the Russo-Ukrainian war ↗ has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted ↗ material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission ↗ from the copyright holder. If you {{em|are}} the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ↗ for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate ↗ and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of {{em|information}}, but not as a source of {{em|content}}, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy '''will be blocked from editing ↗'''. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources ↗ for more information.  — Diannaa <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion ↗ nomination of :Battle of Chail-li ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.</p><p>You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on :Battle of Chail-li ↗ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement ↗. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://wikimedia.turnitin.com/viewer/submissions/oid:3117:602670107?locale=en. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be blocked from editing ↗'''.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ↗. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission ↗ for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy ↗ for more details, or ask a question here ↗.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by visiting the page ↗ and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗.  -- Least Action (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

:This one was a mistake, sorry. -- Least Action (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
::It's fine Lazarbeem (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Speedy deletion ↗ of :Battle of Hobdy's Bridge ↗

48px|left|alt=|link= ↗{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article ↗.</p><p>You may want to consider using the Article Wizard ↗ to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
The page :Battle of Hobdy's Bridge ↗ has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion ↗, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement ↗. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.exploresouthernhistory.com/hobdys2.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be blocked from editing ↗'''.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ↗. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission ↗ for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy ↗ for more details, or ask a question here ↗.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Battle+of+Hobdy%27s+Bridge|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review ↗.  In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Who do I contact about this? Lazarbeem (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
::Start by contancting the deleting administrator, which was Asilvering. If you are not satisfied with their response, you can post at Wikipedia:Deletion review ↗. For what it's worth, I have reviewed the deleted article and the source, and there's enough matching prose that I too would have deleted this article, — Diannaa <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I meant like can I have permission to remake the article. It was one of my earlier ones and it's kind of important given that it was one of the last battles of the American Civil War Lazarbeem (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::You can recreate it, sure. You don't need to ask permission for that either. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Oh I thought I did need to ask because the page says: "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below."
:::::
:::::Lazarbeem (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well, yes, I certainly hope you'd be recreating it with different content. I figure that went without saying, since the old content was a copyright violation and you're at ANI for that right now. In solidarity ↗, asilvering (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Pigeon Hill Raid ↗

I've deleted most of the content from this as it was clear copyvio from https://qahn.org/exhibit/sake-ireland-fenian-raids-missisquoi-county-1866-1870 ↗ and other sources. Can I ask you whether the sentence cited to an offline source will have similar issues? Morwen (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:What is a sentence cited to an offline source? Lazarbeem (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::an offline source is one that isn't online. which means, it's a book or something. in this case it's the book you described as "Neidhardt, W.S. Fenianism in North America The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1975." the sentence cited to it, is well, the sentence that uses that as a reference. Morwen (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the info Lazarbeem (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::That's not an answer to my question. Morwen (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::It's j00ust that I don't understand what the question is. Was the book just cited or was it a Bibliography? If it was cited alone then it was because it was a partial copyedit from the main Fenian raids ↗ article. However it's been a while so I don't remember Lazarbeem (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Update, that source does appear 3 times on the Fenians Raids article where it is cited as you have written above Lazarbeem (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Did you copy material from it in a way that violated WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING ↗? Morwen (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I'm asking you not because I think you would remember particularly, but I was guessing you still have access to the source and can check. Morwen (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think so. I just made a copy edit though I don't seem to have marked it as such at the time Lazarbeem (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks.

I am now looking at Battle of Kowang-san ↗ and it like substantial parts of that have been copied as well. Morwen (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sir Stanley Matthews Cup ↗ moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Sir Stanley Matthews Cup ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because '''it needs more sources to establish notability''' and '''Soccer Canada is not an independent source for the Canadian national team, 11v11.com may not be a reliable source'''.
I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boynamedsue (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2026 (UTC)