Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ukrainian Civil War has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ukrainian Civil War was changed by Savramat (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.974742 on 2016-10-23T19:54:02+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 19:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qaei. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Ukrainian Civil War have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Qaei
☎
15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ukrainian Civil War has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ukrainian Civil War was changed by Savramat (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.909044 on 2017-11-06T21:33:23+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
All Lives Matter, you may be
blocked from editing. Your addition of that text was
WP:UNDUE which has been explained at the article talk page. Interesting that you showed up to add it again.
Doug Weller
talk
13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I just deleted your vandal edit. You are playing with the rules to push forward your subjective point of view in the article. -
Savramat (
talk)
13:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And you are refusing to use the talk page. Please answer my question below.
Doug Weller
talk
13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- You started edit war with another user: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Until consensus is reached at the talk page, the pre-conflict version of the article should be restored. So, I restored the pre-conflict version. After that, you opened up 4 topics on my talk page and started to threaten me with blocking. OK. - Savramat ( talk) 14:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And you are refusing to use the talk page. Please answer my question below.
Doug Weller
talk
13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Your edit summary for this edit [5] was "WP:NEUTRAL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304267808_Divergent_Discourse_Between_Protests_and_Counter-Protests_BlackLivesMatter_and_AllLivesMatter". Now I think it's clear you don't understand WP:NPOV, but what in the world does that article have to do with removing those links as a violation of NPOV? The abstract says " Through a multi-level analysis, we study how these protests and counter-protests diverge by quantifying aspects of their discourse. In particular, we introduce methodology that not only quantifies these divergences, but also reveals whether they are from widespread discussion or a few popular retweets within these groups. We find that #BlackLives-Matter exhibits many informationally rich conversations, while those within #AllLivesMatter aremore muted and susceptible to hijacking. We also show that the discussion within #BlackLivesMat-ter is more likely to center around the deaths of Black Americans, while that of #AllLivesMatter ismore likely to sympathize with the lives of police officers and express politically conservative views."
How does that justify removing Covert racism, Institutional racism, and It's OK to be white? At the moment this looks like sheer vandalism, hopefully you can explain your edit summary. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you trolling me? The statement, that the expression " All Lives Matter" is unambiguously racist, is not neutral. I think you understand this no worse than me. - Savramat ( talk) 13:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I asked how you justify your edit summary. You don't understand how we use 'See also'. They aren't there as a statement. Nothing to do with neutrality. But argue your case at the talk page, who knows, you might even get a consensus.Please explain your use of the article on Researchgate as a justification for removal. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need to make a discussion before every edit in Wikipedia, and there is no such a rule. The link, that I gave in the edit summary, is just one of the articles about "All Lives Matter" discourse. It explains this discourse and shows that it's not about institutional racism, for example. - Savramat ( talk) 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why, of all possible options, in the section "See also" there should be exactly the article "Institutional racism"? - Savramat ( talk) 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding material that violates
WP:UNDUE at
All Lives Matter, you may be
blocked from editing. This is getting tendentious, you are misrepresenting NPOV.
Doug Weller
talk
13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please, show me, where exactly I added my personal analysis into the article "All Lives Matter"? I just deleted your edit, which I found vandal. And that happened after you have started
edit war with another user:
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] -
Savramat (
talk)
14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, I use Twinkle and hadn't noticed that that template didn't say violation of NPOV, I've reworded it. You still haven't read the talk page of the article or the reason that the material doesn't belong in the article. Again, being able to verify something is never enough reason to include it. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 | Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ukrainian Civil War has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ukrainian Civil War was changed by Savramat (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.974742 on 2016-10-23T19:54:02+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 19:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Qaei. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions to
Ukrainian Civil War have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page.
Qaei
☎
15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ukrainian Civil War has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ukrainian Civil War was changed by Savramat (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.909044 on 2017-11-06T21:33:23+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at
All Lives Matter, you may be
blocked from editing. Your addition of that text was
WP:UNDUE which has been explained at the article talk page. Interesting that you showed up to add it again.
Doug Weller
talk
13:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I just deleted your vandal edit. You are playing with the rules to push forward your subjective point of view in the article. -
Savramat (
talk)
13:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And you are refusing to use the talk page. Please answer my question below.
Doug Weller
talk
13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- You started edit war with another user: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Until consensus is reached at the talk page, the pre-conflict version of the article should be restored. So, I restored the pre-conflict version. After that, you opened up 4 topics on my talk page and started to threaten me with blocking. OK. - Savramat ( talk) 14:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- And you are refusing to use the talk page. Please answer my question below.
Doug Weller
talk
13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Your edit summary for this edit [5] was "WP:NEUTRAL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304267808_Divergent_Discourse_Between_Protests_and_Counter-Protests_BlackLivesMatter_and_AllLivesMatter". Now I think it's clear you don't understand WP:NPOV, but what in the world does that article have to do with removing those links as a violation of NPOV? The abstract says " Through a multi-level analysis, we study how these protests and counter-protests diverge by quantifying aspects of their discourse. In particular, we introduce methodology that not only quantifies these divergences, but also reveals whether they are from widespread discussion or a few popular retweets within these groups. We find that #BlackLives-Matter exhibits many informationally rich conversations, while those within #AllLivesMatter aremore muted and susceptible to hijacking. We also show that the discussion within #BlackLivesMat-ter is more likely to center around the deaths of Black Americans, while that of #AllLivesMatter ismore likely to sympathize with the lives of police officers and express politically conservative views."
How does that justify removing Covert racism, Institutional racism, and It's OK to be white? At the moment this looks like sheer vandalism, hopefully you can explain your edit summary. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are you trolling me? The statement, that the expression " All Lives Matter" is unambiguously racist, is not neutral. I think you understand this no worse than me. - Savramat ( talk) 13:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- I asked how you justify your edit summary. You don't understand how we use 'See also'. They aren't there as a statement. Nothing to do with neutrality. But argue your case at the talk page, who knows, you might even get a consensus.Please explain your use of the article on Researchgate as a justification for removal. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need to make a discussion before every edit in Wikipedia, and there is no such a rule. The link, that I gave in the edit summary, is just one of the articles about "All Lives Matter" discourse. It explains this discourse and shows that it's not about institutional racism, for example. - Savramat ( talk) 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why, of all possible options, in the section "See also" there should be exactly the article "Institutional racism"? - Savramat ( talk) 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy by adding material that violates
WP:UNDUE at
All Lives Matter, you may be
blocked from editing. This is getting tendentious, you are misrepresenting NPOV.
Doug Weller
talk
13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please, show me, where exactly I added my personal analysis into the article "All Lives Matter"? I just deleted your edit, which I found vandal. And that happened after you have started
edit war with another user:
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] -
Savramat (
talk)
14:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies, I use Twinkle and hadn't noticed that that template didn't say violation of NPOV, I've reworded it. You still haven't read the talk page of the article or the reason that the material doesn't belong in the article. Again, being able to verify something is never enough reason to include it. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)