User talk:User new

new

User new, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi User new! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Luhansk People's Republic 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: Luhansk People's Republic was changed by User new (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882503 on 2016-12-08T06:05:21+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luhansk People's Republic is covered by sanctions under WP:ARBEE

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

If you are editing neutrally on these topics, we should not be able to tell from your edits which side you favor. This edit summary "don't spread Ukrainian government propaganda please" tends to give you away. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed inaccurate stuff...

December 2016

Your recent editing history at Luhansk People's Republic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:User_new reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: ). Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ks0stm did you check the text? Article text that I removed says: "The northern part of Luhansk Oblast, which is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has remained under Ukrainian control."[1] Source says: "They are in Svatovo and Starobilsk. There is a Ukrainian-speaking area north of Luhansk."[2] Clearly the text is wrong and misleading. That there is an Ukrainian speaking area north of Lugansk does not mean that the entire northern part of the Lugansk Oblast/Region is predominantly Ukrainian speaking. It is not my fault people don't read carefully.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Nothing wrong with removing inaccurate text that is added by people who don't read carefully or intend to mislead readers. See above. User new (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Very clear edit-warring with no evidence you tried to discuss the matter and build a consensus on the article's talk page. It seems likely if you were unblocked, you would continue with the same behaviour. Note that the blocking admin has indicated any admin is free to unblock you if you agree to refrain from editing any article about Eastern Europe. If you are willing to agree to this topic ban, please make another unblock request. Yamla (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Awaiting response by blocking administrator. I'd be inclined to unblock if "User new" recognizes the problematic aspects of their behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Use your discretion; I'm fine with whatever you decide. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Whereas Luhansk Oblast is indeed predominantly Russian speaking, the northern part of it is predominantly Ukrainian speaking. That the user tries to cheat in order to get unblocked does not sound good to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? Read the text above. "There is a Ukrainian-speaking area north of Luhansk" does not mean that the northern part of Lugansk Region is predominantly Ukrainian speaking. If you think it is, that is cheating and misleading the reader. That area can be one town or city only. The source does not support the statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/12/09/this-one-map-helps-explain-ukraines-protests/ The map shows that the entire Lugansk Region is "mostly Russian speaking", not even "predominately Russian speaking". You would think that if there was a significant Ukrainian speaking area in the north, the region would not be marked as "mostly Russian speaking". So if anyone is cheating here it is not me.

Oh, for goodness sake. Do you know where Max Fisher, the author of the Washington Post article, got his maps? Wikipedia Commons! Your ethnolinguistics map came from here, and was discussed here. In fact, Wiki Commons is a favourite free resource, but the majority are WP:SYNTH maps only useful for general overviews, and most information for them is gleaned from the 2001 census because there hasn't been a census since then. Wiki Commons allows for WP:OR: it's up to the editors working on Wikipedia articles to check that any images - particularly maps - are properly sourced and not someone's original research. Do your research properly, and try reading WP:CIRCULAR. While the Washington Post article may be WP:RS in its analysis, it still has to be scrutinised because we veer clear of op-ed pieces unless it is attributed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the map in commons is not accurate? If washington post site uses it then it can be considered credible. If you don't like it there are more examples of the same: [3] [4] But the main problem is that the text you have in the article now does not support what your source says. So you can't blame me for removing it. You are misleading the readers not me.

User new, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them. I'm not at all interested in intruding in the content dispute here. I am interested in determining whether there's likely to be future disruption if you're unblocked. Could you explain, in your own words, why you're currently blocked? What would you do differently if unblocked? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable, User new. You're still going on with your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour despite the fact that you've been blocked for edit warring... And how: by hand-picking maps based on the 2001 census, but not producing the article context? How do you account for the 58% Ukrainians of the total Luhansk population for whom 50.4% Ukrainian was their native language? Did they suddenly disappear under the floorboards? WP:CHERRY-picking maps to make the content fit your ideological battles is WP:OR of the most disruptive variety. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? 50.4% of 58% is a minority and that does not contradict the maps I gave above. Nobody says that there is no significant minority of Ukrainian speakers. Are you trying to imply that this minority mostly lives in the north? You make no sense and your attacks are off the mark. User new (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I don't completely understand what I am banned for. I was removing text that is flat out a distortion of the source. You can see for yourself what the sentence in the article says and what is written in the source. What rules did I break? I would think the users who insist on keeping that text should be in trouble. I don't know what I could have done differently, maybe I should have been more clear why I was removing the text? User new (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked primarily for edit warring. Please read that link and then re-answer my question. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see, but I did not make more than three reverts and one of my reverts was undoing a revert of a bot. I also was removing something that was clearly wrong. I can understand the concern, but don't understand the harsh block. User new (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BU Rob13, I thought you said you will unblock me if I understand the problem? I said that I understand and will make clear why I am removing something next time. Like I said I was removing something that was wrong. A source is misused. It is a shame that nobody even corrected the text even after I pointed out the error. User new (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wasn't pinged the first time you responded, I didn't see the response. I am no longer an administrator, so another admin will need to handle this block review. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

' :( I should have pinged you, but I thought you were monitoring the page. User new (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ks0stm, you said that you will be fine with whatever Rob decides. It looked like he was going to unban me given that I understood the problem and that I was removing something that was clearly wrong, but he is no longer an admin. Can you unban me? It has been long enough. User new (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I do not see a slightest indication that you understood the problem. In fact, quite the opposite.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, I said that I should have been more clear explaining what I was doing. And again I was removing something that was clearly wrong.

source says: ”They are in Svatovo and Starobilsk. There is a Ukrainian-speaking area north of Luhansk.”[5]
article says: "The northern part of Luhansk Oblast, which is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has remained under Ukrainian control."

Clearly the source is being misused here. I don’t know how you can justify the text still being in the article. Such obvious distortions should be removed immediately I would think. There seems to be a misunderstanding. User new (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Concerning the geography and demography of Luhansk Oblast, you can have a look at the map. If you are not convinced, check statistical data. I do not see why I should be further discussing the issue with you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, what map and statistics are you talking about? I don't see any in the article. All that is there is a source that does NOT support the claim.

If you have a source that does support it, let's see it. Otherwise it should be removed. User new (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You never entered into a discussion on the article's talk, but persisted in edit warring the article. You are still persisting with nothing other than a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards the subject, yet you are adamant that you should be unblocked. You are WP:NOTHERE... full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about not being there. You are intend on keeping something that blatantly distorts the source in the article. By now it should be clear to you that the source given in the article does not support the statement. Yet you still insist that it is correct and have not removed it.

This is really absurd. Either you just don't get it or you are purposely misleading the readers. User new (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor, since you edit the Luhansk People's Republic article, I need your opinion.

In the beginning of the article it says "The northern part of Luhansk Oblast, which is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has remained under Ukrainian control." But the source that is cited only says that "There is a Ukrainian-speaking area north of Luhansk."[6] That area can be a town or a few villages. It does not mean that the entire northern part is mostly Ukrainian speaking.

Clearly the source does not support the statement and is being misused. Anyone who can read English would see this, but Ymblanter and Iryna Harply disagree. I don’t know, maybe I am crazy. User new (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User new. Sorry about your block. There are many places in which this article may be improved, but unfortunately so is your willingness to collaborate with others. Please review the Wikipedia policy on content disputes. If you are still interested in contributing, please write down how you could have handled this content dispute with more civility. Hopefully if you can show that you understand the issue and show willingness to contribute constructively, there will be a case for appealing the sanction. Heptor _talk 07:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heptor, I understand that I should have been more clear about what I was doing. But it makes a big difference what I was removing. It was something that is obviously wrong. As I said anyone who can read English could see this. It is not even debatable. I don’t understand how this could still be in the article even though I brought up the problem. The two users above just ignore what I say. This is an obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Do you understand the problem? User new (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

maybe they are wrong and maybe you are wrong. That's why you should have discussed it thoroughly before escalating the conflict. Trying to steamroll your way through isn't a good way to resolve a conflict, on or off Wikipedia. Heptor _talk

Heptor, I would think that if something distorts the source, it should be removed immediately from an encyclopedia article. Maybe they are right? They are wrong. Again any person who can read English can tell that the sentence in question is not supported by the link given. It is not like there was no discussion here, but the users above just refuse to get it. I guess people here just can’t read simple English. It is no surprise that false shit like this is in articles. User new (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]