User talk:PaulSaibot

October 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Harvey Weinstein 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: Harvey Weinstein was changed by PaulSaibot (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952701 on 2020-10-12T19:53:51+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Berenstain Bears (1985 TV series). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Amos Yee 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: Amos Yee was changed by PaulSaibot (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859721 on 2020-10-24T03:06:30+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Zelina Vega 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: Zelina Vega was changed by PaulSaibot (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958412 on 2020-11-14T18:54:15+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Chaz Bono seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 02:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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. warmly, ezlev. talk 02:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome![edit]

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

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! User:HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Criticism of Wikipedia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above. The paragraph you have been repeatedly adding back, certainly does need references. --Bduke (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Criticism of Wikipedia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lars Sullivan. Paul ❬talk❭ 13:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at QAnon. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 04:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you blocked me? The Qanon edit was made a day before, as seen by the admin above. PaulSaibot (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response. PaulSaibot (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm the only "Admin above" and if you don't know why you were blocked it's clear that you aren't able to edit constructively. From the start your edits have been disruptive, adding "false" to the charges of Amos Yee who is still awaiting charges and changing " The Berenstain Bears" to "Berenstein Bears". Your last edit was to Steven Segal where you also added "false" to the charges against him, again unsourced. Of your 26 edit, 17 have been reverted (and two are the ones above). It's a good block. Doug Weller talk 20:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit! You blocked me because I am "too conservative" for big tech companies like Wikipedia. Also Bennv3771 and Newslinger are admins as well. That's how they were able to block me. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't admins supposed to issue a 3 day block before blocking a user indefinitely?

Also you gave the wrong "Steven Seagal" link 😝 PaulSaibot (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because a high proportion of your edits were disruptive edits that were subsequently reverted. Out of the 25 edits you made before you were blocked, 17 of them (68%) were reverted. You also introduced hoaxes into articles in Special:Diff/1007248332 and Special:Diff/1007045521, which are absolutely unacceptable. If you would like to edit Wikipedia constructively, please wait at least six months before submitting an unblock request. — Newslinger talk 02:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]