User talk:Jango Borundia

Bludgeon

You need to read wp:bludgeon and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

I've closed your thread at WP:RSN because the proposal is redundant with the already-established consensus around the use of Tucker Carlson, and you did not provide any evidence or argumentation that would justify WP:DEPRECATION or WP:BLACKLIST. Further, your reasoning in the discussion appears to be based on the need to right great wrongs, which is a nonstarter on Wikipedia. Further, while anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, exclusively posting in WP-space forums without engaging in editing the encyclopedia itself is frowned upon, and if continued long-term is taken as an indication that the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Finally, as Tucker Carlson's talk shows are primarily about American politics, and American politics post-1992 is considered a contentious topic on Wikipedia, I'm including a standard notice below that explains our more stringent rules for editing in relation to that topic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

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

refrain from gaming the system.

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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

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 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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been on Wikipedia less than a day, and not done anything to my mind that hasn't demonstrated a commitment to improving Wikipedia, which must necessarily include for new editors, seeking clarification where confusion exists. Maybe I overstepped Rosguill's authority by putting the clarification beneath his closed section, but I don't see how that is anything but a minor offence. So I ask in all seriousness, what, specifically, am I being accused of doing that could POSSIBLY warrant immediate and permanent exclusion? Jango Borundia (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to a number of blocked and globally-locked users. Yamla (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2023 (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.

If I may, I did ask you to read certain policies. Yet you clearly did not as you continue to breach. But you are correct you are a newbie, bt you need to start to understand we have policies that will earn blocks if you do not obey them. You also have to show you understand why you were blocked. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here less than a day, and frankly, half that time has been spent dealing with the insanely buggy software here. I understand a lot. I understand that Rosguill wants to cast me as an idiot time waster for ignoring terabytes of written and unwritten rules. Rules that, if he is correct, also mean you were in violation of them too (your support of my proposal is in apparently in error, because according to him, Carlson is not eligible for deprecation, and you also didn't ask me for proof he is being misused as a source even if he was). I put this to him, he ignored it. Does that break any rules around here? I hope so. I doubt it matters though. It is called a power imbalance leading to annoyance leading to an opportunist block to get rid of an unwelcome presence. Not a failure to read the manual. Jango Borundia (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I made two comments there, not exactly bludgeoning. Nor did I post after it had been closed. Nor did I use any arguments about sending a message. I will not be commenting any more, as it is clear you have not listened to what you are bing told.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Err, you supported deprecating Carlson, which is contrary to all the written and unwritten rules of Wikipedia, apparently. It hardly makes a difference that you didn't break any other rules in doing so. The point is proven. Your rule breaking is invisible, a dirty unspoken secret. Newcomers, quite the reverse. Jango Borundia (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't a newcomer, though, as proven by the sock check. Better luck on the next account. ValarianB (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]