User talk:Junperson
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brazil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquamarine.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brazil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PL and PMB.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Brazilian States
[edit]Hello there. It appears you have reverted a number of removals I made and marked them as vandalism. I would like to state my case and argue that my line deletions are not vandalism, the data is redundant, does not belong in a state's introductory paragraphs, and was added with politically charged intent. A minor discussion on /r/AskSocialScience led to the realization that they were added by a user with a political agenda, and in cleaning up their vandalism, these bits were missed as they were less obvious. If you went to any other country's states/provinces/regions, you would not find information like "Alabama has 1% of the population of the US, but only 0.2% of the GDP." written anywhere, let alone the first or second paragraph in the introductory section to the wiki page. Zeek Aran (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Zeek Aran, I also don't understand why all these numbers are in the lead: it seems onerous and cumbersome to me, and out of the ordinary. Junperson, you don't get to call this "vandalism" without a very good reason: the edits do not at all seem like vandalism to me, nor did you warn the editor, or explain anything at all to them.
And there are other things that give me cause for concern: here again you are accusing another editor of vandalism, when, ironically, they wrote a lengthy edit summary and you couldn't be bothered explaining why you reverted what appears to be a BLP violation, and uses highly non-neutral language: "Due to the fact that PSOL, Freixo's political party, and the party's politicians, are always defending drug release, mitigating or excluding punishment for bandits, and are always militating in slum areas dominated by drug trafficking"--tell me you didn't write that. That language is completely unacceptable. And I see the same thing here--if I have to explain that "as it aims at an excessive control of details..." and everything that follows it is a blatant violation of OR and NPOV, then I might consider a block per WP:CIR. All of this gives me great concern--the lack of neutrality, the stating of opinions in Wikipedia's voice, the false accusations of vandalism, the lack of explanation. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Zeek Aran, interesting link to the Reddit thread. Junperson, consider this your only warning: I do not want to see you editing while logged out again. I can only conclude that it is a way to evade scrutiny; one does not make hundreds of edits as an IP without noticing that one is not logged in. I will have no choice but to block you next time that happens. The same for violations of NPOV etc. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, if you were looking for more examples of Junperson reverting edits while not logged in, it appears all my changes have been reverted again. See here. Zeek Aran (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Drmies, here as well, potentially. Zeek Aran (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Brazil
[edit]Greetings.
Please, stop vandalizing Brazil's article. If you want to add content, provide it isn't politicaly biased, otherwise it will be excluded, and use common sense on what to add there. For example, details on political parties does not belong there, it may be added to a proper article. And be careful with chronology and repetitions. Furthermore vandalism accusation it isn't a swearing, it requires proper vandalism to be done, and remove unproper content and substitute photographies isnt's vandalism. And being clearer, to change something you don't want to be changed in an article isn't vandalism. Always remember articles aren't people's personal properties, does not treat this one this way. The administration has been warned so far. I apologize for further problems. Have a nice day. The Article Fixer (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- To weight on what I just said, it seems you have been accused by other editors of adding politically biased content to other articles. Besides I checked on your contributions which are exactly the same on which User:Chronus used to edit prior his dismissal here. I have had concerns with him on Portuguese Wikipedia so far. So please, stop vandalizing articles for political purposes. The Article Fixer (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
December 2020
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.