User talk:Junperson

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
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
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
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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * , here as well, potentially. Zeek Aran (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for breaching the Sockpuppetry policy. You were warned last month that editing while logged out in the same topic area is not permitted. The diffs above demonstrate to my satisfaction that you have edited while logged out since the warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. DrKay (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Brazil
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
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)