User talk:Técnico

About your post on my talk page
The reason I closed the debate at Talk:Breitbart News was because it had been rehashed repeatedly with the only result being an enormous waste of everyone's time. Do not reopen it as there is more than sufficient grounds for a WP:BLOCK if you continue wasting time by insisting (against a large majority) that we ought to discuss this till everyone else tires, so that you can be proclaimed a winner. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Carl Fredrik talk 06:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Breitbart News. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Carl Fredrik talk 09:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please drop the stick
Please drop the stick regarding Breitbart. Re-litigating this over, and over, and over again is disruptive and rude. No, not every single source calls Breitbart "far-right" at every possible opportunity. We get it. We got it the first time it was brought up, months ago, by someone else. We've already addressed this and explained it in agonizing detail multiple times. Expecting us to go over it yet again is antagonistic, regardless of how superficially civilly it's phrased. Asking us to dig through the talk page's archives isn't much better at this point, since you are as capable of using a search box as we are. And no, Chuck Johnson is not a reliable source for anything at all. Trying to present that as some kind of 'gotcha' tells us that you haven't bothered to read about what makes a source reliable, or you don't care. Neither of those suggest you are here to build an encyclopedia. Since all of your edits are related to Breitbart, perhaps it's time to find some other topic to edit, in order to gain some perspective. Grayfell (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits on Talk:Breitbart News
Please stop making disruptive edits. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Are you in anyway recompensed by Breitbart?
I need to ask because if you are you may not be aware that it is a legal requirement in our terms of use that "all editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which they receive, or expect to receive, compensation". Doug Weller  talk 12:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, no, I have no relationship with Breitbart. Técnico (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Paid editing has become a major problem here, as you might guess. I appreciate your quick response. Doug Weller  talk 09:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
Bishonen &#124; talk 20:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC).

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban from Breitbart News
Hi, Técnico. You have been topic banned from Breitbart News and related pages, broadly construed, for one month, per this ANI discussion. Please read WP:TBAN to make sure you know what a topic ban is. You are also warned that if the kind of disruption described by the community at ANI should recur at Talk:Breitbart News when the month has expired, or if it moves to other pages or topics within the next year, then you can be given a more extensive topic ban on the discretion of any single admin.

The sanction has been logged here. If you don't comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal the sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also welcome to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC).


 * , after a wikibreak Tecnico is back at it with a continuation of the campaign that led to their topic ban. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tecnico, I urge you to give some thought to how you proceed on this. If you really can't let this whole Breitbart thing go (4 months and you're still at it!) then you'll probably never get to edit Wikipedia again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I remember the AN discussion and temporary topic ban. I recently noticed the new threads at the Breitbart talk page and at Bishonen's talk page.  I would like to say that the above is good advice.  Editor time is a precious resource and we try to avoid neverending disputes, especially when recent reliable sources are well represented already.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

SPI case
Hello. You are included as a party in "Sockpuppet investigations/Quadrow". Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)