User talk:JunkBorax

What to do about poor article?

I found an article where most of the part of that article was not sourced at all. A notice exist at the top of the article indicating it has been there for a long time (I guess). What can I possibly do there?. Ramencolls (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You have a number of option if you choose to do something about this article: a) start a discussion on the talk page laying out what action you think is needed or intend to take, b) find sources for the unsourced statements and add them as references, c) remove the material for which you cannot find suitable sources, or d) replace the unsourced material with something else for which you do have sources. It is your choice as to which of these options to pick, they are all normal editing tasks. If you think you have resolved the issues called out by the maintenance tag at the top of the article, you can remove it. Be sure to use edit summaries to explain your actions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I am learning about it. Ramencolls (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Siege of Ramsej have 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.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Siege of Ramsej was changed by Ramencolls (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.868749 on 2025-03-23T18:37:11+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry not, you are wrong here. Ramencolls (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring

Pinging me on Turknationalists talk page was sort of uncool. You should use that talk page to talk to that user, not to me.

You have an option if you disagree with the edits another user is making, an option you should take rather than repeatedly reverting. That is, to open a discussion on either the talk page of the article or the user talk page, explaining why you think their edits are wrong. This is always the first step in dispute resolution on Wikipedia and should be used before asking for additional help. Comments in edit summaries are not a substitute for opening a discussion. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh oh. I got it now. But the problem I noticed is, that person removed sourced informations and added unsourced informations continuously on different articles without even giving explanations, seems like a biased move. Is there any way I can report this kind of acts? Ramencolls (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but first you should try to discuss it with the other editor. -- asilvering (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I will do it from now on JunkBorax (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering, see what now. I got blocked for this action. What is the mistake I made? I am too lost because I got blocked for the reason I didn't even participate. Borax || (talk to Borax) 10:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@JunkBorax, it looks like you were blocked for sockpuppetry, not for discussing things with another editor? I'm not really sure what you're asking me. -- asilvering (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. They thinks I am the sock od adityanakul. But this is my first account. Borax || (talk to Borax) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, JunkBorax, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to help us improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. When creating biographies of women, you'll find guidance in our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Cheers! JunkBorax (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2025

Women in Red | April 2025, Vol 11, Issue 4, Nos. 326, 327, 335, 336 Online events: New: Alphabet run G & H | Business Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements (Events facilitated by others): The European Destubathon – a stub improvement contest/editathon from 1–30 April 2025 Tip of the month: When creating biographies, don't forget to use Template:DEFAULTSORT. Accessible from "Wiki markup" at the foot of the page being edited, it allows categories to be listed under the subject's family name rather than their first or given name. Moving the needle: (statistics available via Humaniki tool) 24 Mar 2025: 20.070% of biographies on EN-WP are about women (2,057,083, 412,857 women) 27 Jan 2025: 20.031% (2,047,793 bios, 410,200 women) Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 2,657 articles during this period! Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

asilvering (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Did I make a mistake on editing? I can fix that. I barely edited some of the Indian articles so.. Borax || (talk to Borax) 15:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Oops. Realised it is not a warning. Didn't read the "not imply that there are any issues with your editing." part. Cheers. Borax || (talk to Borax) 15:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:AdityaNakul per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AdityaNakul. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Izno, hi. I don't have another account. Why did I get blocked? This is not fair. Borax || (talk to Borax) 12:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Izno, I appeal for checking an SPI. I barely edits Indian history related articles and this paid me a block? All I was doing was following up a disruptive editor [1] and reverting his unsourced additions and removals. See User talk:JunkBorax#Edit warring and the relevant edits I made at that time. Now some users have deleted all my contributions. This is sad. Borax (talk to Borax) 12:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see meat puppetry. Yes, if you perform the same actions that others were blocked for, you will be blocked yourself, because we have no way to know who is sitting at the computer/holding the device operating an account. Checkusers don't perform checks on a user at the request of the user, see WP:CHECKME. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Izno, check that checkuser stuff. I was aware of the rule, and it is sad that I got blocked for a reason that I didn't even involve. What makes me more sad is, now everyone will think that I've broken the rule and I wasn't genuine. --Borax || (talk to Borax) 12:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:jmcgnh, man see this. I am now blocked for reverting the edits of TurkNationalist's. So according to them, if I edit a page edited by someone else who'se blocked already, that suddenly makes me one of his account too? How illogical is that? Can I report this somewhere else? All my contributions and discussions are now spolied. Borax || (talk to Borax) 12:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

And I can see why that user reported me aswell. I called out for checking some suspecious things about one of their articles in MILHIST discussions [2]. And just see Izno, I have never got a single warning for disruptive editing. Borax || (talk to Borax) 13:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Izno why is this working this way? Like how can I prove that I am not guilty? This is literally my first account in Wikipedia. I couldn't create an account in my IP adress and requested for an account creation. This account was created for me by @User:Rich Smith. I am completely helpless and please don't ignore my comments. Borax || (talk to Borax) 04:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Or did I get blocked for asking a very relevant question here [3]? That section is currently deleted too. Wikipedia is afraid of questions? I was just a normal editor who was interested in sources and verifications. The moment I started editing Indian history articles, the whole mess started. The whole huss, there are more distortions than facts in Indian history here. And when I asked questions about it, didn't even involve in edit warring or vandalism or any kind of stuff, I got blocked for a reason that I didn't even know existed. All I know very well is, there is a collaborative team working behind this "shutting questions" team. Such a shame WP. Borax || (talk to Borax) 05:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• I would suggest clicking "edit" and not "reply" to edit this page, the reply function is imperfect and doesn't work well in every situation. (It doesn't accomodate unblock requests well) 331dot (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  @331dot, I know about meat puppetry and sock puppetry. I don't even know that users nor I am interested in Indian history. Just check my edits that was given as the evidence in the SPI. Those are just reverting a vandal who added unsourced things. These two edits are the evidences given against me [4][5]? C'mon man just check whats the previous edit to it and check the article body. And I don't think the other socks were blocked for the actions that I did. I got blocked for editing the same page as some sock puppetiers did? That too months ago? Name one unconstructive edit made by me to compare it with that users. This is ridiculous. Borax || (talk to Borax) 10:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Making constructive edits is not a defense to sockpuppetry. I have nothing else to say beyond what I have, you may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  Whatt. I said I didn't perform sock puppetry and you said you can't see who'se behind the screen. I got blocked just for making some edits similar to some blocked guys? And that edits weren't vandalism gosh. And I didn't defend sock puppetry using constructive edits. I reject the label to me as a sockpuppet. This procedure is illogical af. Borax || (talk to Borax) 10:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

  @331dot see this [6] I supported the deletion of one of the articles created by those socks. I am putting so much efforts to prove this. Please think logically and go through my edit history and compare with them. Borax || (talk to Borax) 13:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The previous decline wasn't constructive. If you are unable to know who'se behind the screen, that's not my issue. You will block everyone who made similar edit to a random blocked guy did months ago? Even if that's constructive? Borax (talk to Borax) 10:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even as a new account, you already have significant overlap with recent socks of AdityaNakul and similarity to their language and behaviour. Your request reasons are essentially "it must be a coincidence" and I find that unconvincing. Arcticocean ■ 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

• You must disclose your accounts since CU didn't run through. You clearly demonstrated a pattern of behavior similar to the editing behaviour of the socks by roaming into the articles either created or heavily contributed by socks, which the former had equally participated in. I would also note that another blocked sock had given the same reasoning [7] of "good faith reverts" but so far the admins seem to remain firm in their decision to uphold the block. AlvaKedak (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@AlvaKedak how can I disclose an account that's not even mine? Can't you all here understand what I mean? I reject the claim of being a sock. And the similar editing you say are just reverting the vandalism by an editor and nothing else. I didn't try to expand, construct or do anything like that for the above user. Borax || (talk to Borax) 03:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not think you can do anything as a blocked sock. You cannot ask other editors to do something on your behalf in the below topic thread either, since your suggestions and edits will be considered unconstructive by default. The fact that this protest of yours quite matches the other puppets is quite concerning and does not help in your case:

1. [8][9][10][11]
2. [12][13][14][15][16]
3. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]
4. [31][32][33]
5. [34][35][36]

Not to mention you continue to accuse Based Kashmiri alias, Koshuri Sultan, which further proves that you are ducking. I can only suggest you stop evading your block and appeal after 6 months, but given the amount of damage you have done and evaded your block multiple times, then refusing to acknowledge your relation to the puppet master; I am not sure if you can be unblocked. Your only best bet is to apply under WP:SO. AlvaKedak (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Doing what I can do

• Since I got blocked for a reason that I didn't even involve, let's see what else can I do to keep this topic area clear. Pinging @Ratnahastin, one of the articles you moved to draftspace Battle of Sinhagad, reasoned poorly sourcing, has moved to mainspace again by the author without addressing the issues mentioned. The author (User:Maniacal ! Paradoxical) was previously blocked for sockpuppetry and POV issues (clearly made) and got unblocked. Many Many Southasian POV pushers are active, even after visible violations. I didn't even involve in any of these and got blocked, because the admins can't see who's behind the screen, and they assumed that I am a sock of a random vandal.

Borax || (talk to Borax) 05:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Messege for: @Rosguill@Valereee@Gråbergs Gråa Sång tagging you, because you are active at the talk:Sambhaji section. This section got deleted [37] the question raised is valid, and I've even provided a link on the section redirecting to the source page. Had a major verification issue there. Please have a look. Borax || (talk to Borax) 06:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

  Borax, you can't use your talk page to ask other editors to make edits on your behalf -- and other editors can't make those edits for you, which is considered WP:PROXYING. You can only use your talk page to discuss appealing your block. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)