User talk:Bigbadbass

Welcome!
Hello, Bigbadbass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Noyster  (talk),  18:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Lord Toby Jug
I'm sorry but your most recent addition to the article cannot stand: all we've got in the source quoted, the Guardian, is some utterances by Hope being described as "racism" (the word "bigoted" is not used). The article does not mention Lord Toby Jug at all, so cannot be used as support for Lord Toby repudiating Hope's views. I've changed the sentence to read Lord Toby did not want to be associated with the views of Loony Party Leader Alan Hope, described as "racist" in a Guardian report. and I think that's as far as we can go with it, absent further published sources for the claim. I'm as against racism and bigotry as most, but on Wikipedia we can't put in our own interpretation of what is done or said, but have to stick to published sources. Please take another look at "the five pillars" Noyster  (talk),  15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Lord Toby Jug. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate edit summaries
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Lord Toby Jug has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Lord Toby Jug, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Lord Toby Jug. McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard report
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your edits to the Lord Toby Jug article. The thread is Blanking content with misleading edit summaries. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for repeatedly using false edit summaries such as this to blank content after warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lord_Toby_Jug&diff=635782969&oldid=635782776, as you did at Lord Toby Jug. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chillum 17:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When your block is over I suggest you use the talk page to express your concerns. Using deceptive edit summaries is an act of bad faith. Repeatedly making the same edit when others are opposing it is unacceptable. Please seek consensus and work with the group.


 * If your concerns about the matter are urgent you may mention them here. Your communication needs to improve if you are to work in a collaborative environment. Chillum 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
Hello, Bigbadbass. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Lord Toby Jug, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for the same disruptive editing, misleading summaries and article ownership as last time., as you did at Lord Toby Jug. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the level of disruption you've caused, the number of sockpuppets you've created and the fact that you nonchalantly came back from your previous block to engage in the same type of editing (which included removing information you don't like from the article), I think we've reached the end of the line. Once your block expires you can either request sourced changes in the talk page per our COI guidelines, or leave the article alone permanently. You were given a lot of leeway but you decided to abuse it, so here we are. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for continued disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts, as you did at Lord Toby Jug. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)