User talk:Bigpurn1

September 2012
There are legitimate issues which need to be hashed out on the article's tone and content. Your edit warring is not helping, nor does it promise a long shelf life for your account. Perhaps you'd prefer to use the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard to explain your edits, including deletion of sourced content. Thank you. 76.248.149.47

Mike Barnicle
I have reversed your deletion of sourced content. Please join the discussion on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Go Phightins!. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Same old...
I like Barnicle. Your edits, which suggest a WP:SPA that is non-neutral, not so much. If you continue to add unsourced opinion I'll request administrative assistance in the form of a block or page protection again. Thank you, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hi, Bigpurn1. I am Dianna and I am an administrator on this wiki. In reviewing your contributions, I see that the only article you contribute to is Mike Barnicle. You've removed properly sourced content and added material that can only be seen as puffery: peacock words intended to show the subject of the article in the best possible light. It's possible that you have a conflict of interest. While we welcome most contributions to the encyclopedia, people who work for an organisation are discouraged from editing the article about that organisation, and notable people are asked not to edit their own articles or articles where they 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. There's more information on this topic at Conflict of interest.

Several editors have now reverted your edits to the Barnicle article; that's because they're not suitable for a serious encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia strives to be. Please read through the material at the links provided before doing any further editing of Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)