User talk:BuccaBug

August 2021
Hello, I'm NightWolf1223. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Charles Rettig have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 23:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Rettig. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 23:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Constructive? Who are you to judge what is “Constructive”? BuccaBug (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It's unsourced, which is the main problem with your edits. If you can provide a reliable source for it, then I will allow you to add it NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 23:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just unsourced, it's completely unneutral and contains the editors own personal commentary. BuccaBug, if you restore the content again your account will be blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo He added it again. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 23:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not since I posted my warning...-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see that. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124;  My hunts ) 23:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Charles Rettig. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NW1223 ( Howl at me &#124; My hunts ) 23:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Not unsourced. Not unneutral. BuccaBug (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So. Multiple sources. From opposite sides. Neutrality is a judgement that you think you can assign. This is a true and real statement. Period. BuccaBug (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Charles Rettig. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Cited and True. Blocked due to political bias.
Fair. I did remove the “as he should be” part, but that is not opinion either. That is spelled out in the code with is cited in the articles I have linked to. BuccaBug (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is utter nonsense. You didn't "remove" anything. If by "code", you mean statutes, Wikipedia does not permit primary sources, specifically because Wikipedia does not permit editors to interpret those sources. You did not cite to "articles"; you cited to one source, which itself was an opinion piece by a lawyer. Even with that, you grossly distorted what the lawyer said. Nowhere did the lawyer say that Rettig's non-compliance was "punishable by removal and the behavior is anti-constitutional" (there is no such word in the English language). The most the lawyer said was that in his opinion, Rettig "ought to have turned over the returns". And of course the bit about jailing was completely fabricated by you. Your additions to the article were some of the worst WP:BLP violations I've seen in a while, and I should have indefinitely blocked you for them. From your post-block comments here, it is likely that's what will happen. It may just be delayed. Do yourself a favor: don't dig yourself in any deeper than you already have.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the user's BLP violation and revoked TPA. I'm not increasing the length of the block, but I suspect that the user is headed for an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)