User talk:Big Brother of The Party

The Gods Must Be Crazy (film series)

Right.. And what was exactly I vandalized? --שבור (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So long, Big Brother ;) --שבור (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victoria Silvstedt. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 09:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Also: Please see this wikipedia policy.[reply]

Hello, Big Brother of The Party. You have new messages at Barts1a's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your contributions so far...

They have been colorful to say the least... You don't appear to have a firm idea of what constitutes vandalism as yet. I would suggest that you read up on what constitutes vandalism on wikipedia before you set off on you quest to destroy vandalism again. You have wikipedia's best interest at heart; you're just going about it the wrong way. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:James Doohan

I didn't see any violation of Wikipedia policy in that comment and have restored it. Care to explain? Yworo (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for attempting to harass other users, as you did at Targeted page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for the following posts in which you insult and threaten another editor: [1], ~~[2]~~, [3] [4]. You were warned for this kind of attitude by User:Bwilkins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive651#Big Brother of The Party needs some time out. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Wow. well can you at least block that one IP too? Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that I accidentally posted the same diff twice and have struck the second instance. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could add this one though --Biker Biker (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in utter disgust right now. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Repentance is the first step to redemption. Use your 24 hours of quiet time to reflect on your actions and come back showing civility to other users. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might spend these 24 hours vomiting at the fact that IP didn't get blocked as well. Honestly, my blocking doesn't bother me as much as the fact that he was slandering someone from his life on the sandbox and gets away with it. At least warn him, gosh. And then he reports me for block evasion? Harassement, attacks, I can understand. Seriously, thats why I'm mad. Bart also is complaining about me while blocked, but thats just his personality. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 10:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and now extended the block for an additional 24hrs for the NPA directly above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Amy Wren

Hello Big Brother of The Party. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amy Wren, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Mattson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Taka Michinoku, you may be blocked from editing. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt

What's up with this?[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent hostile takeover has been reversed since this message was posted. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I am not a sock :). What evidence is there. I believe the block is on speculation. I am not a sock. I am using this account and this accoubt only. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Baseball Fanatic. I will fight these accusations. You have no evidence. I am Big Brother.... and Big Brother only. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]