User talk:Bigh Whigh

Please work with other editors rather than edit warring

Please do not edit war on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or you may blocked from editing again. Please follow WP:BRD and use the talk page to discuss contentious edits before re-inserting your preferred content. - Mr X 19:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

You have already been blocked for edit warring. I suggest you read WP:BRD, and understand that this is a highly contentious article. Further edits that remotely approach warring will result in a significantly longer block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, after further review, that edit was exactly the same warring edit you were already blocked for. I've blocked you from editing one week. After this block ends, if you continue to be disruptive, you will end up being indefinitely blocked. You have been more than adequately warned about this behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're a bald-faced liar. You asked me to cite a reaction in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and I did. You complained about the LA Times article being from 2004, and I cited the Breitbart article from immediately after the shooting publishing statistics on gun control and arguments against it.

And I wasn't even blocked for the LA Times article. I was blocked for removing the bit on Feinstein and Lieberman introducing the anti-Second Amendment legislation, after arguing that we shouldn't include it at all if we're not going to include the reactions against it. You're abusing your moderatorhood, and oppressing me for my political beliefs. This was a completely different edit than what I got blocked for previously, and your reaction is totally uncalled for. Since when is making one revert, especially when it's a different edit introducing a new source, "edit warring"?--Bigh Whigh (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it is adding the same 7 year old source that was already decided by consensus to not belong. I would remind you that calling someone a "bald-faced liar" is a personal attack. Surely you can find a less aggressive way to express yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I've revoked talk page access for making a personal attack after your block. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on good authority that Dennis has a beard, so he can't be bald faced. At any rate, it's "bold-faced liar". Bigh Wigh, if it were up to me you'd be blocked indefinitely: your edits indicate that a. you just totally don't get what this was about and b. you haven't learned how to edit according to our guidelines. If you cannot see that the president's remarks have a place in the article and some other responses on a pro-gun website don't, then you shouldn't be here. We'll see how this goes when your block runs out--again. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your email! Interesting--they are both options according to this, but with your "bald" having the benefit of age. So I learned something--actually, two things, and because of that second thing I learned I am removing your access to email. You may well be right that only "twisted, backward, politically regressive worldviews are legitimate" in my perspective, unless you actually know what those words mean. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of courage it must have taken for you to attack me on my talk page when I was blocked from replying to you, only to be completely humiliated.--Bigh Whigh (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Theism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for being involved in an edit war on Theism within two days or the release of your previous block for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

You are warned over edit warring, you leave the article alone afterwards, and then you're blocked anyway a day later? No edits were made after I received the warning. In addition, the edits I made that were reverted with absolutely no reason given didn't involve any additions or removals of content, but a correction in that the definition of "theism" used by the article did not actually reflect the definition given by the dictionary cited.

So not only did the editing stop after I received the warning, not only didn't I break the three-revert rule, but the edits (which were reverted without any reason given) I made could not be considered destructive or vandalistic by even the most massive stretch of the imagination.--Bigh Whigh (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of User:Æðð; now indefinitely blocked for block evasion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.