Bigbaby23

Jessica Eye

Hi Bigbaby23, I have reverted you edits for the above page. Info provided is not main for the WP:LEAD section. Jessica Eye lost and missing weight is recored in the body text and not main point enough to be in the lead. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert and warning

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Listen, Bigbaby23, you are not permitted to submit promotional content, including entire paragraphs of lengthy quotes. You also need to start observing WP:TONE ("gutsy," etc.), otherwise you risk the abovementioned discretionary sanctions on living persons being imposed on your account. Thanks and good luck. El_C 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khabib Nurmagomedov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greatest of All Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Haim Eshed

Hello. Unfortunately one or more of your recent contributions to Haim Eshed have been reverted. Even though I’m sure this edit was made in good-faith, it reverted to a version that has not gained consensus from other editors. Consider debating on the article’s talk page. For more general advice on editing see the Contributing to Wikipedia page.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 14:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Haim Eshed, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pentagon UFO videos. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Pentagon UFO videos. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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).

Bigbaby23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per WP:GAB:"that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead". I'm currently in an ANI regarding the matter. The blocking Editor was well aware of it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Pentagon_UFO_videos_fraudulent_editing. All edits by me in the article disscussed have stopped by me since I turned to ANI. Please allow me to finished be involved in the open ANI. Thank you for your consideration Bigbaby23 (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No need. That discussion has run its course and I'm really surprised you were only blocked for 48 hours for it. Yamla (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

Bigbaby23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel that my first unblock request has been declined inappropriately. The admin comment is basically denying me due proccess on his personal belief that the ANI has concluded. Further more, my block was not due to the ANI but due to the artcile disscussed in the ANI. Therefore I stand by my first unblock request reasoning for unblocknig me. The declining admin had stated on his talk page "If you come across a block placed by a third admin which I have already declined but which you feel should be lifted, please do not feel constrained against lifting the unblock on my account. I may be more conservative at unblocking than you are. I would not consider this wheel-warring" I know it's only a 48 hour block. It's a matter of principal and due process. Thank you for looking into thisBigbaby23 (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Repeating essentially the same request will not get you a different result. While Wikipedia tries to be fair, "Due process" is a guarantee by a government, not something that private entities must provide. You have rules and policies within the four walls of your residence, and you don't have to provide guests with due process to challenge those rules. Wikipedia has rules and policies to guide its content, and while we try to be fair, the process is what it is. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

331dot, Though this is very disheartening and disappointing to know, I appreciate your candor.Bigbaby23 (talk)

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pentagon UFO videos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katie Mack.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:AE discussion

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bigbaby23. jps (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and personal attacks. I'm sorry, Bigbaby23, but the latest influx of disruption and insults on your part crosses a line. Please note that if you end up successfully appealing this block (please refer to WP:GAB on how to do so effectively), an Arbitration enforcement topic ban from anything WP:FRINGE or WP:ARBPS will immediately come into effect. Good luck.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 18:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)