Jump to content

User talk:Bill the Bear

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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).

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

Request reason:

please unblock me now or explain why I am blocked

Decline reason:

Explained below. Also explained on your other talk pages. ➨ ЯEDVERS 15:21, 13 September 2006 (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.

Sockpuppet Block

You have been blocked from editing as a strongly suspected sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user Karatekid7.

A banned user cannot edit Wikipedia for the duration of their ban. The use of sockpuppets to circumvent a ban is not allowed on Wikipedia. |} I am not a sock puppet. Are you really blocking me because I have attacked a Celtic manager?Bill the Bear 22:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unfairly blocked I am not a sockpuppet. One controversial but accurate post. This is very unfair.Bill the Bear 21:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) I saw the incident being discussed on the followfollow message board, but I am not a sockpuppet.Bill the Bear 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, admit it, you're KarateKid7/John79 reincarnated, aren't you?

So sad, that all you can do on Wikipedia is talk ill of the dead. Looking at KarateKid7's "contributions", and John79's "contributions", it seems that between "them" the only thing they can do is add spurious edits to articles that "they" obviously disagree with. Haven't you anything positive to say? Camillustalk|contribs 20:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not me. I find it shocking that these 2 characters you mention have both been blocked for stating the truth, should I edit the Jock Stein article to cover up the truth, as surely this is risking being censored by bigot admins. I did see this being spoken about on another website. I never knew Wikipedia's purpose was to give biased glowing reviews of former football managers. It is not necessarily talking ill of the dead by putting in facts about them.Bill the Bear 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just interesting that as soon as KarateKid7 is blocked, John79 appears, with the same agenda, and as soon as John79 is blocked, "Bill the Bear" (no doubt about the allegiances there, then) appears, with the same agenda. How bizarre!
As "John79" isn't available to answer the question I put on his talk page, maybe you could answer: Who said the "quote" that you are so determined to put in the introduction of the Jock Stein page? And is this "fact" one of the most important things to say about the man, (who's unfortunately, or fortunately for you and your "friends", dead, and unable to respond to allegations)?
How will we ever know how much "Big Jock Knew" (as you and your buddies like to add to the article)? Alan Brazil didn't state his allegations against Jim Torbett until 1996, 11 years after Stein died (leading OUR country to the World Cup), so how can we ever know how much "Big Jock Knew"? The answer, of course, is we will never know, but that doesn't stop you and your "buddies" flinging mud 20 years after the man died.
Like I said, ever think of adding something positive to Wikipedia? Camillustalk|contribs 20:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are trying your hardest to get me blocked, by snitching on me to an admin.Bill the Bear 20:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the duty of Wikipedians to alert admins of possible sock-puppets. You'd do the same to me if you suspected me of reincarnating myself under a different name.
Are you using this "indignation" to avoid the questions I put to you above? Camillustalk|contribs 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well it appears to me that users get blocked unfairly by admins with an agenda, clearly breaking the rules in doing so blocking to win a revert war is different from blocking to prevent vandalism. It then appears that you are trying your hardest to label me as a sockpuppet in an attempt to get me unfairly blocked by the same bigots with power. I revert to put in a source, that is easy to obtain and gives balance to an article, maybe the introduction is not the correct place but it is relevant and leaving it off because you and your admin friends are Celtic supporters does seem a strange choice maybe a new section in the article would be more appropriate. I will add more positive content in the future if I am not unfairly blocked first.Bill the Bear 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After "John79" added the quote I did not attempt to remove it - I reserve judgement until I get the answer "who wrote it?" and see the context in which it was written. If it can be fully verified, I have no real objection to it appearing somewhere in the article, but I am glad you agree that the introduction is not the place.
As for your "source, that is easy to obtain" - I hardly think that an article from a 1996 Daily Record is "easy to obtain". Perhaps you could tell me what library I can find it in?
As for "bigots", please take a look at KarateKid7 and John79's "contributions" by clicking on the links above. Not a single positive edit - just adding POV gossip to every topic from the Virgin Mary to the IRA to "The Fields of Athenry" to Jim Delahunt (KarateKid7 added him to the category of Famous Drinkers - Duh.) to Graham Speirs (KK7 added he's famous for wearing corduroy - Double Duh) to Jock Stein. Isn't it sad that these "non-bigots" have nothing positive to say, even about, say, Rangers or any other Scottish topic?
Oh yeah, you saw the incident discussed on the followfollow message board. Great source. Completely impartial, of course. How would you like it if I added "stuff" from the ETims message board to the Rangers page? If you look at my contributions, you will find absolutely nothing controversial added by me to any article. In fact, I have now and then reverted vandalism to the Rangers page, and have deleted stupid Rangers baiting or Celtic bragging from the Celtic page. Camillustalk|contribs 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not either of these people, I only said I found reference to the Jock Stein article on the followfollow forums. But you have achieved your goal, I have been unfairly blocked.Bill the Bear 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The edits that you talk about I am unaware of but the 2 that you have highlighted appear more stupid than anything else. Also where did I describe Followfollow as being anything other than a Rangers fans forum?Bill the Bear 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're not, I don't know, but it's interesting that you have exactly the same agenda. Did a coach arrive from followfollow?
Could you provide the web address so I can have a look?
Also, check out these contributions:[1] Same agenda, nothing positive to say...
If you want an example of bigotry, you can't do much better than his (or her?)'s contribution here:[2] Camillustalk|contribs 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right on the basis that I am not 84.64.77.177 or KK7 or J79 why are you so intent on showing me these peoples vandalism. It was not me. I could no doubt find terrible incidences of vandalism to Rangers etc on this website, but I am not accusing you of being that bigot.Bill the Bear 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the links are [[3]] or [[4]]Bill the Bear 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I clicked on link [4] and registered - what Forum Topic should I be looking at? Camillustalk|contribs 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how the "Bill", a "new" user, happens to know the template required to request his unbanning, a template that Karatekid knew because it was listed as an option in the blocking template on his page but never posted here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of my education allowed me to learn how to read and follow links on internet sites, so yes I did manage to read the code from karatekids talk page not a great achievement considering after my first post I was being accused of being his sockpuppet.Bill the Bear 23:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pull the other one. You appear from nowhere, go to the article he was blocked for putting in child abuse claims into, add them in yourself, then visit no other pages except his page another user page where your identity as him was mentioned. In an encyclopædia with 900,000 articles you just happen to pick those pages to edit. Yeah right. Do you think Wikipedians are stupid not to cop on your antics. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again - what forum should I be looking at? The search engine isn't working, and I've been thru' 4 pages looking for anything about Jock Stein or Wikipedia? Camillustalk|contribs 23:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are stupid. It is quite clear what happened I saw the link to the page that I altered on followfollow forums. Later I am accused of being a sockpuppet for karatekid7, I curiously check what his userpage says(wouldn't you). The page that I altered is reverted by you, and then you ban me I never had the chance to make many other changes. It more appears to me that you ban me because you do not like the changes that I made, you being Irish and the changes that I made were to a Celtic manager and my username that would indicate I am a Rangers fan I think a more neutral admin should decide my fate, don't you?Bill the Bear 23:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. don't have a link to the thread but it will be on one of the sites. I bet you are having fun reading followfollow.Bill the Bear 23:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - a great laugh - all those angry/sad rangers fans arguing over to boycott or not to boycott. At page 9 and still no "BJK" or wikipedia? Camillustalk|contribs 23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what was the username you registered on followfollow?Bill the Bear 23:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to know? I have no intention of adding any comments.
I was going to return the compliment and get you unfairly banned.Bill the Bear 23:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but what reason would you give? If I added anything controversial to the forum, perhaps, but as I said, I've no intention of adding anything.
Well it can't be any more unfair than being suspected of being a sockpuppet, making one post and getting banned indefinitely by someone whose user profile would suggest that they are unlikely to like Rangers fans or give them the benefit of the doubt.Bill the Bear 23:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you even give me a clue what I should look for? Can't you remember the title of the thread? All I'm getting is endless "David Murray is a liar, Murray is lying to fans, Murray must go - and take that fud with him" etc. etc. etc.

try: *[5]

Still waiting for my passcode email - will give it till 12:35 when Amityville III's on.
Oh, and just noticed your comment "Are you really blocking me because I have attacked a Celtic manager?". Interesting choice of words - "attacked" - kinda suggests you admit what you added is a point of view - see WP:NPOV.

Attack was a wrong choice of words as all that I did was pointed out the truth as I see it. I also gave a reference. I also agree in the idea of a NPOV something which you don't as you do not want anything negative said about the man. Bill the Bear 00:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also is there much point me reading an article on NPOV when I am indefinately banned from posting? Even though I strongly deny being a sockpuppet.?Bill the Bear 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what channel is it on?Bill the Bear 00:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


the link is [6]

Well, as for me not wanting anything negative said, I repeat:
After "John79" added the quote I did not attempt to remove it - I reserve judgement until I get the answer "who wrote it?" and see the context in which it was written. If it can be fully verified, I have no real objection to it appearing somewhere in the article, but I am glad you agree that the introduction is not the place.
As for your "source, that is easy to obtain" - I hardly think that an article from a 1996 Daily Record is "easy to obtain". Perhaps you could tell me what library I can find it in?
If you use another name, and start adding positive comment to Wikipedia, then there is no reason you should be banned.
Amityville III is on bbc 1


If I am not a sockpuppet, do you not think that my banning is unfair?Bill the Bear 00:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if you're not a sp, then you should be unbanned. But the way you appeared just after John79 disappeared, who appeared just after KarateKid7 disappeared, with the same agenda as both, doesn't augur well for you.
Meanwhile - I'm getting the message "Currently your account is waiting for approval from a staff member."
But - it's HORROR time...

This user is not a sockpuppet of me!Karatekid7 02:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This user is no sockpuppet, please stop harrasing him. --70.182.219.158 16:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Karatekid7 is allowed to post again and you are still blocked.Karatekid7 18:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me now

[edit]

Why am I still blocked? Karatekid7 whom I am not a sockpuppet of is no longer blocked. The one edit which I did has since been shown to be based on fact. This is very unfair. Bill the Bear 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock me now

[edit]

Why am I still blocked? Karatekid7 whom I am not a sockpuppet of is no longer blocked. The one edit which I did has since been shown to be based on fact. This is very unfair. Bill the Bear 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me a talk message. What evidence do you have that you are not a sockpuppet? -- Pakaran 05:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None, innocent until proven guilty?? I could probably make a new user but I just feel unfairly treated by the admin in question.
How do you get evidence that you are not a sockpuppet?
I think the coincidence is a bit strong for me to be comfortable unblocking you. You could request an m:CheckUser be done to prove you weren't a sockpuppet, I suppose. By the way, why did you ask me in particular? -- Pakaran 05:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though that the user Karatekid7 is unblocked. Check out the one edit that I did which has since been shown to be correct. I asked you because I noticed that you had edited the bully of an admin who blocked me, pointing out that he had ludicrously indefinetly blocked an IP address for what was simply a troll.


get him unbanned.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bill_the_Bear&oldid=1048117835"