User talk:82.22.187.20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"::That maybe the case, but Wikipedia is not a collection of web-links (see WP:NOT). It would also help if you treated other users with respect ( see Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF). Just because someone reverts your edits or disagrees with you doesnt mean they work for the BBC. You will find that on a site as diverse as Wikipedia people hold all manner of personal opinions, some of which you might think are pretty strange, what's more not one user is likely to hold the exact same opinion as you on every subject. However, that said Wikipedia should be neutral (see WP:NPOV) and comments should be based soley on verifiable evidence from reliable sources. Generally a discussion forum, or blog arent considered reliable on any topic because anyone can post anything they like. Pit-yacker 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)"
You talk about personal opinions yet BAN people from adding related links to a page. Your friend Nick didn't like the link I posted so removed it ( a few times ) however that shouldn't have been down to him which is why in the end I thought I’d do the same with his page. If you wish to stay neutral and this site to stay neutral then the link should be put back. You'll notice the admin of "Abolish the UK TV licence" has also had the same problems with your friend Nick here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence and other TV Licence pages so please take a minute to think who the troll really is. The TV Licence Fee pages should contain all the information regarding that subject and not just what Nick a self confessed fan of it likes. Oh and one more thing I think you'll find everything on www.tvlicenceresistance.info is backed up with a damn site more evidence than what your friend has
This is just the start I'm going to make sure every site I visit knows how biased & one sided Wikipedia is now http://tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php?topic=229.new#new
-
- That would be like if you banned from your forum and deleted posts by anyone who disagrees with you, and (rather ineffectually) tried to IP-blocked them for good measure, wouldn't it? Oh, hang on... you do do that. If you're not prepared to allow full access to your site, then clearly it's not an impartial source of anything. Nick Cooper 19:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- No Nick not the types who jump in and tell people to get a life like you did. You have made it very clear how much you like the BBC but this site is supposed to be neutral something your clearly NOT. Unlike YOU http://tvlicenceresistance.info/ is backed up with source's for the information so its not just our opinions. You've made it very clear what happens to anyone who says anything bad about your beloved BBC or TV Licence. If you really aren't employed by the BBC then you should be! (Sao Paulo)
-
-
-
-
- So you admit that you do not recognise the concept of free speech, then. Discussion forums are not sources, and certainly not censored ones like yours. Fact. If yours was a site where all people did was say how great the BBC was, it wouldn't merit inclusion here, either. Oh, and for the record, I don't (and never have) worked for the BBC, and nor did I "complain" to anyone, as you falsely claimed on both your site and the BBC Resistance Forum. Nick Cooper 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Excuse me Nick but we have free speech and back up what we say with valid forms of information unlike YOU. You were banned for trolling and saying someone should get a life which isn't a very nice thing to say in the first ever post!
"If yours was a site where all people did was say how great the BBC was"
That seems to be the very thing your doing here and if anyone else says otherwise you get the admin to ban them.
"it wouldn't merit inclusion here"
Yes strange how much power a BBC fan has on this forum and how your allowed to say so much rubbish without being able to back any of it up. The fact is all the rubbish you talk about is only your opinion
"Oh, and for the record, I don't (and never have) worked for the BBC"
Yes I've only ever come across one person on the internet who has admitted that and the funny thing is he slipped up
I think its more than clear now that Wikipedia is biased by letting you do this.
All we wanted was for people to see other sources of information which are backed up and I know for a fact thats what really scares you MR BBC
- So, you banned me and set the blocking message as "YOUR A PRICK" (sic) for saying that since my User page says that I drink coffee, by your past reasoning (that I am "VERY pro BBC" on account of a standard Userbox) I must therefore work for Starbucks, and for telling you to get a life? Seemed fairly mild in comparison to all the lies and wild supposition you've been aiming at me, and I'm surprised it so scared you that you deleted it ASAP. Mind you, if you continue to peddle such unfounded and paranoid fantasies like, "if anyone else says otherwise you get the admin to ban them," then clearly you are not worth talking to. Nick Cooper 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"So, you banned me and set the blocking message as "YOUR A PRICK" "
I see what your trying here but its not coming across to well. All your doing is proving my point about how biased you and wiki are
"since my User page says that I drink coffee, by your past reasoning (that I am "VERY pro BBC" on account of a standard Userbox) I must therefore work for Starbucks"
Your repeating yourself now and a Starbucks employee wouldn't rabbit on all day about how great the the coffee is.
"Seemed fairly mild in comparison to all the lies and wild supposition you've been aiming at me"
Lies ? care too tell me what lies I've said and BACK IT UP WITH PROOF
"I'm surprised it so scared you that you deleted it ASAP. Mind you"
We delete troll posts and comments that cannot be backed up with PROOF Nick which would make you redundant anyway. The problem here is WIki have allowed you to post yout rubbish and delete anything which prove's it to be rubbish. The key word here is proof something your lacking on big time
- That's quite funny considering how full of unsubstantiated opinion and gossip your site is.
- Your lies and suppositions, the way, are:
- 1) I "complained to an admin" and got you blocked
- 2) I work for the BBC
- 3) I "post... rubbish and delete anything which prove's (sic) it to be rubbish"
I'm impressed with the delusional artistry of the new third one, but you'd be hardpressed to actually identify anything that fits that description. Anything that's my opinion is clearly identified as such and only appears on Talk pages. You're free to contend the veracity of anything else. If you can. Nick Cooper 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"That's quite funny considering how full of unsubstantiated opinion and gossip your site is."
WRONG again your wrong everything posted is backed up with proof something again you have refused to do
"Your lies and suppositions, the way, are: 1) I "complained to an admin" and got you blocked "
You mean when someone tried registering and the first post was childish name calling oh wait that was YOU
"2) I work for the BBC "
Glad you admit it at long last
"3) I post... rubbish and delete anything which prove's (sic) it to be rubbish"
You delete anything on here which proves your talking rubbish and thats just about everyting. You think everything you say is right and thats why your scared of people reading http://tvlicenceresistance.info/ because unlike you its all backed up
"that's my opinion is clearly identified as such and only appears on Talk pages."
Your full of it and thats why you have to stay here with your admin friend looking after you. Isn't it nice being able to try and con the readers with your OPINIONS which you can try and pass off as fact
-
- Thanks for confiming you can't prove (1). Thanks also for demonstrating that you couldn't understand what (2) meant when listed under "lies and suppositions." Plus, thanks for showing that you can't prove (3), either. Have a nice day. Nick Cooper 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
“Thanks for confiming you can't prove (1).”
It was you who complained that’s why I can’t add http://tvlicenceresistance.info/ its not pro BBC/TV Licence Mr BBC
“Thanks also for demonstrating that you couldn't understand what (2)”
Oh I know who you work for and I’m not the only one now ;)
“Plus, thanks for showing that you can't prove (3)”
You see that’s the best yet and proves what I’ve been saying all along. Everything you have posted is just your opinion. At least on http://tvlicenceresistance.info/ its backed up with evidence. You’re nothing but a BBC stool pigeon
Contents |
[edit] Notice
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
“Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links”
Its not a free BBC publicity outlet either Nick Cooper and people have a right to see both sides not just your opinion
“nor should it be used for advertising or promotion”
Again I agree but you are doing just that by trying to make the BBC and the TV Licence sound like something it clearly isn’t. This all comes down to you wanting everyone to see what you think about them and hate anyone else proving you wrong
“spam policies”
Clearly you’ve not read it perhaps you were too busy telling everyone what your opinion is regarding the subjects
“If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it”
You already know it should be part of it but that wouldn’t tie in very well with your biased opinions which would be brown to hell. Unlike everything you’ve written everything on www.tvlicenceresistance.info is backed up with sources.
 |
You recently added an external link to an internet forum in Television licensing in the United Kingdom. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source. Please refer to Wikipedia's policy on external links for more information.
--Veinor (talk to me) 15:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
|
WTF is going on here are you all on the Capita's(BBC) payroll or something
- Hardly. I live in America. I just make sure that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a linkfest, as it were. Veinor (talk to me) 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case Veinor can you explain why a BBC Resistance site is linked to the TV Licence yet the TV Licence Resistance isn’t? I think you'll find if you checked the site that it's related to the TV Licence pages and has tunes of stories regarding the subject which are all backed up. Now Nick Coopers information is just his opinion so can you honestly see any harm in giving readers some valid reading via a harmless link or do think a self confessed fan of the TV Licence fee who can't backup his opinion is more neutral?
[edit] Television licence and Television licensing in the United Kingdom
This is the only warning you will receive.
Your recent vandalism to Television licence will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 82.13.20.161 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
vandalism? Why don't you try being more neutral with you're content instead of letting a BBC EMPLOYEE give the wikipedia readers untruths regarding the BBC TV LIcence. Unlike this site www.tvlicenceresistance.info is backed up with FACTS and not Nick Coopers Pro BBC tripe. Just what is it with Nick Coopers pro TV Licence rubbish and Wiki are you people getting back handers or something ? You must have worked out by now he has more than a passing interest in this
I think if the BBC employee's are allowed to keep everything pro and delete everything else the anti TV Licence people should be informed about this matter. I think you'll find we out number you're moderators so you're back handers wont pay for the time you'll need to sort this mess out. Now all we ask is for both sides of the argument to be seen so the subject is then NEUTRAL as far as Wiki is concerned, do you think thats a bad thing ?
http://tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php?topic=229.msg697#msg697
[edit] Link addition
Readding links is not a way to get them into an article. Could you please start discussing your links on the talkpage of the articles, and reach consensus. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Beetstra do you understand the meaning of OUTSIDE LINKS ? Yes I posted an outside linkns related to the topic in the OUTSIDE links area. Why don't you want people to see the other side of the argument ?
Are you trying to tell the readers of Wiki that only your opinions are allowed and site which give facts are a no no ?
- Yes, I know very well the meaning of WP:EL, thank you. I see there are four people who have reverted you today, and you revert after the warning above. Please revert your own edits, and discuss the matter on the talkpages. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Please also read WP:EL and WP:RS. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So you understand the meaning of outside links and giving both sides of an argument so why do you object to people hearing the truth behind the TV Licence ? The site which you and you're friends keep deleting is backed up with valid sources and not just opinions so is this what really scares you ?
To date the only things I've seen you and you're friends delete are the things which show the BBC and it's TV Licence in a bad light (wonders why)
[edit] Blocked 2 weeks
I've blocked you for two weeks for linkspamming and incivility. Please stop trying to add this inappropriate link to wikipedia. Thanks. yandman 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
sieg hail mine fureur v must not give the true facts regarding z BBC
[edit] Regarding edits made to Television licence
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 82.22.187.20! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule tvlicenceresistance\.info, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 10:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 10:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
