I contribute with citations where previously removed Bepopalula (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HM Prison Pentridge[edit]

I'm not sure if you read the paragraph before reverting my edit, but most of it was irrelevant to an article about the prison, on top of it being poorly written (some facts were repeated three times, relating to the article itself, almost feeling like a copy paste from another article) and very poorly cited and footnoted (21 (!) consecutive references, images as sources, not wikipedia used as source. I'm sure I don't need to mention WP:CITE and WP:RS). I repeated my edit, leaving a bit more material. If you think some more material is relevant, please discuss this on the talk page before editing. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalization of articles relating to Ronald Ryan[edit]

The constant accusations of suspected sockpuppetry are an attempt to stop users from contributing or reverting vandalized edits. Please be aware that every Wikipedia article relating to Ronald Ryan has very often been vandalized within the last two years, mostly by User Purrum, followed a short time later by another user who vandalizes the article in exactly the same manner. All contributions based on citations and references might look similar BECAUSE the contributions have been extracted from similar citations and references. There is no bias nor campaign about the guilt of Ronald Ryan, it is the personal views of a few users. Bepopalula (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It seems that USER:Purrum is particularly keen on defending and even glorifying everything done by conservative governments in Australia, particularly in Victoria. This means having no doubt that everything Henry Bolte said about Ronald Ryan must be true. I do pay close attention to his edits. This however does not necessarily mean that lots of content about Ryan is appropriate in all the pages where it has been appearing. I suspect some sort of middle path will be the right one. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse, bias and discrimination[edit]

I have done nothing wrong. My history record of contributions proves this. I have added original contributions, citations, references and news articles relating to Ronald Ryan that have been made by other users in the past. All of which User Purrum has persistently vandalized time and time again for more than two years. Evidence of this fact can be found on User Purrum's lengthy history record. I ask administrators to look into the false accusations and allegations made against me by User Purrum and recently by User Dmol. This is blatant abuse, bias and discrimination. Bepopalula (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Escapeeyes (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:42, 10 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet to escapeeyes nor a sockpuppet to any other user. Blocked for 'suspected' sockpuppet is unfair.

Decline reason:

Looks like a clear case of WP:DUCK. Have you viewed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Escapeeyes/Archive#07_January_2011 - how do you explain the editing pattern, being such a "new" user? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:44, 11 January 2011 (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.

Please explain what you were doing to do with Onionshead (talk · contribs), because that is also Confirmed by CheckUser as you. –MuZemike 22:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? I am not onionshead. To suggest every user contributing anything to do with the Ronald Ryan case is the same person is simply a conspiracy. If you care to look at my contributions you will see I have done nothing wrong by reverting vandalism to articles relating to Ronald Ryan. My contrubutions are based on citations and references that are more than accurate information. I repeat that I have done nothing wrong on Wikipedia. Bepopalula (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am no duck. I copy and paste from sources. Does Wkipedia expect me to alter history facts? Bepopalula (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I reviewed the checkuser evidence; you certainly are Onionshead. By the way, to "copy and paste from sources" is also unacceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:13, 12 January 2011 (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.

NO WORRIES[edit]

Actually I should to say thanks because I have started a new website. It will receive much more exposure than Wikipedia. I won't waste anymore time with the innaccurate information and with the most bias, discriminative users. I noticed it has many critics from around the world.

Thanks and Goodbye. Bepopalula (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]