User talk:Billollib

Signing posts

In the talk page Talk:Shaken baby syndrome you wondered how to attach your signature to your post. All you have to do is type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That will automatically stamp your username when you submit your comment. ... discospinster _talk 23:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Billollib 02:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Martin Anderson

you seem to be the only one who does not like truth and change (martin anderson case), does not mean you can change because of this or delete true and accurate info. look up the info yourself bye for now sweetie....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

i did not vandalise no page. i am giving facts and i will return the edits back thank you again sweetie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not whether or not you are "giving facts." This is Wikipedia -- you are obligated to *reference them.* Saying "go look it up" doesn't fly. That's the point of Wikipedia -- you are supposed to provide the references.

YOU NEED TO STOP VANDALISIN THESE SITES. WHERE DOES IT SAY I HAVE TO REFERENCE IT. IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME YOU LOOK IT UP AND PROOF ME WRONG. THIS KID WAS IN THE NEWS MONTHS BEFORE HE WAS AT THE BOOT CAMP. JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT LIKE IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN DELETE AT YOUR CHOOSING. THE SITES YOU PUT UP ARE AGAINST THE WEB SITES BEING POSTED, THE ONE IS YOUR PERSONAL SITE, NOW TELL ME THAT IS RIGHT. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO BE A MEDICAL EXAMINER DOES NOT MEAN YOU KNOW THIS KID NOR WERE YOU THERE AT THE TRIAL AND BOOT CAMP. ....SIGNED ANOYMOUS.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

dont worry about my history.....and the sites that were added was not first added by me.....someone removed them becasue they dont like porn.... thank you sweetie...anoymous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

how is fconway now involved in a discussion between me and you???????

let me know sweetie...........anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fconaway has been involved from the start. He has also been active in reversing your vandalism of the page, it is he who sent you the warnings, and it is he who requested mediation. Thus, he is involved.Billollib (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, i dont need both of you accusing me of vandalizing anything, because i have not. you just dont like what i have to say. the warning and the block was a way to shut me up. so fconway needs to go. i do not need both of you teaming up on me. so you chose which one of you want to argue on about a kid who trespassed, grand theft auto and then then died becasue he had sickle cell trait, which caused him not to be able to run a few labs and push ups. thank you sweetie.....anonymous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my little sticky bun, but you don't make the rules. The interested parties are who they are, not who you choose.Billollib (talk)

so you can choose and once again i cant choose?  now read that out loud to yourself and does that make any sense or fairness? also you dont make the rules neither. so you do seem irrate. i still have not been vandalizing this page or any other page. i also gace you a reference and you still dont like that. i did not say i put that there. it still is a reference and what i have it is on there. thank you sweetie....anonymous.. all that sweet talking does make syou sound gay, not that is wrong......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 

No, my little snuggle bunny, Fconaway chose to be involved. I chose to be involved. You can't choose to exclude people. And, in fact, you have alluded to a reference but not given one. Where's the link? This is Wikipedia, honey. Billollib (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

i have alluded? no i told you my refence but i do not have to explain things to you. you are the one with the college education. at least that what you have said. but i guess you cant handle just little ol' me. really is this article really worth getting irate about? no, not really, it was just a juvenile criminal. but if you want to fight go ahead and if you need someone to fight with you all the power to it. well i ahve said my side and even offered to meet in the middle like you asked, but you want to be inmature and get....well lets say light in loafers. nothing wrong with that. so enjoy sweetie.....anonymous.......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 

Where's the link? This is Wikipedia. Billollib (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

read what i wrote.............. and you are right this wikipedia. but this is america so i have the right to put forth the truth of thee case and of the kid. trust me the references are there , i do not have to add them if they are already there nor do i have to tell you since they are there.  have fun and enjoy looking things up. this is in your own word wikipedia. enjoy sweetie......anonynmous.

read what i wrote.............. and you are right this wikipedia. but this is america so i have the right to put forth the truth of thee case and of the kid. trust me the references are there , i do not have to add them if they are already there nor do i have to tell you since they are there. have fun and enjoy looking things up. this is in your own word wikipedia. enjoy sweetie......anonynmous. where does it say i have to add references? i did tell you which references to fall back onto. then if the controversy happen after the trial then everything else should be deleted. this article is titled controversy. read what i wrote i did not say when i was irrate i was right or wrong, nor was it vandalizing, you just dont like what i have to say. you still think that you are right and it should stay. now how is that meeting in middle when you not even close to it. the links are on sided and very opinated and the one site is personnal blog someone has written just beause they now someone who knows someone involved in the trial.i did refernece my claims i did not say i put them there, bay county sheriffs office and bay county clerks office. the links do not belong here, they are not about the trial or controversy. if you allow the links about the kid which say one side about him, then i should be able to put the criminal life of the kid. i do not remember deleing any discussions, i know others deleted mine and changed in there own words and vandalized what i put. nor did i delete broad sections of this article. i know there are a few people who deleted what i said just because they dont like what is being said and the truth about the kid. so simply put you want your links , i should be able to put about the criminal past about the kid, like why he was there in the first place. also if you dont want to look things up its not my fault. so later sweetie.....oh i never said i was scared of you gays/lesbians. i am leaning to the lesbians. its just that you get irrate and you got well you know a little gay. you should read what you wrote......well anonymous...oh did you know that one of the guards is sueing the bay county sheriffs office to get his job back and was wrongfully fired. once the block is lifted and i find out which officer and when this started i will add. since this is a cause and effect of the trial. well later sweetie.......annonyymous oh there is one person who wants to have a link added which is a personnal opinated blog site. how is that ok to have in the article. thats like me saying what i want to say, right or wrong . well you are the educated one i am sure you can igure that out. late sweetie.........have i added enough yet or is there more......bye for now sweetie......

Muffin, "look it up" just doesn't do the job. If you have the references, show the links. The rest is just handwaving. If you have something to say, then you need to have the links to reference to. Read the Wikipedia rules. Billollib (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

look what i wroteeeeeeee........i told you what the links are. they are already listed on the article oage.......you should read the rules wikipedia. so from now on i will tell you this, maybe i am talking to fast. i will slow down. i do know you can read. i hope so. i am not telling you to look it up, i am telling you the links are alreay there in the refrneces. if you cant hit the link or type it, then i am sorry. i will not hold you hand.....bye sweetie....anonymous..oh and beleive me i am not "handwaving". i could be waving something...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

here is a rule you should follow......

Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of Internet sock puppets or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.

this is about your blog page......talk later sweetie........  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 

please keep with the facts and nothing more. not your point of veiw and fconway's. also it seems like you like to gloat about the cases you have been involved with,which still you have not proven or any one asked for. ......anonymous....ford1206..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

no i am not forgetting the facts,nor were the gaurds ignorant. there is no controversy. i have not denying the facts about sickle cell, i know what killed, his mother forgot.the gaurds were unaware he had it. you are not sticking with the fatcs. you are trying to turn things into your own words to make you happy. the gaurds are innocent/not guilty. the kid died becasue of sickle cell. if anyone else wants to learn more about sickle cell, then go to that article. not read it in someones opinated blog which they claim to be an expert in. this article should stop with the trial and should start with back ground and why he was in the boot camp. like i said earlier, and also read it this time. the facts are the kid broke the law, went to boot camp, was told to run like every other "good" kid there. he stopped because he did not want to any more and understanding what the guards was telling him. ( the guards and the nurse did not know he had sickle cell  if they did, they would have done things different, all the gaurds said this in their trial), he went to the hospital where it was first diagnosed by the bay county Me thet he died of sickle cell trait, the guards were forced to go on trial because of political pressure, they were proven innocent/not guilty. one guards i sueing the bay county sheriiffs office for being firded unnessarly and wrongly. so these are the facts, others have tried to candy coat some and explode other facts and totally disregard some facts also. but these are the fatcs and face it. this is it the trial is done and over with, move on.  if you dont like it well then that is tought s*@t.

if you were so into the trial and outcome you would know about the guard wanting to get his job back, the reason why the kid was there, and who the new ME is going to be. face the facts and stop bickering and argueing. enough said. ........anonymous......

no i am not forgetting the facts,nor were the gaurds ignorant. there is no controversy. i have not denying the facts about sickle cell, i know what killed, his mother forgot.the gaurds were unaware he had it. you are not sticking with the fatcs. you are trying to turn things into your own words to make you happy. the gaurds are innocent/not guilty. the kid died becasue of sickle cell. if anyone else wants to learn more about sickle cell, then go to that article. not read it in someones opinated blog which they claim to be an expert in. this article should stop with the trial and should start with back ground and why he was in the boot camp. like i said earlier, and also read it this time. the facts are the kid broke the law, went to boot camp, was told to run like every other "good" kid there. he stopped because he did not want to any more and understanding what the guards was telling him. ( the guards and the nurse did not know he had sickle cell  if they did, they would have done things different, all the gaurds said this in their trial), he went to the hospital where it was first diagnosed by the bay county Me thet he died of sickle cell trait, the guards were forced to go on trial because of political pressure, they were proven innocent/not guilty. one guards i sueing the bay county sheriiffs office for being firded unnessarly and wrongly. so these are the facts, others have tried to candy coat some and explode other facts and totally disregard some facts also. but these are the fatcs and face it. this is it the trial is done and over with, move on.  if you dont like it well then that is tought s*@t.

if you were so into the trial and outcome you would know about the guard wanting to get his job back, the reason why the kid was there, and who the new ME is going to be. face the facts and stop bickering and argueing. enough said. ........anonymous...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have advised the Mediation Cabal that this case has sprung open again. The warring edits by Ford1206 are not much different from her earlier activity. Requested that they review and intervene, if necessary.Fconaway (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the late reply -- I've been on the road. Billollib (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

yes they are different... i deleted a statement which is basically redundant. also the officers did not coerced anyone, they were doing thier jobs. making him and everyone else to run which no one else dropped out of doing. you two think you are the master editor and need to stop your vandalizzing. also who is she? so you should get your facts first before you type thank you

anoymous signed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, the officers did their job. Their job was to coerce compliance. That's what they did. When you hit someone with a stick, put them in control holds, and put ammonia in their nose in order to force them to do something, that constitutes "coercion." As far as vandalizing, goes. you forget that you are removing *my* contribution, among others. Since you have chosen to delete what I have written without providing any documentation that contradicts what I have written (while there are multiple citations noting the coercion), it is your obligation to provide a citation to the contrary. Otherwise, stop deleting my contribution. Billollib (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC

Well, no. It was specifically accepted in a court of law that their job was to coerce Mr. Anderson. They were found not guilty of negligent manslaughter, which is different than coercion.Billollib (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford1206 vandalization of my user page

what businessis your one someone elses page. i do recall you and fconway have done this before , so once again it is ok for you to do but no one else., also will you refrain from being a vandal on the martin anderson page. thank you.

anynmous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

where are all these rules you keep coming up with where i have to put things where you say i have to........anoymous....signed by me.....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 

why dont you stop doing what you are preaching..... then you went ahead and added another one a few minutes later.......
you should stop vandaling period. also. MMMMMMMMMM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)