With all do respect there are countless posts made, countless posts, that are not cited as though this is an essay. As for the second point, I do not believe some administrator should be the deciding individual over what is and isn't important. I do not communicate on Mrs. Gallant's page her daily campaign efforts or what she ate for breakfast. The fact that a member of parliament is being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada is in fact a fairly big deal and whether it is or isn't in the national newspapers is purely trivial. I would hope that not everything posted on Wikipedia is found on in my morning newspaper because I would never get finished reading the damn thing. And as for your cute comments on devinity and magic I think your tone, as an administrator, could be a bit more professional.

Now I am going to put these two points back on Mrs. Gallant's page, with proper quoting, citiations and all the proof I can muster - if that means citing a hundred different organizations. And I would point out that it has been the administrator who has had a problem with these two issues and not residents who actually live in the riding.

All I ask is that your administrators be asked to back off if prrof is provided and not determine what is and isn't important since they neither know the MP, know the riding and what residents and local newspapers consider important, and leave my posts alone!

From: Brock Batsell wikipedia@theskeptik.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org,canadiankid2001@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Why is my IP Blocked? Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:37:19 -0600

Canadian Kid wrote:

...

I would like to know who, if anyone, can help my IP (64.230.123.119) get unblocked?

I have apparently been blocked for spreading rumours without them being documented. I would like, however, to offer the following points.

1. on the issue of the Conservative Party moving the airborn to CFB

Trenton and out of my MPs riding (who has been fighting to bring it here) I noted that my MPs own party has stolen an issue right out from underneath her. The following was noted in the edit history: "PLEASE Document rumours before you put them in. The CPC website doesn't mention moving the airborne to Trenton anywhere. It's JUST A RUMOUR unless its documented)" I would kindly ask you, however, check out http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_i... where you will find in the December 13, 2005 video of Talk Politics , at the 32 minute 15 second mark of the video, the Conservative Party's Defence Critic, Gordon O'Connor, stating that his party wishes to reincarnate the airborn in CFB Trenton.

2. Another issue facing this MP is an investogation by the Privacy

Commissioner of Canada related to how her office received and then used personal information - likely from passport applications. I cited the Pembroke Observer Newspaper link(http://www.thedailyobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=138630...) that clearly shows that a Deep River couple has contacted the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I will admit that the online article does not have 100% of the article showing, however that is not the point. I was asked to provide proof and I have. If the administrators are so concerned about whether my edit was truthful then they can buy a copy of the Pembroke Observer and see that the edit reflects the truth and that residents have asked, in the middle of an election, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to investogate their MP - I would suggest that this worth posting.

Could someone please help. I believe I have tried, very hard, to meet the standards asked of me - ie providing proof, and yet still they block me.

Please help :)

Sara

For reference, the history of the article in question is available at:* http://tinyurl.com/ajhh4*

I'm not familiar with this particular politician or issue, so looking at it objectively, here are my thoughts. On point number 1, you didn't provide this proof at all, which is why it was removed from the article — editors aren't able to magically divine sources that you don't provide. On point number 2, it wasn't removed for lack of evidence, it was removed because several editors believe it isn't yet important enough to warrant a mention in her biographical article. The block was probably a little premature, but it will expire soon, and in the future, you should discuss controversial edits on the article's talk page first, or after they've been reverted once and before you revert back. Communication and providing sources go a long way in content disputes. Just a little friendly advice.

-- Regards, [[:en:User:Bbatsell]]