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(a)theskeptik.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)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_…
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&catname=Local+News)
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]]