User talk:Canuckster

I want to get involved in references to Canadian politicians.

Ignatieff
Hey Canuckster. I was wondering whether you had given any thought to the proposal to revamp the Michael Ignatieff article and make a separate article dealing with the various controvercies? A couple other editors think it's a good idea. I have my reservations, but I'd be willing to give it a try if it meant we can procede with improving the page. As it is, it's getting to the point where every day or so, everything, including spelling corrections, get reverted back to how the page was a week ago, which is clearly not working. If you could weigh in on this and offer some constructive ideas, I'm sure we can get the page to work. I look forward to working with you! —Joel Bastedo 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ground Zero | t 18:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

"Neo-con american wannabe"
Hello Canuckster. I see that you've several times edited the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 article to describe candidate Michael Ignatieff as a "neo-con american wannabe". I don't think you seriously believe that this is encyclopedic language befitting the article - kindly stop. -Joshuapaquin 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the articles fit the labels. Canuckster 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Otoh, since the article is in the exact puff piece state that Iggy's employees want it to be in; there is likely no incentive by them nor their pals to free the article from protection; shame on your collective despotism. This is my last Wikipedia edit; good bye. Canuckster 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As you seem to have returned, and seem forgetful about some of your earlier contributions ('Sarah made an unfounded accusation that I have an "anti-american agenda"', from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents), here is an instance of your POV-pushing which Sarah highlighted: . I dare say I could find others were I to trawl through your contributions. Is there any real reason why I should, or why Sarah should have to be troubled by your continued harassment? She has done nothing wrong as far as I can see. If she had I promise I would be the first to support you in this, but as she has not your efforts just look like a waste of everybody's energy, including yours. --Guinnog 06:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. If that's the best "anti-american" edit you can find then you must admit there are none at all. That edit might be inappropriate but saying someone who tried to become the leader of Canada is a neo-con and american wannabe is not indicative of an "anti-american agenda" by any standards. A retraction and apology is appropriate,imo. No offense but I do not think you are unbiased. I noticed you run to Sarah's defence quite often. If I were to say that you have an "anti-semitic agenda" and the only supporting edit I could present was one where you said someone running for President is a "neo-con and Israeli wannabe"; you would also want a retraction I think. Canuckster 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly looks anti-American to me. I will try not to take offence at your assumption of bad faith on my part; I would run to your defence just as quickly if I thought you were being wronged. As it is, I think you are the one causing trouble, abusing policy and process, and therefore any apologies or retractions should ideally come from you. I assure you my only bias in this is to try to get on with building an encyclopedia. I do not see your present behaviour as being conducive to that aim. --Guinnog 07:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto your last 2 sentences. Canuckster 08:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion
Ottawaman, I was willing to turn a blind eye to you using this account provided you behaved yourself. You haven't and are using it merely to troll. It's now blocked. Sarah Ewart 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And because you've continued to evade it (as 70.50.76.237), I've had to reset your block. Please don't do that again. Khoikhoi 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Sarah Ewart
Thank you for your edits to Sarah Ewart's talk page. Anonymous comments by unregistered users may be removed at any time. Restoring said comments could be viewed as harassment. If you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection
Will you promise not to remove comments? Khoikhoi 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Khoikhoi 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Canuckster 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Blocked
You have been blocked as a sockpuppet of Ottawaman, based upon evidence provided by User:Essjay: a conclusion of sockpuppetry is probable based on the technical evidence. User:Zoe|(talk) 09:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff
I was going to respond to the note that you left me but I see that you have been indefinitely blocked. I think that you had some valid concerns about the article. It is a shame that all these behaviour concerns have interfered with and ultimately ended your ability to contribute to the article. I don't know policy well enough to know if you are allowed to come back or in what form. If you can, I'd suggest that you worry more about the content and less about the editors, in particular the admins. I know admins sometimes seem unfair but I guarantee that nearly all of the time they are just doing their job. --JGGardiner 20:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)