User talk:Ottawaman/archive1

Bias
After reviewing your edits, I haven't been able to find a single one that wasn't consistently anti-Ignatieff. If you've got a bone to pick, please keep it off Wikipedia. 72.139.185.19 20:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, based on the timing and similarity of your edits, it seems to me that Ottawaman is the same anonymous sympatico user as 65.95.151.40, 65.95.151.130, 65.95.151.166, etc... Please correct me if I'm wrong. 72.139.185.19 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * very wrong; go sling some more mud against disabled children. Ottawaman 13:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're the one bringing this up, using identical wording, doesn't help your case. 72.139.185.19 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously, what's your obvious beef with Ignatieff? Are one of the miffed Etobicoke nominees? An NDP activist? What is it? I just want to know why you (clearly) are taking such obvious pains to put a negative slant in the article. 198.20.41.74 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping with the Michael Ignatieff article, eh? It's been a real pain with some users reverting edits and saying that the interview wasn't true. FellowWikip e dian 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it wasn't...

I know
I know about the personal attack and s/he received a warning for it. S/he expressed regret for making said personal attack. I was writing a policy violation report before s/he asked for my help, so that is quite irrelevant. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, its just that I think the personal attack aspect is much less important than the offensive template toward disabled children; but nobody else seems to feel that outrage except that other anon. Ottawaman 14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course it was offensive and highly inappropriate, however, the person has already been warned for making that comment. And I don't think posting the link to the personal attack around everywhere for as many people to see as possible is very productive or helpful since it will most likely simply exacerbate things further.
 * Also, please be careful not to inadvertently delete comments from other people's talk pages . Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request
While I have no problems with someone anonymously editing pages (obviously), it is bad form to do reply to one's own edits. That is, please do not respond to your own edits so as to make it seem as though two users share the same view. It is unproductive and confusing. 198.20.41.74 21:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved Text
Hi OM,

I moved some text from the Ignatieff Talk page to your, Sarah, and my talk pages. It struck me as an attempt to draw further attention to the removed text. Please continue the conversation on those User:Talk pages.

(Moved from Ignatieff Talk page)

Why are talk page edits being deleted?
One edit referring to offensive vandalism was deleted by the vandal himself and then my comment on that deletion was deleted. Ottawaman 12:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the vandal made many edits in this article I certainly think it's relevant to this talk page and I especially would like to know if a block request has been made. Ottawaman 12:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the comments because they do not belong here. I am not a vandal. Please stop making baseless and spurious accusations. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop inserting Wikinews as a source. It is entirely inappropriate. Please read guidelines on reliable sources and policy on living people. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You were never accused of being a vandal. The vandal is 72.139.185.19 as was perfectly clear in my edit which you deleted. I certainly won't be using wikinews as a source anymore, that's for sure. Ottawaman 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You said the comment was removed by the vandal; I was the one who removed it, therefore I considered you were calling me a vandal. The person who keeps inserting the wikinews link (65.95.151.166) has been blocked for repeated policy violations. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Back to the point; I would like to return the talk page edits which Sarah Ewart removed. Any objections other than hers? Should we have a vote? Ottawaman 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot cite Wikinews as a source. That is my objection. The edits need to conform to WP:BLP and if they do not they can be shot on sight. Follow policy and you will have no problems with me. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sarah, I do now agree with you on that Wikinews issue. Would you perhaps agree to the return the talk page edits that you removed? Ottawaman 13:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that belongs here? It belongs, where it currently is, on the user's talk page. This is a page for discussing the article Michael Ignatieff, not linking to personal attacks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it belongs here because 72.139.185.19 has made many Michael Ignatieff article edits and continues to so it's important that people know as much about his behavior as they now do about 65.95.151.166 (who you reference above). Ottawaman 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I really object to these subjective determinations to delete editors comments on talk pages. Please reinstate. 70.48.207.175 23:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are already links on this page to it. It has nothing to do with the Ignaieff article and so does not belong on this page. In addition, the person has repeatedly apologised for making the comment; it's time to get over it and move on with this article. Besides the fact that guidelines state personal attacks can be removed. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's so twisted. The edits you deleted,Sarah, were not personal attacks but a reference to a personal attack; there is a profund difference. By your logic there could never be a criminal trial about anything because referring to the crime would be the same thing as the crime. Wikipedia is not censorship.....and why has the template not been deleted,Sarah, if you care so much about personal attacks? 67.71.122.23 12:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that users on this page pay careful attention to Sarah Ewart's words, because I am backing her 100%. I am not going to explain it. She already has. If you are in any further need of explanation, please see the edit warning box on Talk:Michael Ignatieff. Sarah Ewart, in my previous experience, as here, is an experienced editor with a very sound grasp of policy and the best interests of wikipedia to the fore. Further violations of policy will result in a block without another warning. Tyrenius 06:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop trying to provoke and escalate conflict on Talk:Michael Ignatieff. If you want to contribute, contribute to the content of the article and stop commenting on other users. If you continue using sockpuppets to excalate conflict, I will list the page for page protection and no one will be able to edit it. I am not Canadian, I do not care one way or the other aboui Ignatieff, I simply want the trolling to stop. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Too late, I've already made a request for page protection. Take a couple of days to calm down and reconsider your behaviour. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of Talk Page
Please do not remove messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted comments. Thanks. -- 72.139.185.19 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Copied from Talk:Michael Ignatieff:
 * I am glad to see the "Talk should not be amended or removed" reference at the top of the talk page now. Hopefully the editors who were breaking the policy will have learned their lesson and not try to do it again. Ottawaman 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that this also applies generally to user talk pages, and persistent deletion of significant material is considered vandalism, which can result in being blocked. Warnings, such as appear on this page, should never be deleted, nor should other users' talk appear in an altered context. See WP:TPG. Thanks. Tyrenius 21:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite User:Tyrenius's warning, you removed this record, so I'm warning you again. If you keep doing this, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks. -- 72.139.185.19 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Non verified statements in Michael Ignatieff
Just to confirm, that these are not only non-verified statements, but also ones which you wish to remove from the article, i.e. both conditions apply.

You might want to archive your talk page to give it a blank slate. Up to you.

Tyrenius 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, yes that's correct; I feel they should be removed if not verified. Ottawaman 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no template
As I've told you repeatedly now, there is no template to delete. The "template" does not and has not ever existed. Please stop posting links to that message everywhere, it makes you look very trollish. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology
The person has apologised repeatedly. Try here, for instance: or here. Please note specifally the words "I apologize." And just fyi, I sent the relevant links to Tyrenius via email so he is well in the picture of what has been going on here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)