User talk:Haida chieftain

my point of view page

Please note that there are no 'wikipedia managers'. You are just as important a member of the community as any other. Nobody has more 'rights' than anyone else. :-) In future, to discuss why someone is 'erasing your stuff', simply ask them, as described below. Chzz ► 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing my wiki page. Fred.C , Neil.N, Emarsee,

Helpme

{{helpme}} Some person named The Tom keeps erasing mention of the STV gag law. The STV ban is a real fact, and therefore deserves mention. Wikipedia should be proud to protect freedom of speech rights; Wikipedia should loving championing this.

I am sorry I included my blog, I took this out. Still some mention of the gag law should been left on Wiki. Why is The Tom trying to censor this censorship law?

Two questions;

~~1. What article are you talking about?~~ now answered myself, see below Chzz ► 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you have a reliable, verifiable reference for the information?

Answer these and I'll reply further. Chzz ► 22:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you must be referring to BC-STV and specifically this reversion.

The first part of your edit did not cite any sources. Absolutely all information on Wikipedia should cite a reliable source - in this case, perhaps a mainstream newspaper covering the facts. I'll add some help with how to make such references below.

The second part of your edit - the 'comment' to the other author - was not an appropriate thing to add to the article. Comments like that should go on the other users talk page, which is User talk:The Tom. It would be perfectly fine for you to go there, create a new section, and politely ask the user to explain why they undid your edits.

I hope this answers your question; if you need further help, you could chat to us live, or leave another helpme. Cheers, Chzz ► 22:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections

I have just split your talk page into sections, to make it easier to read. I did this by adding headings, such as == Helpme ==. In future, you'll find it's best to create a new section on your own talk, or that of others, to start discussions.

See WP:TALKPAGE for more info,

I hope this helps, Chzz ► 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping on this. Sorry for mentioning The Tom, will not do that again. New to wiki. Sorry there is no newspaper story mentioning the gag law -- there is a newspaper monopoly in BC and they have not mentioned it. The stv gag law can be verified by visiting BC Election's webpage, goto legislation section, for the enactments. The gag law is a real law. Back tommorrow. Thank you again your response.

No problems, glad I could help. Unfortunately, if it's not hit any big papers, we can't have it on Wikipedia; it would be considered original research. Hope you understand; all of these policies were made by people like you and I, through discussion. I won't be monitoring this page, so if you need further help, use the techniques mentioned above. If you want to contact me, you can always leave a message on my own talk page.

Quick note - please remember to always 'sign' your comments, by ending them with ~~~~. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} Dear Wiki Gods,

Thank you for considering the STV referendum gag law fact, for the STV~BC Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, British Columbia has a newspaper monopoly, this is prime example of how democracy suffers. Not sure how this happened, makes it that much more important then to post on Wikipedia. Thank you Wikipedia for being there. Two issues: it is a real fact; and is not original research.

Case for posting fact on Wikipedia: (1)The STV referendum gag law starting date of Feb,1/09 has made the newspaper. At first, the Gag law had it that even candidates could not combine STV and election advertising. Article concerns an aspect of the STV gag law and how candidates not able to combine STV/election advertising, mentions Feb 1 starting date. Note, candidates allowed to combine the two issues now, but the rest of us still can not. canada.com; in newspapers select Times Colonist; search STV; article --Greens call for change to STV referendum rules, Dec8/08, mentions time limit [Search for the STV referendum gag law in these newspapers, not there. Sad statement about BC.]

(2)STV regulations published in the Gazette. The BC Regulations Act S. 5 mandates that enactments must be published in the Gazette. It is argued that once a regulation is gazetted, no longer original research. Just has to be. it's the law period! Looks like Government of British Columbia Publications internet access is paid/restricted access. [1]

(3)STV Gag law available on the BC elections web page. Gag law part of the Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulations. Time limit in regulation definitions; and ban is Section 29a&b. www.Elections.BC.ca; look in resource center, then goto legislation section.

(4)Verbal confirmation. Phone BC elections directly 1 800 661 8683. BC election officials will confirm the referendum gag law is real, and what it means. This is a different Act then the BC election gag law that was struck down by the BC Supreme Court. Please phone, it's free. Pacific time.

Wiki STV~BC fact sought. Titled: “STV referendum gag law. The laws governing STV advertising have changed from the last 2005 referendum, now no longer included as election advertisng; STV now banned from election advertising. The BC Electoral Reform Referendum 2009 Act Regulation Section.29.4 (STV gag law) Referendum advertising must not, directly or indirectly, (a) promote or oppose a registered political party or the election of a candidate, or (b) form part of election advertising. Section.1 definition -- "referendum campaign period" means, in relation to the referendum, the period beginning on February 1, 2009 and ending at the close of general voting for the referendum.”

This is a defining moment for British Columbia and Canada. Giant step forward in Canadian democracy. Merits of STV: makes the system more honest; people vote for who they want, not for who they don't want; no longer will politics be dominated by the two main BC parties -- independent voices have a chance now to be elected. Wikipedia is a hero of free speech; and this is such a time, to be there for freedom. Canada is in your debt Chzz. This is very proud moment in Wikipedia history.

Knock on wood, Haida chieftain

Making your case for the inclusion of a certain piece of information in a particular article should be made on that article's talk page. I think you want to make that argument here. That way you are more likely to get input and help from others who are interested and knowledgeable on the topic. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New to wiki. Will do that. Cool. Thank you Mufka. Cheers Haida chieftain.

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. єmarsee • Speak up! 04:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. єmarsee • Speak up! 19:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming obvious that you have an agenda with regard to your edits to Canwest and its talk page. With regard to your latest comment about the $1B+ goodwill writedown that Canwest took: that should be included in the net income figure for Canwest in the infobox. Impairment is an above-the-line item and part of net income. It would be misleading and inaccurate to exclude it from net income in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include comments within article text. If you wish to discuss edits, please use the article talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the chunk of text you have added, as I am unsure how much of it is sourced, how much of it is current (you seem to be quoting a 2005 report) how much is original research, and what most of it means. Could you start a discussion on the article talk page about the sources and significance of the info you wish to add. If I can understand how it is of benefit to the article, I will assist you in writing it in a suitable form. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today you again added this original research to the Canwest article: (diff)

The driving fact for CanWest's exodus from several local Canadian TV stations, that were not making money, was an agreement to consolidate Goldman Sachs and CanWest's Canadian TV stations. The unusual selling formula had CanWest selling all of its TV stations, and their assets and lands, at their operating profit, and not their asset value. CanWest shareholders would be paying Goldman Sachs to take over certain CanWest TV stations and their assets. To stop this CanWest choose to ditch these unprofitable stations. An example is CanWest selling CHEK, Victoria to the employees, yet CanWest retained control of the building and property.

You provided no source for this addition. According to whom is that the motive for CanWest's sale of the stations? According to whom did CanWest give up cash and the stations to Goldman Sachs? —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Canwest. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Please explain how this edit is anything but original research. —C.Fred (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you've already been blocked once. Please stop soapboxing on the article talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this edit today, with the repeated text "Name the other CanWest acquisition??", is just this side of disruptive. You've been reminded before about reliable sources and the prohibition against original research. As Elen said, your long comments on the talk page appear less to be about improving the article and more about getting on a soapbox. This is a case where your edit history has tarnished your reputation.

My advice is that if you want to push for improvement in the article, here's the approach.

Focus on one change at a time.
Provide a reliable secondary source to back up the change. (Not a SEDAR filing; not an owner's blog; and not an email from management, ownership, a creditor, or counsel to any of the above.)
Present a succinct—two paragraphs at the most—summary what needs changed and how the source supports the change. Keep it on target and neutral; don't stray into opinions, "issues of national security", cries of censorship, or anything other than how the article can be approved.

I can't say that a consensus of editors will support the change so it gets made in the article. However, if you do that and remain civil, it will show that you're working in good faith to improve the article—and constructive editors acting in good faith don't get blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, continuing your abusive edits without logging in, as you appear to be doing from 199.60.104.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) you may have to perm-block him. HalfShadow 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly helpful, and borderline racist. Please refactor. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Just read this now. What? Please Fred, what is this about? How are these editors and what is there issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haida chieftain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow made a comment based on your username. The offensive portion of the comment was deleted; his opinion that your block may need to be made permanent was not. Throwaway's reply was directed to HalfShadow, requesting him to remove the offending portion of the comment. When three days went by without HalfShadow removing the comment, I took administrative action and did remove it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Canwest, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The block has been extended to a week, and the Canwest page protected for a similar amount of time. Continuing your crusade while blocked is simply not acceptable. If, after the week is past, you continue again with your previous behavior, the blocks/protection will return for escalating amounts of time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the week is up, before you edit again, I suggest you look over my comments above. If you're willing to contribute constructively, I'm willing to assist. If you're just going to continue disrupting the article, then I'll be willing to back up an indefinite block on your account. —C.Fred (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canwest operating income

Actually, you removed the operating income this afternoon (diff). You re-added EBITDA today; I changed it to be EBIT/operating income. —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further looking (I pulled up SEDAR), you used the EBIT figure they gave; I used the one Google did. Given the choice of Canwest's breakdown of operating/non-operating or Google's, I'll go with Canwest's. So it's back to the figure you added tonight. —C.Fred (talk)

Copyright violation

Please don't copy whole paragraphs from sources as you did here --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canwest. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Canwest, you will be blocked from editing. Do not selectively delete the equity from the infobox while leaving the assets intact. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have reverted your latest edit - you may well have a point, but the English was so mangled I couldn't work out what it was. Do you want to try working it out on the talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canwest. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted on the talk page, your addition starting with "Unfortunately the time ran out" does not clearly establish how it is relevant to the article. Please discuss the matter on the talk page; do not re-add it unless you can build consensus there that it should be included. You are perilously close to violating the three-revert rule. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've filed a report here as you've added that material five times in the last 24 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Haida chieftain reported by User:NeilN (Result: Indef). Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that you are willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[2] permanent link --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Haida chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

199.60.104.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Disruptive editing: WP:AN3#User:Haida chieftain reported by User:NeilN (Result: Indef)

Blocking administrator: EdJohnston (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Not autoblocked. You were directly blocked. — Smashville^talk 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To wikipedia management;

Please ask that the ban be lifted. How long is the indefinate ban? It is Neil N that has vandalized Canwest article through censoring the fee for carriage debate. No longer used the word copyright, as he suggested, still upset. Wiki editors using this as a pretext to control and retard the CanWest wiki article. These editors are aware there are errors in the article and using this ban to cover up misinformation.

Please confirm that the ban is for inserting in the CanWest artilce that there is fee for carriage debate in Canada. At least let my inform the discussion board that I am indefinetly banned, So where in the article is the dispute between cable companies and tv companies to be disclosed to the readers then? Neil N could have editted it. Fred. C worked offered a compromise, I accepted his wording, though I stll believe the article must mention that there is a settlement still outstanding.

Contested edit, note a compromise was reached Unfortunetly the time ran out for CanWest waiting for the CRTC, to issue a settlement[3] in the Canadian Fee-for-carriage dispute, concerning Canadian cable and satellite companies, past and current payment responsiblities for selling CanWest and Atlantis TV signals. [4]

Wiki is a vistor to my country, please respect that this article has to do with Canada's largest media company collapse; wiki saying how it is, creates responsibilites to wiki to let Canadian voices be heard. Please also respect, that I have never editted the political section of the article, though it is alleged there are signifanct false representations in wiki's political statements about CanWest news policy. Like to add that this ban is not from the company wiki, but rather from from specific wiki users. Also like to add that I am a enjoy wiki, and use wiki regularily to get info. Thank you. --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like you understand our policies. I (and others) removed non-neutral poorly sourced statements from the article - not vandalism. On the talk page, you were repeatedly asked by multiple editors to provide reliable sources (not just your opinion) showing how copyright was tied to FFC and Canwest - this is not a pretext for controlling the article, this is basic Wikipedia policy. Next, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and has no responsibilities to let any voice be heard, Canadian or otherwise. Content in articles will stay, be removed, or be edited depending on how well it meets our policies and guidelines. Finally your block is not because of other users but because of your actions (soapboxing, edit warring) alone. I'm willing to work with you but first you need to change your editing practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haida chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

At it's most important time, the wiki CanWest article is being manipulated. Cannot over state how important a fair wiki Canwest article is to Canada, and its allies. At a critical situation for Canada, wiki's canwest article hid disclosure from Canadian readers.

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Neil N complainted about copyright when news article was quoted. That fine, there is a copyright issue. Dealt with. Yet selling cable company selling TV signals is not copyright? Cable companies have no choice but to say that, and the CRTC handling the dispute has word smithed the debate to obstruct any consideration that the debate is about copyright. Phoned the CRTC, very interesting, CRTC spokesperson Mrs. Grossi said I could quote her, said the fee for carriage has nothing to do with copyright. Then CRTC says that it does not regulate copyright, not their mandate? CRTC goes on to say that maybe the cable and TV stations had possibily their own agreements on copyright, making it okay. Read between the lines, yes it is about copyright, and the CRTC must avoid such words because of international legal issues. That said, the edit you banned me indefinetly for had purposely edited out the copyright words. Respect was shown, copyright words not in the post you banned me for, so not entilted to use the copyright arguement to ban.Neil N. please answer this question, is the fee for carriage fact an essential fact in the article. Would readers be cheated if fee for carriage fact not there? Yes and yes. --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Thank you for your consideration. I honestly only ever tried to make the article better. It's very slow going. In a few weeks when CanWest history, and the deal is completed, it will not matter what wiki article says. It only real matters right now. Hiden agenda of ban.}} --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we want are sources for your claim tying in copyright and fee for carriage. No commentary, no opinion, but just cold hard sources. If you can provide a reliable source that ties in copyright and fee for carriage, it would be great. єmarsee • Speak up! 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, FFC is not an "essential fact". Again, Wikipedia is not the news and not a soapbox. If the CRTC decides nothing is to be changed, then Canwest's comments are not essential in an article about Canwest's total history. "In a few weeks when CanWest history, and the deal is completed, it will not matter what wiki article says" is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM. And I did not ban you. You were blocked from editing by an uninvolved editor because you made the same edit six times in 24 hours after three previous blocks. Unfortunately I see no evidence that you're willing to change your behaviour. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki canwest article can and does make a difference, it matters. Negatives Words + Positive Words monitered. http://www.samepoint.com/?q=CanWest%20company

Quote, "No, FFC is not an "essential fact". Again, Wikipedia is not the news and not a soapbox. If the CRTC decides nothing is to be changed, then Canwest's comments are not essential in an article about Canwest's total history." Completedly disagree. Vandelism to censor this. The failure to pay TV stations is a major cause of the Chapter 11, therefore has a right to one line; also its of interest to readers. Neil N your point of view favours the cable companies, during thee critical time when Shaw Cable buying CanWest. Neil N says not essential fact for Canadians. Emarsee and I say it is. --Haida chieftain (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Emarsee has said it's an "essential fact". And I've never objected to a neutrally-worded properly sourced statement about FFC being added to the article. I wouldn't add it myself (yet) but I haven't objected to C. Fred's edit. And for the umpteenth time, the only one pushing a viewpoint is you with your constant references to censorship and vandalism. The rest of us are trying to make sure your edits meet WP:V and WP:NPOV with reliable sources with no synthesis or soapboxing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File 482117 CRTC request that the two matters not be dealt with independently of each other. CRTC quote, "Thank you for taking the time to contact the CRTC expressing your concerns over the recent television hearings. The CRTC is currently reviewing the material presented to the Commission during the fall public proceedings and will issue a decision in due course. Contrary to your assertion, the CRTC is not holding back on a decision related to the television public proceeding due the recent media coverage of the purchase of Canwest. I would like to point out that the CRTC has not received any application by Shaw for the purchase of Canwest at this time. The two matters will be dealt with independently of each other. I trust this information will assist you."Regards, CRTC, Client Services Winnipeg1-877-249-2782

CRTC policy US stations are paid by Canadian cable companies, yet Canadian TV stations are not. So if Canadian cable companies did not pay this US fee for coverage, would it be a copyright issue? Yes, it is a copyright issue, and the CRTC must respect this, like it must respect Canadian TV companies copyright issues. Cable companies require selling Atlantis movies is a copyright issue the CRTC must respect. The owners of lots of movie copyright siding with CanWest authority to demand copyright infringement paid out, before CanWest shareholders shares are expropriated. http://www.closinglogos.com/photos/album/140374/CanWest+Global%2FGoldman+Sachs+Group?offset=0&maxResults=50--199.60.104.56 (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haida Chieftan (1) sign in before you get accused of socking (2) in what way does that link in any way support what you are saying? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this copyright dispute? Fee-for-carriage is not a copyright issue—or, it would be hard for Canwest to get damages, because it gives away the programming by broadcasting it over the air. I haven't seen a source anywhere in this discussion that mentions copyright. As has been said before, you may not introduce your opinions, synthesis, or original research that into articles. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Haida, if you can prove the FFC debate is about copyrights, provide a reliable source. So far, you haven't. As previous user have mentioned, Wikipedia has a strict guideline on what belongs and what doesn't. No more opinion, no more rants, just sources. Thank you. єmarsee • Speak up! 00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the FCC fee for, if not for paying for the right to use? Just because the CRTC says copyright is not their department, does to mean that the FCC decision does not involve copyright. Canada has a Copyright Board of Canada, strange then, the CRTC by itself and not in a combined effort, is deciding the fee for use dispute, classic copyright infringement. And just because TV stations are generious to give locals free signals, does not translate that the gift is to the entire country. There are concerns like, how can a tiny TV station afford to buy movies to air, when that TV signal's movies are sold to the entire nation, without paying a copyright fee back to orginating TV station.

Here are some links that suggest tv signals do involve aspects of copyright. "STATEMENTS OF ROYALTIES TO BE COLLECTED FOR THE RETRANSMISSION OF DISTANT TELEVISION AND RADIO SIGNALS FOR THE YEARS 2004 T0 2008" [5] [6] --Haida chieftain (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[7] "Shaws purchase of Canwest supports and reconfirms the push by Canadian television stations for retransmission fees from cable and satellite companies. In fact, the CRTC has to move on it now for the sake of the Broadcasting Act." [8]"The federal government has ordered the broadcast regulator to hold more hearings and report on the request by television networks to charge cable and satellite companies for using their local signals." [9] Debate soon mute, digital is copyright. TV signals in digital format as of August 31, 2011. All analog broadcasting will stop." --199.60.104.158 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The document created by the cable lobby, to lobby Congress, acknowledges that selling tv signals involves copyright, through using the word copyright in several examples. Goto Find and type the word copyright.

Document http://www.ncta.com/PublicationType/RegulatoryFiling/NCTAReplyComments091608.aspx Source that TV signals involve copyright. --199.60.104.158 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't wanted any of that commentary, just links to sites to support your theory would've been fine. єmarsee • Speak up! 02:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the NCTA is an American trade organisation, and has no relevancy to a Canadian issue. Also, the proposed closure of analogue broadcasting in Canada has nothing to do with copyright. Digital broadcasting itself has nothing to do with copyright. Once again, please provide tangible sources -- so far, all your backups were rather weak or irrelevant. One more thing, Haida -- if you're 199.60.104.158, you could be dinged for sockpuppetry; the comment from that IP account was very similar to yours. -- azumanga (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The world according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Assoication. Digital TV signals are copyright. Quotes , "NCTA's initial comments urged that the broadcasters' transition from analog to digital broadcasting not be used as an occasion for rewriting the rules for calculating cable copyright royalties." In particular, we urged the Office to await guidance from Congress before adopting what the Office concedes is a "strained reading ofthe statutory defInition ofDSE" with respect to the assessment of additional royalties for carriage of a station's multicast streams. l None of the comments submitted in this proceeding justify the Office unilaterally imposing multiple DSE charges for the video programming offered by a single television "station." In fact, the Copyright Owners, who advocate in favor ofthese increased fees, otherwise recognize the benefIts of continuity and simplicity in applying Section 111. Treating each multicast stream as 1 NCTA Comments at 3-5. a distinct DSE raises a host of complications that can be easily avoided by continuing to mdetermine the DSE value of each distant television station solely on the basis of that station's "primary" video stream and without regard to the number or nature of its multicast streams? There is no indication that Congress intended or expected the digital transition to increase the compulsory copyright fees assessed for consumers to receive broadcast programming. Ifthe digital transition is to produce such an inflationary result, it should be through the action of Congress, not the Copyright Office. There is no indication that Congress intended or expected the digital transition to increase the compulsory copyright fees assessed for consumers to receive broadcast programming. Significantly, on this important point, copyright owners and users agree. Not only NCTA, but also Copyright Owners and Public Television raise concerns about the Office's proposal to eliminate reliance on a station's Grade B contour for determining royalties under 2 Even Copyright Owners acknowledge that the Office's proposal with respect to the application of the 3.75% penalty rate to digital multicasts would cause confusion and should be avoided. Copyright Owners Comments at 10. However, Copyright Owners suggested approach is hardly a solution since it would not eliminate the uncertainty that will result if the Office adopts rules based on nothing more than unbridled speculation about - how Congress would have viewed multicasts ifthey existed 30 years ago or how Congress views them today. - NCTA Comments at 6-7. - Section 111 for digital signal carriage. Copyright Owners rightfully worry that the Notice's - proposal in this regard "could further complicate an already complex royalty calculation process - and perhaps lead to unintended consequences.,,4 They explain that "operators could be - discouraged, ifthey would now have to begin paying distant signal royalties, from carrying what - they have always delivered to their subscribers, perhaps for decades, as local signals."s A - Copyright Office decision that results in increased royalty fee payments for carriage of the - identical signals in digital as have been carried (before the transition) in analog, according to the - Copyright Owners, "would be flatly at odds with the federal policy, adopted by Congress and - implemented by the FCC as well, of minimizing disruption in local television service for - consumers as a result of the digital transition.,,6

Copyright Office deciding the issue, makes it is a copyright issue. End of debate. --Haida chieftain (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCTA is an American Trade Organization not the Canadian "Copyright Office". End of debate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Asper insider bid. Immediate edit needed in wiki canwest article.

[10] Edit needed in wiki canwest article, new information. Quote, "Leonard, Gail and David Asper have teamed up with two deep-pocketed partners and are expected to file a last-minute offer for a controlling ownership of the Winnipeg-based media company in an Ontario court today, according to sources. Catalyst Capital Group Inc., an influential Toronto-based private-equity fund, and Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs and the Aspers are proposing an offer of $120-million for a 32% stake in Canwest Media Inc., the division that holds the company's television and specialty channels, Catalyst confirmed Friday."

[11] Shaw has not filed with CRTC yet, yet demands the deal done today. Quote, "Representatives for Shaw Communications said the company will walk away from its bid to control the television assets of Canwest Communications Corp. if a judge does not approve the offer Friday."

[12] In a pointed missive over the weekend, Goldman lawyers said they were "gravely concerned" that Canwest had entered into a deal to be acquired by Shaw without its knowledge. --Haida chieftain (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia for a newspaper. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

newspaper update http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Judge+Shaw+Canwest/2590647/story.html Quote, "An Ontario judge has approved a bid from Shaw Communications Inc. for Canwest Global Communications Corp.'s television assets, dealing a major setback to a competing offer from Catalyst Capital Group Inc. and the Asper family. [Insiders fixed elections in past with CanWest, should be excluded from bidding.] Earlier yesterday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Joanne Pepall had instructed Canwest's court-appointed monitor to review the new $120-million proposal backed by Catalyst and return to the court with a recommendation by the end of the day. Canwest and Shaw said in court filings earlier this week that they plan to co-operate in negotiations with Goldman. That could prove difficult after so much acrimony has built up between Goldman and the ad hoc committee of certain Canwest creditors which has steered the restructuring. Shaw listed a deal with Goldman as a condition of its offer, but the investment bank has expressed outrage over being bypassed in all previous discussions between Shaw and the [8%]ad hoc committee." --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asking that somewhere in the Wiki Canwest article the words 8% Ad Hoc bondholders committee be be included somewhere

[13] Hundreds of secondary sources mentioning the 8% Ad Hoc Bondholder committee.

feb12,2010 Canwest news release sedar "As previously disclosed, the terms of the Company’s Support Agreement with the members of the ad hoc committee of 8% senior subordinated noteholders (the “Ad Hoc Committee”) of Canwest Media Inc. (“CMI”) require that a new equity investment in Restructured Canwest be completed on or prior to the implementation of the Company’s recapitalization transaction. In connection with this requirement, RBC Capital Markets, the Company’s financial advisor, conducted an extensive equity investment solicitation process over the past several months," which has resulted in Shaw being selected as the preferred equity investor.

Sedar news release January, 29, 2010 "WINNIPEG – Canwest Global Communications Corp. (“Canwest” or the “Company”) announced today it has agreed with the members of the ad hoc committee of 8% senior subordinated noteholders (the “Ad Hoc Committee”) of Canwest Media Inc. (“CMI”) to extend to March 26, 2010 the date by which a recapitalization plan of the Company, CMI and certain of their subsidiaries must be approved by creditors under the terms of the Support Agreement and the Use of Cash Collateral and Consent Agreement. The previous deadline to receive creditor approval was January 30, 2010."

The 8% Ad Hoc Committee the major player in CanWest shareholder expropriation, should be named in CanWest article. Why doesn't the wiki article cite the 8% Ad Hoc Committee.

Wiki CanWest article progressing along; only need to add to article that the Hollinger junior bonds 12.125 bonds converted to senior 8% bonds, for me to approve article.

[14]Approximately C$275 million of the proceeds will be used to retire a portion of the 12 1/8% subordinated debentures held by Hollinger International Inc. and Hollinger Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership, which should reduce CanWest's consolidated interest expense by approximately C$12.7 million annually. Closing of this offering is expected to occur on or about Thursday, April 3, 2003.

2004 CanWest Annual Report p.8In November 2004, the Company successfully completed an exchange offer for Hollinger Participation Trust Notes. That transaction removed from CanWest’s balance sheet the most expensive component of the Company’s corporate debt, the 12 1/8% Hollinger PIK notes that formed part of the original transaction for the acquisition of our newspaper assets from Hollinger and replaced these notes, with a face value of $903 million, with $908 million of 8% senior subordinated debt, reducing annual interest costs by approximately $46 million.

p.29 Refinancing of Junior Subordinated Notes In November 2004, we successfully completed the refinancing of our Junior Subordinated notes. These notes were issued to Hollinger as consideration for the purchase of our publishing operations in November 2000. Interest obligations under these notes to November 2005 were payable via the issuance of additional notes. The $903 million (including accrued interest to November 18, 2004) 12 1/8% notes due November 2000 were effectively settled through the issuance of $908 million (US$761 million) in senior subordinated notes due 2012. The premium on the old notes will be expensed in our first quarter of 2005. The new notes carry an interest rate coupon of 8% which will be settled in cash on a semi annual basis, and will result in annual interest savings of approximately $46 million. The new notes will form part of total debt for covenant purposes. Our total leverage under our senior secured credit facility would have been 5.4 times if these notes had --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready to pass wiki canwest article. Part on new owners, the 8% ad hoc noteholders committee needs to be in article. It is an estential fact. Skews article, wiki should not be undermining national interests of small nations, by limiting disclosure, to readers, of the signifacant financial transactions of small nations newspaper monopolies, owned and transferred between outsiders. Estential fact: [15] In November 2004, Canwest Hollinger 12.125% junior notes, were converted in senior 8% notes. --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haida chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wiki canwest article readers should be disclosed the estential fact: In November 2004, Canwest Hollinger 12.125% junior notes, were converted in senior 8% notes. Weclome to pick the words, and location in article. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please stop abusing the unblock template or your ability to edit your talk page will be removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haida chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please do not ignore the question about this estential fact. What are your thoughts on this?

Decline reason:

This template is only for requesting an unblock. Further abuse will lead to the removal of your ability to edit this page. Kuru (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haida chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

requesting to be unblock, buddy has acknowledged he was having fun, when he more than three times removed what is now an essentail fact, so his friend could issue the indefinite ban. Dishonest ban.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Please read the message from User:C.Fred in the following section Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What are you talking about now? Who is buddy and who is his friend? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you reread WP:NOTTHEM and resubmit that request. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the matter of your block

Your account has been blocked. If you'd like to discuss improvements to the Canwest article, I'll be willing to do so with you after you have been unblocked. To get your account unblocked, you'll need to demonstrate that you understand some key Wikipedia concepts like reliable sources, discussion on the talk page, and the three-revert rule. I strongly suggest you review the guide to appealing blocks before making the unblock request, especially the point that the block, and your petition for unblocking, revolves around your behaviour and nobody else's.

If my instructions are unclear, I will be glad to work with you and give further explanations. If you make an unblock request that meets the criteria above, I will be willing to make an offer for a second chance (details on that later). However, I will not engage in any further discussions on Canwest or any other specific article until you do so. —C.Fred (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I also suggest reading "wp:not", which explains what Wikipedia is not for. Your diatribes regarding Canwest on this page (as well as Canwest's article) are along the lines of soapboxery -- the use of Wikipedia to constantly press your opinions is frowned upon here. -- azumanga (talk) 03:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the shenannigans after C.Fred's plea to Haida to listen to reason and follow Wiki's standards and regulations, I move that the block against Haida become permanent, and he is blocked from editing his talk page. Haida is beyond redemption here. You don't play by the rules, you will be penalised. Haida, if you are reading this, stop your charades at once before it's too late. -- azumanga (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not penalize. Blocks are intended to prevent disruption. Taunting blocked users may also be called disruption. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that blocks are intended to prevent disruption. However, further disruption is just cause for increased sanctions to prevent even more disruption. See my comment below about the sockpuppetry being committed today by this user. I would prefer to bring Haida chieftain back into the editing community; however, if he is not willing to play by the rules, and if he continues to circumvent his block, then his actions dictate that further sanctions—page protection, rangeblocking, and/or a ban of the user—are necessary to prevent further disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse multiple accounts

Please note that the indefinite block relates to the person using this account. That person may not use alternate accounts to evade the block or attempt to edit without logging in, as you appear to have done today on these IP addresses:

199.60.104.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

199.60.104.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block evasion is perceived by most editors as a deliberate attempt to continue to disrupt the project. As a result, additional sanctions may be necessary to prevent further disruption:

The Canwest article may be protected to prevent all unregistered or new users from editing it.
A range block may be placed on multiple addresses in the 199.60.104.*, preventing all unregistered users from editing any article.

Please do not penalize other editors by your continued actions. Do not edit the Canwest article via any account, so long as this account is blocked.

I'm sorry if this message seems harsh, but despite the somewhat silly-sounding nickname of "sockpuppetry," abuse of multiple accounts is a serious offence. —C.Fred (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you selling out my Country? You know this is essential info. Harsh to hid that Canwest has multi voting shares. Why? --Haida chieftain (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you were the user of the IP addresses listed above. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on the folks controlling the Canwest article, and removing essential info. Have the balls to say its not essential info. Exactly why do readers not want to know that the public company Canwest has mult voting shares. A lie to hide this. Acknowledge that your undo's vandalize the article. --Haida chieftain (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone who actually works for wikipedia to say if Emarsee and Fred.C speak for wikipedia.

It's now becoming increasingly obvious that you do not want to work with the Wikipedia community at all and you are only here to push your anti-Canwest POV onto the article. I for one will not work with you anymore unless you can prove that you are willing to change and accept other people's opinions and work with them. If the user continues doing this, I suggest we contact the Greater Victoria Public Library to put a stop to this. єmarsee • Speak up! 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Fred.C put this in the talk's page. Fred. C actually communicated with the library staff. Wikipedia command requested to comment.

Wikipedia is requested to comment on the actions of these persons vandalizing my page.I have told Fred C. and Neil.N and Emarsee not to vandalize my wiki page. What's wikipedia's policy on this? --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to this only on the three points directly related to me.

Emarsee left the comment above, not me, as per the signature. If you like, I can provide the diff.
I have not contacted GVPL. I have not checked the incident file on this account to see if anybody else has contacted the library in the past two days, so I cannot say with certainty whether the library has or has not been contacted.
Good-faith warnings and messages are not vandalism. Thus, this message is not vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard message in the template says it well: in the event of continued abuse coming from this address, Wikipedia administrators may contact the staff at the library to report the abuse and seek their assistance in curtailing it. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Fred C message --Haida chieftain (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the second talk ban, you added British Columbia, there you commented similiar to Emarsee, that is your communication. They have read your comments. Please cut and past that here. Also edit it out of talk. You are totally against Canada, you hve cheated the Canwest wiki article readers about sale of Canada's newspaper monopoly, and that Canwest publishing division in the 2009 financial storm made an operating profit of 177 million. Canada's newspapers still made money during the 2009; how,cause Canwest has been reducing costs and shrinking the newpapers staff from the start, so is an essential fact. [16] --Haida chieftain (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Haida chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

These people have been controlling the Canwest wiki article, and working together to use the 3 revert rule to censor facts. I don't get paid to contribue to wiki Canwest article, they do.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM Syrthiss (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wiki has a legal duty to not harm or threaten users of small countries, contributing to their nation's articles in wikipedia

It is an issue for the World Security Council that wikipedia is GPSing people wikipedia censors. Wikipedia writing a world encolypedia, on everything, on every nation, creates a legal duty, a moral responsibility, to protect whistle blowers enticed to write about words that concern their nation's national security, in wiki. Small nations have words that wiki wishs to article, be proud wiki, but don't threaten those people of little nations whistle blowing. It is a concern that those that gave the pid in words, did this as a threat, intentional. Appologize. --Haida chieftain (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you stop talking bollocks, or you'll have this talkpage as well. Nobody is GPS-ing you: ISPs provide information on the approximate geolocation of their IP addresses that anybody can look up on the internet. Even that isn't necessary when you're editing on a library computer, because the library has registered as the IP owner, and libraries tend not to move about much. And I've said before, if you want to persuade people of the wickedness of CanWest, or global capitalism or whatever, START A BLOG.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How come when I connect to wiki from a search engine, says new message. Everybody at the location gets that right? Sorry, not good enough.

This is your final warning for disruptive comments on this talk page. I will request that your ability to edit it be revoked if you use it for anything other than a legitimate unblocking request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regret I have to agree with NeilN. If you make any edits to this talk page other than a legitimate unblocking request, or if you make another attempt to circumvent your block by editing without logging in, then I must withdraw the offer of assistance I made above. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content from your user talk page

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. P.S. -- With your actions, it is absolutely evident that you refuse to cooperate, instead commandeering Wikipedia for your own use and our own use only, regardless of rules and others' opinions. Cease and desist more than immediately, or you will face further action. -- azumanga (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like, I'll pare your talk page down to just the block message and unblock request. However, do not refactor other users' comments—do not change their words, as you did to one of chzz's comments in this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please get to my question. What comments? Thanks for vandalizing my page edit, so could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.

It was not a particularly helpful comment. If you must know, here it is. Before you dwell too much on it, everybody acknowledges Halfshadow should not have said it. Now, you're basically on your last chance - will you acknowledge the reasons for your block? If so, we can work on conditions for your unblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

I have seen enough. Unblock requests full of WP:SOAP, an WP:BATTLE mentality, and accusations about people being against Canada. I'm Canadian, and I'm in favour of protecting this project from non-WP:NPOV. I have locked this talkpage. Additional requests can go to the unblock e-mail account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have semiprotected this talk page, since Haida chieftain seems to be using an IP to evade his talk page block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]