User talk:Ottawaman

political nerd am I

Lost comment

Hi - I accidentally over-wrote one of your comments. I had a funny connection for a second, that loaded the page twice, and you posted in the time between. Sorry. --Hamiltonian 20:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Just so you know, I've asked for this page [1] to be deleted, so there is no point in continuing to post links to it in as many places as you can. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was provided by the father of the child for use in articles on Down syndrome. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff

By the way, you don't have to question everything that's not apparently verified, only if you feel it's something that needs specific verification. Otherwise we'll never get done.

I didn't understand you last question, "Is it typical for the links to refer to the entire reference list as opposed to a particular reference? It makes it very hard to verify", since a numbered reference in the text does refer to a specific footnote. Tyrenius 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anon editing Ignatieff

Thank you for your note. It is actually not an anon. It is a registered user name, made from the digits of his IP address. The incident with the barnstar has been settled. The star has been deleted. I know you were concerned about this, but there is now no need to bring it up again, and doing so is likely to be regarded as trolling. We must move on and consider edits on their merits. Tyrenius 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that note. You are quite right that anons shouldn't be editing. In fact, it is impossible for them to edit, as the page is semi-protected. If you have any future concerns, feel free to draw my attention via my talk page. Tyrenius 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to a user page and click "user contributions" in the bottom box on the left hand side of the page, you will be able to see their edits, to tell if they are currently active. Tyrenius 22:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overwrite

Sorry, I had to overwrite. Do you mind reinstating your very recent posts? Tyrenius 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottawaman - I reinstated the overwritten post because then mine didn't make any sense. Hope that's OK. --Hamiltonian 18:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd just changed all the titles to sub-headings so sections could be edited individually and also be located in the Table of Contents at the top, and it took too long to start again following an edit conflict with you! Tyrenius 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I find your comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Ignatieff/Comments to be unconstructive and to be honest, somewhat troll-ish. I am asking you to reconsider them and perhaps write something a little more helpful. 72-139-185-19 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above post, which you complained to me about, I have had a discussion with 72-139-185-19 and explained, among other things, that I am drawing a line under past events, so we can move on. I hoped that would already have been clear from all the conversation on the talk page etc, but I think it is now, so I am sure you will not get a repeat of that post referring to something that happened previous to "the line". There is collaborative work going on, which you are participating in, as you said, so we should get the article to a point where you and other editors are able to feel that the points have been worked through to an acceptable resolution, and you will feel your earlier evaluation no longer applies.

I don't think you can ask an editor not to post on your talk page, if it is to discuss relevant matters, but provocative posts will of course bring repercussions. I don't think things have reached that point, and I recommend restraint for now.

I'm working through some other issues, so I haven't had time to check the Ignatieff talk page just now, but rest assured I will.

I hope this helps.

Tyrenius 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your wikibreak. You have certainly put everything under a microsope, and, at the end of the day, this can only help to improve the standard of a subject, where rigorous standards must be maintained. Tyrenius 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protection of Michael Ignatieff

I do not know who is right or who is wrong or neither do I know anyone is POV pushing, all I know is there is a content dispute and I protected the page according to WP:PPol. --WinHunter ^(talk) 12:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no justification for protection;imo. Ottawaman 10:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely justification for protection of the article. I had been watching the activity on my watchlist and was about to step in and do it myself but Winhunter beat me to it. I fully endorse and support his action. As you've been told many times before, such unproductive editing is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political forum. You lot really need to knock it off or you will all end up blocked like your friend Barb.

Also, FYI, you seem to have picked up an admirer. [2] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm on a wikibreak. Tyrenius 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off. Removing a completely inappropriate source which was deleted from Wikinews for the same reasons does not reflect a personal interest in Canadian politics or my adding content to the article. I didn't even know who Michael Ignatieff was until I read the Wikinews article and followed the link back here. Removing a source which violated our guidelines does not make me an involved admin or discredit my statement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, I acknowledged my removal of the Wikinews source nearly an hour ago. [3] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history shows over a dozen edits; not the 1 you admit to; stop the nonsense Sarah. Ottawaman 05:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah abused admin priviledge again

This time by blocking me...what an abuser of admin priviledge she is and all who condone her out of policy actions. Ottawaman 17:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to explain in which way you believe Sarah has "abused" her "admin priviledge"? I don't know you, have no interest whatsoever in the article you have been editing, but I do find your repeated deletion of comments from here with with edit summaries like (removed cliqueish opinions) (removed combative baiting) and (removed adhominum comments) rather incivil. It might be better, if you have something you want to say about your block, to leave good-faith comments like mine here and respond to them, than to continue. --Guinnog 19:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One user complains about me removing talk page edits while another endorses Sarah's right to remove talk page edits. It's difficult to communicate with such reasoning. ottawaman 02:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah had no right at all to block me; she makes continual false accusations and removes edits she doesn't like even on talk pages of articles in order to control things and then blocks the editors who make edits she doesn't like simply by calling them sockpuppets. She has blocked about 7 students here for no reason at all and the articles she has protected with no real justification[4][5] are completely frozen now; with the content she wants. ottawaman 02:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs

The RFC you filed was not in the right place - please use the format created when you click on the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct and file it as a candidate, not approved pages. Further, having reviewed the situation, I reccomend you just stop. JBKramer 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not interfere with RfC;

An admin suggested this matter be brought to RfC. ottawaman 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC has been deleted. The conclcusion that Methodology is an obvious sockpuppet of yourself was endorsed by over ten different admins on the RFC and at WP:ANI so I see no point in continuing. You have, however, succeeded in drawing considerable additional attention to yourself and your efforts to smear some guy I never heard of but now have on my watchlist. Have a nice day. Thatcher131 12:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of historical record of RfC

Wow; that is quite contrary to the whole concept of wiki,istm. ottawaman 13:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was endorsed only by you and your obvious sock. I suggest you just stop. JBKramer 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Ottawaman, I've extended your block due to your persistent block evasion. You are not welcome to edit under any username or IP until your block expires. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All your edits have been reverted.

If you believe this block to be unjustified, you can contest it by adding {{unblock|reason}} to the bottom of this page and replacing reason with an explanation of why you think this is an unjust block. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]