User talk:WikiWoo/Archive

Welcome back

I have to say, I was skeptical, but so far I'm impressed by the edits you've made. I haven't run through them with a fine-tooth comb or anything, but the ones I've glanced at seem fairly straightforward and in-line with WP policies. Keep up the good work! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second AbsolutDan's sentiments and also assure you that no one is "ganging up" on you. There is no conspiracy. If you source your edits and they are verifiable, then they are much more likely to be kept. You seem to have done this on Roger Maloney (although I haven't gone over it with a fine-toothed comb either). Also, Emil Kolb has been kept. I know you were pushing for that, so congratulations.

You could read WP:BIO if you want to explore further the kinds of people that are and are not considered notable for Wikipedia. Generally, a member of the Ontario provincial Parliament or the Canadian federal parliament would be notable enough to be kept. The policy isn't too clear on members of the Regional Municipality of Peel. I generally think that officials below the provincial level are not notable enough to have articles, but others obviously disagree. It's just a difference of opinion on what Wikipedia should cover, not an attempt to suppress information. However, if you write articles about local officials there is a danger that they will be deleted because they are non-notable. Again, see WP:BIO.

You did not provide sources for your edits on Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario and Chief administrative officer, however, and your edits to those articles may need to be changed. I would recommend doing research on the topics and providing sources. Sourced edits are harder to revert. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hello. Thank you for making those redirects. I noticed that your redirects weren't working. That is because your redirect linked to the full url of the page. Instead of doing that, you should make the redirects link to the title of the page so that it won't be a broken redirect. For example, insead of

#REDIRECT [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation]]

you can just use

#REDIRECT [[Legislation]]

I fixed the redirects that you made. See WP:R for more information about how to use redirects. --Sbluen 05:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got It!... Thanks. I should get the hang of it soon enough after a month or two working here WikiWoo 05:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Fennel edits

WikiWoo, Google results lists are not acceptable sources to cite. Your attempt to say that her popularity is based on her association with hockey and not her politics is also WP:NOR, which is not allowed. It is also faulty. Simply because more Google results include her association with hockey does not prove there would be fewer results if she was not associated with hockey, because any mention of her would likely coincidentally include that information. You seem to want to reform you ways, so let's go through this step by step. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of sorts. We don't do original research here--it's not a place for the opinions of editors. It's not a place for the self-gathered information of editors. If I did substantial research into the mating patterns of some kind of butterfly, even if I'm kinda qualified to speak on the matter, it's unpublished research and is inappropriate for Wikipedia. You clearly are still working on an agenda. You have points to prove, and you're trying to collect Google results to prove those points. Not only does this clearly violate WP:NPOV, but it's just bad form. If you can find a reliable source that says that Fennel is "connected" to William Davis (and what does "connected" mean--make sure you explain what kind of connection you're talking about), then by all means, cite it. Don't infer that she is "connected" to him because the two names can come up together on a Google search. That is highly unscientific and simply cannot happen here. Oz Lawyer 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks that rather than all you protests you couold have simple replaced the word "connected" with associated, or on-the-same-page with, or any number of other words to show she is part of the Davis group in Peel.

Dear Osgoode Lawyer

I am attempting to add good content and balance the article because someone with an agenda was publichsing here before me. Political affiliation appears to be a point of concern and reference for other people here since it is used for other Mayors in her relevant area and therefore feel that a reference should be made for her political affiliations as well. I guess you did not read the referenced google search results themselves and have made a bald statement. I will reword and add better cites taken from the search results to show her political affiliation with Bill Davis.

It is a household fact that Susan was unheard of in Brampton before she started the WNHL. Ask any of the close to 450,000 people in Brampton. Susan did a fantastic job of raising increadible sums of money from local Brampton businesses and developers while she was a Region of Peel Councillor. She hit ground running with WNHL to become THE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE for women for ALL Canada in three short years. This is key information about what it was that made her famouos and responsible for her becoming Mayor of Brampton.

These are important facts about this notable public figure. This is not orginal reasearch, this is just local fact. You seem to be confused as to what constititutes a known fact vs. some original research as in a discovery not yet published. Wiki is an Encyclopedia of Information. You seem to suggest it is summary of other people's POV's and that unless someone has alread "said" something in the same way you should not publish it here, which sounds kind of rediculous.

I would suggest that everyone that has ever published anything had an agenda or would not bother to educate anyone about it; but being that as it may, the way to deal with that concern is to edit to add content that provides MORE information so that Wiki gets better, broader with more information people can use to draw their own conclusions rather than stiffle knowledge by deleting people's good work to keep locally widely held information secret. That these statements of local facts have not obtained wide publication does not mean they should not be on Wiki. egg. No one in the world is going to care how Mayor Fennel rose in popularity outside of Brampton, but this may be good information to 450,000 people living in Brampton. If tomorrow she runs for Prime Minister again this might them be a notable fact about her on a wider level more people may care about to know.

I am the editor of it and I value this as good and interesting information on the subject. I will take your feedback about my work and make edits to reflect your concerns and please feel free to help by adding information or with wording of known facts. WikiWoo 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on the value of google searches

None of your references really make a point of political affiliations. The first is about Brampton's sequicentennial celebrations, so obviously the most famous Brampton politician, Bill Davis, and the current Mayor, Susan Fennell, would likely be involved in a big way. I cannot see how that is about politics in any meaningful way. I'm sure the other references work the same way. The fact that you are still including lists of Google results as references is also very disconcerting. That is clearly original research--since one has to draw one's own conclusion from the results. It's also just incredibly bad form.

As for when Susan Fennell became "heard of", I'd say for most Bramptonians it was when she ran for and won in the mayoral race. I certainly had heard of her before then, however, but I actually hadn't even heard of the NWHL until after Ms Fennell had become mayor. What you think is a household fact may be nothing of the sort. All you have to do is cite a reliable source that says that, and it'll stay. Otherwise, it's original research and unacceptable.

The policy on original research may sound ridiculous, but that is actually the way it is on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge already researched by others. My own research is not acceptable content (including my interpretation of facts). If it's a "known fact" then it's published somewhere. If not, then likely you think it's a known fact, but others do not. Despite your plea about the futility of finding a published source for your claims, there's plenty of information written about Brampton politics. Maybe you ought to comb through the back issues of the Brampton Guardian. I'm afraid, however, that you are committing the "wikisin" of original research with your recent edits. Oz Lawyer 16:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check it out, Hazel McCallion's associated with Hitler! See how idiotic your citation method is? Oz Lawyer 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your problem is you don't bother reading the contents in the google search results and only look at the number of hits to draw your adverse conclusions about my work. You being a Lawyer and all I should think you would be more professional about getting to your conclusions on facts. I hope you are happy with the Fennell revision that now quotes a few of the individual cites, or would you rather I posted hundreds of references to proove a simple valid fact that adds interesting informative content. 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very important paragraph from WP:NOR:

However, original research is more than just no personal crank theories. It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. Oz Lawyer 17:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am reporting facts in my own words as best I can to convey information and withouot adding conclusions. You are the one that seem to be gnawinig at conclusion in your own mind and infering motives and agendas that don't exist. My agenda is to publish interesting and factual information that people should know. You are better served by helping the process by tweeking the wording to remove what you may perceive as bias or slant. But don't confuse that process with CENSORING information you don't like or think people should NOT know about. Wiki should not be a source of anyones propaganda or missinformation by selective publication of facts. You will note that in my work I do my best to ADD information and reword others to balance. There is no such think as too much fact or too much information. If you think something is unbalanced then find something to add to balance it. Deleting to balance is a form of censorship to propagate disinformation.18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

- - As an example, if all of the writting on Hitler (Stalin, Idi Amin, Papa Doc etc.) had to be totally balanced to give a neutral final report on the subject you would have quite a challange since the numner of negative facts available would outweigh the possitive ones. Are you suggesting that we should have 5 positive and 5 positive facts published on any one subject. What would be trully idiotic is if there are only 5 good facts on a subject and 100 bad ones we can only publish 5 good and 5 bad as your implied form of balance reporting. I agree with opinions being as neutral and balanced as reasonable and we should work together on fixing opinion statements; but fact are just facts and should be simply listed good and bad and let people then be free to draw their own conclusions and make their own opinions.WikiWoo 18:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - As far as google search results go; they are in fact a list of other people's published work. Each one represents an article published somewhere by somebody. A google search result is in fact a whole LIST OF CITES. Your refusal to review the cites found there and to pose legitimate objections based on something already published that supports your possition reflects a failure on your part to support your objections over the work in question.

need a cite for everything posted?

WikiWoo, you need to cite each individual article or page. A result list is for YOU to look through, not the reader of the Wikipedia article. You have to cite SPECIFICS, not huge generalities. Why not just cite "The Internet". I mean, everyone can do a Google search themselves, can't they? You have come to conclusions. You have taken a result list and concluded something from it (and something that it really doesn't say). A Google result list is not a published source. It cannot, ever, be used as a source. There can be no debate on this. Oz Lawyer 18:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your possition is rediculous. I wrote a piece in my own words based on reading the cites and putting the information other people have published and this is the function here. Or are you now suggesting we do Cut and Paste. You wanted the sources and I cited them. You have a contrary fact or cite then publish that too. If you read the cite and see a better way to convey the informmation desired ok. But don't keep looking for ways to LIMIT or REDUCE information published without good reason since that is CENSORSHIP. Fix the wording but not the facts...please. WikiWoo 18:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up: Look at the statement about Susan Fennell resigning as commissioner of the NWHL. The sentence in the article SAYS THAT. The reference is to an article that SAYS THAT. That's how you cite. Go read an article in a peer-reviewed journal. That's how it's done. You reference a page or article that says what you say it says. A Google results page absolutely cannot do that. My position is not ridiculous, it is how the academic world works. I assure you. Oz Lawyer 18:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should go work at a peer-reviewed journal Fix the information if its not in the correct form you like, but don't delete substance. You are becoming a vandal over this.WikiWoo 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added any substance. It's all your opinion and nothing else. Oz Lawyer 22:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be CIVIL Lawyer. I have not seen anything of yours published here. You take away information you don't want people to know. Not a good example of an volunteer editor for an encyclopedia.

I'm being quite civil for the attitude you're giving me about Wikipedia's policies (as if I created them). If you want to see some of my work, check out Newfoundland Tricolour and Flag of Labrador, two pages I'm particularly proud of (particularly the first one). You can check out User:Osgoodelawyer/pages_created for a full list of pages I've created--including the Susan Fennell article itself. Oz Lawyer 22:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzie, we seem to be at odd on your interpretation of the of the rules. I got no problem with working with rules. Maybe you can do less twisting of them in your favour so we can get some work done making Wiki bigger and better.WikiWoo 19:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my interpretation. Read the rules. Honestly, read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from beginning to end. Don't skim them--read every word. In fact, read them two or three times. Oz Lawyer 19:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could actually try to comprehend the good guidance Osgoodelawyer provided rather than make some vacuous, flippant remark that shows no effort to understand why most of your "references" were of no value. It's all been explained and has nothing to do with being at odds on the interpretation of rules. --Gary Will 19:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're both a little close to the situation. Also Wikiwoo is relatively new member of our community. It is not always trivially easy to understand the way in which *contentious* articles are writen. Viewing wikipedia, without context, the vast majority of articles are not contentious and so a person gets the feeling for that the way they all should be writen. Which is true to an extent, but when there is conflict, then the actual procudure somewhat changes in-practice. Although the policies do not change, its just the actual fact, the non-contentious articles are simply not writen in the same way. So. Maybe you all could collaborate on something that would pass muster. Wjhonson 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo isn't quite as new as he seems. He was previously User:WikiDoo and User:WikiRoo. And the concept that citations should actually say what you claim they do is not excatly some arcane point. --Gary Will 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, he wasn't citing at all anyway. Just reading a bunch of pages, and then creating "his own words" of what they say. Which is fine for non-contentious articles. Once there is contentiousness, than a more formal method of citation should be used. I still think that you could co-operate on a page that would be WP:NPOV. If "Hockey" is contentious, don't mention it, or mention that her relationship with it is contentious. There's room enough for both views, provided you can find some WP:RS that is WP:V that supports both views. Wjhonson 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, WikiWoo, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Hi, and Welcome. I may have welcomed you before, when you were here under a different name, if so, "Welcome back" instead of "Welcome". I'm sorry to hear you had such a bad experience the first time around. It looks like you're getting the hang of things. If there's anything I can do to help, just leave me a message on my talk page. Brian 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Please be civil

If you haven't already read WP:CIVIL, please do so. There are also a number of other useful links on that page to other articles that you might want to read. As far as I can see from the dialogs above, everyone is trying to help you out and I don't see any signs of vandalism. "No original research" (wp:nor) is a Wikipedia policy and to avoid having work deleted it is best to properly cite specific published works that support your writing. I do believe you are trying to learn the ropes and make a positive contribution - and I'll be happy to help you, if you want. Brian 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Thanks Brian. I am doing my best. I should get the hang of it after a few months here.WikiWoo 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more tip

Sometimes when you're unhappy with the action another editor takes it's good to get an outside opinion. There's a formal process WP:3o or you could just leave a message on the talk page of someone who's opinion you trust. There are a number of very helpful administrators (if you want, I can recommend one or two), but it doesn't have to be an administrator, really anyone that has a decent amount of experience here and that you trust. Good luck, I know it can be frustrating at first ... Brian 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

That would be great!... I have a lot of specific expertise in many areas few other people have and with someone more up to the rules of conduct and facing challangers, we could make a great Wiki Team. I'm no lawyer like some of the people here I am trying to work with. If you know someone good that likes to work with information I can provide them I would be much obliged. WikiWoo 20:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Maloney

Can you acquaint me with your claim for notability for this person? I would be interested in working with you on a new bio possibly :) Wjhonson 23:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Roger Maloney the former CAO of Peel Region was the highest paid municipal civil servant in Ontario outside of Health Care. When he was appointed to CAO of Peel Region, Peel Region was deep in debt like many other Region's in Ontario. Under his administrative control, The Region of Peel paid its debt and accumulated $1.2 Billion tax surplus in about 5 years time. Many of the other Regions followed his example and are now in high surplus or on their way to doing the same. He is responsible for much of the way Regional administrative activities have evolved into the current state they are now.WikiWoo 00:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a protected version of his bio in your user space somewhere that I can view? Wjhonson 00:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is the Bio I have been trying to write up (I have more things to add to this about key highlights of his career while he was on the job in Peel and the circumstances surounding his abrupt departure which all make for interesting content of historical notariety 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Biography of Roger Maloney

Roger Maloney was with the Region of Peel for more than 30 years. As Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of the Region of Peel, a position he has held from 1997 to 2005, Roger oversaw a diversified organization made up of approximately 4,000 employees in eight departments who serve over 1 million residents, spending over One billion dollars per year and accumulating over One Billion dollars surplus by the time of his departure.

Roger began his career with the Ministry of Community and Social Services before joining the Region in the late 1970’s. Roger started with the Region as a Supervisor of Social Assistance in Ontario Works, moved on to Administrator of Sheridan Villa and then joined the Housing department as its Director of Operations before advancing to the role of Commissioner of Housing and General Manager of Peel Living.

Known for his strong leadership and commitment to excellence, Roger is dedicated to continuous improvement at the Region of Peel and currently leads the corporation’s excellence journey through the National Quality Institute. Roger has also successfully led staff during many United Way employee campaigns, raising an average of $100,000 each year for United Way agencies in Peel.

His current affiliations and memberships include:

National Quality Institute (NQI) Board of Governors Board Member, Social Housing Services Corporation Chair, Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) Board Member, Ontario Centre for Municipal Best Practices (OLMBP) Federation of Canadian Municipalities Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators International City/County Management Association Ontario Municipal Administrators’ Association The Ontario Municipal Management Institute Regional Chairs/CAO of Ontario Association of Municipalities of Ontario United Way of Peel Region Cabinet Brampton and Mississauga Boards of Trade Canadian Housing Renewal Association

I would suggest truncating the "current affiliations" to no more than perhaps the two or three most notable, and I don't see any references for this bio. The first step I usually do, is to compile a set of references, say three or five that mention him in some noteworthy way, and then try to splice them all together. One of the complaints was that your bio seems to be a cut-and-paste job, if you have multiple references cited, you can avoid this issue. Wjhonson 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I noticed, descriptions like "Known for his strong leadership" and "commitment to excellence" and "dedicated to continuous improvement" and "excellence journey" (unless this is a title of a program and then should be capitalized) and "successfully led staff" all smack of WP:POV. That is, you are asserting, yourself, as an editor, that he is strong, committed, dedicated and excellent. To avoid this appearance, you can "quote" a source stating this, and add a citation to who said this. That way you are reporting what someone else said, you are not saying it yourself. Hope that makes sense

Wjhonson 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truths or Lies ?

If you'd read your references, you'd see that they are clearly not saying what you want them to. For instance, your claim that Susan Fennell ran as a Tory in note 6 is completely outrageous. The text of that page is someone else saying that Susan Fennell would have been a good candidate for the Brampton West riding. That says nothing like what you claim it says. You're continuing to use Google search results as a reference--I cannot stress this enough--THAT IS NOT A VALID REFERENCE! Oz Lawyer 00:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My my... you are incredibly persistent. She ran in the 1993 Federal Election as a Progressive Conservative candidate. I'll revise it for you with a new cite to the election results. Is that better?WikiWoo 01:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page so that Fennell's 1993 run is fully Wikified. The claims about the ties between Fennell and Davis need much better documentation, as Osgoodelawyer has thoroughly explained. --Gary Will 02:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to count

That was two reversions from me. There was an earlier edit by another user that you apparently mistook to be a reversion from me. You might try actually counting to three before posting accusations -- and giving your critics even more examples to cite of your chronic un-Wiki-like behaviour. --Gary Will 18:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing you did 2RR. Don't forget that if you make one more you're out.WikiWoo 19:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 3RR means you can make three edits, and a FOURTH edit is against the policy. Oz Lawyer 19:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections in the Susan Fennell article

First off, articles on people do not form a set--they do not have to be consistent with each other. But secondly, and more importantly, sections are used when articles are long enough to warrant them. The Susan Fennell article is just a stub. Once it is long enough, and each "section" is large enough, it can be split into true sections. A section is absolutely not warranted for a single sentence. In fact, to make such a section, as you're trying to do with your recent edits, is giving that information more attention than it is due--it shows that you are pushing a particular point of view. Oz Lawyer 18:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are getting ridiculous again. Are we going to have to file another RfC against you? Oz Lawyer 19:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is you that's being ridiculous.21:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The old RfC is still open, you could just update it. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3RR

You have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule by undoing the actions of other editors four times in seven hours on the Brampton, Ontario article: 1) 12:43, July 23, 2006, 2) 12:51, July 23, 2006, 3) 16:38, July 23, 2006, 4) 19:43, July 23, 2006. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Gary Will 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegantion is untrue. I made one revert to the four pure reverts you and user:OsgoodLawyer made. The others where edits I made trying to apease the two of you on the wording of the factual content expanding Wiki and the removing POV the two of you keep advancing over pure fact I posted.WikiWoo 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A revert is a revert is a revert. Oz Lawyer 02:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some day you could actually read the Wikipedia policy pages that people have been pointing you to for the last month. --Gary Will 03:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

half truths are premedetated lies. Just because you and your buddy keep saying something does not make it true.WikiWoo 03:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do was click on the link and read the policy. Instead, you just dismiss Wikipedia policy as lies with another shallow response that shows no sign of actually reading the material people directed you to. I think everyone has become tired of your delusional, self-important rantings of "conspiracies" and "propagandists." Your contributions are very badly written, poorly researched, and often filled with POV. When they're improved by other editors (and they would have to be), you flip out and start ranting about conspiracies. We must be up to 20 people now that are plotting against you, in your world. There's a spirit of accommodation and compromise here, but a small number of people are just too far gone to be anything but a disruption. --Gary Will 13:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solution to your problems here

I think I may have a solution to your problems here. You could create new articles or copy existing articles to pages that read "User:WikiWoo/subject". These would probably not be erased, as your name comes first, and they would still be on the Internet for people to read. I could help you with this, if you'd like. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem. It's these conspiring propaganda pushers that have the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs)

There is no conspiracy. People just want articles to be well-sourced and well-written. Unfortunately, your contributions fall short. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we get all kinds on Wiki. I see a lot of propaganda being pushed here. I may not be the best of editors, but I have some good content. Other people here can alway fix and help build Wiki. We all have something to contribute. I am not much for format and rule twisting, but I have the content and can spot the propaganda from being on the inside for decades. What burns me is the deletion of facts and good content. If these people had any legitimate interest in making Wiki better, they would try editing to add the content, fix cites etc. What I am seeing is people trying to advance their agenda and publish half truths and misinformation. So I get excited at times when I see them act blatantly to supress information. - We should all be trying to publish as much as we can and let other people draw their own POV and not manipulate readers by pushing propaganda.WikiWoo 03:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As people have pointed out to you numerous times, your additions to the articles do not have reliable sources. When I tried to help you clean up your grammar, you accused me of trying to mislead people. You have now refused my further help and have made groundless claims of propaganda pushing. I tried to help you but you have completely exhausted my patience. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate use of "Minor Edit" marker

Hi WikiWoo! I've just come from the Hazel McCallion article, where I noticed that you made some good changes which were mislabeled as "minor". Please have a look at Help:Minor edit for guidelines on when to mark your edits as minor. Cheers. BFD1 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario High Court of Justice

I've redirected this to Ontario Court of Justice, as the High Court is a former court which no longer exists. Oz Lawyer 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

WikiWoo, you have already been warned about the inappropriate use of the minor edit checkbox. BFD1 explained this to you, and you are again marking major edits as minor ones. If an edit is contested it cannot ever be marked as minor. In fact, I believe there may be reason to revert edits marked as minor which are clearly not so. Oz Lawyer 13:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Grind to a halt"

Hi, WikiWoo, I was going to try to appease you by saying that "In response, Fennell has threatened to grind the Region to a halt." And leave it at that. But I just read over the Brampton Guardian article you've been quoting, and I have to say it doesn't fit. First off, regardless of the title, Susan Fennell is not directly quoted as saying "grind to a halt"--something that, if she did say, it would be directly quoted as sensationalist. What she said was:

"We will not go back to the region. We will not attend, the region will start to break down, and we will start to take legal steps to be a stand alone city and the region is over because we have to get on with the business of serving our citizens,"

Now, this was said on April 1st, before the debate on the issue. It is also clearly stated in the article that it would be in response to Mississauga being given control of Peel Region. As you likely know, Mississauga was not given control of Peel Region--it was given 50% of the seats. So the comment (which she didn't make in the words quoted) isn't even relevant to the situation at hand!

I will now absolutely not stand for its inclusion, and I believe that you cannot justify its inclusion. Oz Lawyer 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also, I read the Hansard--Davis wasn't even at the debate. He was an observer at a Town Hall meeting in Brampton. You really might want to get your facts straight before attempting to insert them into this article. Oz Lawyer 14:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I read the Hansard, and the objections seem mostly to do with the way the bill looks at seats to be allotted by current populations, not future population growth. The issue is that since Brampton will be growing so much in the next few years, while Mississauga will not, Brampton needs more say than they currently have, because it is Brampton that will be more affected by the decisions of the Regional Council. I will have to reword the article to show what the real objection is. Oz Lawyer 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see which side of your bread the butter is on. That Brampton is growing like everywhere else is a nonsensical reason to keep an anti-democratic set up on the Council. Brampton's own number say they wont reach anywhere near Mississauga's current pupulation untill after 2031. So She wants to have anti-democratic system sitting for 30 years so she can catch up to Mississauga then? Mississauga will be 1.5 Million people by that time. What a bunch of Propaganda Spun Crap you want people to get the impression of. What are you charging by hour these days to twist facts into your clients favour?WikiWoo 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Who cares what I think? It's what they are arguing. Oz Lawyer 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example of [not very well] hidden POV

Let me show you an example of your POV showing through in a very simple and even truthful edit (but which cannot be allowed to stand). You took this:

Fennell was instrumental in the creation of the National Women's Hockey League, the premier women's hockey league in North America. She served as its commissioner from its inception in 1999 until her resignation in July 2006.

and turned it into this:

Fennell was instrumental in the creation of the National Women's Hockey League, the premier women's hockey league in North America. She served as its commissioner from its inception in 1999, the year immediately before her mayoral bid, until her resignation in July 2006.

Now, you might say "but, that's the truth!" in an attempt to defend your addition. While it is the truth, it is, first off, clearly unnecessary--anyone who knows how to count can tell you that 1999 comes before 2000--so there is no reason to add it to clarify when it happened. But more importantly, the fact that you are trying to point out that it happened "the year before her mayoral bid" shows that you are trying to connect an ulterior motive to her commissioning the NWHL--namely, to boost her popularity in order to win the election. In fact, you've said this explicitly in earlier edits, so you cannot deny it. That, my friend, is a clear example of inserting your own bias and POV into an article. And that, my friend, cannot be allowed to stand. Oz Lawyer 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You appearently are concerned wiith people not getting that impression. I am concerned with people having the opportunity to consider that possibility. Your POV vs my POV. It's a fact. I happen to know its true from being on the inside. But I am not asserting my POV on this, but I think providng all facts that allow people to draw their own conclusion on important event is necessary. What you are doing is CENSORING to avoid people drawing conclusions from facts.WikiWoo 16:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. By including a USELESS bit of information (1999 is the year before 2000--wow, I can figure thay out all on my own) you are injecting POV. People can draw that conclusion if they want without you pushing them towards it. I'm not pushing them towards anything. Honestly, ask another editor what they think of it. Oz Lawyer 17:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your mind! If its useless than what's your beef? I want to point out that she started just the year before she took out a 3 term mayor when she came out from obscurity. She is a dull polititian with the two highlights of her career which is fundrasing from business for the WNHH and standing up for keeping Peel Region around.

The fact itself is useless--everyone knows 1999 comes before 2000. To include the useless fact in the way you are shows that you are clearly trying to make readers of the article think what you think, which is a complete no-no. It can't stand--period. Oz Lawyer 17:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Make up your mind! If its useless than what's your beef? I want to point out that she started just the year before she took out a 3 term mayor when she came out from obscurity. She is a dull polititian with the two highlights of her career which are fundrasing for the WNHH and standing up for keeping Peel Region around.WikiWoo 18:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding

I read your talk page a bit, randomly skimming recent changes...I remember when I first started editing wikipedia. I was a vandal, seriously. I'm glad you've chosen to stick around and be a "useful engine;" we need more of those. Have a great day, and I'm glad you're here. Niki Whimbrel 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Davis

I have explained time and time again that Bill Davis has nothing to do with this. The quote in the Ontario Legislature debates makes it explict that he was just an observer at a Town Hall meeting in Brampton. He was not on a side, and he was not there at the Legislature either. You cannot keep inserting this--it's a boldfaced lie to say that he is working with Susan Fennell when he himself has said that he is not. Seriously, STOP! Oz Lawyer 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to continue this forever? Oz Lawyer 18:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages

Since you can't do math:

If Brampton currently has 5 councillors plus the mayor out of 22, that's 6/22 or approximately 27.27% of the council.

When Brampton's seats rise to 6 plus the mayor out of 25, that's 7/25 or 28% of the council. In fact, Brampton's percentage rises.

So, again, you're inserting incorrect information. Oz Lawyer 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep spewing propaganda. Everyone knows Mississauga went up to 50%. Brampton and Caledon have always worked as a Team and always appointed Hair Kolb who is from Caledon to have jontly the clear majority. Now its split 50%-50%. It's goinig to get real messy when they can't apoint Kolb with a tie vote, which leave the maajority up in the air. Its going to get real interesting in November and lots of history will be made for expandinig Wiki in this comples area of creative governance going on in Peel Region.WikiWoo 01:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits again

I will have to report your abuse if you continue to mark major (and contested) edits as minor. Again, please see Help:Minor edit for instruction on what is and isn't a minor edit. Oz Lawyer 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do like to streatch the truth don't you. The default is m and I always add a description. You making a montain out of this mole hill too, shows how desparate you are to keep propaganda and censorship alive on Wiki.WikiWoo 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The default is not minor. It doesn't matter if you add a description, the minor tag exists for a reason. You must stop using it inappropriately. One reason why this is so is that one can set to hide minor changes. People who choose this option do not want major edits masquerading as minor edits being hidden. As I said, the minor edit checkbox exists for a reason and you have now been notified of its correct use once by BFD1 and repeatedly by me. You will certainly be held to using the minor edit correctly from now on. Oz Lawyer 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points, dissected

Please respond to each of these. Really. Each one. EACH ONE.

She acted to protect Brampton's position on the Peel Region Council, including unsuccessfully lobbying the Ontario Legislature against a proposed bill which effectively reduces Brampton's percentage of seats on the the Regional Council, in Mississauga's favour,

Wrong, the math shows that Brampton's seat percentage rises.

In furtherance of this activity she worked with a team of Brampton area public figures, including Bob Callahan, Grant Gibson, Susan DiMarco, Sandra Hames, Gael Miles, John Hutton

You mean they showed up to discussions about it? Duh. They're councillors. It's their job.

and even Bill Davis the former Premier of Ontario

Again, this is untrue. The Hansard gives explicit evidence against this. Quotes from the mouth of Bill Davis disputing this.

as well as members of Brampton City Staff, and went as far as threatoning to grind the Region of Peel to a halt by her statement that..."We will not go back to the region. We will not attend, the region will start to break down, and we will start to take legal steps to be a stand alone city and the region is over because we have to get on with the business of serving our citizens..."

As I said, this comment has to do with if Mississauga was given control over Peel Regional Council, which did not occur. It was made before the Regional Municipality of Peel Act, 2005 was passed. As I have stated, Mississauga did not gain a majority of seats on the council, and therefore this comment does not refer to what you are pretending it does.

Oz Lawyer 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment and revert?

It was a redirect to a page with all the information you are attempting to include but in a properly organized form. Oz Lawyer 20:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please stop making useless redirects. What you want to do is put the name you want to show up in the article after a pipe. Example: [[Brampton, Ontario|woogle-oogle]] gives you a link to [[Brampton, Ontario]] which shows as woogle-oogle. (click it!) Oz Lawyer 21:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding

I read your talk page a bit, randomly skimming recent changes...I remember when I first started editing wikipedia. I was a vandal, seriously. I'm glad you've chosen to stick around and be a "useful engine;" we need more of those. Have a great day, and I'm glad you're here. Niki Whimbrel 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Susan Fennell edits

You succeeded in getting the one bit of information that was encylopedic inserted into this article. Everything else is clearly POV. The fact that Susan Fennell had councillors with her isn't really important--first, why wouldn't they be there, and second, who cares? As for Davis, I explained in my edit that he was there to watch. The Hansard has a quote from him specifically saying that he was there to see how it went, not to influence it. Now, the whole idea of making one single act by the mayor a section when the rest of the three periods of her political life (city councillor, regional councillor, and other activities as mayor) each only get one paragraph is ludicrous. Everyone who reads your contributions can see you have one single reason for editing Wikipedia: to disparage Peel Region. Now, taking that into mind, maybe you could look at your edits more closely. Every single word you write is slanted in that direction. As I said, the one fact that was encyclopedic is included in the article now. You have prevailed on that front. However, I will not allow your irrelevant additions to stand. Oz Lawyer 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would stop insulting me with your conspiracy theories about my motives. I don't know how much you are getting paid as a lawyer to screw up Wiki and spin the information your way. I am adding new factual information which I see as intresting and encylopedic. To each his own as to what interests them. When I put factual information up, I expect people to respect the facts. If you want to add other facts to balance that's fine. But deleting things you don't like people to know is not going to get you anywhere. You want to censor Wiki, but that is against its rules and I will not allow THAT to stand. I have no problem with you adding more. But deleting WITHOUT A VERY good reason is a NO NO.WikiWoo 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories?! You're the one who's been screaming about conspiracy theories. Anyway, it's clear what your motives are--look at your edits. To every article related to the issue and NOTHING ELSE. You just accused me of being paid to "screw up wiki"--that's crazy talk itself. As I have said, the attention you're giving to the one issue is disproportionate to its importance, and that screams of POV-pushing. I have given good reason for reverting your edits. Nothing about what I am doing is censorship, it is just good editing practice. Oz Lawyer 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaking my field of expertise with an agenda. I am an expert in regional structure and the goings on with that particular level of government. This is my area of contribution to Wiki, among a few others. If you stick to editing words instead of propagading propaganda by cencoring information you would be doing everyone a service. An encyclopedia is a source of information and not a place to advance your agenda about the way you want people to think about things. Facts are facts. Some may be more iinteresting than others to different people. Your views of what people care to know about is not a measure of anything. Don't delete factual content, even if you find it trivial. Other people, like me for instance find it important and notable.WikiWoo 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts are not just facts. The way you present facts shows bias. This happens, for instance, when you give an issue more than its just due. Your "field of expertise" seems to be reiterating the same "facts" on any page you can find even remotely related to the issue. The issue really belongs in the Region of Peel page and nowhere else except for minor mention. To place it wherever you can is clearly showing that you have an agenda. The sooner you recognize this, the sooner we can get back to editing Wikipedia properly. Oz Lawyer 22:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you are so concerned with not stating facts and removing them from Wiki. If its the way the fact is worded, there are a million ways to word a fact. But you seem more preocupied with deleting fact and not providing facts. If someone takes the time to post a fact they must see it interesting or notable. Who died and made you judge of whats interesting or not? The sooner you start editing and stop censoring the sooner Wiki can be made better and more informative. The objective it to expand and not to retard Wiki as your way of editing seems to suggest. You fixation with imaging people's motives make you look like you are wearing a tin foil hat.WikiWoo 23:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to appreciate what a fine job we both have done to make Susan Fennel a notable person. Go back to the original before I started and you started editing and see what a difference we have made. She when from a bimbo cheerleader chick at a rock concert, to a Notable Mayor wearing her chains and being the subject of much interesting activity. You should be proud of the fine work we have done together. This is a true example of the spirit of Wiki at work. I am quite in awe at the transformation.WikiWoo 23:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, Susan Fennell didn't get any more notable because I fixed up the page. And secondly, we did not fix up the page--I did. As I have explained dozens of times now, it's not only wording, although you do word all your edits terribly. Susan Fennell also uses the bathroom. She also eats dinner. These are facts. Do they get into the article? No. The fact that you wanted to insert has been inserted. In a completely neutral manner. Who was there with her is going into too much detail for an article on Susan Fennell. If it was an article on the issue itself, perhaps who was there besides Susan Fennell might be important. But this is an article on Susan Fennell. It has to do with her actions. I already explained why your inclusion of Bill Davis in the already irrelevant list was simply erroneous. If you read the Hansard, you will see that he was an observer and not part of Fennell's group. Here, let's go over this again. Susan Fennell defeated Bill Cowie in the last election by a specific margin. In the article, this is stated. It doesn't go into who was sitting next to Susan Fennell when this happened. It states the important fact in a neutral manner. I understand that you may not think that you are writing with an agenda, but you clearly are. The issue you are devoting your life to is now included in the article in the appropriate proportion to the total article. It is a single issue out of thousands the mayor has had to deal with. Oz Lawyer 13:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your problem is that you don't feel (or are unaware of the importance of her activity and the Peel Region issue. This is a matter of historic proportions and no other Mayor in Ontario has ever faced or done what she has done. By the end of it all in the future The Region of Peel will either be disbaanded as a government and 4000 people displaced from public employement in Peel or the City of Misiissauga and Brampton will be disolved and the 5000 People employed by them will be displaced. This huge issue will also expand into other Regional Government structure in Ontario as they all have to face the same issue sooner or later. Your attempts to CENSOR this important and interesting information is unaceptable. Try working with the facts and stop vandalizing the article by deleting good and important content.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (this link isn't here for fun--read it). We'll see how important it is in time. The one important fact has been incorporated into my edits. It has not been removed! Oz Lawyer 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits amount to censorship and white wash of the biggest thing she did and was involved with in her entire lifetime and that is of historic proportions. WikiWoo 13:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But my edits keep the only encyclopedic part of what she did--that fact that she did it--intact. How can that be censorship? The issue is discussed in full on the Region of Peel page where it belongs. This is the Susan Fennell article--it's for her actions alone. Oz Lawyer 13:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am now working on the Davis and Fennel connection you are so concerned about. Lets try to work together to make it a new subsection. Since I am an expert in these things and followed the developments since before anything was ever many public you have to appreciate that I know much more than the average person. I have to look up old articles that back up what I know to be facts to apease you and I will as best I can. What I would appreciate is your cooperation in asking me for cites on what you don't consider common knowledge. You also have to excuse my writig style because english is not my first language.WikiWoo 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section "deleted" by vandals

WikiWoo, if you'll look in the table of contents at the top of this page, you will see that the section you claim was deleted by us vandals, titled "Understanding" has not been deleted at all. It is section number 26 (and your paste of it is 32). Oz Lawyer 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If you would stop spamming my talk page creating new sections on the same subject that might not happen. You never did say how much you are charging by the hour to spew your Regional propaganda.WikiWoo 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I didnt think such a ridiculous accusation warranted a response. But since you insist--I don't charge a cent. I have nothing to do with the City of Brampton or the Region of Peel, and if you took thirty seconds to read my user page, you'd see that I am a law student. As for spamming your talk page--if you keep making edits that require responses, you will continue to get them. Oz Lawyer 05:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits and more

Hi WikiWoo,

You're starting to go off on the wrong foot again - in my opinion. Please stop marking non-minor changes as minor ... if in doubt, just leave them marked as normal changes. Several editors have already mentioned this to you. I continue to believe that your intentions are good - but your apparently irritating at least part of the community you need to work with. I'm impartial (I believe) I really don't understand the politics you're discussing but I have read through all the discussion above, the articles under discussion and most (if not all) of the edits. I did try to reach you by email, but apparently you're email is not published on Wikipedia. If you'd like to reach me by email to discuss this, mine is: it's btball@gmail.com. Please try to listent to the feedback from editors - most of them are trying to be constructive. If you disagree with one of them it's probably better to take the dispute to a neutral party (and there are a lot of mechanisms you can use, if you want, I can point you to some of them as well as personally being willing to help) than to engage directly. Brian 03:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

- Thanks. I just checked and my preferences setting and it was set to mark all edits with minor. I just unchecked it. This nOsgoodeLawyer and GaryWill are all over me I can hardly keep up. I am not sure if they have left anything I contributed alone. When they bitch at me now I try to ignore to not get exited. Since they already give me too much to do from all their deletions. If they would only stop deleting and censoring and simply edit things or ask for cites we might not has so much hostility. But they are very disrespectful. When other people mention something I do look and check, as in this example.WikiWoo 04:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point

Your latest change to the Susan Fennell article was *not* minor. The change you made in the first sentence, arguably, might have been as it was a rewording that didn't change substance. But the following change was substantive. I really think you'd be better off not using the "minor edit" notation at all - it's really intended for typos and non-substantive changes. When you change the meaning or add meaningful material it is not minor. Brian 03:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Citations

Thank you for citing Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario. Could you please cite Invited public tenders as well? Thanks. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 06:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I looked at your sources for this article, and none of them contain the term "Invited public tenders" so the article's use of the term seems unverifiable and I have nominated it for deletion. Perhaps there is a different term for this? I would advise you to do research first and then write an article, rather than just writing and trying to find sources when asked. A well-researched article will be much more likely to be kept. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation on Susan Fennell

You reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours on Susan Fennell. I have reported this at the administrators' noticeboard so that they can take appropriate action. JChap (talk • contribs) 06:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are crying wolf again.

Just because you make minor changes in each revert does not mean you haven't made a revert. You have reverted five times in 24 hours:

14:22, 24 July 2006 WikiWoo (Talk | contribs) m (→Political career - merged content to add interesting content and balance)

15:46, 24 July 2006 WikiWoo (Talk | contribs) m (I dissagree. That she organized a team of Brampton Councillors and Bill Davis is important. Likewise her statement that she would grind Peel Region to a halt is significant a significant threat made.)

16:44, 24 July 2006 WikiWoo (Talk | contribs) m (You are deleatinig factual content without reason. You are being a Vandal. The fact is interesting and so is the mediators report. One more vandal rv your blocked: edit and add please no deletes)

23:54, 24 July 2006 WikiWoo (Talk | contribs) m (No POV here just interesting facts. You want to rewird something be my guest. Stop trying to censor Wiki.)

01:32, 25 July 2006 WikiWoo (Talk | contribs) m (You can edit gramar with censoring information. Peel issue gives notoriety and is distinct from the rest. Please edit wording and keep important subsection about her hohum political career)

--Oz Lawyer 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now six:

09:27, 25 July 2006 WikiWoo (Talk | contribs) m (Reworded political highlight of outstanding note. This requires distinction because it is of historic importance and involves shaping Peel and also the rest of the Ontario's Regional Structure.)

You guys are ridiculous in your concerted efforts to censor WikiWikiWoo 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word censorship is almost never used on Wikipedia except by people trying to push tendentious edits against consensus. Just so you know. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ontario census divisions

You're edits aren't showing a list of single-tier municipalities. For instance, you say that Cornwall, Ontario is a single tier municipality. It's not. It's a lower-tier municipality, and its upper-tier municipality is Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry United Counties, Ontario. A County is somewhat different from a Regional Municipality--it has fewer responsibilities--but it is still an upper-tier muncipality that has within it other lower-tier municipalities. Oz Lawyer 02:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Association of Municipalities of Ontario to see what's what. Oz Lawyer 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario "AMO" is principle fabricator of propaganda and missinformation designed to mislead the public and subvert democracy in Ontario. They publish falsehoods and half truth to keep a cloak over the eyes of the public. I would not believe a word they say or publish.WikiWoo 03:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's the one talking about conspiracies. Look, this is getting pretty hopeless. Someone else will straighten you out on this one, I'm sure. Oz Lawyer 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being rediculous. The original article on Single Tier was redirected by your friend Gary Will to the Census Division page. That page starts off by saying what they are and one is Single Tier Municipalities and your version has a half-true list of them that makes it look like there are a few. My list is the complete list WikiWoo 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half a chance

People will be more than willing to give you half a chance to put articles together if they think the articles are likely to end up being encyclopaedic. If they think you are wasting your time, they might well nominate them for deleiton straight away.

Wikipedia is not here to be a mirror of a municipal website. We are here to gather encyclopaedic data verifiable from reliable secondary sources; if no secondary sources exist it may well indicate that the subject is inherently unencyclopaedic.

You might profit form looking round some of the other regional articles on US states and the like to see the kinds of articles which we have. Articles detailing the geography, politics and so on are usually great, articles on civic functionaries generally are not because there is rarely enough data on which to base a verifiably neutral biography. Plus, who would care? If it's not an elected office and they are not known for something else, they are likely indistinguishable from many thousands of similar people around the world.

Please think things through before starting articles. Maybe discuss them on one of the Wikiprojects first? Otherwise you are doomed to a Wikilife of frustration and wasted effort, and nobody wants that. Just zis Guy you know? 14:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding 2

Want my honest advice, Woo? Do what I had to do--drop this account and go start another with an unrelated name. Then, do take these other people's advice under consideration...their points might be valid. But I did have it a bit easier. I was just trying to vanity/advertise article for my dad's company. Anyway, messae me back if you do take my advice. Niki Whimbrel 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Also, tell them to look at this, and you check it out yourself, Woo-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Niki Whimbrel 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning - List of Ontario census divisions

In the last 24 hours, you have made three edits to List of Ontario census divisions that constitute a reversion under Wikipedia's three-revert rule: [1], [2], [3]. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Gary Will 14:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities in Ontario

Since the page you've been trying to edit is really about Census divisions and not municipalities per se, I have created a list of all the municipalities of Ontario (properly formatted and with wikilinks to each article), divided up by section, namely:

single-tier municipalities proper
regional municipalities (with their constituent lower-tier municipalities listed)
counties (with their constituent lower-tier municipalities listed)
separated municipalities (which are part of greater county census divisions but which are not part of county administration)
districts (and the municipalities within each district)

The page can currently be found at User:Osgoodelawyer/sandbox. If you want to try to get it made into an actual article, the proper name, I would think, is List of Ontario municipalities.

Oz Lawyer 15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your so called list is incomplete and misleading. The Full List of Single Tier Municipallities as published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should govern over the selective publications of bureaucratic associations such as AMO that have a vested interest in keeping the people of Ontario missinformed about their activities to undermine democracy in Ontario.WikiWoo 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My list is not incomplete. There are what you consider "single tier municipalities" listed under the "Districts" section. This is because they are part of districts (even though districts aren't upper-tier municipalities), and should be listed there for organizational purposes. Oz Lawyer 16:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you do realize you're editing a page called "Single and Double Tier Municipalities fo Ontario", right? Oz Lawyer 16:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Page moved (name was completely wrongly capitalized in addition to your spelling mistake, and this would be the proper name for it, anyway). And the municipalities have been categoried into single- and dual-tier. Oz Lawyer 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, do you not read anything before you post? You are attempting to add to a single subsection of the single tier municipalities all of the single tier municipalities (that is, those belonging to all three subsections). Would you stop for a second and try to get it? You're pasting in an unwikified and unorganized list which I have already Wikified and organized! Oz Lawyer 17:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO?!?!

How many times do I have to explain this to you? List of Ontario municipalities already contains EVERY ONE of the single tier municipalities you are batch-pasting into the article. Take a quick look. They're separated into "amalgamated municipalities", "separated municipalities" and "municipalities within districts", BUT THEY'RE ALL THERE! I really don't have a clue what you could possibly hope to accomplish by ADDING EVERY MUNICIPALITY TO THE LIST TWICE! Honestly, can't you just take thirty seconds to read my comments, digest them, and UNDERSTAND them?! Oz Lawyer 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, they're all there in a very clear layout. I have made sure to name the top sections "Single tier municipalities" and "dual tier municipalities" and only then to sub-divide the sections according to type of municipality. Honestly, take any one of your added list and search for it on the page. I promise you that you will find it in its appropriate section. Not one bit of censorship is occurring here. What's occurring is your inability to comprehend classification and organization of the information. Oz Lawyer 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of the information is very misleading. The Municipal Structure in Ontario is already confusing enough as it is and your rendition does not provide any clearity with a list of the current SINGLE TIER municipalities. The way you have broken it up makes it unclear which are single and which ones are double tiers. This is one of the things I was working on and you have basically white washed the whole thing so there is not clearity in the information. I've done my part to explain what I want to see incorporated into the article and you should see what you can do modify so we can both be happy with the renditionWikiWoo 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't know about you, but I think the fact that the municipalities are listed in nicely titled sections called "Single tier" and "Dual tier" makes it pretty clear what's what. There isn't really any debate here. I have taken your completely unorganized and unwikified list and organized it in a manner that is easy to understand. Oz Lawyer 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I even edited your paragraph on single tier municipalities explaining the three "types" of single tier municipalities. Oz Lawyer 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems we are getting better at working together. The list is starting to come out nicely. Have you compared the old list with the 2006 to see what's been changed in the last year. The Single Tiers keep growing as they leave the double tier structures whenever they canWikiWoo 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Will you just calm down and talk rationally to people rather than just dumping great screeds of unformatted text into articles? Oz is trying to help by getting the info in a format where it won't be instantly deleted as a bare list or indiscriminate information, if you were smart you would work with him. If you continue your disruptive behaviour I will block you to give the others a breathing space. You don't appear to be listening at all to people with much more experience of how this project works, its policies and guidelines. That only goes on for so long before we get pissed off and show you the door. Seriously. Also bear in mind that following a number of very high profile cases the guidance on biographies of living persons are taken extremely seriously; any comment in a biographical article must be meticulously sourced and presented in the most carefully neutral terms. Persistent tendentious editing of biographical articles can also lead to your being blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Talk:Invited public tenders

WikiWoo, can you provide reliable sources for the statements you made in the Invited public tenders article and on the talk page? For example, find a magazine, journal or newspaper article that discusses this and then use the material in that article to write the article. You should concentrate on a few articles with good, reliable sources, rather than inserting material into multiple articles based only on your experience. Your experience may be great, but it is not verifiable and so cannot be the basis of a Wikipedia article. If you want to share your experience with the world on the Internet, a better forum for you may be a blog or your own website. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I have made no statement. These are the terms used and their common definitions as in the practice of Public Spending by Government Business Officials in Ontario.WikiWoo 19:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do you have any reliable sources that contain these officials using these terms? JChap (talk • contribs) 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Each municipality has a purchasing by-law that refers to these distinct terms. Each uses something similar. They are all generally understood to mean the same things by Public Business Officials and people in the business. The article is not an issue of research. I am not quoting a statement from anyone and I am outlning the terms of practice, kind of like the term FOB used in logistics. You can read the links I posted and see the terms in use in Peel Region. Every municipal website in Ontario has the same kind of information posted and will use similar terms. They are required to publish their public tender information on account of NAFTA that required all municipalities to publish Public Business Activities for all of their MASH construction projects. They don't all comply with the law; but the larger ones generaly do, but may hide the ones they don't want people to see easily and you have to fish for them on their website by refering to the Council Minutes for the awards of major contracts.

The material you posted doesn't use the term "invited public tenders" or any of the other terms. Could you please just read WP:RS, WP:CITE andWP:V. I think understanding and complying with these policies would result in less of your material being deleted. JChap (talk • contribs) 00:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en04/301en04.pdf try this link to the Auditor General for Ontario where there is some discussion about these different terms and uses. Since ALL Municipalities in Ontario are divisions of the Ontario Provincial Government this should blanket the whole lot of the 500 odd municipalities in Ontario under the same concepts.WikiWoo 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities aren't exactly "divisions of the Ontario Provincial Government." They are creatures of statute, created by the provincial government, but they are more akin to corporations (in fact, they are corporations). Oz Lawyer 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are part of Government but unfortunately many of the civil servants who work there think they own the place and that the billions entristed to them is their personal private money to do with as they please.WikiWoo 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO?!?!

How many times do I have to explain this to you? List of Ontario municipalities already contains EVERY ONE of the single tier municipalities you are batch-pasting into the article. Take a quick look. They're separated into "amalgamated municipalities", "separated municipalities" and "municipalities within districts", BUT THEY'RE ALL THERE! I really don't have a clue what you could possibly hope to accomplish by ADDING EVERY MUNICIPALITY TO THE LIST TWICE! Honestly, can't you just take thirty seconds to read my comments, digest them, and UNDERSTAND them?! Oz Lawyer 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, they're all there in a very clear layout. I have made sure to name the top sections "Single tier municipalities" and "dual tier municipalities" and only then to sub-divide the sections according to type of municipality. Honestly, take any one of your added list and search for it on the page. I promise you that you will find it in its appropriate section. Not one bit of censorship is occurring here. What's occurring is your inability to comprehend classification and organization of the information. Oz Lawyer 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your version of the information is very misleading. The Municipal Structure in Ontario is already confusing enough as it is and your rendition does not provide any clearity with a list of the current SINGLE TIER municipalities. The way you have broken it up makes it unclear which are single and which ones are double tiers. This is one of the things I was working on and you have basically white washed the whole thing so there is not clearity in the information. I've done my part to explain what I want to see incorporated into the article and you should see what you can do modify so we can both be happy with the renditionWikiWoo 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't know about you, but I think the fact that the municipalities are listed in nicely titled sections called "Single tier" and "Dual tier" makes it pretty clear what's what. There isn't really any debate here. I have taken your completely unorganized and unwikified list and organized it in a manner that is easy to understand. Oz Lawyer 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I even edited your paragraph on single tier municipalities explaining the three "types" of single tier municipalities. Oz Lawyer 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems we are getting better at working together. The list is starting to come out nicely. Have you compared the old list with the 2006 to see what's been changed in the last year. The Single Tiers keep growing as they leave the double tier structures whenever they canWikiWoo 00:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Will you just calm down and talk rationally to people rather than just dumping great screeds of unformatted text into articles? Oz is trying to help by getting the info in a format where it won't be instantly deleted as a bare list or indiscriminate information, if you were smart you would work with him. If you continue your disruptive behaviour I will block you to give the others a breathing space. You don't appear to be listening at all to people with much more experience of how this project works, its policies and guidelines. That only goes on for so long before we get pissed off and show you the door. Seriously. Also bear in mind that following a number of very high profile cases the guidance on biographies of living persons are taken extremely seriously; any comment in a biographical article must be meticulously sourced and presented in the most carefully neutral terms. Persistent tendentious editing of biographical articles can also lead to your being blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content comparison

WikiWoo, I compared the content of the Wikipedia article and the OCWA webpage. There's only 15 words difference out of 148 words. That's going to appear as a copyright violation to any reasonable reader. Also, it looks like you've re-created this same article twice after it had been deleted two times as a copyright violation? Is that correct? Please don't do that - it can get you in pretty hot water. There's a process to follow if you want to contest a deletion. That is discussed here. Brian 18:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Crown Agency

You can't create blank pages and then ask others to expand them. Unless you have content for a page, leave it uncreated. Oz Lawyer 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation on Ontario Clean Water Agency

You keep trying to create a page at Ontario Clean Water Agency by copying material from the agency's website and inserting it into the article. Unfortunately, this is a copyright violation, as the material from Ontario government websites is apparently copyrighted (see Crown copyright#Canada). Even if you change a few words it is unfortunately still a copyright violation and cannot be inserted at Wikipedia. Any content here must be contributed under a GFDL license. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. The material is rewritten in my own words. Information is not copyright. The words that contain the information are completely different.WikiWoo 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is here and this page is almost identical to the article. Please stop this. JChap (talk • contribs) 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information content is the same but the words and layout is different. This is not possibly copyrightWikiWoo 18:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have recreated it by cutting more things out. If you want articles to be kept, you should just do research in multiple sources and then write the article in your own words. JChap (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the {{helpme}}, please re-post it when you ask your question. Or you can join us online, see {{helpyou}} for the IRC channel link.--Commander Keane 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me

I am having a hell of a time trying to get an article up on the Ontario Clean Water Agency. I put it up one night and it dissapeared without a trace or warning when I went to see it the next morning. I the put it up agains and I got copyright tags. I rewrote every line one by one and still got those. Now there's a VfD going on trying to get it deleted, but the reasons they are putting up behind it are not at all clear or make much sense. What can one do to get a decent article started on this subject? WikiWoo 22:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try going through the WP:DRV process or perhaps try to convince the users at the AfD that such an article is necessary. Unfortunately, the way the article is read would probably be done better if it did not sound so much like an advertisement, or remove the information that appears slightly POV oriented. And please remember to use the {{helpme}} template only on your own user talk page. Ryūlóng 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[4] is unacceptable, particularly the word Gestapo. I am not aware that any of the participants in that AfD to that time were from Ontario, and even if they were it would not matter. WP:NPA refers. Any more of that and you may be blocked from editing. Just zis Guy you know? 23:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and subtitles

Just a friendly reminder not to add subtitles to AfD debates as they muck up the rest of the page. If you want to bold things, just type three apostrophes either side of the relevant words. BigHaz 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Remove AfD Notices

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Brian 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, what are you doing

Some of us are trying to help you out - but this is getting old. The AfD notice says to not remove it. Did you read it? Only an administrator can remove it. The AfD process is not complete. Yes, the article has been re-written. No, that does not entitle you to remove the AfD notice. Please learn and follow the rules. You are on a course that is likely to get you blocked or banned. I personally think you have a lot to offer --- but you have to learn the protocol here ... and follow it. Brian 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Sorry. I'll figure this out soon enough. I tend to get exited in my old age and jump the gun. I assumed that since my original first article that raised the tag was no longer there it made no sense. Maybe the person who put it up can be advised of the rewrite and ask them to remove it. It's starting to look real good and I can add better material on the history of the evolution of the water treatment industry in Ontario and the relevant players and important people of notoriety. All the delete votes only apply to the original article I wrote and should not count towards the new articleWikiWoo 04:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just let it take it's course. Even the person that opened the AfD can't stop it. Another admin has to do that. Don't worry, I agree that the current article is shaping up and, as far as I can see, is not a copyvio. The other people participating in the AfD are already voicing a similar opinion. So, be patient. When you run rough-shod over the rules here people get very frustrated with you. Just back off of this one and let the AfD take its course... And, I continue to be willing to help --- if you're willing to listen and accept the help. Brian 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Please stop creating redirect pages

As has been explained to you before, if (for example) you want to link from the phrase water service to the entry for Ontario Clean Water Agency, you do that through a Wikipedia:Piped link. It would look like this: water service but link to Ontario Clean Water Agency (edit this section to see the format). Nearly all of the redirect pages you're creating are inappropriate and will need to be deleted at some point. --Gary Will 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow was that ever a confusing thing to read. Can you do me a favour an make the link this way for water service in Peel's page so it brings people to the OCWA page so the connection can be made and someone interested in Peel Water treatment work can tie it back to OCWA's importance that is outlined in that other article? I think it all flows well togther but I am getting lost in these format issues. When I see what it looks like in this example I should be able to use it in the future.WikiWoo 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even though I did this very same thing for you earlier, I'll do it again. Pay attention, since you absolutely have to master this. You put the name of the actual article before a pipe (located on the same key as the slash - \ ), and then you put the name you want to show up after the pipe. Here's the format: [[Brampton, Ontario|Peel's evil overlord]] See how the name of the article, "Brampton, Ontario", is before the pipe? See how "Peel's evil overlord" is after the pipe? Now, here's it in action Peel's evil overlord. Get to work. Oz Lawyer 20:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So the first part is the article or section and the part following the link separaated by the | key is what gets printed? I think I can try that on the next piece. Sorry to be so difficult. It's harder for an older dog to learn new tricks. Just like my hard headed opinion of the way things are from my experience.WikiWoo 21:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Administrative Officer

The Chief Administrative Officer entry should serve as a universal -- or at least widespread -- description of what that position is. I really don't think it's the place to discuss the details of Regional Chairs in Ontario and their authority versus that of CAOs. I understand what you're trying to say -- that the Regional Chairs in Ontario act as the CEO of the municipal corporation, but 1) that's different from saying that a chair = CEO (in a universal sense) and 2) those details don't really discuss what a CAO is, which is what the entry is about. --Gary Will 23:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to this article. I second Gary's concerns that the CAO entry should contain a universial discussion of the job, not just their duties in the Ontario Regions. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

You violated the three-revert rule on Chief Administrative Officer. You changed the page back to the way it was previously four times in 24 hours. [5] [6] [7] [8] Please read WP:3RR and become familiar with this policy. Thank you. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! Each edit I made I compromised and reworded the article to adresss comments. I was very carefull not to do any 3RR's. Please don't say things that are not true since some people may not bother to check if what you say is true or not. WikiWoo 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again, thinking I might have made a mistake, but I don't think I did. The problem with most of your edits is that you don't cite sources when you add material. If you want to just put the cite or weblink in the text after the sentence, that's fine. I will come along later and make it into a proper citation. If you just cited your sources, fewer of your edits would be changed and you wouldn't feel so frustrated. JChap (talk • contribs) 12:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some more changes to this article, but kept your conclusion that CAOs are primarily in government and not in private corporations because you provided some backup for this. I explained the deletions in my edit summaries. Some of the material can be added back if you source it. Nice job. Best, JChap (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I think we are making a good addition to Wiki for the Occupation and Vocation Category. Who knows we may be responsible for some kid becomming a CAO someday after finding out what a CAO is on Wiki. 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove my comments from talk pages. Also, I am planning to make some more changes to the article, mostly spelling and grammar. And, yes you do need to cite sources. Thanks. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really need anything. You are saying the Wiki article could use more cites, be my guest. I hope I am not writing Wiki all by myself! I thought this was a collaborative project. BTW... do some clean up of your own comments onmy talk page that are no longer relavant so you don't clutter up my talk page with old stuff dealt with WikiWoo 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read this on not removing comments from your user talk pages. Also, you do not need to do anything, but if you do not cite sources, expect the material you put on here to be deleted. JChap (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user may however archive their pages, whenever they feel like it. You neglected to mention that. Wjhonson 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request

Hello WikiWoo/Archive, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your problems with page deletions. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that no one has taken your case yet. We're currently in the process of asking other Advocates to see if they are willing to help. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 01:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I hope someone can see what this group of vandals is doing to my every effort to expand Wiki. They are acting like gangsters. They must work for the local Regional Government level in Ontario. They tend to be like that in their everyday activities too. I've been dealing with the likes of these types of bullies and thungs for some 30 years in Regional Government across Ontario.WikiWoo 01:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's another friendly caution: no personal attacks!!! Stick to the subject matter and not the individual(s). Yep, you'll end up getting blocked for it. Remember: CIVIL and have a A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Tyrenius 17:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius can you point to examples of users getting blocked for calling another user a "gangster"? That would be a bit of an overzealous interpretation of blocking. We've had much stronger fights on the religion pages that a mere archaic label [image:smile.png] Wjhonson 17:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kolb

Do you have a citation for the long quote? An editor deleted it as "uncited", so I retrieved it and posted it to the talk page on the article. If you can post a citation that would be great. Thanks! Wjhonson 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madarins of Regional Government in Ontario

Please stop creating redirects to this non-existent article. If you persist it will become vandalism and you may get blocked. Thank you. Tyrenius 03:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd be interested in how creating redirects could possibly constitute vandalism. And the article wasn't non-existent until someone deleted it, so the argument loses a bit there. Wjhonson 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone knowingly keeps on doing something when it is disruptive, then it is vandalism.Tyrenius 14:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did it get deleted so fast? I thought it would make a great article and I was about to expand it.WikiWoo 04:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BIO? It's pretty clear: holders of significant national elected office are considered notable, but holders of local appointed office are well below that level. You give every impression here of pushing a barrow, you would be well advised to spend more time looking around the various Wikiprojects and seeing how things are generally done hereabouts. Just zis Guy you know? 08:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to expand the job stub category not writing biosWikiWoo 13:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Guy, WP:BIO does not say that. Can you quote the exact wording ? The only time "local" is mentioned on the page, its to *include* a category of local politicians who receive significant press coverage. Nowhere is the word "local" used to exclude. Thanks. Wjhonson 18:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (For candidates for office, see the ongiong discussion at Wikipedia:Candidates and elections.)

Major local political figures who receive (or received) significant press coverage

Not local unelected functionaries. Just zis Guy you know? 15:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "argue" to "suggest" in ROP article

What the heck is this? An argument is a point made by a party. Period. Calling it an argument has nothing to do with whether an argument has been "won". You are the one inserting POV, attempting to discredit the arguments of one side by pretending they're "suggestions". I suggest you go learn what the word argument means. Oz Lawyer 15:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that the way its is worded the issues are misleading and POV. It would appear to any reasonable observer that Mississauga is in the wrong and Brampton is in the right beased on the way the issue was characterized. POV and propaganda is being pushed rather than a balanced and objective report on the issue. I "argue" that you have more to learn in Law School. There has been no argument about those specific "suggestions". You saying they have aregued them are FALSE STATEMENT. Not one of the aledged "arguments" have been "argued". They are bald statements made without any substance. They should not be called arguments.WikiWoo 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're arguments. They're statements that are contested--they're arguments. They don't have to be true to be arguments (plus, you haven't explained why they, in fact, are not true). Use of the word "argument" doesn't in the slightest show support for what is being argued. Oz Lawyer 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I agree with your argument that I have more to learn in law school. Oz Lawyer 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could argue that you are not a good law student, or I can make this a stated opinion by way of a suggestion. In order to have an argument on something you need to give both sides on the issue. Each of the suggestions are onesides suggestion and there is no argument anywhere. Bald statement from one side if not an argument WikiWoo 20:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Making an argument involves a presentation of reasons supporting a position. There is the sense of "having an argument" which is an exchange of differing views, but to say someone is arguing for a position does not require that they present more than one side. Just the opposite, really. See argument. --Gary Will 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Will but in this case what Wiki has posted is bald statements made by corrupt public officials of Ontario and its Gangster Regional Structure. The advancement of propaganda that would make Stalin smile is not something that should stand on Wiki which is suposed to be immune from paid propaganda local news and media services aare paid to deliver on behalf on the Banana Government in Ontario.WikiWoo 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WikiWoo, the quotes from Susan Fennell and the Brampton contingent are already in response to similar comments from Hazel McCallion and the Mississauga councillors. They are simply responding to the argument that Mississauga would be better without, and should be separated from, Peel. If that is what you consider advancement of propaganda, I promise you that you will see a lot more. Oz Lawyer 14:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. This is for 24 hours. The specific edit this time was the recreation at Regional Government Structure in Ontario of a substantially identical copy of The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario, as deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario. Not only was this a repost against consensus, it also contained original research. The time has come for you to stop creating articles willy-nilly and try to work what you ant to say into the existing article structure, unless there is some new data which has been extensively documented in reliable secondary sources and which will not fit within that structure.. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Just zis Guy you know? 15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. The idea for creating a new page called Regional Government Structure is posted here above on my talk page and I simply followed their advice. Your blocking me for this is patently wrong and shows a bias towards advancing propaganda and disinformation that is being pushed by corrupt governement administrators in the Regional Governments of Ontario. I can understand this with Paid Media who are receiving hundreds of millions of dollarsr in ad revenues from the Region and must be careful not to be Blacklisted by Regional Government in Ontario, but I would expect that Wiki as a non-profit volunteer organization commited to truthfull expansion of knowledge would NOT be part of the political propaganda of Ontario Canada.WikiWoo 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone suggesting you create this article. I know you understand the AfD process, since several articles you have created have gone through it, and you know you are not supposed to recreate articles that have been deleted through the process, as you've had such recreations speedy deleted already. So why would you think that it is okay to recreate The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario, an article already deleted by AfD? You changed the name, but it's the same content that was found to violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV among other things. Oz Lawyer 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the suggestion is in the talk page for the Region of Peel. I know you don't like the world to know how corrupt Regional Government in Ontario is, but facts are facts and this should be written up regardless how bad the structure is in fact. Hidding facts from the world does not make things any better.WikiWoo 20:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not a soapbox --pgk^(talk) 20:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested creating an article on July 4. A week or so later, you did. It was a wholly-uncited, unverifiable, error-filled soapbox rant that was quickly nominated for deletion. It went through the full AfD process -- 18 editors supported its deletion while you were alone in asking for it to be kept. But then, in contempt of the process, you reposted the whole thing with almost the same title. That's why you got blocked. --Gary Will 20:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I was going to drop by and offer you some advice on sourcing and expanding (or eliminating) the "notable quotation" in Emil Kolb, but you seem to be involving yourself in another difficulty now. I hope you will spend the period of your block contemplating why you are having these problems, which seem to stem from two causes. First, you want to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to share the insight and opinions you gained while an employee of the Peel government. Am I right about that? Wikipedia is not really the place for this, which is called original research, as everything posted here must have reliable sources and be verifiable. You should cite the sources that you use in the article itself. The sources do not have to be online, but they should be reliable. You should use another venue to express your opinions and share your personal knowledge, not Wikipedia. Second, and perhaps more important, you need to realize that the editors you are dealing with have no apparent connection to the Peel regional government. Most of us don't even live in Canada. For all I know, the bureaucrats you are talking about really are rat bastards, you just don't provide reliable sources so I can verify that what you are saying is true. You also compare them to Nazis. Read that article and see why this is a ridiculous comparison that makes you sound like a crank. (How many people has the Peel government killed?) You should also read Godwin's Law and Simpson’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law to understand why people don't take you seriously when you say things like that. You will do much better here if you research using reliable sources before writing articles, WP:CITE those sources in the articles and assume good faith of other editors. JChap (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you say is very true. Essentially, we can't say anything unless somebody else has said it first, and not just anybody, a recognised authority. Wikinfo is different, I believe. Just zis Guy you know? 21:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking these rules way beyond reason and applying it to censor unpopular fact and interesting information. I am sure than many dictators written about on Wiki would be made to look like saints if people applied the level of twist that is being applying with regards to Ontario Canada. Facts are fact and if their are intersting and verifiable they should go in as encyclopedic.WikiWoo 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, in common with just about every other admin I know I have been accused many, many times of censorship, suppressing information, trying to keep unpopular opinions out of Wikipedia and so on - and every single time it has been by someone who is vigorously pursuing an agenda and as run up against the fundamental and non-negotiable policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Your comment above says to any seasoned Wikipedian that you are trying to insert content for which you are unable to provide adequate reliable secondary sources, and have been prevented from doing so. Even if that is not what you are doing, instances where removal of genuine, verifiable information is disputed in these terms by its sole source are, to put it charitably, vanishingly rare. You really need to accept that the numerous comments above are trying to help, and that unless you modify your behaviour you will simply end up more and more frustrated - there are a thousand admins and only one of you. Just zis Guy you know? 12:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you take the tags off now that the 24hr block has expired?WikiWoo 17:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the unblock request that gets removed, not the notification that you've been blocked. So I've taken the unblock request tag off. Oz Lawyer 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this controversy with Regional Government is incredible. Most people I know never heard of Regional Government and thought is was the same as the City or Town government. Hopefully we can get back to recording interesting information so people have a point of reference.WikiWoo 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by "we" you mean you and by "interesting information" you mean unsourced original research then no. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your piece on the Nazis

Just read your piece on the Nazis. The Nazi where just the bureaucrats of their time that were left without proper scrutiny and control by the population. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely....When power is left in the hands of too few, people with the mentality of Gangsters tend to get control...(Adages of Lord Acton).... and this human frailty has been shown scientifically... that if you take perfectly good honest people of ethics and morals and put them in a position of authority that lets them do anything they want to captive subjects without personal consequences, over time they will start to abuse their power for the fun and excitement of it in malicious and perverse ways... it becomes a way to get off and get kicks out of things...like drug addicts wanting to do more to get the same high. That it is natural for people when commenting on abusive groups and individuals in public authority will eventually make analogies with Nazis and Fascists is therefore expected for the reason becuase the Nazis are the enbodyment of the human conditions and natural manifests of when individuals and groups acquire power over others that will eventually perverts them and make them into evil creature not worthy of public trust or capable of holding responsibility over others. The Nine Regional Governments of Ontario Canada has all gotten to that stage where they are run by evil monsters gangsters who take pleasure from causing harm to people for personal gratification, making them about as honorable and with the level of integrity expected of Crack Addicted Gutter Whores. No, I was not an employee of the Region of Peel, but I have watched them pilfer and rape the public out of Hundreds of Millions of dollars each year as well as seen the types of atrocioties they have committed like those similar to what is expected of Nazis of Fascists in the 1940's. What makes you think that they have not killed people? I have seen them do much worse.WikiWoo 11:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a plea to be banned permanently from all articles relating to Ontario politics? It sounds awfully like it. Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with all the hostility? I was answering JChap's post. Are there no articles on Lord Acton's famous quotes or on the Abuse of Power Syndrome prison guards get?WikiWoo 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes by Lord Acton can be found on Wikiquote, [9], so please don't create a Wikipedia article on them. As for "Abuse of Power Syndrome", I'm sure it's discussed somewhere here. Oz Lawyer 14:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Abuse of Power Syndrome would make a great article for Wiki.WikiWoo 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's described as "Abuse of Power Syndrome" in reputable scientific sources, then perhaps it would. If not, then you're making up a syndrome, which I think is pretty much a no-no. Oz Lawyer 16:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[10] Looks like its a real syndrome used in Crimina Law as a defence when somoeone goes "Postal" if you remember that old term. Maybe you should have a crack at putting an article together for Wiki.WikiWoo 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the past ArbCom cases at WP:RFARB you will find many cases where individual users who have a particular agenda, often stated in terms not dissimilar to those you use here, have been banned from articles on those subject areas. Declaring a lack of neutrality and an intent to present your point of view in forceful terms is really asking for trouble here. Just zis Guy you know? 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see you are all over the place in that area of Wiki... Looks like fun.WikiWoo 17:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbitrary Abuse of Power Syndrome" returns 4 results, and they all say the same thing--listing the name and giving a one-sentence explanation. While I might be able to find more using legal research tools, I highly doubt that this term is encyclopediaworthy. Oz Lawyer 16:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing how an important everyday encountered problem gets so little press coverage and attention. It must be called something else.WikiWoo 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-problem" ? '-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea...nudge nudge wink winkWikiWoo 00:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 00:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not made a 3RR so what is it that you are warning me about?WikiWoo 04:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's warning you not to, since you clearly want to edit the article (and dozens more) away from the consensus. Oz Lawyer 14:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This 3RR is spam. It's a false warning. Your adding comment to it adds more spam.WikiWoo 14:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, spam isn't accurate, but I agree that the original warning and rush to page protection was an odd course of action. God knows you've repeatedly deserved 3RR warnings before (eight reverts on a single page in one day come to mind) and undoubtedly will again, but in this case you had only made two reverts in 24 hours. It was two too many, and a legitimate comment could have been made about them, but a 3RR warning was inappropriate. Wikipedia needs editors to take warnings seriously, and frivolous cautions just detract from the credibility of the whole system. --Gary Will 15:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, maybe not. WikiWoo has previously revert warred on that article; it's fair to warn early in this case. Hopefully WikiWoo is learning from his experiences. Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that some kind of message after two reverts might have been called for. At that point, it might have been a poor choice of tone to include discussion of the potential of being blocked, but something could have been said. But the same person also put a warning on my page (complete with a snide heading) when I hadn't made any edits to the page, let alone reverts, in over 36 hours. I'm sure that has made me more inclined to see it as a case of being trigger-happy. --Gary Will 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.) Tangot a ngo 16:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless redirects

WikiWoo, you're creating needless redirects again. Have you already forgotten the use of the pipe in link names? [[ name of article to be linked to | phrase you want to show ]]. Try it again. Oz Lawyer 13:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible for the existance of the following Wiki Articles in their current form

That's a big claim, especially since almost every word in Susan Fennell was written by me, and List of Ontario municipalities would be a mad mess of unformatted text without any organizational structure without my work. Oz Lawyer 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything of any substance came about by my direct involvement. The fact that what I put in forced you and others to add content to cover more notoriety about her is what this claim referes to in the case of Susan Fennell. The Article I found when I started was about some "fat bimbo cheerleader chick playing mayor at a rock concert" and look at it now! She looks quite distinguished, notable and acomplished as a public figure and we've collectively put her on the map of notoriety in Ontario. Once I get finished with my research on her and Bill Davis, she will be more famous than Mayor McCallion and known the world over just like old Hazel is. You should be proud too for your part in helping in her transformation.WikiWoo 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. My rewrite had nothing to do with you. My changing of the image had nothing to do with you. And nothing we have done has made a whit of difference to her notability. She did that all on her own. All you've done is force me and others to try to contain your POV-pushing. Oz Lawyer 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, read WP:OWN. And shut up. Just zis Guy you know? 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may...We are doing a wonderfull job of expanding and amplifying Wiki. You should be proud of our work together. As for Fennell she is just a political bimbo for Bill Davis no matter how much spit and polish you rub onto her with the POV you've worked so hard to advance. Important that things of noteriety are published and peoole can pick and choose what to make out of the facts from the propaganda that is all people generally get see from the Media. An encylopedia should be a source of information and the more information it containes the better and more usefull an encyclopidia it is.WikiWoo 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bollocks, frankly. I have not done anything to advance any POV on that article. And if propaganda is all the information which is available from reliable secondary sources, then I'm afraid that is the only information we can have per WP:BLP. Your assertion above indicates an approach which has led numerous editors to be blocked indefinitely: we are not here to bring The Truth^TM, we are here to report what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources. If there is some giant conspiracy to cover up The Truth^TM, we cannot be the first to expose it, nor can we take any part in publicising it unless and until that, too, is verifiable from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, as I think people have made clear to you already. Just zis Guy you know? 16:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was directed at OzLaw and not at you "Guy" since you did not participate in any constructive way with creating the article in question. So maybe you can be the one that can read and shut up on this thread.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 17:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My United Way page revert

I figured you would know why the information you're adding isn't fitting. Is there any other information like that on the page already? No? Likely no other editors find it to be useful. There are probably hundreds or thousands of United Way branches around the world, so the only way that it would make sense would be to include them all. To add the United Way chapters which happen to be located not only just in the province of Ontario, but in just the regional municipalities of Ontario, is completely out of place. There's really no need to list any chapters at all, but to just list those makes absolutely no sense. It brings nothing of use to the Wikipedia entry. Oz Lawyer 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may recall that I created a United Way in Ontario to cover the ones I wanted to expaand Wiki on and some people for whatever reason shot it down and redirected the link to their mother company. However over there there is no reference to Canada or Ontario or the Regional Governments connection with them. So what do you suggest for expanding Wiki on that front? I would prefer a Region of Ontario United Way page and reference and add expanding material to that.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, you created a United Way of Peel Region page, not one for Ontario, which isn't notable (if anything is notable, it would be United Way of Canada. Even then, however, a list of all the United Way branches in Canada would still not be notable or of any use in an article on the United Way of Canada. Someone else would come along, quote WP:NOT, and remove the list. If you can create a fully cited, verifiable, and NPOV article on United Way of Canada, without trying to add lists of the different branches, then go ahead. Oz Lawyer 15:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia: "A work containing factual articles on subjects in every field of knowledge, usually arranged alphabetically. A SUBJECT encyclopedia is a similar work on a single field of activity or a single subject. An encyclopedia can be one volume or many volumes, depending on the amount of material included." Wiki is an Encyclopedia. So I don't see how your view of my compilation of information of things such as United Way of Ontario Regions or for that matter the compilation of Top Mandarisn in Ontario Regions are NOT proper material for an Encyclopedia.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 16:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, how many times do I have to tell you this? It's not my view, it's the view of Wikipedia in general. You've been directed countless times to the proper policy pages. Do not argue with me about Wikipedia policy--I cannot change it for you. Oz Lawyer 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is your interpretation of the policies. You fail miserably in your arguments about what an encyclopedia is. Your few friends you got working towgether with you in the cause of propaganda maintenance have me outnumbered for now.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never made an argument about what an encyclopedia is (unless you claim saying something is "unencyclopedic" is a full-blown argument about what an encyclopedia is, which I wouldn't do), although I could make one about what Wikipedia is, which is certainly not the same as a paper encyclopedia in a big way, and which many have claimed should not lay claim to being called an encyclopedia at all. That said, my interpretation of the policies is orthodox. You wouldn't be having all this trouble if the policies were actually in your favour. In fact, those of us trying to contain your POV would be the ones being quoted policy by admins. But we're not. Because we're right. Oz Lawyer 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is the "Free Encyclopedia". The reason its free is because people like me come here to publish their knowledge and expertise. The fact that there are also people like you and your friends who with the guys of maintaining rules and proceedures ALSO streach their function to being a Gestapo for the local Propaganda Machines is a consequence of having people freely performing the checks on information. But more than a few editors and Administrators are guilty of working against the dissimination of information and advancing the POV they want Wiki to have on subjects dear to them.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a) Would you please stop using the word Gestapo? You've already been warned about how incredibly inappropriate it is to use that word in the context you're using it.

b) If there were no rules, Wikipedia would be Uncyclopedia, and there would be an article, written by yours truly, on what a terrible editor some guy named WikiRoo/Doo/Woo is.

c) I don't give a rat's ass about protecting the public opinion of regional government in Ontario, and I can assure you, JChap, who appears to be American, and JzG, who appears to be British, care far less than I. So why on earth are they trying to pound WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR into your head? Because those policies are necessary for a properly functioning encyclopedia! Oz Lawyer 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, I would see a lot more editing and requests for cites and a lot less reverts and deletions when some new material gets published that may not be pleasant to know. An Encyclopedia is first and foremost interest in accumulatinig and categorizing ALL the knowledge it can. When I see factual content being deleted rather than edited to removed POV that might come out from the WAY it is written then I lable this as Gestapo work. Gestapo is just a german word related to governmental activities that I feel best describes the forcefull maintaining of propaganda. Thaat there are a lot of like minded Civil Servant types or their dependants from different places who get all excited about the public dissimination of knowledge about workings of Civil Servants does not change things.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there should be more requests for cites. Be that as it may, when someone comes on to Wikipedia and posts original research that is clearly not verifiable, those of us who notice it have a duty to fix it. I would never have been alerted to your activities if you hadn't started posting original research on Susan Fennell. Had you, or anyone else, posted original unverifiable research on other articles I'm watching (there are quite a few), I would also have responded in the same way. There is nothing about what I and others are doing here that is any way like the activities of the Gestapo. It has already been pointed out to you that comparing editors to the Gestapo is a personal attack, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. It is inconsequential that you think that it "best describes" what we are doing. It does not. And it is highly insulting. Oz Lawyer 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. It is completely unacceptable to use terms like "Gestapo" to describe other editors, even if they were not acting in good faith (and in this case there is ample evidence that they are acting in good faith). I have told you before about this. Just zis Guy you know? 18:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're loosing control of yourself. Get a grip Guy Do you even bother reading things anymore? I did not make any personal attack in my reply.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You called me Gestapo here and here, and attempted to defend your use here instead of admitting it was wrong. Oz Lawyer 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you hoping that no one reads the three links you post "alledging" that I called you "Gestapo"? Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd sit it out. 24hrs ain't too long :D Computerjoe 's talk 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I can assure you I am not losing control of myself - I gave you a relatively short block for repeated gross incivility. You show increasing evidence of inability to work within the Wikipedia framework and you need to learn better. Just zis Guy you know? 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is non-sense. What's wrong with the word Gestapo its a german word that properly can be used to describe acts of maintaining propaganda by force. It's been used in my case because of the nature of the political aspects of the censorship being addressed. Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 19:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, it is not non-sense. If you don't understand how offensive the word Gestapo is then you might want to try to find out why people find it highly offensive. I've read all these threads and tried to help you several times. As far as I can see, there is nobody trying to maintain propaganda by force ... but that doesn't even get to the heart of the issue. Even if someone were trying to maintain propoganda by force calling them Gestapo violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. And you've been told this before. You are on the edge of wearing out the communities patience. I'm impartial in the particular debate - although I'm American I live in France and know very little about Canadian politics. We're just trying to follow the Wikipedia rules ... Calling someone or some group of people "Gestapo" is a personal attack - and if you don't understand that you should take the time to reflect on why people might be offended by it... You've earned yourself a pretty short-term block - rather than ask for help to be unblocked I suggest you reflect about how you got to this point as right now I believe you are on a path to more severe sanctions. You have a lot to contribute - but you need to contribute according the the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Brian 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Do not use the help me tag for unblock requests. --pgk^(talk) 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Help

I am looking for help shaking an Administrator who some adversaries here have poisoned into working to help them persecute me for having published unpopular knowledge about corrupt politicians and rougue public servants operating in Ontario Regional Government circles.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This can be classed as a personal attack or WP:CIVIL violation. If you continue, your block will be extended. Computerjoe 's talk 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to publish your own ideas I suggest you get your own website. Wikipedia is not the place for this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help Request

Hi, I'm Shadow1. What can I help you with?

I have been block without good reason and this is the second time by the same Admin. When I reviewed the talk pages I see some poisoning of the well by snide remarks made early on by a group of people who seem to be picking on me incestantly, creating an orgy condition of a group having fun beating up on a new guy from the moment I stated here. I put quite a bit of work into many articles that have been completely deleted this way. Though I have managed to get a few things up and published, a lot that I started ended up trashed that should have been edited and worked on.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this admin was completely within order, and 24hrs isn't long. So live with it. Computerjoe 's talk 20:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I got your message before. I was responding to Shadow1. Are you the same person as Shadow1?Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but your response was uncivil there :D Computerjoe 's talk 20:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can my response to you be uncivil when I did not respond to you?Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 22:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just read what you said to Shadow1. It is not civil language nor WP:AGF not matter to whom you were talking. This is an open community and what you write can be read by anyone. "poisoning of the well" is not civil, not assumption of good faith. "group of people having fun beating up on the new guy" is not civil, nor assumption of good faith. I see no evidence of WP:BITE. Some of us are still trying to help you, but you are still not following the Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines. Brian 22:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

B.C.C.

Hey WikiWoo. I would appreciate a little collaboration with the Bramalea City Centre article. I've been working on and off with the article to take it from this to this, however, another set of eyes would be beneficial in making it even better. Take a look at it when you have a chance. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Looks great and very Wikified. Good work!. Unfortunately the days of Brampton are numbered and just like Bramalea was annexed by Brampton, Brampton will be annexed by the Greater City of Peel in the style of Metro Toronto before the end of the next four year term of the current council unless all new people are elected around here (Municipaly, Regionaly and Provincially). Mississauga and Brampton will be no more and the BCC Mall will need to be renamed The Peel Center Mall. (The PC Mall kind of fitting tribute to Bill Davis and his gang)Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City manager

I noticed you've modified this page and made several reverts when this modification was questioned. You may or may not be aware of the WP:3RR policy that Wikipedia has, and blocking users because of this policy.

You may wish to discuss your changes on the article's talk page should this dispute continue, rather than be blocked for reverting the article again. Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you will review my edit they are not reverts. The revert by others requested a cite (rather than simply ask for a cite they eroniously reverted which is against Wiki policy for censorship. I corrected the eronious revert, and added the cite requested. That was not a revert. It was correction of an attempted censorship in the guys of asking for a cite. The proper method is to requste a cite {fact} rather than deleting content arbitrarily for no reason.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wikipedia policy does say that users are authorized to revert any unsourced material. The {fact} tag is merely a courtesy and is not required by policy. Captaintruth 21:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is UNCIVIL to revert someone's work when all you want is a cite, especially in the instant case when the same individual(s) and I have had several run-ins over the same group of articles related to public business activities by rouge bureaucrats in Regional Government in Ontario. When some one reverts in such a case it's like throwing a stone to instigate.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 21:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect on Water and wastewater infrastructure

I made the link. You don't see the connection between this and sewage treatment? Can you suggest a better redirect? The problem with redirecting to Ontario Clean Water Agency, as I have explained, is that this exists outside Ontario. JChap T/E 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link was from an Article in Ontario dealing with the management of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Ontario. It had nothing to do with Sewage Treatment and your redirect only confuses readers about what the article is about. OCWA maanages the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Peel as per the quote in the OCWA Article and the link as I did it ties these diverse pieces of information together in a logical and easy to follow manner. You would have had reader jumping from one place to another non-sensically changing the subject.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link goes directly from the Peel article to the OCWA page, so I don't see the reason for confusion. A redirect to OCWA from "Water and wastewater treatment" would confuse readers who were looking for general information about the topic. JChap T/E 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine now that you changes the link. But the way you had earlier it redirected to Sewage Treatment and would change the subject away from the costs of managing the infrastructure, which is what I was getting at and the subject matter where the link was made.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link five minutes after I fixed the redirect. You obviously accessed the article in between. If you want other people to give you a chance, you have to reciprocate. JChap T/E 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we work together we could do wonders expanding Wiki. Maybe less grit between us would smooth the process over. If I take the trouble to write something, it would be nice to see it get edited together rather than a tug-of-war on every point. Some of the issues have been quite petty. So I think if someone takes the time to write something up it should not be treated so frivously.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect on Water and wastewater infrastructure

I made the link. You don't see the connection between this and sewage treatment? Can you suggest a better redirect? The problem with redirecting to Ontario Clean Water Agency, as I have explained, is that this exists outside Ontario. JChap T/E 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link was from an Article in Ontario dealing with the management of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Ontario. It had nothing to do with Sewage Treatment and your redirect only confuses readers about what the article is about. OCWA maanages the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Peel as per the quote in the OCWA Article and the link as I did it ties these diverse pieces of information together in a logical and easy to follow manner. You would have had reader jumping from one place to another non-sensically changing the subject.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link goes directly from the Peel article to the OCWA page, so I don't see the reason for confusion. A redirect to OCWA from "Water and wastewater treatment" would confuse readers who were looking for general information about the topic. JChap T/E 00:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine now that you changes the link. But the way you had earlier it redirected to Sewage Treatment and would change the subject away from the costs of managing the infrastructure, which is what I was getting at and the subject matter where the link was made.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link five minutes after I fixed the redirect. You obviously accessed the article in between. If you want other people to give you a chance, you have to reciprocate. JChap T/E 01:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we work together we could do wonders expanding Wiki. Maybe less grit between us would smooth the process over. If I take the trouble to write something, it would be nice to see it get edited together rather than a tug-of-war on every point. Some of the issues have been quite petty. So I think if someone takes the time to write something up it should not be treated so frivously.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 01:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Request for Assistance

WikiWoo, I'd be happy to help in response to your request for assistance. I've posted some initial thoughts and questions at User:TheronJ/Advocacy/WikiWoo. Would you like to respond there? Thanks, TheronJ 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UNCIVIL Examples

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

Rudeness
Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")
Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another
Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.

More serious examples include:

Taunting
Personal attacks
Racial, ethnic, and religious slurs
Profanity directed at another contributor
Lies
Defacing user pages
Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove Trolling
Calling for bans or blocks
Incivility happens, for example, when you are quietly creating a new page, and another user tells you, "If you're going to write a pointless page, could you spell-check it?". Escalation occurs when you reply, "Mind your own business".

This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community

-Above taken from Wiki be Civil Advice Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is I who have been a victim of each of the above uncivil acts by the same small group of persecutors since I started posting here. I hope you each read these and see which ones you are guilty of. I never ONCE cast the first stone, but anyone can only take so much taunting before they fire something back and when I do, these few rifle off complaints and poison the well of some admin who only looks at what they say and does not go back to see the poking that provoked it....Look to the log sticking out of your own eye before speaking of the slivers in mine....Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 22:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of looking around for all the transgressions of others, how about acknowledging that you made an error of judgment, used grossly incivil language, apologise and resolve not to repeat the offence? Just zis Guy you know? 22:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personaly find nothing wrong with using the term Gestapo or that its grossly uncivil. It's not profanity and its a very civil way to respond to defend myself. The Gestapo was a governmental organization that censored information and removed people by force. I could have used the term KGB, CIA, Illuminati, Mafia or the Molly Maguires. It's not uncivil to refer to what someone is doing in a derogatory manner when it properly fits the bill for goods being sold concerning my contributions to Wiki. Its not a personal attack; especially if that person and others tied in talk discussions, follows you around every article with a clear agenda to undermine your every contribution; deleting content related to government individuals and government activities and inciting others to gang up and use force to delete articles someone took the time and worked hard to create... Someone refer to it as doing it "the hard way", which I take to mean other than by using legitimate means, not acting in good faith, and not playing fair and by the spirit of the rules and spirit of Wiki.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been made absolutely clear that it is inappropriate, and why. Just zis Guy you know? 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should agree to disagree on the term "Gestapo". I do not find it overly offensive and in my opinion is the best word to use (since it is the best known and accepted from history) that describes a group of people acting in the interst of a government againsts its citizens and who use forceful means to censor people or information. If there is a way to haave this dissagreement resolved on the suitability of this term, I would be obliged to participate.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should agree to accept that it is widely considered offensive. There is absolutely no possible doubt that the term is considered grossly offensive by many people. Just zis Guy you know? 20:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refer me to a Wiki policy commenting on the offensiveness of the word "Gestapo"? What word would you prefer to describe a group acting to censor applying absolute rules by force and persecuting individuals for the substance of what they say or publish? Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Tendering and accusations of vandalism and censorship

Honestly, WikiWoo, do you really think we're trying to "cover up" information? Tenders is an article about the tendering process, which is not significantly (or really, any) different whether it occurs in a public or a private setting. Therefore, a separate article for public tenders is completely unnecessary. That's why I put it up for deletion. You already saw Invited public tenders get voted for redirect to Tenders, so you know the consensus was that it didn't require its own article. Why would you then make this one? Yes, it's a little less specific in that it's supposed to deal with all public tenders, and not just the invited kind, but its still obviously just the same information in the tenders article. We don't need two articles that say the same thing, but one mentions the word "public" while the other does not. All that needs to be said is that tenders are often undertaken by public bodies as well as private corporations. Oz Lawyer 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, you did say you are still a law student. There is no similarity in Public Tendering and Tendering in a private business sense. Do some legal research on the subject of Public Tendering on Quicklaw and show me a private sector case involving Tendering. You will see that there is no such thing as similarity between Private Sector Purchasing (with or without tendering) and Public Sector Tendering. Up to 15 years ago is was illegal for governments to conduct Tenders that where NOT open and made TRANSPARENT by Public Tendering so anyone qualified could bid. Today the process of Transparancy in Public Purchasing gets lots of LIP SERVICE but under the table things like ADSCAM showed the tip of the iceburg of what goes on more and more every day. the Public Tendering article is a good one and contains good interesting information delivered netraly and without POV. The Tender article can also remain for the origin of the word and the triviality that goes with it. I see what you are doing with these articles as censorship because there is no good reason to delete either one. They should be expanded, but not censored as you would have it.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's similarily. A tender process is a tender process. As for your idea that the Tenders article should be about the "trivia" over the origin of the name, well, that's just ridiculous. Should we create dozens of articles about every subject and just add a little bit to each article about the subject instead of putting it all together in one comprehensive article? Fragmenting an article like that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Oz Lawyer 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued creation of redirects

WikiWoo, I know you understand how to create links properly. You'd had it explained to you at least four times already. Please stop creating these redirects instead of making simple links. All it does is create works for others, since redirects used as links are generally replaced whenever they're found. I'm going to explain this one last time. [[NAME OF ARTICLE|WORDS TO SHOW]] gives a link to NAME OF ARTICLE but displays WORDS TO SHOW. Please use this from now on! Oz Lawyer 12:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WikiWoo?

Do you realise that you are in imminent danger of WP:RFAR or a community ban? You really are not helping yourself here at all. I don't think this is through malice or ill intent, I think your enthusiasm for you cause and a tendency towards "immediatism" is leading you into bad ways. Please read this essay I'm working on: User:JzG/Tendentious editing. See if you can spot any of the danger signs in your own recent behaviour. And above all, please do calm down. There is no deadline to meet, and working collaboratively with people of differing views can result in a very good article. The best way to do this, given that you know by now that what you write is very likely to be controversial, is to start small, and start on Talk. There are active ediutor communities on these articles who will work with you if you work with them. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Tendering and accusations of vandalism and censorship

Honestly, WikiWoo, do you really think we're trying to "cover up" information? Tenders is an article about the tendering process, which is not significantly (or really, any) different whether it occurs in a public or a private setting. Therefore, a separate article for public tenders is completely unnecessary. That's why I put it up for deletion. You already saw Invited public tenders get voted for redirect to Tenders, so you know the consensus was that it didn't require its own article. Why would you then make this one? Yes, it's a little less specific in that it's supposed to deal with all public tenders, and not just the invited kind, but its still obviously just the same information in the tenders article. We don't need two articles that say the same thing, but one mentions the word "public" while the other does not. All that needs to be said is that tenders are often undertaken by public bodies as well as private corporations. Oz Lawyer 00:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, you did say you are still a law student. There is no similarity in Public Tendering and Tendering in a private business sense. Do some legal research on the subject of Public Tendering on Quicklaw and show me a private sector case involving Tendering. You will see that there is no such thing as similarity between Private Sector Purchasing (with or without tendering) and Public Sector Tendering. Up to 15 years ago is was illegal for governments to conduct Tenders that where NOT open and made TRANSPARENT by Public Tendering so anyone qualified could bid. Today the process of Transparancy in Public Purchasing gets lots of LIP SERVICE but under the table things like ADSCAM showed the tip of the iceburg of what goes on more and more every day. the Public Tendering article is a good one and contains good interesting information delivered netraly and without POV. The Tender article can also remain for the origin of the word and the triviality that goes with it. I see what you are doing with these articles as censorship because there is no good reason to delete either one. They should be expanded, but not censored as you would have it.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's similarily. A tender process is a tender process. As for your idea that the Tenders article should be about the "trivia" over the origin of the name, well, that's just ridiculous. Should we create dozens of articles about every subject and just add a little bit to each article about the subject instead of putting it all together in one comprehensive article? Fragmenting an article like that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. Oz Lawyer 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued creation of redirects

WikiWoo, I know you understand how to create links properly. You'd had it explained to you at least four times already. Please stop creating these redirects instead of making simple links. All it does is create works for others, since redirects used as links are generally replaced whenever they're found. I'm going to explain this one last time. [[NAME OF ARTICLE|WORDS TO SHOW]] gives a link to NAME OF ARTICLE but displays WORDS TO SHOW. Please use this from now on! Oz Lawyer 12:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WikiWoo?

Do you realise that you are in imminent danger of WP:RFAR or a community ban? You really are not helping yourself here at all. I don't think this is through malice or ill intent, I think your enthusiasm for you cause and a tendency towards "immediatism" is leading you into bad ways. Please read this essay I'm working on: User:JzG/Tendentious editing. See if you can spot any of the danger signs in your own recent behaviour. And above all, please do calm down. There is no deadline to meet, and working collaboratively with people of differing views can result in a very good article. The best way to do this, given that you know by now that what you write is very likely to be controversial, is to start small, and start on Talk. There are active ediutor communities on these articles who will work with you if you work with them. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Procurement

Okay, so let me get this straight. "Public procurement" is when a government or government agency BUYS STUFF?! And you think this is encyclopedic? Please, please, please, stop this madness. Simply because a government does something that everyone else does does not mean that it is worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The article is now redirected to Procurement. Oz Lawyer 13:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Government buys STUFF differently that individuals or corporations. A government must buy in the best interest of the Public and not in its self-interest. There are whole libraries devoted to government procurement practices and systems and they are nothing like the private sector. People and businesses are free to do as they please with their money. The notion that a government is an individual is a novel creation of the last ten years. The People are their Government and the other people with government jobs work for them and not themselves or their corporation.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 16:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Oxford County, Ontario; Snelgrove, Ontario; Lennox and Addington County, Ontario; Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, Ontario; List of Ontario provincial highways; Peel County, Ontario; Regional Municipality of Halton, Ontario; Haliburton County, Ontario; Home Hardware; Peel Regional Police; Cochrane District, Ontario; Regional Municipality of Sudbury, Ontario; Rainy River District, Ontario; Timiskaming District, Ontario; Quinte West, Ontario; Dufferin County, Ontario; Mike Lazaridis; Perth County, Ontario; Highway 10 (Ontario)

Cleanup: Belleville, Ontario; Wellesley, Ontario (community); Meadowvale, Ontario
Merge: Politics in Ottawa municipal government; Megacity; University of Toronto Campus Police
Add Sources: Bert Johnson; Highway 407 (Ontario); Liquor store
Wikify: Bradley Amendment; Counter-terrorism; Jedi Archives
Expand: Lake Huron; List of religious radio stations; 1992 Winter Olympics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 03:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy Update

WikiWoo, I've posted some additional thoughts on your advocacy. My first and most important suggestion would be to take a break from the Ontario pages for a few days while we come up with a plan. Thanks, TheronJ 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki, I can't quit making suggestions. (But let me know if you want me to, and I'll try to cut back.) ;-P Here's my attempt to provide an example of what I'm talking about. TheronJ 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Tendering DRV

I listed this article at WP:DRV, as you requested on WP:AN. Please go here to comment. JChap2007 23:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton and the ROP

There is a clear link to the ROP in the body of the following paragraph, so that argument holds no weight. Also, it is bad style on Wikipedia to include links in section titles. This is done only very rarely, in, for instance, some lists. There *is* a style guide which says not to link in section titles, but I don't know where it is right now. But I assure you, it's bad form and anyone who sees it and knows the style will remove it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it as bad form. If there is no guide, why should I consider your POV on this point as having weight? You deleted many links I made that ties facts and issues together. One of the distinct benefits of Wiki vs any other type of publication is its ability to allow users to jump from article to article or interest connecting diverse facts and issues together which makes it more interesting reading. Why do you feel this feature should not be expanded as a way to make people more informed and get them more information about things they may be interested in knowing? Why bother editing an encyclopedia if the intent is not to give as much information as possible? --Wiki The Humble Woo 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by tendentious editing (i.e. disruption). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. This is a 48 hour blocki to enable you to calm down: edits like this [11] are completely ridiculous, and wholly unacceptable, and you know it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now...This is a rediculous block. I can't believe how touchy some people here get over such a harmless nudge. But I guess this goes towards the high degree of censorship whenever anything involving educating people about underhanded government activities is concerned. You could have easily deleted the tag. Blocking without warning like this is uncalled for especially from an administrators who is voting adversarial to the article. At least some semblance of impartiality should be shown by an administrator when editors are involved in a dispute. --Wiki The Humble Woo 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki, to get your unblock box to format correctly, I think you want something like {{unblock|<insert reasons for appeal of block here>}} Thanks, TheronJ 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Natalya's upholding of the block. WikiWoo, you are clearly attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise your dissatisfaction with the Ontario government and certain forms of loan processes. Creating articles on general topics like Public Procurement and Prequalified that only mention a specific criticism is highly disruptive and does not improve the encyclopedia. Shouting "censorship" when people object to your edits does not help your case. This is not censorship, this is trying to uphold a neutral and balanced encyclopedia. There is a place for the criticisms you have, but to create entire articles that only have one (often extremely minority) viewpoint is not the way to move forward. Please read our policies WP:POV and WP:NPOV during your break from editing and try to understand why these are fundamental to the creation of a balanced encyclopedia. Thanks, Gwernol 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to Loan's prooves that people are being mislead about prequalification in the case of government procurement, when the system is used to exclude competition so that friends of bureuacrats entrusted with billions of dollars in public money can make lots of extra money so they can pass the buck around. Did no one learn anything from Adscam in Canada? That was nothing compared to what the Regional Governments in Ontario are doing. They are doing one adscam sized scam every two week whenever a council meetinig occures and the elected pupets accept a recommendation from the commissioners and CAO's on what to do with Billions each month of the Taxpayers money. I am simply publishing factual information. If people get persecuted on Wiki by propaganda pushing censors ganging together then that's just the way it is. Information is information, you people that try to claim a POV exists in facts are the ones twisting the rules to suit the rose coloured POV you want people to get from reading this encyclopedia.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the government of Ontario is indeed corrupt and are stealing your money; an assertion for which you have provided exactly zero reliable sources. Let's assume it though. That doesn't mean that the definition of public procurement should be based on that fact. William S. Burroughs wrote Naked Lunch in which his typewriter turned into a scarab beetle. Does this mean Wikipedia should define novels as "books in which typewriters turn into beetles"? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. You are using Wikipedia to push your own agenda, not write reasonable neutral articles. This is disruptive and not appropriate. Gwernol 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the purpose of any encyclopedia is to record and categorize information in the first instance. The system of numerous editors having the ability to edit articles to make the balanced and netral exists. The issue of an Article on "Prequalification" as is used by Regional Governments and others deserves to be written in some manner even if it shown these individuals partaking in the preactice to be totally corrupt scumbags pulfering millions of dollars of the taxpayers money hiding behind and false integrity created by equallly corrupt politicians who cover up for them. Now if there is a way to Wikify the information and details of corrupt system and deliver the facts in a neutral manner then do that. But a group of people trying to censor information simply it exposes facts and practices of people who are personally corrupt individuals without integrity is not a proper act of editing to maintain netrality. Netrality can be achived by editing words without deleting articles. The disruption is being caused by people pushing propagada and working to avoid subjects of articles that are critical or unsavory which degrade Wiki from being less that truthfull and against the objective of expanding knowledge and resorces for information of importance and interest. [Prequalification] in Govevernment spending is a form of favoratism and discrimination and should be recorded and Articles should be written on Wiki about such facts. I may be having a haard time to write using more pleasant words from my personal inside knowledge of how truly evil and corrupt people running the Regions of Ontario are, but that is no reason to delete the undelying facts that people can rrefer to to draw their own conclusions on how corrupt and bad people in Regional Government actually are.--Wiki The Humble Woo 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any evidence that the Ontario government is, in your words, "totally corrupt scumbags". Until you provide reliable sources for this claim that allow us to verify it, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. This is not some attempt to censor, this is one of the core policies that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of just a blog. The article you wrote was not on "Prequalification as used in Regional Governments", it was on "Prequalification". Therefore it has to be about all "Prequalification", not the special case of prequalification practices of regional governments, and especially not about just those of the Ontario government. Again its like writing an article about Automobiles and only including information about the 1927 Hispano-Suiza H-series; it wouldn't make any sense to do that, so why write an article about "Prequalification" and only include information about the Ontario government's use of prequalification?

Wikipedia's purpose is to collect and record facts reported by reliable sources elsewhere. That is what all encyclopedias do. So, find reported information that backs up your claim. Your personal experience is not a valid reliable source. If personal experience alone were allowed then any crank making any obviously false claim could corrupt Wikipedia. Note I am not claiming you are wrong, just that your evidence provided so far isn't good enough. Once you have reliable evidence for your claims, please add it to the appropriate article. For example, if you are correct that the Ontario government is corrupt, this may be suitable for inclusion in the article Politics of Ontario. If you can provide evidence you will not be, as you put it "censored". Every contribution is held to the same evidentiary standards we ask of you. Gwernol 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not publishing an article saying that anyone of the individuals in Regional Government is corrupt per se. If that evidence was permited to be assebled then those people would be in jail. I am trying to publish an article about the prequalification process that they use so people can draw their own conclusions about how corrupt the system is. That kind of basic information should not be censored. I am not writing a story. I am recording information about a system.--Wiki The Humble Woo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these aledged editors who claim to know something about prequalification in government procurement, particularly in Regional Governments of Ontario and who are calling for censorship of the article, if they were legitimate editors, would rewrite material the way they now it, if they did not truly agree with what I wrote. Because they know it to be factual and accurate, and they too consider what is being done as corrupt, they call for deletion. I posted more than enough cites for anyone to review and draw their own conclusions. What I see people here going around poking holes in information by deleting information so that only bits and pieces are published which is then not enough for people understand the information and draw informative conclusions. This is unfortunately the whole corrupt system of Ontario Regional Government and Judicial Systems here that transverses all aspects of politics and governmental in this area. In other parts of the world people would riot in the streets and tar and feather these types of people and expel them and their families from public authorioty permanently. The great public money here is used instead in the self-interest of these individuals to cover up and undermine disimination of information that would expose their systemically corrupt systems and practices. Whether its a Susan Fennell, an Emil Kholb, a Lynda Jeffrey, or a Marilyn Morrison doing the screwing around with their friends and family, way too many people are dependant on these extended networks of corruption and getting benefits fron all the hanky-panky going on.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ on a bike, WikiWoo, don't you ever give up? Read WP:TE really carefully and see where you are headed. Do you really not understand where you are going wrong? Just zis Guy you know? 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote...is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view... This is an extract of the WP:TE please read it. I am not writing POV articles. I am adding content of a factual nature. There are others here that I am inviting to edit POV from my articles when they see it. The problem I see is that some people here don't want certain types of information from being published at all regardless of the wording. I see this as censorship of important public information that should be published. You see paid media is forced to avoid certain subjects because they are beholden to the master who hold the public purse. Wiki is FREE and therefore is a much better source of information than any money driven newspaper or publishing house. I see a lot of so called editors and administrators here what to see Wiki as some childish version of mainstream publishing. I on the other hand see Wiki as something thousands of times better and more usefull to the world than anything ever written on any piece of paper for a price. Long live a free and uncesored Wiki and god bless those that believe in all humanity having the basic right to all information possible and know to man at their fingertips.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the language you quoted from WP:TE? You follow the quote with a perfect example of what it is describing!!! JChap2007 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you and I see different words on the same page. I read it that everyone here has a POV and there is nothing wrong with having a POV. I write factual articles and contribution. People against what I write, rather that edit the wording to balance the POV make every effort to censor the information using POV as their excuse. Typical bureacratic behaviour...Wiki appears full of Bureaucrats and Bureacracts in the making.....“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.- Thomas Sowell--Wiki The Humble Woo 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you quote the essay back to me and say "please read it" indicates that you have looked at it rather less carefully than I have. Which is hardly surprising, since I wrote it. The major problem here - and in fact the major problem with you all along - is that when you are pointed to some policy, guideline or essay, your primary (and possibly sole) concern is to find ways in which it can be used to support your actions, the while ignoring the myriad ways such documents indicate the problematic nature of your behaviour. Rather than understand the spirit of policies you assume the problem is wiht those who criticise your actions, however numerous and experienced such critics may be, and however out numbered you are - in fact, you appear in most cases to be a minority of one. The usual endgame in such cases is WP:RFAR, although increasingly editors like you are simply indefinitely blocked as having exhausted community patience. Yes, editors like you. As you would realise had you read the sections entitled Righting Great Wrongs and How to pull back from the brink (especially the first pararaph of the latter). So: you are a problem editor. The way to change that is not to look around for ways to excuse your behaviour, or deflect attention away from it, or to pretend you are not a problem editor, it's to stop being a problem, before we stop you being an editor. It really is that simple. Sorry to be blunt, but politeness and subtlety appear to be completely wasted on you. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW, above you say:

'You see paid media is forced to avoid certain subjects because they are beholden to the master who hold the public purse. Wiki is FREE and therefore is a much better source of information than any money driven newspaper or publishing house. I see a lot of so called editors and administrators here what to see Wiki as some childish version of mainstream publishing. I on the other hand see Wiki as something thousands of times better and more usefull to the world than anything ever written on any piece of paper for a price.'

You seem to want to use WP to disseminate information that is not already contained in reliable sources because those sources are inadequate. Is that right? That's not going to work because it violates one of the central policies: WP:RS. Wikipedia would seem to be a particularly ill-suited vehicle for you to accomplish your goals! Instead of getting frustrated, blocked, banned, Arbcommed, etc. here, why not explore other places on the Internet where you can post information and that do not require reliable sources to do so? There are plenty of those... JChap2007 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is plenty of reliable and verifyable information such as all the work I did on the Peel Tender examples and prequalification examples that information belongs on Wiki as well as other places. There is plenty of writting going on on-line. Wiki without that kind of information is incomplete and misleads people into looking at the rose coloured version of reality some people want this publication to have. There are thousands of people editing Wiki and a couple of dozen banding together to censor information they don't like other people to see does not detter me from finding ways to work with this system and get factual information where people can see and use it to be better informed and more knowledgeable. As long as information mispublished here there should be effort to clean it up. Wiki is a good well used source of information particularly with school children who should know what their elders are doing rather than be brought up in a culture of lies and corrupt missinformation. It may be too late to fix those alrerady corrupted, but at least some future generation may be better off by knowing what to watch out for in public activities.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest to god, if you don't stop accusing us of censorship, my head is going to explode and you're going to get brains all over your face. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, you really are going to have to start listening some time. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. It is the place to document the Righting of Great Wrongs elsewhere. If you continue to try to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, as you currently are, then you will simply be banned, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I suggest you run for office or get a blog or something, you certainly can't continue to pursue your campaign here. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have all kinds of opinions about me all made up. I don't know if that's fitting for an administrator. Maybe you should lay off reviewing anything that I do here because you are showing a partiality which is unwikilike, does not assume Good Faith etc., and you seem to have a POV of your own that you are advancing regarding the issues involving my expertise.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should lay off pushing your agenda and accept the fact that when many people tell independently you that you are doing something wrong, it is probably a sign that you are doing something wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda... You seem to be the one with the agenda of keeping information about corruption in the Regional Governments of Ontario off Wiki. An enclyclopedia records information without judging the effects the information has. If information results in people or systems being adversly affected other people and new systems will be effected in a positive way. This is how humanity advances by the sharing of information and knowledge. Lack of information and knowledge is generally behind all sociel corruption. My agenda is to publish information of interest in which I have expertise. I am not going to write about Freemasons or Emus since I would have little to contribute towards expandinig human knowledge in those areas. I am happy when editors reword, cite and expaand in a constructive manner what I start. I dislike censoring information, especially for no reason other than it sheads light on people or systems that are corrupt, are without integrity and serves to paint a false image of propriety and correctness in the evils that top people in government in Ontario are responssible for. --Wiki The Humble Woo 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More advocacy suggestions

Wiki, let me make one more suggestion.

It seems like you have some text you want to include about no-bid public procurement. Would you be willing to start by creating this text on a scratchpad? If you show me what you want to add to the encyclopedia, we can discuss how to get it in a form that will encounter less resistance than you are currently seeing.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again...I will take you up on that as soon as I am off the block and have more time. --Wiki The Humble Woo 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the block over? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being there to entertain you as soon as the block expired, Osgoode. Some people have a life outside of Wiki. Don't worry I'll be back soon enough....--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my comment was questioning if the block wasn't already over at the time you said "as soon as I am off the block". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overly preocupied with my activities and keep looking for ways to split hairs. By the way, what is your particular connection with these Regional Governments? I have stated mine which is that I dealt with them all for thirty years thus gaininig much insight in their corruption of society and politics as people of low esteem and lack of integrity --Wiki The Humble Woo 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you that I have no connection to regional governments (well, aside from living in one). I have no love for them, no hate for them, no feelings at all, really, for them. Nothing in any of my edits has had anything to do with a connection to or feeling for regional governments. As I, and countless others have said, all this "censorship", "vandalism" and "conspiracy" you are claiming is really just the result of practicing good editing. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking Ii am seeing a lot of DELETING and very little EDITING, so excuse me if I don't concur with your opinions of what you think you are doing, and maintain that my contributions dealing with the unsavoury aspects of Ontario Governance and the corrupt individuals that are running them are being censored by a group acting cooperatively to keep it off of Wiki.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong objection to your characterization that you are "being censored by a group acting cooperatively to keep it off of Wiki". That is a personal attack and completely unfounded. Please withdraw this serious accusation. Thank you, Gwernol 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct..."I" am not being censored.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Adams

If you want to request an article, don't create an empty article containing only {{expand}}. That falls under CSD A3. Instead, use Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thank you. —Scott5114 ↗ 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the Mayors of places in Ontario stub.--Wiki The Humble Woo 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better to leave a redlink, because then if someone is interested in writing an article they can see we don't have one. Regardless, articles with no content can be speedy deleted (see WP:CSD), as this one already has been. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in the news" on Brampton, Ontario

Your addition is not only not notable (I'm sure Brampton is mentioned hundreds, if not thousands of times a year "in the news"), but it's even misleading--it's more a criticism of what Punjabi-Canadians in Brampton see as important in politics than what you said it was in your edit Also, your placement of the single line in a section of its own, at the top of the article is clearly inappropriate. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before vandalizing my contribution again please refer to the talk page of the Brampton article and discuss your issues there. We are not on a punch clock and there is no rush to censor information that people think is notable enough to take the time to publish it. --Wiki The Humble Woo 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, censorship, my being an agent of the Regional governments

Okay, WikiWoo, this has got to stop. Nobody is vandalising your work here. There is no censorship going on. And I assure you, I am NOT an agent of the Ontario Regional Municipalities. As noted to you several times before, accusations of vandalism and censorship are incivil, and this accusation that I am part of a conspiracy to keep this information secret is both ludicrous and a personal attack. I am not going to stand for it any longer. I will reopen the RfC against you, or even try a Request for Arbitration if it does not stop absolutely. This is not a "threat", it is a reminder that you are on the brink of being dealt with more harshly, and a request that you clean up your act so that it does not have to come to that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I am going to agree with Osgoodelawyer here. You have to stop attacking other editors, and in particular your accusations of censorship are extremely inappropriate and offensive. Please understand that we are trying to ensure that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are properly adhered to by all editors. The objection is to your behavior and persistent pushing of a minority WP:POV. Please collaborate with other editors rather than blindly insisting on your way or the highway. We understand that you feel passionately about your cause, but Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view which means you cannot take your personal opinions of one regional government and force them into every article you find. If you do not stop this behavior you will be blocked from editing again and may even be banned from Wikipedia entirely, which will do nothing to further your aims. Please find a way to work within the rules. Thanks, Gwernol 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peace and love vs aggressive editing

G'day WikiWoo,

I notice you've had a bit of a dispute in our article on Brampton, Ontario. Before we go into that, please accept my heartfelt plea that you be more careful when reverting in future; here you re-inserted someone else's vandalism without even noticing. Edit warring is a Bad Thing in any case, and when you would rather allow vandalism to exist in an article than allow another editor's change to persist, then something is definitely wrong with your approach to the article.

I'm not going to express an opinion regarding the section you'd like to add to the article. My job here is to ask you to be less aggressive in your editing practices. You and Osgoodelawyer (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted one another over a dispute which, frankly, did not need anyone trying to revert back to their favourite version as quickly as possible. As you did so, you were both incivil — Osgoodelawyer described your addition as "ridiculous", while you pulled out all the stops and threw unfounded accusations of "censorship" and (for reasons which utterly escape me, and would probably be painful to consider) "vandalism". Comments like that against users who are patently not vandals are considered personal attacks, and are never acceptable. You are needlessly getting people off-side here. Please re-consider your aggressive approach to editing if you wish to continue contributing to this project. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another user of vandalism, censorship and being on the payroll of the Ontario govt

This is unacceptable and has gone on far too long. You obviously learned nothing from your block. I think a longer-term solution may be in order. JChap2007 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same Old Same Old

Of the thousands of editors of Wiki this half dozen banding together does not constitute. How many people have you tar and feather this way as a group? Are you all related to people pocketing money from Regional Government? With over 15,000 employees I am sure that a dozen or more editors of Wiki must be related and dependants of Ontario Regional Corruption either directly or as offsprings.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are continuing to see conspiracies everywhere, would you at least name these mysterious editors who you believe are in the pay of Regional Government? Who exactly are you accusing here? Gwernol 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any personal attacks. They know who they are. Regional Governments of Ontario are INCESTIOUS organizations where people friends and relatives live off the trough of the public purse using all types of underhanded and unethical practices. They are places where the most crrooked and evil members of the public services and professions aggregate are they are dismissed from other governmental organization that are under more public scrutiny, such as local tiers, Provincial Government or Federal Government that each have Auditor Generals or Members of the Public watching other everyones sholders. But NOT in Regional Government where they all basically do as they please with tens of BILLIONS of dollars each year. Generally speaking the elected and non-eleted alike by a large majority are EVIL and CORRUPT and take great pleasure acting as BULLIES and THUGS manipulating all legitimate systems people believe are in place, but because of the nafarious Gangsterlike influence of the Regional Government organizations cannot function properly.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making extremely serious accusations against Wikipedia editors, saying they are party to corruption both in real life and on Wikipedia. Unless you are prepared to list who you are accusing, you must stop making these unfounded accusations. You need to stop immediately. Unless you have verifiable proof from reliable sources you need to stop pushing your single-minded point of view into Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POINT OF VIEW is not being placed into the Articles. I am stating my POINT OF VIEW in the discussions to help justify the notability of the information and facts that I am contributing. My POINT OF VIEW is used to JUSTIFY the NOTABILITY OF THE FACTS and INFORMATION that others here seem to be trying to censor using excuses such as NOT NOTABLE. Something being NOTABLLE OR NOT is a point of view. Therefore my POINT OF VIEW is necessary to explain to these people WHY the information is NOTABLE. Thee fact that Notable Information may tie people and events together to show nafariousness, corrupt, unethical or unsavory activities is not reason for the information to be excluded from Wiki. Wiki is not a local Propaganda Machine. It is a free encyclopedia for the WORLD to use. and Everyone has equal opportunity to publish what THEY FIND NOTABLE.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that there is nefarious activity going on then of course it will be listed in Wikipedia. It is simply outrageous and personally insulting that you suggest otherwise. The problem is you have not come close to providing us with reliable, independent sources that can be verified that support your thesis. You need to provide secondary sources that report the connections you are trying to make - for example if the New York Times had published an article about the alleged corruption you could absolutely include that in the appropriate Wikipedia article. I will personally help you get that information included if you can provide sources. But you cannot argue from primary sources that there is corruption. That would be original research which is absolutely not appropriate in an encyclopedia. You also need to find the appropriate place to add this. The article, for example, on public procurement is not the right place to add information about corruption by one particular regional government, since it is a general article about what public procurement is in all countries across the globe. Unless you have specific sources to show that all public procurement is corrupt everywhere, that is the wrong article. Does this make any sense to you?

You still have not told me who you are accusing? Unless you are prepared to say, then please stop making these wild accusations. I will take any further accusations that unnamed Wikipedia editors are corrupt to be a personal attack on myself amongst others and I will block you on the spot. Gwernol 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol, I don't know if you are simply being used or have your own trigger finger for wanting to block people. People are only human. I did not make any personal attacks. I made a collective defense. If you take any one of my contributions you will find that a couple of people start in on them regardless of the subject matter, with an assumption that there is NO GOOD FAITH in my contribution and proceed to nitpick and whittle away the information till it is confused or no longer recognizable. Granted I appreciate everyone assuming good faith on everyone else is nieve. I do believe that the Good Faith should be assumed in the first instance and that subsequent acts of agression in adverse editing of contribution taken as having some degree of less than good faith. Unless you are prepared to review the entirety of the interaction between myself and the small group of people working together to edit and delete my contributions I think you block is unwarranted.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton and the ROP

There is a clear link to the ROP in the body of the following paragraph, so that argument holds no weight. Also, it is bad style on Wikipedia to include links in section titles. This is done only very rarely, in, for instance, some lists. There *is* a style guide which says not to link in section titles, but I don't know where it is right now. But I assure you, it's bad form and anyone who sees it and knows the style will remove it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it as bad form. If there is no guide, why should I consider your POV on this point as having weight? You deleted many links I made that ties facts and issues together. One of the distinct benefits of Wiki vs any other type of publication is its ability to allow users to jump from article to article or interest connecting diverse facts and issues together which makes it more interesting reading. Why do you feel this feature should not be expanded as a way to make people more informed and get them more information about things they may be interested in knowing? Why bother editing an encyclopedia if the intent is not to give as much information as possible? --Wiki The Humble Woo 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by tendentious editing (i.e. disruption). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. This is a 48 hour blocki to enable you to calm down: edits like this [12] are completely ridiculous, and wholly unacceptable, and you know it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now...This is a rediculous block. I can't believe how touchy some people here get over such a harmless nudge. But I guess this goes towards the high degree of censorship whenever anything involving educating people about underhanded government activities is concerned. You could have easily deleted the tag. Blocking without warning like this is uncalled for especially from an administrators who is voting adversarial to the article. At least some semblance of impartiality should be shown by an administrator when editors are involved in a dispute. --Wiki The Humble Woo 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki, to get your unblock box to format correctly, I think you want something like {{unblock|<insert reasons for appeal of block here>}} Thanks, TheronJ 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Natalya's upholding of the block. WikiWoo, you are clearly attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise your dissatisfaction with the Ontario government and certain forms of loan processes. Creating articles on general topics like Public Procurement and Prequalified that only mention a specific criticism is highly disruptive and does not improve the encyclopedia. Shouting "censorship" when people object to your edits does not help your case. This is not censorship, this is trying to uphold a neutral and balanced encyclopedia. There is a place for the criticisms you have, but to create entire articles that only have one (often extremely minority) viewpoint is not the way to move forward. Please read our policies WP:POV and WP:NPOV during your break from editing and try to understand why these are fundamental to the creation of a balanced encyclopedia. Thanks, Gwernol 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to Loan's prooves that people are being mislead about prequalification in the case of government procurement, when the system is used to exclude competition so that friends of bureuacrats entrusted with billions of dollars in public money can make lots of extra money so they can pass the buck around. Did no one learn anything from Adscam in Canada? That was nothing compared to what the Regional Governments in Ontario are doing. They are doing one adscam sized scam every two week whenever a council meetinig occures and the elected pupets accept a recommendation from the commissioners and CAO's on what to do with Billions each month of the Taxpayers money. I am simply publishing factual information. If people get persecuted on Wiki by propaganda pushing censors ganging together then that's just the way it is. Information is information, you people that try to claim a POV exists in facts are the ones twisting the rules to suit the rose coloured POV you want people to get from reading this encyclopedia.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the government of Ontario is indeed corrupt and are stealing your money; an assertion for which you have provided exactly zero reliable sources. Let's assume it though. That doesn't mean that the definition of public procurement should be based on that fact. William S. Burroughs wrote Naked Lunch in which his typewriter turned into a scarab beetle. Does this mean Wikipedia should define novels as "books in which typewriters turn into beetles"? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. You are using Wikipedia to push your own agenda, not write reasonable neutral articles. This is disruptive and not appropriate. Gwernol 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the purpose of any encyclopedia is to record and categorize information in the first instance. The system of numerous editors having the ability to edit articles to make the balanced and netral exists. The issue of an Article on "Prequalification" as is used by Regional Governments and others deserves to be written in some manner even if it shown these individuals partaking in the preactice to be totally corrupt scumbags pulfering millions of dollars of the taxpayers money hiding behind and false integrity created by equallly corrupt politicians who cover up for them. Now if there is a way to Wikify the information and details of corrupt system and deliver the facts in a neutral manner then do that. But a group of people trying to censor information simply it exposes facts and practices of people who are personally corrupt individuals without integrity is not a proper act of editing to maintain netrality. Netrality can be achived by editing words without deleting articles. The disruption is being caused by people pushing propagada and working to avoid subjects of articles that are critical or unsavory which degrade Wiki from being less that truthfull and against the objective of expanding knowledge and resorces for information of importance and interest. [Prequalification] in Govevernment spending is a form of favoratism and discrimination and should be recorded and Articles should be written on Wiki about such facts. I may be having a haard time to write using more pleasant words from my personal inside knowledge of how truly evil and corrupt people running the Regions of Ontario are, but that is no reason to delete the undelying facts that people can rrefer to to draw their own conclusions on how corrupt and bad people in Regional Government actually are.--Wiki The Humble Woo 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any evidence that the Ontario government is, in your words, "totally corrupt scumbags". Until you provide reliable sources for this claim that allow us to verify it, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. This is not some attempt to censor, this is one of the core policies that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of just a blog. The article you wrote was not on "Prequalification as used in Regional Governments", it was on "Prequalification". Therefore it has to be about all "Prequalification", not the special case of prequalification practices of regional governments, and especially not about just those of the Ontario government. Again its like writing an article about Automobiles and only including information about the 1927 Hispano-Suiza H-series; it wouldn't make any sense to do that, so why write an article about "Prequalification" and only include information about the Ontario government's use of prequalification?

Wikipedia's purpose is to collect and record facts reported by reliable sources elsewhere. That is what all encyclopedias do. So, find reported information that backs up your claim. Your personal experience is not a valid reliable source. If personal experience alone were allowed then any crank making any obviously false claim could corrupt Wikipedia. Note I am not claiming you are wrong, just that your evidence provided so far isn't good enough. Once you have reliable evidence for your claims, please add it to the appropriate article. For example, if you are correct that the Ontario government is corrupt, this may be suitable for inclusion in the article Politics of Ontario. If you can provide evidence you will not be, as you put it "censored". Every contribution is held to the same evidentiary standards we ask of you. Gwernol 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not publishing an article saying that anyone of the individuals in Regional Government is corrupt per se. If that evidence was permited to be assebled then those people would be in jail. I am trying to publish an article about the prequalification process that they use so people can draw their own conclusions about how corrupt the system is. That kind of basic information should not be censored. I am not writing a story. I am recording information about a system.--Wiki The Humble Woo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these aledged editors who claim to know something about prequalification in government procurement, particularly in Regional Governments of Ontario and who are calling for censorship of the article, if they were legitimate editors, would rewrite material the way they now it, if they did not truly agree with what I wrote. Because they know it to be factual and accurate, and they too consider what is being done as corrupt, they call for deletion. I posted more than enough cites for anyone to review and draw their own conclusions. What I see people here going around poking holes in information by deleting information so that only bits and pieces are published which is then not enough for people understand the information and draw informative conclusions. This is unfortunately the whole corrupt system of Ontario Regional Government and Judicial Systems here that transverses all aspects of politics and governmental in this area. In other parts of the world people would riot in the streets and tar and feather these types of people and expel them and their families from public authorioty permanently. The great public money here is used instead in the self-interest of these individuals to cover up and undermine disimination of information that would expose their systemically corrupt systems and practices. Whether its a Susan Fennell, an Emil Kholb, a Lynda Jeffrey, or a Marilyn Morrison doing the screwing around with their friends and family, way too many people are dependant on these extended networks of corruption and getting benefits fron all the hanky-panky going on.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ on a bike, WikiWoo, don't you ever give up? Read WP:TE really carefully and see where you are headed. Do you really not understand where you are going wrong? Just zis Guy you know? 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote...is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view... This is an extract of the WP:TE please read it. I am not writing POV articles. I am adding content of a factual nature. There are others here that I am inviting to edit POV from my articles when they see it. The problem I see is that some people here don't want certain types of information from being published at all regardless of the wording. I see this as censorship of important public information that should be published. You see paid media is forced to avoid certain subjects because they are beholden to the master who hold the public purse. Wiki is FREE and therefore is a much better source of information than any money driven newspaper or publishing house. I see a lot of so called editors and administrators here what to see Wiki as some childish version of mainstream publishing. I on the other hand see Wiki as something thousands of times better and more usefull to the world than anything ever written on any piece of paper for a price. Long live a free and uncesored Wiki and god bless those that believe in all humanity having the basic right to all information possible and know to man at their fingertips.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the language you quoted from WP:TE? You follow the quote with a perfect example of what it is describing!!! JChap2007 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you and I see different words on the same page. I read it that everyone here has a POV and there is nothing wrong with having a POV. I write factual articles and contribution. People against what I write, rather that edit the wording to balance the POV make every effort to censor the information using POV as their excuse. Typical bureacratic behaviour...Wiki appears full of Bureaucrats and Bureacracts in the making.....“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.- Thomas Sowell--Wiki The Humble Woo 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you quote the essay back to me and say "please read it" indicates that you have looked at it rather less carefully than I have. Which is hardly surprising, since I wrote it. The major problem here - and in fact the major problem with you all along - is that when you are pointed to some policy, guideline or essay, your primary (and possibly sole) concern is to find ways in which it can be used to support your actions, the while ignoring the myriad ways such documents indicate the problematic nature of your behaviour. Rather than understand the spirit of policies you assume the problem is wiht those who criticise your actions, however numerous and experienced such critics may be, and however out numbered you are - in fact, you appear in most cases to be a minority of one. The usual endgame in such cases is WP:RFAR, although increasingly editors like you are simply indefinitely blocked as having exhausted community patience. Yes, editors like you. As you would realise had you read the sections entitled Righting Great Wrongs and How to pull back from the brink (especially the first pararaph of the latter). So: you are a problem editor. The way to change that is not to look around for ways to excuse your behaviour, or deflect attention away from it, or to pretend you are not a problem editor, it's to stop being a problem, before we stop you being an editor. It really is that simple. Sorry to be blunt, but politeness and subtlety appear to be completely wasted on you. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW, above you say:

'You see paid media is forced to avoid certain subjects because they are beholden to the master who hold the public purse. Wiki is FREE and therefore is a much better source of information than any money driven newspaper or publishing house. I see a lot of so called editors and administrators here what to see Wiki as some childish version of mainstream publishing. I on the other hand see Wiki as something thousands of times better and more usefull to the world than anything ever written on any piece of paper for a price.'

You seem to want to use WP to disseminate information that is not already contained in reliable sources because those sources are inadequate. Is that right? That's not going to work because it violates one of the central policies: WP:RS. Wikipedia would seem to be a particularly ill-suited vehicle for you to accomplish your goals! Instead of getting frustrated, blocked, banned, Arbcommed, etc. here, why not explore other places on the Internet where you can post information and that do not require reliable sources to do so? There are plenty of those... JChap2007 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is plenty of reliable and verifyable information such as all the work I did on the Peel Tender examples and prequalification examples that information belongs on Wiki as well as other places. There is plenty of writting going on on-line. Wiki without that kind of information is incomplete and misleads people into looking at the rose coloured version of reality some people want this publication to have. There are thousands of people editing Wiki and a couple of dozen banding together to censor information they don't like other people to see does not detter me from finding ways to work with this system and get factual information where people can see and use it to be better informed and more knowledgeable. As long as information mispublished here there should be effort to clean it up. Wiki is a good well used source of information particularly with school children who should know what their elders are doing rather than be brought up in a culture of lies and corrupt missinformation. It may be too late to fix those alrerady corrupted, but at least some future generation may be better off by knowing what to watch out for in public activities.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest to god, if you don't stop accusing us of censorship, my head is going to explode and you're going to get brains all over your face. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, you really are going to have to start listening some time. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. It is the place to document the Righting of Great Wrongs elsewhere. If you continue to try to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, as you currently are, then you will simply be banned, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I suggest you run for office or get a blog or something, you certainly can't continue to pursue your campaign here. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have all kinds of opinions about me all made up. I don't know if that's fitting for an administrator. Maybe you should lay off reviewing anything that I do here because you are showing a partiality which is unwikilike, does not assume Good Faith etc., and you seem to have a POV of your own that you are advancing regarding the issues involving my expertise.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should lay off pushing your agenda and accept the fact that when many people tell independently you that you are doing something wrong, it is probably a sign that you are doing something wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda... You seem to be the one with the agenda of keeping information about corruption in the Regional Governments of Ontario off Wiki. An enclyclopedia records information without judging the effects the information has. If information results in people or systems being adversly affected other people and new systems will be effected in a positive way. This is how humanity advances by the sharing of information and knowledge. Lack of information and knowledge is generally behind all sociel corruption. My agenda is to publish information of interest in which I have expertise. I am not going to write about Freemasons or Emus since I would have little to contribute towards expandinig human knowledge in those areas. I am happy when editors reword, cite and expaand in a constructive manner what I start. I dislike censoring information, especially for no reason other than it sheads light on people or systems that are corrupt, are without integrity and serves to paint a false image of propriety and correctness in the evils that top people in government in Ontario are responssible for. --Wiki The Humble Woo 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More advocacy suggestions

Wiki, let me make one more suggestion.

It seems like you have some text you want to include about no-bid public procurement. Would you be willing to start by creating this text on a scratchpad? If you show me what you want to add to the encyclopedia, we can discuss how to get it in a form that will encounter less resistance than you are currently seeing.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again...I will take you up on that as soon as I am off the block and have more time. --Wiki The Humble Woo 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the block over? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being there to entertain you as soon as the block expired, Osgoode. Some people have a life outside of Wiki. Don't worry I'll be back soon enough....--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my comment was questioning if the block wasn't already over at the time you said "as soon as I am off the block". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overly preocupied with my activities and keep looking for ways to split hairs. By the way, what is your particular connection with these Regional Governments? I have stated mine which is that I dealt with them all for thirty years thus gaininig much insight in their corruption of society and politics as people of low esteem and lack of integrity --Wiki The Humble Woo 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you that I have no connection to regional governments (well, aside from living in one). I have no love for them, no hate for them, no feelings at all, really, for them. Nothing in any of my edits has had anything to do with a connection to or feeling for regional governments. As I, and countless others have said, all this "censorship", "vandalism" and "conspiracy" you are claiming is really just the result of practicing good editing. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking Ii am seeing a lot of DELETING and very little EDITING, so excuse me if I don't concur with your opinions of what you think you are doing, and maintain that my contributions dealing with the unsavoury aspects of Ontario Governance and the corrupt individuals that are running them are being censored by a group acting cooperatively to keep it off of Wiki.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong objection to your characterization that you are "being censored by a group acting cooperatively to keep it off of Wiki". That is a personal attack and completely unfounded. Please withdraw this serious accusation. Thank you, Gwernol 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct..."I" am not being censored.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Adams

If you want to request an article, don't create an empty article containing only {{expand}}. That falls under CSD A3. Instead, use Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thank you. —Scott5114 ↗ 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the Mayors of places in Ontario stub.--Wiki The Humble Woo 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better to leave a redlink, because then if someone is interested in writing an article they can see we don't have one. Regardless, articles with no content can be speedy deleted (see WP:CSD), as this one already has been. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in the news" on Brampton, Ontario

Your addition is not only not notable (I'm sure Brampton is mentioned hundreds, if not thousands of times a year "in the news"), but it's even misleading--it's more a criticism of what Punjabi-Canadians in Brampton see as important in politics than what you said it was in your edit Also, your placement of the single line in a section of its own, at the top of the article is clearly inappropriate. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before vandalizing my contribution again please refer to the talk page of the Brampton article and discuss your issues there. We are not on a punch clock and there is no rush to censor information that people think is notable enough to take the time to publish it. --Wiki The Humble Woo 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, censorship, my being an agent of the Regional governments

Okay, WikiWoo, this has got to stop. Nobody is vandalising your work here. There is no censorship going on. And I assure you, I am NOT an agent of the Ontario Regional Municipalities. As noted to you several times before, accusations of vandalism and censorship are incivil, and this accusation that I am part of a conspiracy to keep this information secret is both ludicrous and a personal attack. I am not going to stand for it any longer. I will reopen the RfC against you, or even try a Request for Arbitration if it does not stop absolutely. This is not a "threat", it is a reminder that you are on the brink of being dealt with more harshly, and a request that you clean up your act so that it does not have to come to that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I am going to agree with Osgoodelawyer here. You have to stop attacking other editors, and in particular your accusations of censorship are extremely inappropriate and offensive. Please understand that we are trying to ensure that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are properly adhered to by all editors. The objection is to your behavior and persistent pushing of a minority WP:POV. Please collaborate with other editors rather than blindly insisting on your way or the highway. We understand that you feel passionately about your cause, but Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view which means you cannot take your personal opinions of one regional government and force them into every article you find. If you do not stop this behavior you will be blocked from editing again and may even be banned from Wikipedia entirely, which will do nothing to further your aims. Please find a way to work within the rules. Thanks, Gwernol 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peace and love vs aggressive editing

G'day WikiWoo,

I notice you've had a bit of a dispute in our article on Brampton, Ontario. Before we go into that, please accept my heartfelt plea that you be more careful when reverting in future; here you re-inserted someone else's vandalism without even noticing. Edit warring is a Bad Thing in any case, and when you would rather allow vandalism to exist in an article than allow another editor's change to persist, then something is definitely wrong with your approach to the article.

I'm not going to express an opinion regarding the section you'd like to add to the article. My job here is to ask you to be less aggressive in your editing practices. You and Osgoodelawyer (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted one another over a dispute which, frankly, did not need anyone trying to revert back to their favourite version as quickly as possible. As you did so, you were both incivil — Osgoodelawyer described your addition as "ridiculous", while you pulled out all the stops and threw unfounded accusations of "censorship" and (for reasons which utterly escape me, and would probably be painful to consider) "vandalism". Comments like that against users who are patently not vandals are considered personal attacks, and are never acceptable. You are needlessly getting people off-side here. Please re-consider your aggressive approach to editing if you wish to continue contributing to this project. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another user of vandalism, censorship and being on the payroll of the Ontario govt

This is unacceptable and has gone on far too long. You obviously learned nothing from your block. I think a longer-term solution may be in order. JChap2007 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same Old Same Old

Of the thousands of editors of Wiki this half dozen banding together does not constitute. How many people have you tar and feather this way as a group? Are you all related to people pocketing money from Regional Government? With over 15,000 employees I am sure that a dozen or more editors of Wiki must be related and dependants of Ontario Regional Corruption either directly or as offsprings.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are continuing to see conspiracies everywhere, would you at least name these mysterious editors who you believe are in the pay of Regional Government? Who exactly are you accusing here? Gwernol 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any personal attacks. They know who they are. Regional Governments of Ontario are INCESTIOUS organizations where people friends and relatives live off the trough of the public purse using all types of underhanded and unethical practices. They are places where the most crrooked and evil members of the public services and professions aggregate are they are dismissed from other governmental organization that are under more public scrutiny, such as local tiers, Provincial Government or Federal Government that each have Auditor Generals or Members of the Public watching other everyones sholders. But NOT in Regional Government where they all basically do as they please with tens of BILLIONS of dollars each year. Generally speaking the elected and non-eleted alike by a large majority are EVIL and CORRUPT and take great pleasure acting as BULLIES and THUGS manipulating all legitimate systems people believe are in place, but because of the nafarious Gangsterlike influence of the Regional Government organizations cannot function properly.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making extremely serious accusations against Wikipedia editors, saying they are party to corruption both in real life and on Wikipedia. Unless you are prepared to list who you are accusing, you must stop making these unfounded accusations. You need to stop immediately. Unless you have verifiable proof from reliable sources you need to stop pushing your single-minded point of view into Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POINT OF VIEW is not being placed into the Articles. I am stating my POINT OF VIEW in the discussions to help justify the notability of the information and facts that I am contributing. My POINT OF VIEW is used to JUSTIFY the NOTABILITY OF THE FACTS and INFORMATION that others here seem to be trying to censor using excuses such as NOT NOTABLE. Something being NOTABLLE OR NOT is a point of view. Therefore my POINT OF VIEW is necessary to explain to these people WHY the information is NOTABLE. Thee fact that Notable Information may tie people and events together to show nafariousness, corrupt, unethical or unsavory activities is not reason for the information to be excluded from Wiki. Wiki is not a local Propaganda Machine. It is a free encyclopedia for the WORLD to use. and Everyone has equal opportunity to publish what THEY FIND NOTABLE.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that there is nefarious activity going on then of course it will be listed in Wikipedia. It is simply outrageous and personally insulting that you suggest otherwise. The problem is you have not come close to providing us with reliable, independent sources that can be verified that support your thesis. You need to provide secondary sources that report the connections you are trying to make - for example if the New York Times had published an article about the alleged corruption you could absolutely include that in the appropriate Wikipedia article. I will personally help you get that information included if you can provide sources. But you cannot argue from primary sources that there is corruption. That would be original research which is absolutely not appropriate in an encyclopedia. You also need to find the appropriate place to add this. The article, for example, on public procurement is not the right place to add information about corruption by one particular regional government, since it is a general article about what public procurement is in all countries across the globe. Unless you have specific sources to show that all public procurement is corrupt everywhere, that is the wrong article. Does this make any sense to you?

You still have not told me who you are accusing? Unless you are prepared to say, then please stop making these wild accusations. I will take any further accusations that unnamed Wikipedia editors are corrupt to be a personal attack on myself amongst others and I will block you on the spot. Gwernol 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol, I don't know if you are simply being used or have your own trigger finger for wanting to block people. People are only human. I did not make any personal attacks. I made a collective defense. If you take any one of my contributions you will find that a couple of people start in on them regardless of the subject matter, with an assumption that there is NO GOOD FAITH in my contribution and proceed to nitpick and whittle away the information till it is confused or no longer recognizable. Granted I appreciate everyone assuming good faith on everyone else is nieve. I do believe that the Good Faith should be assumed in the first instance and that subsequent acts of agression in adverse editing of contribution taken as having some degree of less than good faith. Unless you are prepared to review the entirety of the interaction between myself and the small group of people working together to edit and delete my contributions I think you block is unwarranted.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a Two Way Steet

Actually, WikiWoo, accusing me of being in the pay of the RMs is a personal attack, and this has been pointed out to you several times now. Let me answer for you, since you've ignored Gwernol's question. I, Garywill, and JChap2007 are the main conspirators. JzG and now Gwernol may possibly be added to the list as well. Is this an accurate account of our conspiracy? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deserves its own heading. I am not making personal attacks on anyone. I am defending my possition against the collaborative activities of a group of like minded people who are obviously trying to tar and feather me on Wiki on account of my beliefs and contributions.--Wiki The Humble Woo 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you that if you continued to make unsubstantiated claims of conspiracies against you by Wikipedia editors that I would block you. You ignored this and continue to make serious and wholey unfounded allegations against other editors. Even though you refuse to individually name those you accuse it is still perfectly clear who you are referring to and this is a very serious personal attack on the editors involved. Your breathtaking failure to assume good faith and continued personal attacks leaves me no choice but to block you once more. It is absolutely untrue that there are "collaborative activities of a group of like minded people" who are "trying to tar and feather me on Wiki on account of my beliefs and contributions". This is a completely unfounded allegation that you continue to repeat despite warnings. Blocked for 1 week.

When you return from the block, you are warned that a single further instance of this will result in an indefinite block. You cannot use Wikipedia to make significant personal attacks on the integrity of editors who are applying the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community. Gwernol 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they are unsubstantiated. If you review the edits in issue both OsgoodeLawyer and JChapp have taken turn doing the exact same thing.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsubstantiated personal attack is the direct accusation that Osgoodelawyer is on the payroll of a corrupt government and acting on their behalf to censor Wikipedia. This is an egregious personal attack, you have not substantiated it at all. Gwernol 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said CIVILITY is a TWO WAY STREET. When individuals nitpick every word and make agressive reverts and deletions without any good reason and blatantly it builds up. Assuming Good Faith is ALSO a Two Way Street... The group most active against my contributions have never assumed GOOD FAITH on ANY even the most minor of edits and continue to accuse me of an AGENDA and I am trying to defend myself. If people here review my contributions, you will find that I am the one that in the first instance was not given the ASSUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH and I simply respond. The is a comment on AbsoluteDan's talk page about "doing it the hard way" with regards to getting rid of my contributions from Wiki. All of this does not go against my line of defence.

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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

No, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and making continued personal attacks despite many, many more warnings than your behavior deserved. Gwernol 21:09, 25 August 2006 (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 The Humble Woo 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I don't believe that the blocking administrator is entittled to review an unblock request. Please leave the request for unblock for another administrator to review, who should review the request for unblock with you before the other administrator makes the decision.[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).

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

Request reason:

Eager administrator blocking with a manifested bias and a partiality to one side in an editing dispute. Initially attempted to entrap editor into making a personal attack and then interpreting subsequent responses as personal attacks

Decline reason:

Can't "trap" someone into making personal attacks. In ordinary, polite society, personal attacks are not acceptable. Same on Wikipedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS 08:40, 27 August 2006 (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 The Humble Woo 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol, I would appreciate if you removed your erronious review of my unblock request. Since you are the blocking administrator you should not have reviewed your own block. The idea behind the ability to request for unblock is kind of like an appeal to another Unbiased Administrator. I hope that it will be an impartial one that does not have a pre-opinion about my motives and who will Assume Good Faith.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid you are incorrect about this, there is no policy suggesting only another admin may review unblocks. Out of courtesy I will stand back and let another admin look at this again, but I won't remove my unblock comment. Gwernol 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not written statement to that effect, at the least it is an assumed act of Civility. It would make no sense for the blocking administrator to be the one that considers an unblock request since you have already taken a side in the dispute. The reason I suggested you remove your review and comment on my request for unblock was so that other administrators will not think that the unblock request was already reviewed and not review it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for an uninvolved admin to look at this case on the administrator's noticeboard. Your accusation that I am showing "manifest bias", and "one sided bias" is incorrect. Your characterisation that this is an editing dispute is also incorrect. I have warned you several times that the problem with your contributions are that you do not provide sources to back up your allegations of corruption, you insist on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and you continue to make personal attacks. Gwernol 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I want to add to my request for unblock the follows submission: --Wiki The Humble Woo 00:30, 27 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

This appears to be either nonsense or a further personal attack on Gwernol. Please stop abusing this template. ➨ ЯEDVERS 08:40, 27 August 2006 (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.

Um: 1) you haven't formatted the unblock request properly, 2) Why would my contribution list be a request to unblock? Especially since you only have my most recent 500 submissions, which change over time. Are you really suggesting that because I edit Wikipedia you should be unblocked? I think you are trying to achieve something elese. Gwernol 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No... the suggestion is that you like to block people based on your history of contributions. You have passed considerable judgement on my contributions without reviewed the issue on the Articles themselves. You simply took a side based on whatever the discussions say rather than reviewing the disputed reverts and conduct of both sides. We are dealing with POV and editing disputes between myself and a couple of other editors. They have the POV that Ontario government activities are good and noble and want Wiki to reflect only good things. I on the other hand have the POV that They are the most corrupt governments on the plannet and the people running them both elected and appointed should all be executed for treason for their gross betrayals of public trust and that such people are not worthy of any respect or admiration from anyone. I am taking my time to contribute to Wiki a balance of the Points of Views reflected so that this encyclopedia is not a fabricate fairy tale about the wholesome goodness of otherwise CORRUPT SYSTEMS and practice in the Province of Ontario most particularly in the Region's with Peel Region being the biggest and baddest of the lot.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin, part of that role is to block people who continually disrupt Wikipedia despite constant warnings. Simjply pointing this out is a bit like saying: "look at WikiWoo he should be blocked because he edits Wikipedia articles". That is what editors and admins are meant to do. If you have issue with specific edits of mine, please provide diffs to those particular edits. Just pointing at my entire contribution history isn't helping you - as you've found out.

I have indeed passed judgement on some specific edits of yours which are personal attacks on other editors. Wikipedia has a strong policyt against personal attacks. You may not make them here even if other editors personally attack you (which I haven't seen evidence of despite your claims to the contrary). I have not taken a side in a content dispute. You have repeatedly (using this account and others) inserted [{WP:POV]] statements into a number of articles without providing any evidence beyond "I say so". You fundamentally misunderstand the required neutral point of view. It is not the case that every unverified point of view must be included in an article no matter how libellous, paranoid or outrageous it is. You may only include a strong point of view if you accompany it by reliable sources that allow us to [{WP:V|verify]] the view. You may not include your own personal original research.

Unless and until you provide documentary evidence for these serious claims you are making against various governments, you may not include them in Wikipedia. Since you have a long history of doing just this and clearly have no intention of staying within the rules that all contributors are expected to follow, I am going to push for a community ban on you. Sorry, but you have been given far more chances than are reasonable, and show no signs of trying to reach a compromise or even of having read the basic rules of Wikipedia. Gwernol 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what article I wrote that was so bad that I should be banned for it. I have made my personal POV clear so that people here know where I am comming from concerning the CORRUPT REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS of Ontario and their friends in other governments elected or otherwise. However that shiould not distract attention from my good work on Wiki that served to expand information and knowledge. My POV has always been given in DISCUSSION pages to help support my contention that the Fantasy that Ontario Governments are good and noble rather than the Corrupt People and system they are that betraying the public trust like evil power mongers in some JRR Tolken book. So If you want to continue publishing only preopaganda and fantaasy that only publishes nice things aabout them and camoflages practices and systems under a whitewash of confustion and illigitimate integrity so be it. Wiki as an IMPARTIAL publication suffers by the activities of the few who are permited to maintain their one sided POV.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to ban me then I would expect that my entire contribution history is going to be reviewed and the conduct of the few instigators chasing me around will also be reviewed. --Wiki The Humble Woo 19:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario

The edit summary of your latest revert of Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario asked me to go to the talk page and discuss my edits. What you seem to have failed to realize is that I already discussed my edits on the talk page. Please see Talk:Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario for my reasoning. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comments over there. Would have been nice if did not revert before I had a chance to read your comments. Civility is a two way street.--Wiki The Humble Woo 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have been blocked the Muskoka page is being modified to remove the interesting part of the District not being Titled as a Regional Municipality. The publishing source of that information too found it notable enough to add a sentance about that point, yet OsgoodeLawyer and JChap both seem to agree that it is not notable and MUST at all costs be removed from that Wiki Article together with the link to the eight regions of Ontario which is another page that was whitewashed so that the interesting points are lost from the publication. Call it what you will, but two people having a like mind set working on the same objective is a conspiracy. Look up the term conspiracy and see for yourself.--Wiki The Humble Woo 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. It is simply well-intentioned editors applying the rules of Wikipedia. Rules that you have stated yourself you are not interested in following. If you don't accept the rules, find somewhere else to put forward your ideas. There are thousands of free webhosts that don't care if you post unfounded accusations - go use them, but don't sully Wikipedia then pretend you are the wronged party. The only person you are fooling is yourself. If you continue in this vein you will be permanently barred from Wikipedia. How does that help you or anyone? Gwernol 21:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernol you are quite prejudiced in your opinion. The issue with this Article are not so Agenda Filled as you profess. It is strictly a minor edit about the Noteriety of "Although not tittled as such...which are words used in the cited article that added that contact. People here don't like the attention brought by that Interesting and Notable point, namely that that particular Regional Municipality can be confused as not being one of the Eight Regional Governments of Ontario. I don't what the motive is for not wanting that Intersting and Notable point "in my opinion" and in the "OPINION of the cited Article" makes it notable. Yet both JChap and OsgoodeLawyer are fighting like HELL to keep that off of Wiki in an UNCIVIL and INSULTING manner of reverts after reverts without any attempt at compromise.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Both those facts (its name being "district" but it being legally "regional') are still in the article. All that has been removed is a poorly worded emphasis on the fact that it is 'called' a district municipality but is really, in fact, a regional municipality. No one finds that remotely interesting except you. Also, we don't need to list someone's name as both "Tony" and "Anthony." People can figure out that Tony is short for Anthony. Really, they can. Also, I didn't take the link out. In fact, I fixed the double redirect that you had put in (again), so now it's easier for people to get to the list.JChap2007 21:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I finhd it interesting and SO DOES THE ARTICLE that is cited as giving that information. Clearly your way of writing it is your POV and unsourced and unverified. My is verbatim use of the term used by the published piece being cited. And again your edits together with OsgoodLawyer are UnCIVIL and Agressive editing of a nominal point that should not be a contested fact. You are attempting to massage the point and in doing so are removing the noteriety of it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't cite an article, you linked to the entire Ontario Municipal Act. This link did not belong in the first paragraph of the article, so I removed it. JChap2007 01:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Between you and OsgoodeLawyer you have made so many reverts and edits I can't find the original link to the external article that used the words..."though not tittled as such".... For whatever reason efforts are being made to avoid this specific notable point. As an example of my concerns, the use of the term "District" in Ontario is not ever used to describe a Municipal Corporation. It is merely a Census Division without any governing functions. Yet Muskoka is the only one out of 500 Municipal Corporations that uses that term, allowing its function as a government to go under the radar of public scrutiny, locally and internationally. An ouotside observer (the people Wiki should be written for) who is looking for information about Muskoka would be confused as to their actual legal function and responsibility, leaving them open to escaping accountability for betrayals of public trust its administrators are responsible for perpetrating.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think the term "District Municipality" hides the fact that it is a municipality? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the fact its the only Region in Ontario that's uses the term District is notable. In the US "District" is a typical municipal designation. But not in Ontario. These are the types of notable information that encyclopedias tend to include to make reading interesting. The amount of effort behind removing this point shows that it is me personally that it under attack here and not the Article on this specific point. There is no legitimate reason to remove this point of notoriety. Everything published does not go to pointing to corruption in Ontario's Regional Government, but some people here seem to feel it does, unless what's published about them has a possitive has a spin to it. This positive spinning and filtering shows how insecure people are about the goings on in our mysterious secretive Regional Government in Ontario--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Around here, your view plus a buck ninety-five gets you a cup of coffee. This applies to every editor. What you think is of no importance whatsoever unless you can back it with a verifiable] citation from a reliable secondary source. Just zis Guy you know? 19:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Twisting of Truths and Half-truths

I must comments that there are a few people on Wiki who see their role as maintaining a positive POV on Articles and information that relate to Regional Municipalities of Ontario and its organizations and people. This is not a proper use of Wiki. Wiki should be an unbiased publication that gives both good and bad equal coverage. Reading many of the articles I have tried workinig on it is clear that they read like fictional accounts whitewashed over to reflect rose coloured propaganda. Government and Government activities are not fluffy nice clouds and they are in fact full of evil people who do evil things that are getting elected and apointed to controlling possitions. The fact that these great efforts are being made to avoid clearity and balance to these articles should be duly noted.--Wiki The Humble Woo 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must comment that there is one person on Wiki who sees their role as maintaining a negative POV on Articles and information that relate to Regional Municipalities of Ontario and its organizations and people. This is not a proper use of Wiki. Wiki should be an unbiased publication that gives coverage only to that which is externally verifiable, and does not give undue weight to minority views. Reading many of the articles you have tried working on it is clear that they read like fictional accounts and outright propaganda, until fixed up or deleted by others. Government and Government activities may indeed be full of evil people who do evil things, but unless this is verifiably documented in reliable secondary sources we cannot say so. The fact that these great efforts are being made to unbalance to these articles has been duly noted, hence your several blocks. And do you know something? I'm betting you still won't get it even after this posting. Just zis Guy you know? 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear sir"

First: Don't.

Second: I commented on that redirect when I created it eight days ago, and you even responded to it. In addition, Sandstein, the one who suggested a new name for your article was against the term "Public procurement" and was instead for "Government procurement." _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Don't what?

Call me "sir". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second: I don't see the need to split hairs like you keep doing. You make it too obvious that you have a POV to advance by censoring good interesting content that expands the knowledge base of Wiki. I don't see why we don't have both a Public Procurement and a Government Procurement article. The objective of Wiki is to publish intersting and informative information categorized and cross referenced so people can have a source of information to draw their own conclusions about whats what. That is the idea behind the No POV. No need to censor things or publish confusion so people can't know what goes on in public or government procurement particularly in Peel Region and Region's generaly in Ontario where most of the problems currently are by dissinformation propaganda and involves the intentional wastes of hundreds of millions of public dollars on friends and relatives of people with controling public jobs that are beyond any form of personal accountability.--Wiki The Humble Woo 05:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason would be that they would contain the same information, and one would be a less specific article name. And as for your continued insistence that I have an agenda to censor information, honestly, I couldn't care less what people thing of regional government or the Region of Peel. All I want is for articles to be useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced. If that means going around cleaning up after you, well, so be it. I'd rather not have to do that, though. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had any interest in creating articles and expanding them, most of what I started that you keep deleting could have been worked on to create "useful, accurate, verifiable, and well referenced" articles. All I see you do is delete articles and more agresively so when it involves Corrupt Government activity in Regional Government in Ontario and the gangster public servants that work there, who by the way are mostly lawyers who are by far the most corrupt, unethical thugs and bulles in Governments anywhere. So you see, I am doing my part to start good articles that provide useful and interesting information. You on the otherhand keep deleting them without any effort to make them into the articles you claim to want. This ying yang approach makes for a lot of frustration. You are not going to convince me that Regional Govermnents in Ontario are NOT CORRUPT. In fact the more you keep deleting, the more I sence the CORRUPTION at work in what you do even here on Wiki, though I hold you do it in good faith because your are as brtainwashed as the rest of the outsiders to their systems and practices. But hopefully some information and articles will come out of all this, that at least puts clarity and perspective in the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise but people here just are unable to see it behind all the propaganda, falsehoods and pretend integrity our politicians advance to serve the masters who get them elected who are the non-elected thugs and bullies running Ontario with life-long controling public jobs without personal accountability or consequences for anything they do.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that what I am doing is censorship and vandalism, and calling me things like Gestapo is most certainly not assuming good faith. I'm going to ignore most of what you said, because it's just repetition of old arguments, but this line: "the truth about CORRUPTION in Canada generally which is worse than in most parts of the world, third world or otherwise" makes my sides hurt. Get real. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when you finally become a lawyer and get work from Regional Governments in Ontario you will know the reality of the matter. It's the public lawyers main job to cover up and defend corrupt government activity, so you will have your hands full doing that and become part of the official Legal Gestapo Network running Ontario, which is basically all that the legal departments are now days since they took over running the place taking away all but the "front" of democracy the elected puppets currently represent--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your comments above indicate that you have still failed to grasp this. If you want to Right Great Wrongs, do it on your own website or blog. Just zis Guy you know? 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have me all wrong. I have no agenda other that to publish good, valuable and interesting information for society to use as it pleases. I do have thin skin when I see censorship or propaganda pushing painting rossy pictures of corrupt systems and people. On the contrary if people want to publish fiction they should write novels and not be out censoring an encyclopidia keeping facts out of general public knowledge. Both good and bad things about the world we live in are required to be published on Wiki to make it complete.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brampton and the ROP

There is a clear link to the ROP in the body of the following paragraph, so that argument holds no weight. Also, it is bad style on Wikipedia to include links in section titles. This is done only very rarely, in, for instance, some lists. There *is* a style guide which says not to link in section titles, but I don't know where it is right now. But I assure you, it's bad form and anyone who sees it and knows the style will remove it. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 16:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it as bad form. If there is no guide, why should I consider your POV on this point as having weight? You deleted many links I made that ties facts and issues together. One of the distinct benefits of Wiki vs any other type of publication is its ability to allow users to jump from article to article or interest connecting diverse facts and issues together which makes it more interesting reading. Why do you feel this feature should not be expanded as a way to make people more informed and get them more information about things they may be interested in knowing? Why bother editing an encyclopedia if the intent is not to give as much information as possible? --Wiki The Humble Woo 13:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro vs. Con links on Freemasonry

I'm guessing that you didn't read all the links, or you just didn't quite understand the situation. To mark Grand Lodge sites as "Sites Uncritical of Masonry" is misleading (and a bit of a tautology) - they are the official sites for a given jurisdiction. That's like labeling microsoft.com as a "Site Uncritical of Microsoft" - pointless (and weaselly, because you remove credibility from an official source). The US News article listed in "Uncritical" is something one would expect to be unbiased and researched, so to call it "uncritical" makes no sense - what it found was the result of research and interviews, not a blatant attempt to write a positive article. The article was also linked in the notes, so it doesn't need to be in external links. PS Review is classified as a personal site, so it fails WP:EL.

The "Critical" links - Almost every single one was a biased or partisan source. FreemasonryWatch was deemed unreliable months ago by ArbCom. The majority of the other sites are evangelical ministries, and additionally there's one conspiracy theory site, and one Catholic link. The Catholic link is covered in the requisite article, and the rest fail WP:RS.

Are you suggesting that the current article is not biased and partisan? If you read it anyone can see it was written with an overly positive POV. The correct thing to do is allow it to be balanced by peritting editors with negative POV to state their facts and information on any article.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, the re-adding of said links is vandalism through violation of Wikipedia policies. Lastly and most importantly, the edits were made by a user who is banned from editing Freemasonry, so even if they were proper edits, they would still be removed. MSJapan 20:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly there was no vandalism on my part. Restoring deleted content can rarely be termed vandalism. I am an anti-cesorship editor and I would rather see more information than less on Wiki. If someone arbitrarily defaces an article or deletes content, that is what I consider vandalism or censorship. Reverting to add something deleted without explanation is fixing vandalism, not making it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prequalification and Public Procurement

Hi. I want to work with you on the public procurement article, although I think it would be clearer to move it to Government procurement. However, at the present time I am more concerned that you have recreated the Prequalified article at Prequalification. This is completely inappropriate as a way to get around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prequalified! Try doing research into reliable sources and then writing a well-sourced article. Less of your material would be deleted if it were sourced. JChap2007 05:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I want you to understand something about your claims of "coordinated vandalism" aimed at deleting your articles. Articles that merely need work do not generally fail AfD. Articles that are entirely POV, unsourced, and unverifiable, however, do. If anyone thought Prequalified had a chance, someone would have spoken up for it. So far, I count 13 deletes and one keep--yours. You need to learn that Wikipedia isn't out to get you. It isn't out to censor information. It wants more and more and more articles! But ones that are useful, NPOV, verifiable and sourced. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikipedia is not out to get me. LOL... I also know a lot of people are dependant on a information about corrupt system staying hidden and even twisted terms like Prequalification kept out of general public knowledge and discussion. Believe me I have seen it all and I am surprised that its not 100 to 1 on that article. But it does serve to show the interest in keeping certain types of information off Wiki and elsewhere. In and of itself this prequalification example is a very interesting exercise and the basic information will get on one way or another in some fashion that expand human knowledge and provides a reference for people in the world to refer to when wanting to know about something about prequalification, which so far is non-existent information in Wiki, yet is it something used in Billions of dollars in public to private money transactions and enrichment.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say we're not out to get you, and yet you say that we are, in fact, intentionally trying to keep certain information out of general public knowledge. Which one is it? Really, until you truly understand the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (mainly WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE), you're going to come up against this kind of "opposition" again and again. Nobody here cares about keeping anyone in the dark about anything. It's an encyclopedia, we want to be a collection of knowledge. Honest. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More suggestions

Some more suggestions - I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by tendentious editing (i.e. disruption). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. This is a 48 hour blocki to enable you to calm down: edits like this [13] are completely ridiculous, and wholly unacceptable, and you know it. Just zis Guy you know? 17:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now...This is a rediculous block. I can't believe how touchy some people here get over such a harmless nudge. But I guess this goes towards the high degree of censorship whenever anything involving educating people about underhanded government activities is concerned. You could have easily deleted the tag. Blocking without warning like this is uncalled for especially from an administrators who is voting adversarial to the article. At least some semblance of impartiality should be shown by an administrator when editors are involved in a dispute. --Wiki The Humble Woo 19:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki, to get your unblock box to format correctly, I think you want something like {{unblock|<insert reasons for appeal of block here>}} Thanks, TheronJ 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Natalya's upholding of the block. WikiWoo, you are clearly attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise your dissatisfaction with the Ontario government and certain forms of loan processes. Creating articles on general topics like Public Procurement and Prequalified that only mention a specific criticism is highly disruptive and does not improve the encyclopedia. Shouting "censorship" when people object to your edits does not help your case. This is not censorship, this is trying to uphold a neutral and balanced encyclopedia. There is a place for the criticisms you have, but to create entire articles that only have one (often extremely minority) viewpoint is not the way to move forward. Please read our policies WP:POV and WP:NPOV during your break from editing and try to understand why these are fundamental to the creation of a balanced encyclopedia. Thanks, Gwernol 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to Loan's prooves that people are being mislead about prequalification in the case of government procurement, when the system is used to exclude competition so that friends of bureuacrats entrusted with billions of dollars in public money can make lots of extra money so they can pass the buck around. Did no one learn anything from Adscam in Canada? That was nothing compared to what the Regional Governments in Ontario are doing. They are doing one adscam sized scam every two week whenever a council meetinig occures and the elected pupets accept a recommendation from the commissioners and CAO's on what to do with Billions each month of the Taxpayers money. I am simply publishing factual information. If people get persecuted on Wiki by propaganda pushing censors ganging together then that's just the way it is. Information is information, you people that try to claim a POV exists in facts are the ones twisting the rules to suit the rose coloured POV you want people to get from reading this encyclopedia.--Wiki The Humble Woo 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the government of Ontario is indeed corrupt and are stealing your money; an assertion for which you have provided exactly zero reliable sources. Let's assume it though. That doesn't mean that the definition of public procurement should be based on that fact. William S. Burroughs wrote Naked Lunch in which his typewriter turned into a scarab beetle. Does this mean Wikipedia should define novels as "books in which typewriters turn into beetles"? Of course not, that would be ludicrous. You are using Wikipedia to push your own agenda, not write reasonable neutral articles. This is disruptive and not appropriate. Gwernol 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the purpose of any encyclopedia is to record and categorize information in the first instance. The system of numerous editors having the ability to edit articles to make the balanced and netral exists. The issue of an Article on "Prequalification" as is used by Regional Governments and others deserves to be written in some manner even if it shown these individuals partaking in the preactice to be totally corrupt scumbags pulfering millions of dollars of the taxpayers money hiding behind and false integrity created by equallly corrupt politicians who cover up for them. Now if there is a way to Wikify the information and details of corrupt system and deliver the facts in a neutral manner then do that. But a group of people trying to censor information simply it exposes facts and practices of people who are personally corrupt individuals without integrity is not a proper act of editing to maintain netrality. Netrality can be achived by editing words without deleting articles. The disruption is being caused by people pushing propagada and working to avoid subjects of articles that are critical or unsavory which degrade Wiki from being less that truthfull and against the objective of expanding knowledge and resorces for information of importance and interest. [Prequalification] in Govevernment spending is a form of favoratism and discrimination and should be recorded and Articles should be written on Wiki about such facts. I may be having a haard time to write using more pleasant words from my personal inside knowledge of how truly evil and corrupt people running the Regions of Ontario are, but that is no reason to delete the undelying facts that people can rrefer to to draw their own conclusions on how corrupt and bad people in Regional Government actually are.--Wiki The Humble Woo 03:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any evidence that the Ontario government is, in your words, "totally corrupt scumbags". Until you provide reliable sources for this claim that allow us to verify it, it cannot be included in Wikipedia. This is not some attempt to censor, this is one of the core policies that make Wikipedia an encyclopedia instead of just a blog. The article you wrote was not on "Prequalification as used in Regional Governments", it was on "Prequalification". Therefore it has to be about all "Prequalification", not the special case of prequalification practices of regional governments, and especially not about just those of the Ontario government. Again its like writing an article about Automobiles and only including information about the 1927 Hispano-Suiza H-series; it wouldn't make any sense to do that, so why write an article about "Prequalification" and only include information about the Ontario government's use of prequalification?

Wikipedia's purpose is to collect and record facts reported by reliable sources elsewhere. That is what all encyclopedias do. So, find reported information that backs up your claim. Your personal experience is not a valid reliable source. If personal experience alone were allowed then any crank making any obviously false claim could corrupt Wikipedia. Note I am not claiming you are wrong, just that your evidence provided so far isn't good enough. Once you have reliable evidence for your claims, please add it to the appropriate article. For example, if you are correct that the Ontario government is corrupt, this may be suitable for inclusion in the article Politics of Ontario. If you can provide evidence you will not be, as you put it "censored". Every contribution is held to the same evidentiary standards we ask of you. Gwernol 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not publishing an article saying that anyone of the individuals in Regional Government is corrupt per se. If that evidence was permited to be assebled then those people would be in jail. I am trying to publish an article about the prequalification process that they use so people can draw their own conclusions about how corrupt the system is. That kind of basic information should not be censored. I am not writing a story. I am recording information about a system.--Wiki The Humble Woo 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these aledged editors who claim to know something about prequalification in government procurement, particularly in Regional Governments of Ontario and who are calling for censorship of the article, if they were legitimate editors, would rewrite material the way they now it, if they did not truly agree with what I wrote. Because they know it to be factual and accurate, and they too consider what is being done as corrupt, they call for deletion. I posted more than enough cites for anyone to review and draw their own conclusions. What I see people here going around poking holes in information by deleting information so that only bits and pieces are published which is then not enough for people understand the information and draw informative conclusions. This is unfortunately the whole corrupt system of Ontario Regional Government and Judicial Systems here that transverses all aspects of politics and governmental in this area. In other parts of the world people would riot in the streets and tar and feather these types of people and expel them and their families from public authorioty permanently. The great public money here is used instead in the self-interest of these individuals to cover up and undermine disimination of information that would expose their systemically corrupt systems and practices. Whether its a Susan Fennell, an Emil Kholb, a Lynda Jeffrey, or a Marilyn Morrison doing the screwing around with their friends and family, way too many people are dependant on these extended networks of corruption and getting benefits fron all the hanky-panky going on.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christ on a bike, WikiWoo, don't you ever give up? Read WP:TE really carefully and see where you are headed. Do you really not understand where you are going wrong? Just zis Guy you know? 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote...is important to recognise that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view... This is an extract of the WP:TE please read it. I am not writing POV articles. I am adding content of a factual nature. There are others here that I am inviting to edit POV from my articles when they see it. The problem I see is that some people here don't want certain types of information from being published at all regardless of the wording. I see this as censorship of important public information that should be published. You see paid media is forced to avoid certain subjects because they are beholden to the master who hold the public purse. Wiki is FREE and therefore is a much better source of information than any money driven newspaper or publishing house. I see a lot of so called editors and administrators here what to see Wiki as some childish version of mainstream publishing. I on the other hand see Wiki as something thousands of times better and more usefull to the world than anything ever written on any piece of paper for a price. Long live a free and uncesored Wiki and god bless those that believe in all humanity having the basic right to all information possible and know to man at their fingertips.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the language you quoted from WP:TE? You follow the quote with a perfect example of what it is describing!!! JChap2007 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you and I see different words on the same page. I read it that everyone here has a POV and there is nothing wrong with having a POV. I write factual articles and contribution. People against what I write, rather that edit the wording to balance the POV make every effort to censor the information using POV as their excuse. Typical bureacratic behaviour...Wiki appears full of Bureaucrats and Bureacracts in the making.....“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.- Thomas Sowell--Wiki The Humble Woo 04:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you quote the essay back to me and say "please read it" indicates that you have looked at it rather less carefully than I have. Which is hardly surprising, since I wrote it. The major problem here - and in fact the major problem with you all along - is that when you are pointed to some policy, guideline or essay, your primary (and possibly sole) concern is to find ways in which it can be used to support your actions, the while ignoring the myriad ways such documents indicate the problematic nature of your behaviour. Rather than understand the spirit of policies you assume the problem is wiht those who criticise your actions, however numerous and experienced such critics may be, and however out numbered you are - in fact, you appear in most cases to be a minority of one. The usual endgame in such cases is WP:RFAR, although increasingly editors like you are simply indefinitely blocked as having exhausted community patience. Yes, editors like you. As you would realise had you read the sections entitled Righting Great Wrongs and How to pull back from the brink (especially the first pararaph of the latter). So: you are a problem editor. The way to change that is not to look around for ways to excuse your behaviour, or deflect attention away from it, or to pretend you are not a problem editor, it's to stop being a problem, before we stop you being an editor. It really is that simple. Sorry to be blunt, but politeness and subtlety appear to be completely wasted on you. Just zis Guy you know? 14:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW, above you say:

'You see paid media is forced to avoid certain subjects because they are beholden to the master who hold the public purse. Wiki is FREE and therefore is a much better source of information than any money driven newspaper or publishing house. I see a lot of so called editors and administrators here what to see Wiki as some childish version of mainstream publishing. I on the other hand see Wiki as something thousands of times better and more usefull to the world than anything ever written on any piece of paper for a price.'

You seem to want to use WP to disseminate information that is not already contained in reliable sources because those sources are inadequate. Is that right? That's not going to work because it violates one of the central policies: WP:RS. Wikipedia would seem to be a particularly ill-suited vehicle for you to accomplish your goals! Instead of getting frustrated, blocked, banned, Arbcommed, etc. here, why not explore other places on the Internet where you can post information and that do not require reliable sources to do so? There are plenty of those... JChap2007 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is plenty of reliable and verifyable information such as all the work I did on the Peel Tender examples and prequalification examples that information belongs on Wiki as well as other places. There is plenty of writting going on on-line. Wiki without that kind of information is incomplete and misleads people into looking at the rose coloured version of reality some people want this publication to have. There are thousands of people editing Wiki and a couple of dozen banding together to censor information they don't like other people to see does not detter me from finding ways to work with this system and get factual information where people can see and use it to be better informed and more knowledgeable. As long as information mispublished here there should be effort to clean it up. Wiki is a good well used source of information particularly with school children who should know what their elders are doing rather than be brought up in a culture of lies and corrupt missinformation. It may be too late to fix those alrerady corrupted, but at least some future generation may be better off by knowing what to watch out for in public activities.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest to god, if you don't stop accusing us of censorship, my head is going to explode and you're going to get brains all over your face. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, you really are going to have to start listening some time. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. It is the place to document the Righting of Great Wrongs elsewhere. If you continue to try to use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, as you currently are, then you will simply be banned, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I suggest you run for office or get a blog or something, you certainly can't continue to pursue your campaign here. Just zis Guy you know? 22:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have all kinds of opinions about me all made up. I don't know if that's fitting for an administrator. Maybe you should lay off reviewing anything that I do here because you are showing a partiality which is unwikilike, does not assume Good Faith etc., and you seem to have a POV of your own that you are advancing regarding the issues involving my expertise.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should lay off pushing your agenda and accept the fact that when many people tell independently you that you are doing something wrong, it is probably a sign that you are doing something wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no agenda... You seem to be the one with the agenda of keeping information about corruption in the Regional Governments of Ontario off Wiki. An enclyclopedia records information without judging the effects the information has. If information results in people or systems being adversly affected other people and new systems will be effected in a positive way. This is how humanity advances by the sharing of information and knowledge. Lack of information and knowledge is generally behind all sociel corruption. My agenda is to publish information of interest in which I have expertise. I am not going to write about Freemasons or Emus since I would have little to contribute towards expandinig human knowledge in those areas. I am happy when editors reword, cite and expaand in a constructive manner what I start. I dislike censoring information, especially for no reason other than it sheads light on people or systems that are corrupt, are without integrity and serves to paint a false image of propriety and correctness in the evils that top people in government in Ontario are responssible for. --Wiki The Humble Woo 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More advocacy suggestions

Wiki, let me make one more suggestion.

It seems like you have some text you want to include about no-bid public procurement. Would you be willing to start by creating this text on a scratchpad? If you show me what you want to add to the encyclopedia, we can discuss how to get it in a form that will encounter less resistance than you are currently seeing.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again...I will take you up on that as soon as I am off the block and have more time. --Wiki The Humble Woo 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the block over? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being there to entertain you as soon as the block expired, Osgoode. Some people have a life outside of Wiki. Don't worry I'll be back soon enough....--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, my comment was questioning if the block wasn't already over at the time you said "as soon as I am off the block". _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are overly preocupied with my activities and keep looking for ways to split hairs. By the way, what is your particular connection with these Regional Governments? I have stated mine which is that I dealt with them all for thirty years thus gaininig much insight in their corruption of society and politics as people of low esteem and lack of integrity --Wiki The Humble Woo 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you that I have no connection to regional governments (well, aside from living in one). I have no love for them, no hate for them, no feelings at all, really, for them. Nothing in any of my edits has had anything to do with a connection to or feeling for regional governments. As I, and countless others have said, all this "censorship", "vandalism" and "conspiracy" you are claiming is really just the result of practicing good editing. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking Ii am seeing a lot of DELETING and very little EDITING, so excuse me if I don't concur with your opinions of what you think you are doing, and maintain that my contributions dealing with the unsavoury aspects of Ontario Governance and the corrupt individuals that are running them are being censored by a group acting cooperatively to keep it off of Wiki.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take strong objection to your characterization that you are "being censored by a group acting cooperatively to keep it off of Wiki". That is a personal attack and completely unfounded. Please withdraw this serious accusation. Thank you, Gwernol 17:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct..."I" am not being censored.--Wiki The Humble Woo 17:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Adams

If you want to request an article, don't create an empty article containing only {{expand}}. That falls under CSD A3. Instead, use Wikipedia:Requested articles. Thank you. —Scott5114 ↗ 14:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the Mayors of places in Ontario stub.--Wiki The Humble Woo 15:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better to leave a redlink, because then if someone is interested in writing an article they can see we don't have one. Regardless, articles with no content can be speedy deleted (see WP:CSD), as this one already has been. —Scott5114 ↗ 15:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in the news" on Brampton, Ontario

Your addition is not only not notable (I'm sure Brampton is mentioned hundreds, if not thousands of times a year "in the news"), but it's even misleading--it's more a criticism of what Punjabi-Canadians in Brampton see as important in politics than what you said it was in your edit Also, your placement of the single line in a section of its own, at the top of the article is clearly inappropriate. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before vandalizing my contribution again please refer to the talk page of the Brampton article and discuss your issues there. We are not on a punch clock and there is no rush to censor information that people think is notable enough to take the time to publish it. --Wiki The Humble Woo 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, censorship, my being an agent of the Regional governments

Okay, WikiWoo, this has got to stop. Nobody is vandalising your work here. There is no censorship going on. And I assure you, I am NOT an agent of the Ontario Regional Municipalities. As noted to you several times before, accusations of vandalism and censorship are incivil, and this accusation that I am part of a conspiracy to keep this information secret is both ludicrous and a personal attack. I am not going to stand for it any longer. I will reopen the RfC against you, or even try a Request for Arbitration if it does not stop absolutely. This is not a "threat", it is a reminder that you are on the brink of being dealt with more harshly, and a request that you clean up your act so that it does not have to come to that. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoo, I am going to agree with Osgoodelawyer here. You have to stop attacking other editors, and in particular your accusations of censorship are extremely inappropriate and offensive. Please understand that we are trying to ensure that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are properly adhered to by all editors. The objection is to your behavior and persistent pushing of a minority WP:POV. Please collaborate with other editors rather than blindly insisting on your way or the highway. We understand that you feel passionately about your cause, but Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view which means you cannot take your personal opinions of one regional government and force them into every article you find. If you do not stop this behavior you will be blocked from editing again and may even be banned from Wikipedia entirely, which will do nothing to further your aims. Please find a way to work within the rules. Thanks, Gwernol 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

peace and love vs aggressive editing

G'day WikiWoo,

I notice you've had a bit of a dispute in our article on Brampton, Ontario. Before we go into that, please accept my heartfelt plea that you be more careful when reverting in future; here you re-inserted someone else's vandalism without even noticing. Edit warring is a Bad Thing in any case, and when you would rather allow vandalism to exist in an article than allow another editor's change to persist, then something is definitely wrong with your approach to the article.

I'm not going to express an opinion regarding the section you'd like to add to the article. My job here is to ask you to be less aggressive in your editing practices. You and Osgoodelawyer (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted one another over a dispute which, frankly, did not need anyone trying to revert back to their favourite version as quickly as possible. As you did so, you were both incivil — Osgoodelawyer described your addition as "ridiculous", while you pulled out all the stops and threw unfounded accusations of "censorship" and (for reasons which utterly escape me, and would probably be painful to consider) "vandalism". Comments like that against users who are patently not vandals are considered personal attacks, and are never acceptable. You are needlessly getting people off-side here. Please re-consider your aggressive approach to editing if you wish to continue contributing to this project. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing another user of vandalism, censorship and being on the payroll of the Ontario govt

This is unacceptable and has gone on far too long. You obviously learned nothing from your block. I think a longer-term solution may be in order. JChap2007 17:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same Old Same Old

Of the thousands of editors of Wiki this half dozen banding together does not constitute. How many people have you tar and feather this way as a group? Are you all related to people pocketing money from Regional Government? With over 15,000 employees I am sure that a dozen or more editors of Wiki must be related and dependants of Ontario Regional Corruption either directly or as offsprings.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are continuing to see conspiracies everywhere, would you at least name these mysterious editors who you believe are in the pay of Regional Government? Who exactly are you accusing here? Gwernol 18:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any personal attacks. They know who they are. Regional Governments of Ontario are INCESTIOUS organizations where people friends and relatives live off the trough of the public purse using all types of underhanded and unethical practices. They are places where the most crrooked and evil members of the public services and professions aggregate are they are dismissed from other governmental organization that are under more public scrutiny, such as local tiers, Provincial Government or Federal Government that each have Auditor Generals or Members of the Public watching other everyones sholders. But NOT in Regional Government where they all basically do as they please with tens of BILLIONS of dollars each year. Generally speaking the elected and non-eleted alike by a large majority are EVIL and CORRUPT and take great pleasure acting as BULLIES and THUGS manipulating all legitimate systems people believe are in place, but because of the nafarious Gangsterlike influence of the Regional Government organizations cannot function properly.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making extremely serious accusations against Wikipedia editors, saying they are party to corruption both in real life and on Wikipedia. Unless you are prepared to list who you are accusing, you must stop making these unfounded accusations. You need to stop immediately. Unless you have verifiable proof from reliable sources you need to stop pushing your single-minded point of view into Wikipedia articles. Gwernol 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The POINT OF VIEW is not being placed into the Articles. I am stating my POINT OF VIEW in the discussions to help justify the notability of the information and facts that I am contributing. My POINT OF VIEW is used to JUSTIFY the NOTABILITY OF THE FACTS and INFORMATION that others here seem to be trying to censor using excuses such as NOT NOTABLE. Something being NOTABLLE OR NOT is a point of view. Therefore my POINT OF VIEW is necessary to explain to these people WHY the information is NOTABLE. Thee fact that Notable Information may tie people and events together to show nafariousness, corrupt, unethical or unsavory activities is not reason for the information to be excluded from Wiki. Wiki is not a local Propaganda Machine. It is a free encyclopedia for the WORLD to use. and Everyone has equal opportunity to publish what THEY FIND NOTABLE.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that there is nefarious activity going on then of course it will be listed in Wikipedia. It is simply outrageous and personally insulting that you suggest otherwise. The problem is you have not come close to providing us with reliable, independent sources that can be verified that support your thesis. You need to provide secondary sources that report the connections you are trying to make - for example if the New York Times had published an article about the alleged corruption you could absolutely include that in the appropriate Wikipedia article. I will personally help you get that information included if you can provide sources. But you cannot argue from primary sources that there is corruption. That would be original research which is absolutely not appropriate in an encyclopedia. You also need to find the appropriate place to add this. The article, for example, on public procurement is not the right place to add information about corruption by one particular regional government, since it is a general article about what public procurement is in all countries across the globe. Unless you have specific sources to show that all public procurement is corrupt everywhere, that is the wrong article. Does this make any sense to you?

You still have not told me who you are accusing? Unless you are prepared to say, then please stop making these wild accusations. I will take any further accusations that unnamed Wikipedia editors are corrupt to be a personal attack on myself amongst others and I will block you on the spot. Gwernol 18:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol, I don't know if you are simply being used or have your own trigger finger for wanting to block people. People are only human. I did not make any personal attacks. I made a collective defense. If you take any one of my contributions you will find that a couple of people start in on them regardless of the subject matter, with an assumption that there is NO GOOD FAITH in my contribution and proceed to nitpick and whittle away the information till it is confused or no longer recognizable. Granted I appreciate everyone assuming good faith on everyone else is nieve. I do believe that the Good Faith should be assumed in the first instance and that subsequent acts of agression in adverse editing of contribution taken as having some degree of less than good faith. Unless you are prepared to review the entirety of the interaction between myself and the small group of people working together to edit and delete my contributions I think you block is unwarranted.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a Two Way Steet

Actually, WikiWoo, accusing me of being in the pay of the RMs is a personal attack, and this has been pointed out to you several times now. Let me answer for you, since you've ignored Gwernol's question. I, Garywill, and JChap2007 are the main conspirators. JzG and now Gwernol may possibly be added to the list as well. Is this an accurate account of our conspiracy? _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This deserves its own heading. I am not making personal attacks on anyone. I am defending my possition against the collaborative activities of a group of like minded people who are obviously trying to tar and feather me on Wiki on account of my beliefs and contributions.--Wiki The Humble Woo 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you that if you continued to make unsubstantiated claims of conspiracies against you by Wikipedia editors that I would block you. You ignored this and continue to make serious and wholey unfounded allegations against other editors. Even though you refuse to individually name those you accuse it is still perfectly clear who you are referring to and this is a very serious personal attack on the editors involved. Your breathtaking failure to assume good faith and continued personal attacks leaves me no choice but to block you once more. It is absolutely untrue that there are "collaborative activities of a group of like minded people" who are "trying to tar and feather me on Wiki on account of my beliefs and contributions". This is a completely unfounded allegation that you continue to repeat despite warnings. Blocked for 1 week.

When you return from the block, you are warned that a single further instance of this will result in an indefinite block. You cannot use Wikipedia to make significant personal attacks on the integrity of editors who are applying the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community. Gwernol 20:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they are unsubstantiated. If you review the edits in issue both OsgoodeLawyer and JChapp have taken turn doing the exact same thing.--Wiki The Humble Woo 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsubstantiated personal attack is the direct accusation that Osgoodelawyer is on the payroll of a corrupt government and acting on their behalf to censor Wikipedia. This is an egregious personal attack, you have not substantiated it at all. Gwernol 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said CIVILITY is a TWO WAY STREET. When individuals nitpick every word and make agressive reverts and deletions without any good reason and blatantly it builds up. Assuming Good Faith is ALSO a Two Way Street... The group most active against my contributions have never assumed GOOD FAITH on ANY even the most minor of edits and continue to accuse me of an AGENDA and I am trying to defend myself. If people here review my contributions, you will find that I am the one that in the first instance was not given the ASSUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH and I simply respond. The is a comment on AbsoluteDan's talk page about "doing it the hard way" with regards to getting rid of my contributions from Wiki. All of this does not go against my line of defence.

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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

No, you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and making continued personal attacks despite many, many more warnings than your behavior deserved. Gwernol 21:09, 25 August 2006 (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 The Humble Woo 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC) I don't believe that the blocking administrator is entittled to review an unblock request. Please leave the request for unblock for another administrator to review, who should review the request for unblock with you before the other administrator makes the decision.[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).

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

Request reason:

Eager administrator blocking with a manifested bias and a partiality to one side in an editing dispute. Initially attempted to entrap editor into making a personal attack and then interpreting subsequent responses as personal attacks

Decline reason:

Can't "trap" someone into making personal attacks. In ordinary, polite society, personal attacks are not acceptable. Same on Wikipedia. ➨ ЯEDVERS 08:40, 27 August 2006 (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 The Humble Woo 21:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gwernol, I would appreciate if you removed your erronious review of my unblock request. Since you are the blocking administrator you should not have reviewed your own block. The idea behind the ability to request for unblock is kind of like an appeal to another Unbiased Administrator. I hope that it will be an impartial one that does not have a pre-opinion about my motives and who will Assume Good Faith.--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid you are incorrect about this, there is no policy suggesting only another admin may review unblocks. Out of courtesy I will stand back and let another admin look at this again, but I won't remove my unblock comment. Gwernol 02:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not written statement to that effect, at the least it is an assumed act of Civility. It would make no sense for the blocking administrator to be the one that considers an unblock request since you have already taken a side in the dispute. The reason I suggested you remove your review and comment on my request for unblock was so that other administrators will not think that the unblock request was already reviewed and not review it.--Wiki The Humble Woo 12:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a request for an uninvolved admin to look at this case on the administrator's noticeboard. Your accusation that I am showing "manifest bias", and "one sided bias" is incorrect. Your characterisation that this is an editing dispute is also incorrect. I have warned you several times that the problem with your contributions are that you do not provide sources to back up your allegations of corruption, you insist on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and you continue to make personal attacks. Gwernol 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I want to add to my request for unblock the follows submission: --Wiki The Humble Woo 00:30, 27 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

This appears to be either nonsense or a further personal attack on Gwernol. Please stop abusing this template. ➨ ЯEDVERS 08:40, 27 August 2006 (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.

Um: 1) you haven't formatted the unblock request properly, 2) Why would my contribution list be a request to unblock? Especially since you only have my most recent 500 submissions, which change over time. Are you really suggesting that because I edit Wikipedia you should be unblocked? I think you are trying to achieve something elese. Gwernol 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No... the suggestion is that you like to block people based on your history of contributions. You have passed considerable judgement on my contributions without reviewed the issue on the Articles themselves. You simply took a side based on whatever the discussions say rather than reviewing the disputed reverts and conduct of both sides. We are dealing with POV and editing disputes between myself and a couple of other editors. They have the POV that Ontario government activities are good and noble and want Wiki to reflect only good things. I on the other hand have the POV that They are the most corrupt governments on the plannet and the people running them both elected and appointed should all be executed for treason for their gross betrayals of public trust and that such people are not worthy of any respect or admiration from anyone. I am taking my time to contribute to Wiki a balance of the Points of Views reflected so that this encyclopedia is not a fabricate fairy tale about the wholesome goodness of otherwise CORRUPT SYSTEMS and practice in the Province of Ontario most particularly in the Region's with Peel Region being the biggest and baddest of the lot.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin, part of that role is to block people who continually disrupt Wikipedia despite constant warnings. Simjply pointing this out is a bit like saying: "look at WikiWoo he should be blocked because he edits Wikipedia articles". That is what editors and admins are meant to do. If you have issue with specific edits of mine, please provide diffs to those particular edits. Just pointing at my entire contribution history isn't helping you - as you've found out.

I have indeed passed judgement on some specific edits of yours which are personal attacks on other editors. Wikipedia has a strong policyt against personal attacks. You may not make them here even if other editors personally attack you (which I haven't seen evidence of despite your claims to the contrary). I have not taken a side in a content dispute. You have repeatedly (using this account and others) inserted [{WP:POV]] statements into a number of articles without providing any evidence beyond "I say so". You fundamentally misunderstand the required neutral point of view. It is not the case that every unverified point of view must be included in an article no matter how libellous, paranoid or outrageous it is. You may only include a strong point of view if you accompany it by reliable sources that allow us to [{WP:V|verify]] the view. You may not include your own personal original research.

Unless and until you provide documentary evidence for these serious claims you are making against various governments, you may not include them in Wikipedia. Since you have a long history of doing just this and clearly have no intention of staying within the rules that all contributors are expected to follow, I am going to push for a community ban on you. Sorry, but you have been given far more chances than are reasonable, and show no signs of trying to reach a compromise or even of having read the basic rules of Wikipedia. Gwernol 17:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what article I wrote that was so bad that I should be banned for it. I have made my personal POV clear so that people here know where I am comming from concerning the CORRUPT REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS of Ontario and their friends in other governments elected or otherwise. However that shiould not distract attention from my good work on Wiki that served to expand information and knowledge. My POV has always been given in DISCUSSION pages to help support my contention that the Fantasy that Ontario Governments are good and noble rather than the Corrupt People and system they are that betraying the public trust like evil power mongers in some JRR Tolken book. So If you want to continue publishing only preopaganda and fantaasy that only publishes nice things aabout them and camoflages practices and systems under a whitewash of confustion and illigitimate integrity so be it. Wiki as an IMPARTIAL publication suffers by the activities of the few who are permited to maintain their one sided POV.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]