User talk:Pete Peters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Arthur Ellis

Hey Pete, I see you have accused Arthur Ellis of being a sockpuppet. I though he might be as well because his very first edit was to ceraurus's talk page and the fact he edits all the same pages that ceraurus editted. However, adding unverifiable info to Mark Bourrie's page is totally uncool. I direct you to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser where you can make a formal complaint. Good luck Geedubber 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was uncool, but Mark Bourrie should not lie about his Wiki accounts. Thanks Geedubber for pointing out the Sock Puppet tribunel process. I shall persue. Pete Peters

Perhaps, since your checkuser request wasn't granted, and you obviously still want to persue this, then you should try going to the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Maybe a checkuser isn't even needed. plus I see you've catalogued all the suspected socks of ceraurus and/or arthur ellis so you will have more evidence this time (you should add all the evidence to the RFCU page as well). it will be hard to make the case though since you're a newuser and they might think you're biased. it might be better to let someone else make the accusation. I don't really want to get all that involved, but Wiederaufbau might do it. I have removed the suspected sockpuppet tag from Isotelus's page since it is confirmed not suspected. good luck! Geedubber 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been making edits for a while, but only the other day was I asked to join the Wiki family. So my IP was use instead of a name Arthur..errrr.... Mark Bourrie Pete Peters


Right. All you've done is vandalise.Arthur Ellis 21:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

    • You have come close to crossing the 3RR line, but did not. Please take this as a severe warning: do NOT conduct edit wars on Wikipedia. Arthur Ellis has been blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR - but it doesn't mean I like your position any better than his. The war will now stop - because one of the participants is blocked. When you come back, please work out your differences on the talk page and consider the services of WP:3O. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing users' signatures

Absent evidence from CheckUser—and with it, for that matter—altering a user's signature is vandalism. Please stop. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay I will. He is using an alias to avoid breaching an out of court agreement. Pete Peters

Explain with evidence, please. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 He just deleted from his blog.  But he reached an out of court settlement, and part of the deal was that he not write about Warren Kinsella and vice versa.  He posted the agreement on his blog, but has since deleted it.

I really don't care that he uses an alias, and maybe I was wrong to put it on his Wiki entry. But then calling it vandalism really offended me. The fact you can be accused of such activity is offensuve. The on the Warren Kinsella page, I took out his name, like many other people have done, and he all of sudden accuses me of vandalism again.Pete Peters

When confronted with accusations, we should respond with evidence to the contrary; if sockpuppetry is suspected, one must go through the CheckUser process—and, if denied, a better case must be made. Changing a user's signature is vandalism, and lends credence to the accusation that caused offense in the first place—and, damages your argument. Also, I would need better than someone's blog entry—especially given its deletion since, as if the user was couldn't prove it—to demonstrate that an out-of-court settlement involved Wikipedia in any way. I understand these things can be frustrating, but staying on the high ground serves us all much better. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

True, true, but he has no right decorating my user page as he see's fit. I told him to do it on my talk page, but he wouldn't stop. Am I allowed to revert an infinite amount of times on my user page. I lost the Sock Pocket thing, he got vengeful and wouldn't stop altering my user page, that is what was so frustrating. Pete Peters

That's fine. If the user is clearly vandalizing, and he's been sufficiently warned to not do so, report him at the vandalism-in-progress page. If you present the appearance that you're reducing yourself to vandalism in response, you hurt your own case. Happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He has now created a new blog. http://www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com/ and the lawsuit agreement is in it.

Hm, gee, I wonder why it's so vague... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I see the "vandalism" by SArthur Ellis is actually warnings to stop vandalizing his page after the sock puppet check was rejected. Seems "Peters" has some stalking thing going against Arthur Ellis. In fact, I suspect Peters' account was set up for stalking Ellis and reverting the Kinsella entry. 70.51.52.253 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Bourrie, I mean Arthur Ellis, quit using socks. Grow up.


Pete Peters


You might want to check the Pierre Bourque entry, Pete. 70.51.52.253 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing Arthur Ellis, I mean suspected sock puppet 70.51.52.253

[edit] WP:NPA

Please stop with the personal attacks. Argumentum ad hominem only hurts your credibility and will end up with you finding yourself on the block list. Deal with facts and their fitness or lack thereof, not with the person; or, if that fails, get administrative help—that's what we're here for. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ǁ

He edits every modification I make, and refers to it as vandalism. Read all the effort I put into the discussion, and he simply by passes it, and reverts anyway. Today Warren Kinsella has notifed Mark Bourrie, that a new libel suit is being pressed against him. Mark Bourrie under all of his alias, should not be allowed to edit anything relating to someone in Canadian Politics, whether the person be a politician, journalist, party bureaucrat and so on. Radio Kirk I dare you to put something into the Warren page, and watch this guy Mark Bourrie revert it. Pete Peters

I am rather a modest person. My patience is running thin on with him. It has got to stop. I caught him, and he cry's murder. Pete Peters

No matter, you should keep your cool and resolve the matter in a more civil manner than attacking him yourself. You win no sympathy on your side by attacks like that no matter towards whom they are directed.--Konstable 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, for the meantime I'll stop getting into an edit war with Arthur Ellis. What I will do, is ask people who have had past problems with this user to take up the challenge. Thus I promise to behave, and not get into his dealings for the next week. It is just I lost my cool with him the other day on his blog. I entered a rather modest question about his activities, like many others have, I thought his actions on Wikipedia wore amusing at the time. Intsead of getting a response, whether it be comical or legitimate, all he did was delete my comment. I have never seen this done before, and I realized he must be doing this to people all the time. I then querried him why he deleted my comment, he responded by saying that it was vulgar or some nature like that. (He has since deleted the comment, so I can't get the exact words.) This ticked me off, so then I posted a note on his wiki enty, Mark Bourrie which probably was uncool, but I assumed he would edit it to fit his perception, instead he just accused me vandalism, it could have been borderline vandalism, but crying murder offended me. Other people who know him personally have lost their cool and vandalized his page, something I realize is a result of their frustration with him. So, I'll pass on my troubles with him to other people who have had the same problem, and let stand at that. Pete Peters
If you suspect AE is a sock of Ceraurus, please take it to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, the only authority for such matters - not to me. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I see now it's been declined before. You can make the argument again there.... - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Ellis

Arthur Ellis is not my friend, but he does me favours and puts false information about me on my User talk page. I find it flattering, oh well, cherio. 00:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

I see you are still in a feud with Authur Ellis. Continuing this is pointless and if it continues to get too out of hand some blocks could have to be made to your accounts - I'm sure neither the administrators, nor you, nor Arthur Ellis want this. Have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - it contains some information to help you resolve disputes. First of all you should try to resolve this yourself, but if it fails there is a list of options which will help you figure out what to do next. But please stay clear of Requests for Comments against each other and Requests for Arbitration until you absolutely need to, because those involve a lot of time on behalf of other users, which should not be necessary).--Konstable 00:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: You decide

Perfect! Include it then as a direct quote with citation, and it's good to stay. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done

- CrazyRougeian talk/email 02:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pete, wtf was this reversion? You removed the source I just added, for example?? - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Gomery Inquiry back to Geedubber's orignal before it got Arthured. I rearranged the pic. And something else. Pete Peters 05:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so at least go back in reinstate all the non-arthur versions you've zapped! - CrazyRougeian talk/email 05:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren

Can you come to the talk page and discuss this issue further? Thanks! Yanksox 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your last hoorah

We'll see if there are objections - and then we will allow you to implement whatever's non-controversial, one change at a time with informative edit summaries. Hold on... - CrazyRougeian talk/email 16:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Eye-Eye, Captain. Pete Peters 16:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bourie Reverts

Watch your reverts Pete. I think that you're at the limit now. And you aren't supposed to get even that far, you just get punished if you go over. --JGGardiner 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have to wait 3 hours till I can revert. But he has passed his limit. Check out the hot Nassties, how many times did he CSD. Pete Peters 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Please check the policy: WP:3RR. You're not supposed revert that often. The fourth is an automatic punishment but you shouldn't be edit warring at all. As for Arthur (I assume that's the he that you mean), it looks like he did revert too often on that article. But he was warned by admins who seem to be watching that page. I'm not an admin myself so I couldn't do anything even if I wanted to. I suppose that you could ask an admin for a block if you'd like but I'm not sure that it would help anything. --JGGardiner 02:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
My last edit asked for a citation. It was no revert. Pete Peters 02:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Sorry about that. Although I knew that I was smart to put an "I think" in there. But regardless, it is best to remember that one shouldn't be reverting even twice if it is avoidable. Hopefully everyone can talk through the problems. I would suggest that if you want to make the addition, first explain it on the talk page. Arthur has already put in at least some of her (yes, Arthur is a she) concerns in earlier. Maybe you could respond to them, if they don't persuade you that she's right. Thanks. --JGGardiner 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the IPs, all that I can say is that it's a small world I suppose. But semi-protection at least keeps out the IP vandals. It is unfortunate that legitimate IP users have to be left out. But we're obviously having enough problems with the article as it is. --JGGardiner 03:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD etc

Hi Pete!

An admin will strike that comment at some point in the near future. If not, it will be disregarded by the closing admin anyway, so the point is probably moot - although worth mentioning to keep Wikipedia's processes running smoothly.

As for voting in AfDs: no, you're not able to vote in AfDs. Nobody is able to vote in AfDs, because AfD is not a vote. Voting is evil anyway, but voting in discussions is severely frowned upon.

You may, of course, give your opinions in the discussion on AfD. The more detailed your opinions are and the more policy they reference, the more they will be counted. Simple "votes", without any additional information, will be ignored.

Caveat: I'd suggest not contributing to the articles nominated by User:Arthur Ellis. I haven't looked much at all into your talk page, but I did glance to see many references to him. Probably for the best to put a bit of distance between the two of you, whether you are pro- or anti- his point of view on things. Since AfD isn't a vote, nodding in someone's direction or voting just to refute someone usually doesn't work anyway!

Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 22:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Even though it is called the 3RR rule, one can only be blocked for their fourth revert in 24 hours. So you should be fine if you revert it yourself. The 3RR rule also tends to side against the first reverter ( in your case, that would be National Library IP). I suggest you warn him by placing a {{3RR}} warning on his talkpage. If he reverts your edits again he will eligible for a block. But, I doubt any admin would want to block a computer terminal in a public library. Read up on WP:3RR. Knowing wikipedia policy in very useful in these situations. If he does break 3RR, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR is the place to report it. I know absolutely nothing about the Trinity—Spadina riding so I would rather not edit it myself.Geedubber 02:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way Pete, one of your edits[1] was marked minor but actually had a large content change as you can see. I know that happens by accident sometimes but try to watch out for that again. Thanks. --JGGardiner 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you want to play, use a sandbox

Changing other people's comments on talk pages is not acceptable.--Konstable 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of asthetics. The red card in soccer looks much better and friendlier. Pete Peters 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Well you see the problem is that the user who gave out that warning did not want to use a red card. And the user who made the comment to which you added a yellow card did not even intend to have any image there. If you want to use it yourself in your own comments go ahead, just don't change other people's comments.--Konstable 01:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby D.

Hmm ... I never thought of creating these things as templates. It's not a bad idea, though. I don't think the old method is particularly inconvenient, but I suppose there's no reason not to switch to an easier version. CJCurrie 03:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be silly to cut and paste everything around. It is poor syntax. Pete Peters 03:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I've removed the "+/-" column from the 2006 results -- we've generally stopped using it. CJCurrie 03:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was editing the 2004 version. Look at it, now you can add to everyone you want to. But I find these results tend to takeover each entry. Pete Peters 03:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize they take up a fair bit of space, but I don't think it's particularly problematic when all the information is clustered toward the end of the article (people can just bypass the entries, if they don't find them interesting). CJCurrie 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind if I deleted "Template:Canadian federal election, 2004/Electoral Districts/Brampton—Springdale"? I've already created a duplicate page with the proper title ("District"), and there's no point in keeping both. CJCurrie 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do, I am going to sleep and there were thing like that one that had to be fixed. Also, when I click on the edit for the 2004, it takes to the 2006 results. Might want to fix that bug too. Pete Peters 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that -- I'll take care of both problems in a minute. CJCurrie 03:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no -- but I started expanding the Volpe page a short time ago, and it seemed like the rational first choice. CJCurrie 04:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no major objections to this change ... and only one minor objection (I've sometimes had to adjust the column sizes to make room for overlarge names -- the new system makes such adjustments more difficult, although this isn't a particularly serious problem). CJCurrie 02:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need to wait -- it's not a major problem, and I'm sure I'll be able to find some way around it. CJCurrie 01:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Big Thanks

Re: your message: No problem! Sorry you've been having so much vandal trouble. See you around! - Tapir Terrific 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't handle the vandal

Dude! What is up with your pet vandal??? I almost have to give the kid credit for his persistence. Then again... no. - Tapir Terrific 20:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism

I have protected your user page which, in all honesty, should have been done a long time ago. It's only a temporary measure so we'll see how it goes. -- Francs2000 22:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For your other edits, I'd asked for advice here (under Pete Peters). I don't know if that is much help but at least it is a place to start if things don't improve. And just in case you haven't, which I doubt, you need to look at Talk:Mark Bourrie. --JGGardiner 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out, but I'm going to bed in a sec because it's nearyl 1am here and I'm quite tired... -- Francs2000 23:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Bourque

Hey -- got your message. There may be some sockpuppetry going on... but without some clearer evidence, I wouldn't want to block IPs that hadn't broken the WP:3RR. Maybe go to WP:RFCU and make a request? Mangojuicetalk 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren

Four employees. Six clients...Arthur Ellis 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paging Mr. Peters

Sorry, to be using your talk page like this. We haven't been properly introduced.

I posted this message on several pages, however Mr. Bourrie has deleted them all.

They were on these pages:

01:27, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Warren Kinsella (→Paging Mr. Bourrie - Paging Mr. Bourrie) (top) 01:26, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Arthur Ellis (→PAGING MR. BOURRIE PAGING MR BOURRIE) 01:26, 20 July 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Pierre Bourque (journalist) (→Paging Mr. Bourrie - Paging Mr. Bourrie)

Here's the message:

Geez, I checked out that "obsequious" Mr. Bourrie (aka Magma IP's, Ceraurus, Isoletus, Arthur Ellis and Marie Tessier) that's really unflattering. However, Mark you have proven to the admins that anything less than full protection is useless on the pages which you covet:Rachel Marsden, Warren Kinsella, Pierre Bourque and of course Elizabeth May. 
 +  
 + All that attention on Pierre Bourque's wiki page, just because he quietly dropped you from the pundit list on his website. Your inflated ego just couldn't take it. 
 +  
 + Regards, 
 +  
 + qwerty

I thought you may wish to view who you and the wiki admins are dealing with.

Mr. Bourrie has posted a picture on HIS BLOG [ http://ottawawatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/scumbags-i-have-met-part-i.html] He would be the one on the right.

I think the Mark Bourrie page is lacking that extra touch which this photo will provide.

After all he is a public figure.

Regards,

qwerty

[edit] Blocked for one week

For repeated edit warring, which you have recently restarted despite promises to get away from Warren Kinsella, for nominating Bourrie for AfD in bad faith, and for trolling the talk pages. When you come back, please behave well. If you dare come back with a sockpuppet, like Arthur, I will indefblock all your identities. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That is just. It gives me reason to enjoy the sun. Pete Peters 15:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Kinsella RFAR

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I make a statement when I am Blocked? Pete Peters 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So I guess I can't make a statement, Huh. Pete Peters 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
you can e-mail your statement to any arbitrator or you can post it to your talk page. I will watch the page and copy it to the proceeding for you. Thatcher131 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MY STATEMENT, it is long, but being a primary sunject in this dispute, I believe that it is just to be this long

Please be advised that a request for arbitration is being filed over the continued edit war occurring over this page. Please feel free to make a statement on the request page. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I make a statement when I am Blocked? Pete Peters 20:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So I guess I can't make a statement, Huh. Pete Peters 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MY STATEMENT, it is long, but being a primary sunject in this dispute, I believe that it is just to be this long

Hello all Wikipedians!!! Who here would like to nominate me as an Administrator? Okalay Doke.

Let me start off by saying that as a new user, I wasn't too sure how the whole Wiki culture worked. When harsh words were used against me, I fought back with similar words. Which was wrong. Since I had never experienced an exchange between two users before, I thought this was the norm. As I got more involved with Wikipedia, I changed my tone to match the community spirit.

The issue I have is that one person and his anon IPs should not be allowed to dominate the Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque (journalist) with a clear POV, and IMO to simply settle a personal dispute. That is the issue, and I have long argued that I would become scarce if Arthur Ellis and his anon IPs would simply stop contributing to the page altogether.

IMO this article was coveted by one individual, who would bully people with opposing view by editors. [2] [3]. Further more, [[User talk:Francs2000|Francs2000] who I had thanked for saving my page from vandalism, became victim of similar attacks by an annon user from Ottawa, and if you read his talk page, you can see the result. (Please note that the comments made against him have been deleted from the record.)

As for accusing Arthur of being a sock of Cereaus, I later stopped that, as it became obvious that Wikipedia Admin would not sanction such behaviour. Thus I did improve my behaviour, and began to move onto other things. (But I now see that everyone else is saying that Arthur is a sock puppet, from a RFCU that had very little evidence.)

If one accuses me of Bad faith regarding the AFD of the Mark Bourrie entry, they may be right in that regards. I did this as a sting operation, my goal was to illustrate the Sock Puppet antics by Ottawa based IPs who would flood the page in an attempt to Keep it. It was gaining steam, until CrazyRussian closed the debate.

You will notice that when the Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque entries were not protected, I made little to no edits on those pages. I believed that if Anon IPs wanted modify the page, then let them do the work. But once the page was protected, I stepped in, I reverted the Gomery Inquiry to an anon IPs version, which I thought was better suited. Please read the Gomery Commission entry, which I never mentioned before, because of a suspicion that this page would be possessed by Arthur Ellis. Please read the entry, and note that Warren Kinsella is regarded as an outsider looking in. There is no justification to finger him, when he was never under investigation by the RCMP.

I have always said that I would leave this page altogether, if Arthur Ellis and anon Ottawa based IPs could do the same, to no avail. I was also the victim of attacks, on my user and talk page. This is a must read, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Okay this goes on, but please read this IPs history, the comments placed next to each edit were harsh to say the least. [14] Most of this, I tried to take in stride, but making a comment about my father is something I take offence too. Especially when I am so proud of my father, who is working on a new mini-hubble liked telescope. Who has been invited by NASA to grade the performance of their new space telescopes. You should also note that after this user was blocked at 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC), Arthur Ellis made a Wikibreak statement soon after at 20:41, 12 July 2006, 9 minutes later. Then disappeared for 6 days, and only reemerged after disputed pages were semi-protected.

Now as for this statement made above by CrazyRussian, "Both editors have a long history of personal attacks, many coming against myself recently." For the record, I have never made a personal attack against CrazyRussian, and I he will confirm that.

And for this satement made by Thatcher131 [15]. I would like a clarification, and his ensurance that he was not referring to me, Pete Peters as being Warren Kinsella himself. I would have no qualms to tesify on Warren Kinsella's behalf that he is not Pete Peters. The same goes for any statement regarding Pierre Bourque being Pete Peters.

And let me be perfectly clear, I have not used anon IPs as socks ever. About a half dozen times or so, I have forgotten to sign in. This by no means merits proof that I use sock puppets. I beg you to do a thorough checkuser investigation, which will ultimately exonerate me of any sock puppet actions. I can understand if there are any suspicions, because I reverted to some anon IP versions. It is just I believed those edits better suited the article.

In regards to CrazyRussian taking sides, I would not dispute this claim made by Arthur Ellis. I believe that I was given a week block by CrazyRussian to save his intregity, which I obliged and do not disagree with. His commendable career with Wikipedia should not be jeopardized over a simple tiff. So I would move him from the category Users who have attempted to defuse the situation to Involved Parties.

However, RadioKirk never took sides, and he should be exonerated from such accusations.

Please feel free to block me, and Arthur Ellis, along with a range block from Magna IP from Ottawa, along with IPs from the National Library of Canada like 142.78.64.223. And please note that I did not tag this page.

[edit] Statement

OK, I copied your statement over. If you have any updates or changes while still blocked, I will keep watching here, although I may not respond as rapidly as today (since you needed to get your statement in). If the case is accepted, you can probably persuade the blocking admin to unblock early (if needed) so you can participate on the evidence and workshop pages. Good luck. Thatcher131 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My response to Thatcher131

Thank you for that clarification. The blog did not occur to me, and I wasn't to sure who you were refering too. Arthur Ellis and random IPs have accused me of being Pierre Bourque or Warren Kinsella. No matter how false these accusations are, my concern is that editors and Admin alike will except this argument as common knowledge. Pete Peters 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the July 5 post here. Kinsella linked to two wikipedia pages to show that Ellis (who was editing the Kinsella article) might be Bourrie. In response, a bunch of IPs blanked those two pages, putting up comments like this, the sort of thing that would make a 12-year old proud. That's how I got involved, since I watch the checkuser pages pretty closely. Mackensen ended up protecting the checkuser page from editing by anons. Thatcher131 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!!!

Please be advised that an anon IP who claims to be Arthur Ellis is now settling a score with Homeontheorange (sic) on the Arbitration page. Where he attacks Homey for the events that led to Cereaus being Indef. Blocked. Please note that Arthur is not Idef. Blocked yet because of the on going RFAR. This is not the time for him to settle scores. Pete Peters 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I trust the members of the arb committee not to be fooled, plus Homeontherange is no shrinking violet. If this gets to the evidence stage I'm sure Homey will throw the recent checkuser result back in Arthur's face every chance he gets. Arthur's changes to his own statement are kind of funny. First he says, Homey lured Ceraurus into a 3RR violation; then, maybe realizing people will think how does he know that, he changes it to, I looked into Ceraurus' history after I was falsely accused, and I saw that Homey lured Ceraurus into violating 3RR. I think Arthur has a low opinion of us wikipedians. Thatcher131 01:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Why did you make that friendly statement on my talk page. Now you are going to be accused of colluding with me. :) Pete Peters 01:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm friendly to everybody :) . I will say however that whoever did this got on my bad side real quick. Thatcher131 02:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are these statements allowed to fly?[16] Can you please update that page.Pete Peters 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I had a look, I don't know much about Esperanza, but it seems to be a self-named kind of thing and there doesn't seem a mechanism to take it off or appeal. Any Esperanza member who drops by Arthur's talk page to offer "word of encouragement" or whatever will see the number of other users who have problems with him. Esperanza is also completely unofficial. I'd rather not post anything else on your behalf (except in the RFAR) since you are blocked. When your block expires you could ask about it on the talk page there, and point to the RFAR to say that the situation is complicated and you consider the statement to be a personal attack; or you could just ignore it and it will go away automatically. Thatcher131 02:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh and if CrazyRussian goes on a wikibreak. Can you make sure he lifts my block before he goes on a wiki break. :) Pete Peters 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It should expire on its own. Be careful not to try and edit other areas of wikipedia because that may trigger an autoblock (a somewhat mysterious concept to me). If after 7 days and one minute you still are blocked (there are rare bugs in the block software it seems), you can put the unblock template on your talk page like this {{unblock}} with a brief explanation and that will go into a queue to be reviewed by whoever is checking it that day. Thatcher131 02:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting read. [17]Pete Peters 02:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
However, I have never used any socks. Pete Peters 02:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umm Perhaps their needs to be another RFAR

I see the RFAR involving me, has turned into a debate about the Marsden entry. Which I hate to say, Arthur Ellis might be in the right. But the Rachel Marsden Artcile has nothing to do with my situtation. As a Dipper myself, I find too many Dippers have a radical bias, and perhaps Bucketsofgrewal intervening in the argument is only confusing the debate.

I really think that some RFAR on the Marsden might be neccesary, although the debate has simmered in the last month. But this has nothing to do with Rachel Marsden, can you please preserve the discourse on this RFAR. Pete Peters 21:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


Pete, if Ellis is Ceraurus then the Marsden page should totally be a part of this since it shows evidence of persistent disruptive editing. In fact, the only reason I got involved in the WK page(or even know who he is) is because I edited the Marsden page and kept an eye on suspected socks of Ceraurus. I've found that BucketsofG is one admin who doesn't allow things to get out of hand, and the reason this issue wasn't addressed sooner is probably because he was on a wikibreak. However, there is talk of banning a whole IP range, and actions like that cannot be done on one admins whim. The fact that this issue has been taken to arbcom means that the admins do take this issue seriously(arbcom is like the wiki supreme court). I am quite sure that you are not WK and will include that in my arbcom statement if you like. Geedubber 05:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking your account

I am unblocking your account to achieve parity with AE and to allow you to participate fully in the RfAr like AE. The fought-over pages are protected, anyway. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Endorsements

I think that you're right about retracted endorsements. They should be included. I haven't payed such close attention to the Volpe thing but I think that you are right. He did leave them and it is expected that he will leave Volpe but hasn't just yet. But I'm not 100% on that. I see that you're unblocked now so you could make those edits if you want. Although perhaps Crzrussian only intended for you to edit the RfAr? I'm not sure. If you can make those edits, I'd support them (assuming that the Volpe thing is right). --JGGardiner 01:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006

No, I did not work on the 2006 campaign in Trinity-Spadina. - SimonP 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moscoe

I agree with your point on the Moscoe page -- sometimes, I'm too polite to say these things directly. If you have the time, could you look over my other disputes w/ GD? CJCurrie 04:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that you'd already reverted GD's post -- sorry. CJCurrie 04:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Which RfA are you talking about? CJCurrie 04:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As to GoldDragon, he's not trolling me (exactly). Our paths have simply crossed on a number of interrelated pages; the Moscoe dispute has been going on for some time. CJCurrie 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll comment on the Kinsella RfA tomorrow (hopefully). CJCurrie 04:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NDP User template

Well, there's already this:

This user supports the New Democratic Party.

The one you use uses a fair use image, and there are some wikiprudes who don't like that. Use at your own risk :) --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 01:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All chairs of committee's are elected

The governing party choose's which of its own members it wants to head the committee as chair, the house then votes on who they want, i have provided recently added a link to where u can find proof on the site in question and thanks for the wiki boxes or whatever they are called.--Ace ventura 01:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Goodyear cont...

I agree that the subcommittes are not all the important. However given the recent terrorist plot uncovered in Ontario the fact the Gary Goodyear chairs the subcommittee on Parliment Hill security made big news in his ridings newspaper as well as being interviewd by national newspapers. However i do agree the the other subcommitte is not all that significant but i added it anyways. Yes its true i am not a fan of Janko Peric he was caught a few times doing corupt things(like fly to his native Croatia on taxpayers dollar caliming it was for buisness as well as voter fraud was suspected in this riding, a few polls had almost 100% voter turnout and those polls almost all the votes were cast liberal, rare in Canada to get that result legitmatly) I however have planed to add more to Janko's site just finding it harder to find info on him now that his website is shutdown. Thanks for the help with wiki as i am new to this but not new to Canadian politics.--Ace ventura 00:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I just left a comment at the Kinsella arbitration thing and it reminded me to note that I'm pleased to see that you've moved on to edit other articles productively like I'd hoped and I thought that I'd seen when those articles were first protected way back when. Hopefully all involved in this whole mess can move on to being productive editors again. --JGGardiner 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not bad at all

Thank you; this had been annoying me for a while.

(Visuals aren't really my thing, as you've probably figured out by now ...) CJCurrie 05:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the second one works better. The columns not lining up was a bit of a pain. CJCurrie 21:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Peter, those removed comments which highlight a personal attack were not originally made on the Talk Ignatieff page. They are being placed there by a third party with various sockpuppets in order to escalate problems. If there are issues between users, they need to be dealt with on user talk pages, not on the page dedicated to discussing a specific article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify: the original attack comment was posted elsewhere. The person who keeps highlighting it on that page has also posted links to the attack in at least 6 different places. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
That box is cool! Thanks!
I'm not sure about the IP thing, but I personally have transplanted to relevant user talk pages a thread which discusses an attack that one IP made to another IP on their talk page. Ottawaman (and what I honestly suspect are various Ottawaman socks) keep placing it back into the Ignatieff talk page even though the attack did not happen there and has nothing to do with the Ignatieff article. I feel this behaviour is just trolling and trying to escalate issues between users. Regarding the RfAr, I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me. I noticed some Sympatico IP numbers in that list and I'm pretty sure that Ottawaman is also on Sympatico. Thanks for your comments, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As an Australian I don't know anything about the actual political content of the article, I am only concerned with the trolling and the insertion of a now-deleted Wikinews article (which Ottawaman wrote) as a source for personal information about Ignatieff. I've requested page protection for a couple of days to try to simmer things down a bit. I considered s-protection but I don't think that would have much effect because of the sockpuppet accounts. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I left CJ a message asking him if he would mind taking a look at the article when it gets unprotected. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PetePetersTest

Template:PetePetersTest has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Computerjoe's talk 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Joevolpe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joevolpe.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Howabout spouse and religion? -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to get multiple parties in the infobox? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just sobering up myself! But anyways, I was wondering about just listing two parties for one person. For example David Emerson. What do you think is the best way to handle him? As for the NDP, cheer up my friend. There are always really good people and really lousy people in anything you will encounter. I've had the fortune to have campaigned for a really great guy (Henri Sader) who has given me a great opportunity to intern at Parliament for Peter Julian. I was able to wow them with some of my maps (check out Ottawa South to see what I mean). I guess all you have to do is try and wow them with you expertise, and maybe they will throw you a bone. I don't know... I haven't been too impressed with riding associations myself. (Ottawa Centre seems to have forgotten about my help last summer, and while I have no complaints about the Ottawa South association, others have had problems.) Meh... Thanks for the great work on the Wiki btw, and thanks for getting Olivia elected! :-D -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok nvm. I will use the David Emerson thing as a template. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
hmmm.... it appears as though that's not the actual infobox. And I will need a list of the turncoat codes. Reform-->Canadian Alliance-->Conservative would be helpful, Canadian Alliance --> Conservative also, Progressive Conservative --> Conservative and Bloc Quebecois --> Liberal I think are the one's needed. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
BQ colours dont work. See Gilles Duceppe -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PetePetersTest

Hey, I noticed you were using Template:PetePetersTest as some kind of personal sandbox. That is not what the template namespace was created for, so I've userfied that page. Its new link is: User:Pete Peters/PetePetersTest. Sorry for the inconvenience.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 15:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am waiting for your apology: now excuse me, but I certainly don't have to take orders from you. Also, I'm really wondering why you're so certain that the Template-namespace is the only place to do this. I admit that I don't really have a large portion of technical knowledge, but this seems unlikely to me.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 15:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Giving you a headsup in advance seemed pointless to me, since you hadn't replied to the TfD page which is running for a few days now. Also, I wasn't really doing things which could not be undone. Anyway, I'm taking your word for the thing not working outside the Template-namespace is true. You'd better not be joking about it. Lastly, if you're undertaking such an action ever again..make sure you mention it on the talkpage so administrators actually have a clue what it's doing there.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party logos

I'd love it if I knew where to go as well. That logo was already on Wikipedia when they used it, and I just had to re-upload it. Some people involved with the 80soft discussion forums who make Prime Minister Forever games might have some old logos though. You might want to talk to User:MS123 as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbons

Ok, made some ribbons now (half forgot it :))




[edit] Honourary

Dude, "honourary" is not a word. It's spelled honorary, even in Canada and the United Kingdom. Check dictionary.com or your favourite dictionary if you don't believe me. Darkcore 00:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm Canadian. Darkcore 00:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Éric Côté

Éric Côté notable? Is Arthur still around? Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SylviaWatsonCampaign.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SylviaWatsonCampaign.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 68.39.174.238 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


Stint 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)I am the one who took the picture, which was taken from my blog Nice Comfy Fur (http://comfyfur.blogspot.com or http://www.comfyfur.com). I hold the copyright and give my permission for its use on Wikipedia. (c) 2006, Steve Stinson

I went ahead and deleted the image. Images with restricted permissions (i.e. Wikipedia only) are not permitted. The photographer needs to specify either the GFDL license or one of the allowable Creative Commons licenses. More info at the Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thatcher131 00:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. Arthur_Ellis is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie. Arthur Ellis is required to use one registered account. For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your medal chest

Hey Pete, you know last month you gave me that cool medal chest, I was wondering if you could please put the other barnstars on my user page in it? I tried to do it myself, but I must be stuffing it up some how cos when I preview it it's not right. I really like it and I'd really love to be able to use it. :) Cheers mate, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ribbons

Would you go ahead and implement this idea so we can archive the discussion. I'll look for your edits on this page, Wikipedia:Ribbons. --evrik 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new RFC

You may be interested to know that an RFC has recently been initiated regarding Fair use images of Canadian politicians. Many images of Canadian public figures are about to be deleted, including ones you have uploaded. Please feel free to participate. - Mcasey666 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kennedy NPOV?

Hey, I see you put a {{NPOV}} tag on the Gerard Kennedy article but you don't state any reasoning on the talk page. Normally the issue is raised on the talk page, then the NPOV tag would go up. Could you please state your reasons for viewing the article as NPOV? Thanks - Jord 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pete,

I'll start on fixing this article shortly. CJCurrie 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Riverdale

Hello Pete, I did look for the book and it seems that Carleton University does have a copy of it. Expect the wisdom collect in it to soon appear in Wikipedia. - SimonP 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anon comment

Pete sucks peters, you worthless piece of shit NDP attack queer, either take all your medication or non of it, asshole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.102.105 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

  • So you know, I've warned this anon IP to not make a personal attack like this again. --Durin 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mauriziobevilacqua.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mauriziobevilacqua.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/t/User_talk%7EPete_Peters_d0c8.html"