User talk:209.112.13.81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. CJCurrie 22:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. CJCurrie 22:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CJCurrie 22:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the censorship and offensive comments about my addition being "nonsense"!

The information I added to Michael Bryant's Wikipedia entry is accurate, relevant and unbiased. Your assertion that it was nonsense is a display of your own bias.

Here is the paragraph I tried to add immediately after a statement that Bryant brought forward his controversial ban that you keep reverting:

"For this he is viewed as a tyrant by many dog owners and professionals in Ontario. He made the famous blunder on City TV of saying "You don't ask an Attorney General to be the dog expert... The bottom line is it's going to be up to the experts" ... advice that he went on to ignore as every single credible expert who spoke at his public hearings opposed the ban. This include the Canada Safety Council, an independent organization in Canada."

You claim that this is vandalism. That the paragraph I added is nonsense. And that I failed to be factual or cite my sources. Here is my response to *your* assertions:

1) Fact: Bryant *is* viewed as a tyrant by many dog owners in Ontario, who believe that he completely bulldozed over their rights (and common sense) in order to pass wrong-headed legislation. Source: interviews with many media agencies who reported on this issue in Ontario as well as online discussion lists. (But did you see me editorialize in my edit, like I just did here? No. Trust me, I can editorialize with the best of them.)

2) Fact: Bryant did state on City TV the exact statement that I quoted in my contribution and that is cited.

If needed I can describe the famous blunder in more detail. The fact is that Bryant <opinion>arrogantly</opinion> declared that anything that wagged its tail like a pit bull was a pit bull and that "everyone" knows what a pit bull looks like. Then, in the fall of 2004 on City TV, when Alex Pierson presented him with a page of colour photographs of various dog breeds he identified the *wrong dog* as a "pit bull". To spell it out for you, he couldn't identify the "pit bull".

3) Every single expert who spoke at the hearings was opposed to the ban and yet in spite of his promise Bryant did go on to ignore every one of them. In fact, before the hearings were over, after listening to expert after expert express their opposition to the ban, Bryant announced that he was more convinced than ever that the ban must pass. He stated that he disagreed with the people who believed it was the owners not the breed that were the problem (which means he once again ignored those expert he promised to listen to).

I know this because I attended the hearings and have read the Hansard. If you don't believe me check it out yourself. Not one legitimate expert supported this legislation. If you think it would be useful I could reference the Hansard, but to be honest I haven't had the time to learn how to do a proper reference yet.

4) The Canada Safety Council did oppose the ban - and they have absolutely no interest or bias related to dogs, which is highly relevant as both Bryant and the media falsely portrayed opponents of the law as individuals and organizations with a strong dog bias.

5) Bryant, in my opinion grossly violated the civil rights of dog owners and he got away with it because he was attacking a small, disorganized, marginalized group of people who did not have the power or media contacts to mount an effective opposition to his smokescreen of misdirection. (yes, there I go editorializing again, something I left out of my edit as per the Wikipedia guidelines.)

6) I consider your statements that my additions were "nonsense" to be offensive, inaccurate and a reflection of your own bias.

I may be a new Wikipedia user, but I understand that its intent is to present factual, *detailed* exploration of various topics. Bryant's entry mentions the 'pit bull' ban. It is a gross omission to leave out the information that I have attempted to add.

Furthermore, my edits were *not* vandalisms, they were valuable additions to Wikipedia. Your removal of my edits represent inappropriate censorship and if I had known how to reply to you earlier I would have.

7) If I wanted to conduct and act of sabotage or vandalism then I would go to all the online user groups and urge everyone around the world who is working hard to bring in sensible dog laws to deface Bryant's page. Instead I chose to make a useful, factual contribution.

I would appreciate it if you would stop interfering with my efforts.