User talk:Spooninpot

Hopewell Parish, New Brunswick

No more blind rollbacks, please.

I broke out the Origin of name and added more information. Then I removed all the extra spaces that were inserted by just pasting text in and not checking it afterward. Then I properly formatted the citation so that it had more than just the URL.

I did not remove any information whatsoever.

What was wrong with any of that? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the logic is

The name of the parish predates the parish.
There may one day be an article on the pre-Parish township.
Therefore the information on the origin of the name shouldn't be presented until somebody writes the pre-Parish article.
The step of having the information in the Parish article until an article on the township is written is somehow "misleading and erroneous".

Does that about sum it up? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties of New Brunswick

Verifiable information is encyclopedic. rambling non-succinct is not. You might wish to provide citations for what you replaced it with. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In italics are my words. User presents them out of context and without credit. Spooninpot (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Timothy Walton (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Riverside-Albert, New Brunswick and Petitcodiac, New Brunswick. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Hwy43 (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Required notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tide Head, New Brunswick, you may be blocked from editing. Hwy43 (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Placeographer77 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Placeographer77. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 12:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock master talk

Why not block from talk here as with other @puppet? Guilty as charged in the evasion of block. I have not used multiple accounts for creating concesus or to insert support and reinforcement of views, however. Acknowledging the abuse, i continue to draw attention to the users reporting me for their devaluing of articles and exclusivity through the insistent tho inconsistent order of articling, using the remaining account. something has to give around the Hwy43 G.Timothy.Walton axis. I openly discuss how I am protesting (blatantly vandalizing in some cases) in the hope of drawing attention to the matters. The editing goal of mine is accessibility. I see where I have recently drawn attention to Joggins, NB in talk entry now reverted by Hwy43, the differences in meanings of identical language. Lack of federation level law and jurisdiction diffs present challenges to the so called conventions the nation-wide chronicler of local gov’t asserts. Characterizing the order and accessibility issues in the talk topics seems to have little immediate effect. when introducing a legal term which has a more general definition through linking that text to a list article that first discusses reform of legislation before the reader may discover what the specificity is all about, not only is the burden placed on the reader (so much more then awkward), I believe it is a proprietary act. Administrators of the lists and articles that are implicated by evolution in the administrative landscape need to be reminded about the devaluation caused by complicated and proprietary language again. Fragmentation of community and meaning is addressed in many ways including protest and as Active methodology the vandalism has been a way to identify the prominent users and their close administration while learning wiki policies. i don’t wish to significantly damage users or wiki commons. I have taken it as far as I will go with those damaging approaches. Spooninpot (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Guilty as charged in the evasion of block." Ok then, we are done here. And since you said clearly you are "Blatantly vandalizing" I'm removing talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]