User talk:BadWolf0081

Phoney Vandalism warnings[edit]

It's obvious you were editing as ISP 129.222.189.53, so here's level four. I see your level four and present my Access level 15.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Salisbury, New Brunswick. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing it, I am editing it as their license allows, your threats are empty and I would hope they are monitoring this to know you are attempting to impersonate them.

Yes that's my IP, I just made an account to make this easier.

Again, you should get yourself educated on the facts of what happened, contact the MLA's in charge of public consultations, they will corroborate my statements of facts. Rob doesn't get to hand pick a council like that and "annex" land, he isn't putin bud... and you aren't either. BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Salisbury website says it's a town. If you have reliable sources that state otherwise then feel free to add those. ... discospinster _talk 23:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually disputing that it's claiming to be a town, I am disputing their claim to have annexed territory, which is absurd. BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reliable sources are needed, not your own interpretation of it. ... discospinster _talk 23:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Corporate/Promo/electoral-electorales/maps-cartes/maps-cartes-march-13-2023/26-sussex-three-rivers.pdf

which indicates the new upcoming electoral boundaries, it clearly shows that a large portion of what they are claiming is their town, is not even in their same provincial riding. This would not be legitimate. I believe the previous editor had been taking advantage of lack of interest to update this fact. BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.electionsnb.ca/content/dam/enb/pdf/maps-cartes-2022/municipalities-municipalites/Salisbury.pdf

There is no indication of it being a "Town", just as there is no longer an indicator of Petitcodiac being a Village, as neither is Salisbury. There are completely NEW tax districts, the unfornate thing is that they named one Salisbury and the former village members are trying to claim these absurdities. BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these links, to the province and the town were provided on the Talk page for Salisbury, New Brunswick, the page you have been using to express your disagreement with the government. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Corporate/Promo/localgovreform/docs/WhitePaper-EN-Web.pdf

Page 7

The principles that guide the reform include:

• Uphold the principles of Equal Opportunity for fairness and equity throughout

the province, as well as efficiency and accountability.

• Strengthen local governance capacity through increased collaboration and

cooperation.

• Respect the identity of communities, including their language, culture, sense

of place and history, while reducing the number of local entities. This includes

respecting the principles established in the Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two

Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All that matters, legally:

Salisbury
33(1)The residents of the village of Salisbury and certain unincorporated areas are incorporated as a town called Salisbury. 33(2)The territorial limits of Salisbury are shown on the plan in Schedule 33.
33(3)The effective date of the incorporation is January 1, 2023.

G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are incorrect, what matters is what the people who live there call it, as well as what the province intended. What the mayor wanted is irrelevant, and will be proven so once we finally get to have an informed election, shortly after there will be not town or village and it will be the fault of people like you who are determined to change facts for your own ego. The election that was held I would consider illegitimate. Your willingness to agree with tyranny is disturbing. BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The province calls it whatever they want, the people's opinion doesn't matter any more than it did in Chiasson-Savoy. If you think a new council would get the provincial government to admit it was wrong you're bound for disappointment. Russia, Putin, tyranny... yeesh. It's like living in the Reagan era again. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new council if they have responsible elected officials would not stand for allowing stakeholders to dictate to us what we can use our land for. One simple action of dissolving the council to put the responsibility of services back onto the province would do the trick.

what's great about wikipedia is that it's not designed to be controlled by 1 sided biased opinions. We are supposed to use it to collaborate and find consensus. You are repeatedly showing extreem bias in your edits, I have even seen others pointing this out to you on your page now that I am figuring out more about wikipedia and how you just manipulated another editor by flaunting your # of edits around. Luckily the # of edits you have done does not change facts. Like that the mayor was not elected.

What the current council is doing by going along with the nonsense you are describing in your edits is not what they were voted in to do. It's what the province wanted them to be there for. BadWolf0081 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think "lots of" other areas mayors won by acclamation you should update those as well to give more information, wikipedia is about providing information is it not?

Instead of removing facts. BadWolf0081 (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the same thing as blending truth and lies; whoever has told you how municipal government works has lied. Your opinions are those of an extremist who can't handle a dissenting viewpoint, resorting to insults when confronted with facts. You are grossly ignorant of how local governance works in this province, unable to tell the difference between a municipality and a taxing authority. I'm done trying to point you toward reality. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Until your last sentence you described yourself pretty well! BadWolf0081 (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that facts about elections be excluded indicates you have no knowledge whatsoever, just your own biased viewpoints which you wish to be perpetuated. This means your input to wikipedia is a detriment to it's legitimacy. BadWolf0081 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BadWolf0081, please read WP:Verifiability, not truth. And stop your personal attacks please. Frankly, this is wasting the time of volunteer editors to this project. If you continue doing this you may get a longer block and/or get your ability to edit your talk page revoked by an administrator. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 21:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And stop righting great wrongs please. Wikipedia is not a place for advocating your own personal viewpoints. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 21:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Thank You. BadWolf0081 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Salisbury, New Brunswick. 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. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 23:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to discuss this controversial topic however the OP has made up his mind to twist events to his narrative, it's unfortunate you have been fooled, I did provide sources so i'm feeling you are biased and I may need to take further actions. BadWolf0081 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]