User talk:G. Timothy Walton

Welcome!

Hello, G. Timothy Walton, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Hello, and welcome! Although everyone is welcome to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Upper Miramichi, New Brunswick with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Thank you! ~ Arjun 19:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions on Local service district (New Brunswick)

HiG. Timothy, some thoughts to share with you. Some of your edits have decreased the accessibility of the article. Most often it is best to go from more general information to more specific in that sequence. your edit of local governance to "rural governance" by-passes the step, making readers leap. Also, your deletions in the 'Distribution' subtitle have removed the 'lay of the land' and replaced it with overwhelming information. These are two examples where your contributions, amoung others, have detracted from the article. Please consider these constructive criticisms in your future contributions. I'd be happy to discuss these on the talk page of the above entry. Placeographer77 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats for Canada

This edit is not valid. MOS:DATETIES makes it clear that "Articles related to Canada or Israel may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article" and 2019 Canadian federal election used mdy format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election

Just for future reference, we can't use underlining as formatting for names in List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election — it's an accessibility issue, because people with visual impairments (colour-blindness, impaired partial vision, etc.) can't always tell the difference between text that's just underlined and text that's actually a wikilink. If you want to add coding to denote distinctions like "person will be acclaimed as their party's candidate on the date of the nomination contest, because the nominations have closed and they're the only registered candidate", you need to use symbols rather than underlining. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
Again, WP:CANFRENCH is clear. "For geographic names, again, the current practice is to reflect actual English usage. Specifically, the unaccented names Montreal". Feel free to argue your point at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles. I've been an active member there for a while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checked what you cited in the MOS and it does not support you. I don't know what dictionary you're using but misspelt is a perfectly valid form that I grew up with here in Canada; it even shows up in searching some online dictionaries that both misspelled and misspelt are valid in both British and American English. Now, I could go home and do a quick look-see through my five English dictionaries, two of which are Canadian English, and I'd bet that every single one would state that both forms are acceptable. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.
Discussion started on the talk page Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is paying attention, Walter has been deleting any attempt to prove him wrong from his talk page. He definitely likes to abuse the Edit War warning whenever the evidence is against him. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Walter has been correctly applying WP:OWNTALK to his talk page.

Part of a discussion resulting in a block for edit warring requires that such a warning be placed on talk pages of editors who may not be familiar with the guidelines. I would hate to have your block be thrown-out on a technicality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be within your rights but the effect is to make it appear your behaviour is more positive than you have proven. You do so love to use the EW tag as a bludgeon whenever somebody questions your actions. I, on the other hand, feel no need to hide when somebody has shown me to be wrong. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregator source for List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election

Hey there! Really impressed with the work you're doing on List of candidates by riding for the 43rd Canadian federal election. I'm pulling some similar data for a project of mine and was just wondering if you're using some aggregate source for the information or something? Laefk (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it a lot easier. But no, I'm mostly using party candidate pages, Elections Canada, and Google/Twitter searches for terms like nomination meeting. Pure grunt work. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian federal election, 2019

I'm sorry you felt that my edit had to be reverted. I won't dispute it, but take a look at Template:Results of the Ontario general election, 2018 that I composed last year, to show that my simplified formatting does indeed work by properly using the structure of Template:electiontable. I had also used Template:n/a in a more logical place to indicate that a party was new, as well as to eliminate any irrelevant 100% variances from being posted.Raellerby (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lepreau Parish, New Brunswick

Hello, I reverted your edit to Lepreau Parish, New Brunswick. You added a long list of red-linked bodies of water. What was your source? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lepreau Parish, New Brunswick, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page I can see you are no stranger to edit wars. Unfortunately, if you continue to add unsourced content, I will continue to delete it and tag your talk page until we reach a level-4 warning. This is something I am no stranger at. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Hopewell Parish

The origin of the "Hopewell parish" name is the Hopewell township which preceded it. Simple. Perhaps it was you who contributed "In 1786 Hopewell was erected as a parish[8] with the same boundaries as the township." Please don't insist on discussing why the township was named what it was. There is very little to be achieved as it is not important to the discussion of the parish. Your recent addition do not require this amount of space and the reader's attention. You will see on the talk page that a suggestion was made for another entry be made to flesh out the Township, where on might dedicate space for a discussion the origins of the name. --Spooninpot (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree with your conclusions. See your talk page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Parish

Get it straight, Please. Alma Parish resided in what was Saint John County. Do not roll back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placeographer77 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YOur Majesty. "WHEREAS his most gracious Majesty, by his Royal Letters Patent under the Great Seal of this Province, bearing date the 18th day of May, 1785, was pleased to erect and constitute into one distinct and separate County, all that tract or district of Land situate in this Province, bounded southerly on the Bay of Fundy, easterly by Hopewell Township, and a line running from the north-west corner of said Township, due north into the Country, northerly by a line running east-north-east, and west-south-west, from the southern-most point of the Kennebeckacis Island, lying at the mouth of the river Kennebeckacis, where it joins the river Saint John, and westerly by a due north line from point Le Proe, in the Bay of Fundy aforesaid. And did thereby ordain, establish and declare that all and singular the Lands and Waters comprised within the limits aforesaid, should forever thereafter be, continue and remain a distinct and separate County, and including the City of Saint John, should be called, known and distinguished by the name of the City and County of Saint John."

CeasePlaceographer77 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Part of Alma County was part of Saint John but the county line was moved west eight years before Albert County was erected and 17 years before Alma was erected. The northern boundary of Saint John County didn't change, just the eastern one. Not even all of the modern village of Alma was south of the county line. And please produce proof that the modern Alma-Harvey boundary is the same as the western boundary of Hopewell before its expansion.

I've gone through every single iteration and amendment of the Territorial Division Act from its inception and have them all on my computer. I've even run the text through a text comparison site.

You have replaced properly cited material with disproven myth that has even been corrected on the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick website, both county guides and specific entry for the county.

Please fully consult cited material before making further edits. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote my response before you edited yours, I'll say stop citing something from 1785 as if nothing changed until seventy years later. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@G. Timothy Walton Alma Parish significantly resided in what was Saint John County, That boundary remains whether you know it to or not. A segment of The northern part of the boundary had changed, as the course change of the norther boundary caused the intersection of the two to be further to the south.

I am not doing as you say, that is, citing something as if nothing has changed. Stop invalidating the progression of jurisdictions that are the origins of the parish territory, because you do not understand those progressions... regardless of the volume of divisions you have gone through. Comprehend that if you want to discover early registry documents in and for Alma or salmon river settlement in new brunswick, you will need to consult the saint john county registry. Perhaps you would see it of more value from the perspective of someone doing searches of the historical county land registry to see why that information is important and completely valid and encyclopedic.

Again, your challenge of the information does not permit you to discount the contribution to the article. While I see the value in the work you do, the proprietary outlook is something I'm asking you to visit. Again. Placeographer77 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Placeographer77 What on earth does any Saint John County registry have to do with provincial legislation? County and parish boundaries were under provincial control. This isn't a matter of their governance.

The myth that I've seen float around in some works is that Alma Parish, the one erected in 1855, included part of Saint John County when it was erected. That's it. That's what needs dispelled. Nothing else. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@G. Timothy WaltonSome people suffer from fixation on the microcosm. What is legislation for? for it's own self and the exercise of ordering? no, it is for putting into practice. Your beef with the myth means you cannot see that Alma resides in what was Saint John. But what does it matter, hey? What's the next mission?Spooninpot (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spooninpot The fact you cannot accept that a new parish (Alma) contained an area originally part of three different parishes rather than a neat boundary convenient for your understanding is not my problem. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

@G. Timothy Walton:; I've completed your recent move request and moved Middle Coverdale, New Brunswick to Coverdale, New Brunswick. This is not my topic, but I'm really confused with Coverdale Parish, New Brunswick. Are Coverdale, New Brunswick and Coverdale Parish, New Brunswick same or different? Am I missing something? Please let me know if there is any mistake anywhere and if anything needs to be fixed. I'd be glad to help. Also pinging @Crouch, Swale: who often creates such articles. Thanks ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 23:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi: - Thanks. It can get pretty confusing in New Brunswick when it comes to names but Coverdale is worse than most. Short form: the parish (roughly like a township) had four communities named Coverdale on the Petitcodiac River; in order going upriver, these were Lower Coverdale, Middle Coverdale (now part of Riverview), Coverdale, and Upper Coverdale. Just to make it more confusing, Middle Coverdale and Coverdale are on opposite sides of Riverview's western boundary, and Riverview was called Coverdale for about a week after the province forcibly amalgamated three villages (none named Coverdale) and some surrounding area in 1973. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this seems to be the case, the parish includes several settlements and maybe unlike England its standard to have separate articles for settlement and parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:My long-term plan is to meld them but there's still a lot of other work to do on the parish articles first. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a candidate

Hi, About this addition, it seems that C. B. is not a candidate in the 2021 election [1]. The banner she left on her twitter account was for the 2019 election. I understand that it is confusing. And in the other reference, it seems that V. W. is a candidate in CNH, not in CSH. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias: Thanks for the catch. As near as I can recall, somebody on Twitter or Facebook referred to C.B. being a candidate again and my sleep-deprived mind then kept telling me that V.W. said Signal Hill, over and over again. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NDP Markham—Unionville

In reverting another user's edit to remove Gregory Hines, you stated that there was a different candidate in 2019, but this is incorrect, Hines did run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markham—Unionville#Election_results

He might be the candidate, but I don't see any evidence that Hines is actually running again. A couple people (none verified or seemingly connected to the party) have tweeted at him, to say he is running, to ask about lawn signs, etc, and he has re-tweeted Singh's campaign activities, but his bio is the only place where he claims he is the candidate. He has not acknowledged or responded to any of the tweets and there are no other sources anywhere. I would argue it is not conclusive and that he should not be listed.

Sorry, I checked last election's article when somebody added him and thought it listed somebody else.

The NDP candidate page is currently a week out of date and was missing some definite candidates even then. Most of the party candidate pages will be days out of date; some of the minor parties might be keeping up but that's about it. Don't count on the candidate pages as the only source. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not counting on the candidate pages as the only source, I'm just suggesting a single other (at least semi-reliable) source should be used ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Viruk42 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Canadian federal election

Regarding your undo here, I do not agree that a lack of pdf viewing option is sufficient reason for exclusion. Therefore, I have put it up for discussion on the talk page Talk:2021 Canadian federal election#People's Party Platform. maclean (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

maclean That is the proper procedure. Thank you. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Template substitution

Timothy, this should help if you're going to substitute the respective Canada election templates where they are used. Take a look at this from the 2012 Russian presidential article and the format below. You're basically copying the template information right after the proper heading above. Hope this helps. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: Thanks. I'll give it a try in a day or two; too much back pain for anything new tonight. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your appreciated contributions to Canadian-related articles, especially on the 2021 Canadian election article! Aryan Persaud (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2021 Canadian federal election: Difference between revisions

I removed a recent comment of yours that was a personal attack.[2] I noticed that you have made at least one other similar comment and advise you it is not constructive to discussion. Furthermore, it is unlikely that most editors disagreeing with you have any sympathy for the PPC. TFD (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Deuces You have an interesting definition of a personal attack. Anon states "Those opposing are probably trying to hide that their party keeps losing the popular vote.", very definitely an insult. I comment that I thought semi-protection was supposed to keep such blatantly partisan anonymous editors out. Yet you see fit to remove my comment and leave on the anon's. I'd say while most editors disagreeing with me aren't showing a personal bias, I've been wondering for some time whether you are. I'd say your priorities in this instance are near-confirmation of COI at best. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since your reply was to accuse me of having a COI, I have brought the issue to ANI and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. Keep it there, not here. You've exhausted my tolerance. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By striking out your 'survey' posts. Does that mean you've walked away from the RFC-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain how long the 44th Canadian Parliament will last. But, I'm intrigued by the coming disaster concerning who should be in the 45th Canadian federal election's infobox. Anyways. I'm just gonna sit back & watch the result of pandora's box being opened. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other editors?

What other editors wanted it? There is no reason to put past election graphs in the results section, it makes no sense. What is the reason to put it there? Also pie charts should never be used.

Stop reverting it. A lot of Canadians are against any changes to their election articles, and they all look awful. --Yilku1 (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article's Talk page. The problem with common sense is that everyone thinks their sensibilities are what's common. Canadians are against these changes because it's our country and they suit our sensibilities.

None of those graphs you declared unwanted were created by me. Not a single one. Now try taking into account the sensibilities of other editors familiar with the series of articles. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI posting

Have you considered the possible virtues of writing in complete sentences, providing clickable links, or generally explaining what the point of your post is? (You also seem to have overlooked the large orange box of instructions: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.") --JBL (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: Have somebody slam a sledgehammer into your lower back and then try to write through the pain and you'll have an inkling of why the proper protocol for dealing with an unfamiliar subject might elude me at the time. Perhaps you could ponder why leaving notification on the Talk page of an IP address might seem unnecessary.

Now, why don't you try reading the history of the election page and the problem IP's comments and then see if your behaviour, seeingly formulated without performing even that quantum of research, was truly justified.

And then keep that opinion, and any further you might have as to my language skills or observational ability, to yourself. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst Parish

Yea I see what you mean about the legal term Harry12555 (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst

Yea for the population, if they based it on 2016, wouldn't that be accruate to a certain degree? Anyways, I was planning to write the province anyways to get the numbers of how many of each LSD or parish, went to Bathurst or Belle Baie. The Province must have these numbers. It is confusing as the province uses alot of LSD's for boundries and the Census of course uses parishes. I actually traded some emails with Census Canada to see if I could get updated numbers for Bathurst and Belle Baie based on 2021 Census but the cost was too much for me. Part of my edit was moving the history section down a ways in the Bathurst page but this was reverted when you reverted the population edits. I was going to move the history section back again , I assume you are okay with it? I ll wait for for you to reply first. Harry12555 (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to move the history next to notable people. I found having it the first article, and being so long, it buries the rest Harry12555 (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the history; it looked like all that was changed was the numbers.

I assume the revised census numbers won't be out until June, which is when they release the countrywide summary of changes; this is a unique situation, so I could easily be wrong. The preliminary numbers for the province were based on population — x% of the LSD actually being the percentage of the population, not the area — but when they released the final boundaries they apparently didn't include the changes in population splits.

LSDs and CSDs are used because LSDs are provincial and CSDs are federal. If you look at List of parishes in New Brunswick you can see a rough explanation of how they worked. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bathurst

Hi For the changes Jan 14th, I referenced the areas amalgamated from the Provinces own paper on the reform, it is up to date. I wasn't sure why you removed the current population of Bathurst as of the 2021 census . Its pretty standard to list it in the opening paragraph. Harry12555 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page got updated and you simply pasted back in the replaced info, complete with the original spacing errors, even deleting the information that the 2023 reforms have already taken place. You also link to the 2016 census, BTW.

The census data is already present in the infobox and lower on the page. It's common but not standard to put population in the lede; it's redundant with the information right beside it in the infobox. There are also lots of pages without it in the lede.

The white paper percentages were based on 2016 census data and no longer current; they're also misleading in that the percentages are of the population, not the area of the LSD. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i restored to what i thought it should be. There is a link to 2016 census, and 2021, thank you for pointing it out, I ll correct it.

Yes the census data is present else where but from my expereince, most Cities have it listed more then once including in the first section of a article.

The white paper percentages come from the Government tabled in their 2021 report. Regardless whether they goy them from 2016 or 2021 census is besides the fact. Its what they used to inform the public of the changes and I see no reason to change their methods.

I won't update it yet, we need to come to the same point of view. Harry12555 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harry12555: All right, a compromise:

If you put the population in the lede, remember that the citation goes after the closing parenthesis.
The percentages from the white paper really belong in a footnote if they're in at all and should definitely mention that they're percentages of the 2016 population. If you haven't tried it before, you can nest citations inside footnotes with the following format {{refn|group=I recommend lower-alpha|The text you want, complete with normal citation; don't put a pipe between text and citation}}
The Notes and References style here isn't what I see on most pages. The Canada page is a good example of how to list outline (is that the word?) citations. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

works for me. Half and half Harry12555 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the white paper details, left it the way you worded it, looks good Harry12555 (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. There's always a danger some minimalist would come along and delete something as detailed as the percentages. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, bound to happen. But I suppose in a year or so the amalgamation news will sort of fade away anyways. Its sort of confusing when discussing areas, the Province had areas broken up into LSD's and the federal Government had parishes. With the recent reform changes, elimantes alot of the LSD's. Harry12555 (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the parishes are provincial, determined by the Territorial Division Act, with any municipality that's on them still part of the civil parish, under the Interpretation Act. The feds needed something rural for the census so they used the parts of parishes that weren't covered by a municipality. It's even more confusing because some provincial departments and legislation still use the civil counties and parishes. The provincial goverment has both acts available online. All the parish articles for the province are based on the civil parishes rather than the census parishes, despite the best efforts of one particular editor who seems incapable of understanding that one word can have more than one legal meaning. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dismount your high horse

Dear sir, while I hope you have been well, I fear embitterment has a hold of you. I get it. IT's what's being done to you and others. Your understanding but more importantly your apparent attachment to the material of inventorying local jurisdictions according to your understanding is hindering the process of understanding community. If other's simply do not understand the way you do, you are asked to talk about how you can be joined in that understanding, and, have a merger of understanding. I look forward to joining you on the article talk pages as apposed to the talk going into descriptions of your edits. -- Spooninpot (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Using unincorporated community for an area inside a municipal body is counter to wiki guidelines."

But your reluctance, why? Upset? "We aren't a village anymore!"

Hard hardheadedness? Spooninpot (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's some serious presumption. And yes, unincorporated community is only supposed to refer to communities outside incorporated municipalities; not my creation but quite when somebody points it out. Changing it to simply community works for almost all of them; simplest solution, avoids the issue of which were villages in the sense of a small dense community and which were large dispersed areas that would never meet the classical definition that you seem to think is the only possible accurate use of the term. New Brunswick had some of those even before the reforms, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Now go take a fraction of an hour and expand your knowledge to a useful level. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting the hang of it, @G! Spooninpot (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you endeavoured to change all NB entities to "unincorporated", it would appear, then, because of some revelation, you changed all those to reflect "wikipedia policies'. I am awed by your misdirected dedication. Spooninpot (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who changed them all to unincorporated. I just hadn't gotten around to fixing that before your tantrum. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that was not user @G. Timothy Walton

Do I wonder if the local government focus of user @G. Timothy Walton is getting in the way of articling communities? Yes.

Perhaps the templates are eating into community development. Spooninpot (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit

Thanks for catching and reverting my incorrect edit on the Moncton article. I must not have looked at it close enough to see that the date range was for a season.

Edward Bednar (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bernier?

Do you have a source on Maxime Bernier using Max on the ballot, or is it original research? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: It was on the Elections Canada page for the byelection. I've updated the link to the official results. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

If you continue your personal attacks such as this, I will take it to ANI.

Your personal attacks contribute nothing to the discussion in question and therefore does not belong on an article discussion page.

It's not particularly baffling that someone would mistake your objection to sources from France as an objection to French language sources, particularly when discussing sources outside Canada. It's fairly moot anyway, since not a lot of French language media outside both Canada and France is used as sources for Canadian articles.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD Misrepresenting the arguments of others to suit whatever it is you think you're proving is arguing in bad faith. If you don't like being called out on it, don't do it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming bad faith on my part. In fact I did not use my misunderstanding of your comments as part of an argument, but wrote: "You didn't explain why we should ignore French language sources but I will find English language ones." [20:11, 9 December 2023]

That's not an argument, but an agreement to meet your requirements, even if I was unaware of why you made them. TFD (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD No, it's not. No reasonable person would equate explicitly excluding sources from France with excluding all French-language sources. Bad faith is a reasonable conclusion, based on my observations of any RfC or RfD we've both been involved with. Your protestations do not match your behaviour. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how my arguments would have differed had I correctly interpreted your words. TFD (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Counties in NB an outline of former selves.

Hi Timothy, It's an interesting discussion whether or not counties in New Brunswick remain. You said at List of counties of New Brunswick, : They still exist, so they're not historical" Certainly there are the historical counties that were replaced by municipal counties. But even the evolved administrative and political units called county councils are a thing of the past now as we well know. So for counties to "still exist" in NB, they would have to be substantively the same in function would they not? Or is preservation of the territorial descriptions of them sufficient to say that counties still exist. No doubt we can say that county territorial divisions still exist. But how much of the former counties continuing to existy will be required for the county to remain? will we come to agree that they are not historical if what remains of them is a description of the boundaries over which they once had jurisdiction? I leave this for your consideration. Best, PonapsqisHous (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2024 New Brunswick general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Holland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting second opinion on Eilish Cleary

Hello @G. Timothy Walton, I hope not to be a bother but I wanted to reach out to the only other NB-based editor I know of for a request for second opinion regarding the article for Eilish Cleary I created (and am currently attempting to promote to GA status). On August 22 (edit linked), an editor added the WP:COATRACK/WP:UNDUE template to the article. I removed it afterwards, arguing that "a large portion of Cleary's notability stems from the controversy surrounding her termination", though it has since been added back. There is a talk page section regarding this template and although I have yet to have received a response from the editor who added the template, I wanted to request for a second opinion on the matter from another editor, especially from one that is more knowledgeable on Canadian/NB topics. Thanks! B3251_(talk) 20:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all, @B3251. I took a look at things and whoever applied the coatrack tempts me toward unparliamentary language. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. There's no using logic with some people. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Thanks for chipping in, lol. B3251_(talk) 02:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. unrelated, but Newspapers.com recently added nearly a million pages' worth of The Daily Gleaner scans. It's by far the largest step to accessing NB newspaper archives online since Postmedia took down the TJ archives last year. B3251_(talk) 02:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I haven't done any real research in a while; what's the date range? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 1884 - May 2024, so quite broad. Hopefully Ancestry will come out with more in the future such as the SJ/Moncton papers but I'm still glad that a lot of our old papers can be easily accessed again. B3251_(talk) 04:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PPC Candidate Page

Hello, thank you for all your edits to the Candidates page for the next Canadian federal election.

I know you had mostly stopped using the PPC website as a source, but they have now added all the candidates back to their "Candidates" page on their website: https://www.thepeoplespartyofcanada.ca/candidates

Just thought you would want to know this.

Thanks. Skylerbuck (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Skylerbuck. I saw it late last night my time and am about to tackle it this morning. I don't know if they restored the old one or slopped something new together but I'll put a note of some sort on it. There were three candidates without a riding and one without a proper name. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who died last month is on it as well as at least one new candidate, so I think we can safely say it was a combination of restoration and slopping. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]