User talk:Stoneacres

Welcome!

Hello, Stoneacres, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For tireless efforts to make the article about Gatineau Park more complete, scrupulous referencing and willingness to work well with other editors. Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at Talk:Gatineau_Park#Split_proposal I have created this new article and split most of the political story of the park off there, along with many of your photos. I hope you will continue to work on both articles! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can note that I went to Commons and added a category to all your Gatineau Park photos as Politics of Gatineau Park so that they will be easier for other language Wikipedias to find and use, too. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a request, I think that was you who was editing as User: 70.31.216.199 User:70.51.188.11 and User:70.51.188.11, among other IP addresses. It would help out other editors a lot if you could sign in to your account before editing so we know it is you and therefore who we are dealing with. IP edits are often viewed more suspiciously for vandalism and could lead to sockpuppet questions in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stoneacres, though you've added a lot of well referenced material to Gatineau Park and Politics of Gatineau Park, the overall tone of your contributions suggests that you have some sort of connection to the topic (such as an affiliation with the Gatineau Park Protection Committee) that would suggest a conflict of interest. Per WP:Conflict of interest, "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." If you do not have any conflict of interest, then my apoligies; either way, I look forward to your edits in the future. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced Wikipedia editor I want to give you some words of advice to prevent you from ending up blocked and the organization you represent being disgraced. On both Gatineau Park and Politics of Gatineau Park you have engaged in edit warring to try to force your own way. You have broken the Three revert rule on the latter article today. I didn't report you, which would have resulted in an automatic 24 hour block, because I wanted to warn you about this in advance. You have denied being in a conflict of interest twice now, but have previously admitted that you represent the Gatineau Park Protection Committee. You have also given lots of obvious clues as to your identity, which make your constant denials of COI very disingenuous.

My advice to you is this: as per the policy declare your involvement in the issue. Other users, like for instance this one have done so and it has made their contributions to the encyclopedia welcome and helpful. If you choose to continue with your edit warring, reverting other editors, misrepresenting consensus and heavily pushing your organization's POV, it is most likely that you will attract a permanent block and your participation in editing these articles will end up embarrassing the GPPC in a public way, in a similar manner to this article where COI editors made the national news to the great embarrassment of a Canadian federal cabinet minister.

You are fortunate in that you have two editors willing to work with you to create articles on Gatineau Park that are fair, balanced and conform to Wikipedia's policies and thus stand a good chance of remaining in the encyclopedia. You should be working with us on these articles, discussing changes, gaining consensus rather than constantly reverting us, misrepresenting what we have or haven't said and generally trying to drive us off the article. That won't happen. Hopefully we will soon have a larger number of editors working on the articles, ensuring that these important issues are presented in a fair, balanced and unbiased manner. Wikipedia articles turn out best when there are lots of editors working on them. As I have stated before, a non-consensus, highly biased article will not remain on Wikipedia, it will either be brought into a fair and balanced state, as Wikipedia policies require, or someone will nominate it for deletion and all that work will be deleted.

So I am making this one last appeal to you - please work with us to make these articles better. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict of interest. I am arguing for factual and historical correctness and a balanced point of view.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then I look forward to an end to your edit-warring and reverting. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked. The Politics of Gatineau Park meets none of the criteria for deletion. So, you are blowing smoke in an attempt to intimidate. And I'm sure that Wikipedia guidelines have rules against that, as well as "ganging up" on an editor.Please respect my rigorous, sourced and verifiable contributions.--Stoneacres (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Politics of Gatineau Park once more; please note that if you revert once more you will be blocked per WP:3RR. The version that I have reverted to is agreed upon by consensus, not by your own (arguably POV-pushing) opinion. If you feel that you are being unfairly treated, see WP:DR on how to proceed with dispute resolution. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely disappointed to see that right after you acknowledged my warning to you that you were in violation of the three revert rule that you immediately went and reverted the same paragraph for the fifth time in 24 hours. You don't seem to be interested in working with anyone here on Wikipedia, following any of the hard rules or guidelines and seem to be just interested in pushing your Gatineau Park Protection Committee agenda in these articles. Also your paranoid attacks on anyone who dare edit your work, accusing other editors of being park landowners or working for the NCC, as expressed in Talk:Gatineau_Park#Split_proposal, are really showing how disparate to push your agenda you are becoming and that you are not assuming good faith. I have already explained my lack of connection to this issue and if you check User talk:M.nelson's user page, you will find he or she is a second year university student at U of O and member of WikiProject Ottawa. The only person pushing an agenda here is you. Paranoid rantings will not dissuade other editors from trying to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia rules on balance. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line, you pretend to be acting from a consensus of two, whereas I believe I am trying to provide facts and arguments for the benefit of the general public. I.e., the broad consensus of people who believe the park is a public park owned by and accessible to all. Whereas your actions interpret the rules your way, and only reinforce the self-interest of the few, by trying to suppress/control information.

Besides, it is against wikipedia rules/guidelines to canvass other editors to collaborate. And your actions seem to be predicated on a "gotcha" attituded, intending to "expose" opponents. Or else, you suffer from a compulsive control disorder. Either way, you are not contributing to the spread of knowledge or enlightenment, you are an accessory to suppressing facts.--Stoneacres (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your paranoia is showing. User talk:M.nelson came to this article as a result of a notice I posted on the existence of this article posted on WikiProject Ottawa. Similar notices have been posted on WikiProject Quebec and WikiProject Geography of Canada. This is a normal procedure as the article falls under all those projects. You really should spend some time learning more how Wikipedia works rather trhan spouting that you are here as the guardian of truth against all comers. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for breaking the WP:3RR rule at Politics of Gatineau Park and at Gatineau Park. The report is viewable here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Stoneacres_reported_by_User:M.nelson_.28Result:_.29. I was hoping that this could be avoided, but you have been warned multiple times and continue to revert without discussion. -M.Nelson (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure are adamant about suppressing valid information for no obvious convincing reason, beyond your interpretation of the rules. Must make you feel really powerful ...--Stoneacres (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disruptive editing, violation of WP:3RR at Politics of Gatineau Park. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stoneacres: I am sorry to see that you have been blocked for 24 hours for your disruptive editing. I would encourage you to take this time to reflect on your uncivil behaviour, POV editing and attacks on those trying to help you. I hope that after your block is lifted you will come back more willing to work with other editors and to discuss changes and get consensus rather than constantly reverting everyone else's edits. I would caution you not to create a new account to continue editing during your block nor to edit under IP addresses as this will result in a much longer block. - Ahunt (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have not been keeping up with what is going on on the Gatineau Park articles in any detail. I did notice the Politics of Gatineau Park article had been created. I am not an admin and can't really do much to help in a dispute, though. My suggestion is to follow the Wikipedia dispute procedures. You should read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (I have an ongoing non-neutral article myself at Toronto Port Authority.) You should probably post a note on the Canada and Ottawa project discussion pages and ask for a reading of the articles. I found that to be helpful, though not very fast. And contact an admin directly, though I'm not sure how to look one up. Edit wars are never fun, but I recommend that you don't give up, but also don't get too worked up at first. Sometimes it just takes some back and forth until everyone tires of it, and is more open to compromise. The 3RR rule is there for a reason, and I think some people take that very seriously. You should also consider that Wikipedia may not be the best place as a forum. The goal here is to be factual and somewhat dispassionate. Alaney2k (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, the message you posted to Wikipedia talk:Content noticeboard would be more applicable in the mainspace Wikipedia:Content noticeboard; the talk page is for discussion of the noticeboard itself. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS your input would be appreciated on the proposed changes at Talk:Politics of Gatineau Park, particularly Talk:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park#Role_as_a_monument_pt_2 and Talk:Politics_of_Gatineau_Park#Changing_park_boundaries. I would like to hear your opinion before making those changes in the article itself. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I like what you have done with the "unclear" and non-existent legal description of the park. As well, you are right that the democracy link is a stretch. I will rework it, in light of your views and wait for your comment. How's that?--Stoneacres (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated New Woodlands Preservation League, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Gatineau Park Protection Committee, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Politics of Gatineau Park, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneacres, please try to keep civil in these discussions. Your most recent comments in the NWPL and GPPC deletions are uncalled for and not constructive to the discussion. Note that these deletion discussions are that-- discussions. Third party editors, especially those with experience in deletion policy (including notability), will notice-- and have noticed-- the issues and the outcome will be based on community consensus. Not only are your comments uncivil (or worse) towards Ahunt, but they make a bad impression on you in the face of third-party editors. If you would keep to providing policy and evidence to argue against the deletions, rather than attacking other editors, then third-party editors will be far more likely to take you seriously. Similarly, even if Ahunt is displaying "manic-depressive, martial law behaviour" as you suggest, his arguments happen to be 100% based on policy, and as such are more likely to be taken seriously. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to Wikipedia:AFD#Notifying_interested_people you will find it provides guidence on whom to inform of AfDs. If you check whom I notified you will see that I left messages for everyone who has edited Politics of Gatineau Park or who has indicated an interest in the article on the other AfD pages, even you. This entirely complies with WP policies and guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Ahunt, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Dave1185 ^talk 05:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have left a response to your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. I have absolutely no stake in the outcome and respect the efforts of NWPL and GPPC. However, I think that if you count the votes, you will see that using Wikipedia as the primary means of documenting the GPPC viewpoint is not viable going forward. I would encourage you to use the materials that you generated on Wikipedia to start a website for NWPL and GPPC. I wish you well. Racepacket (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned already about WP:CIVIL and attacking other editors but despite the warnings you made the comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park And MilborneOne and Ahunt seem to share an affinity for airplanes... as it is a comment about other editors and not about the debate in progress. The only reason you have not been blocked already for your attacks on Ahunt is to allow you to participate in the deletion debates but patience is wearing thin and you are very close to being blocked. MilborneOne (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• May I suggest that you create a new page named Talk:Gatineau Park/Politics and place in it a two paragraph account of the dispute that would satisfy you and would also meet the secondary sourcing requirements? Remember it would be at the 10,000 ft level and not as detailed as the current article. You could then go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gantineau Park and call everyone's attention to your proposal as how the article could be merged successfully. Racepacket (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the material you added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League after the closure of the AFD. If you have issues with the closure, you may check with the closing admin, JohnCD (talk), and if you are not satisfied, you can raise this issue at Deletions for Review. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hrs for ‎Personal attacks or harassment after warning refer [1]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. MilborneOne (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this invitation to join other editors working on the Gatineau Park article, because you participated in the AfD debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and have thus shown an interest in this subject. The greater the number of editors who participate in articles, the better the articles become. - Ahunt (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about your change at Gatineau Park. I do agree with Ahunt, and put my reasoning at Talk:Gatineau Park#Gatineauparc.ca ref, but I am of course open to discussion. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 for Personal attacks and harrasment of another editor. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. MilborneOne (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Stoneacres (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I contest this block because Ahunt is adopting an extremely narrow and rigid interpretation of the rules. His refusal to include a verifiable and reliable source providing a necessary reference is an utter and complete violation of Wikipedia's letter and spirit. The Web site address: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Per my previous warning to you above, this is not the first nor the second time that you have been warned about your personal attacks aimed at other editors here on Wikipedia. IF you continue to ignore our advice and carry on your flippant disregard of this critical aspect of Wikipedia:Assume good faith on Wikipedia to prove your point (read → Wikipedia:Disruptive editing & WP:POINT), you might find yourself locked on the chopping block of WP:ANI when other editors take you to task for punitive sanction measures such as imposing an INDEFINITE BLOCK on you for your deliberate and multiple violation of conflict of interest issues, personal attacks and WP:SPAMLINKS. Take heed. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of uttering threats, why don't you educate yourself a little on Gatineau Park by consulting our web site at:

http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html ?

You meant: deliberate, multiple, flippant and sincere...

Heartfelt felicitations and highest regards,

--Stoneacres (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Please read and respond to the proposal made about adding a footnote to a specific sentence at Talk:Gatineau Park. I hope this is helpful. Racepacket (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, thanks for supporting common sense. You are a kindred spirit, and worthy of the friendship of all honest men and women.

I basically concur: the sentence mentioning the GPPC should provide a reference to the GPPC web site.

As for not including any GPPC material on Wikipedia, Ahunt and MNelson already should know that I agreed not to add any park content on Wikipedia, before running it by them for agreement/modification on the discussion page. So, that's an already agreed on condition.

Moreover, Ahunt, MNelson and I agreed that two more paragraphs needed to be added to the Gatineau Park article: one on boundaries; one on land management.

I would add that a third, brief, paragraph should mention that legislation has been introduced recently in both houses to address the problems related to boundaries and land management.

I haven't had the time to submit those to the discussion page since I was dealing with other matters.

As you know I have been blocked for being flippant and disagreeable. So, as soon as I'm out of the doghouse, will inform the others on the park discussion page.

Thanks again for helping spread the knowledge on this very important issue.

Very best,

--Stoneacres (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the latest dispute was with you adding the GPPC site as a reference, which I disagree with. However, I do look forward to hearing your proposed changes, which we have discussed and agreed upon previously, to the article on the talk page. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With only a few hours of the block left I am dissapointed that you have evaded the block with this edit. Note that An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked. Now I understand that you want to contribute to the debate and the proposals made by other editors so I am inclined to overlook it this time, but please do not evade the block again until 22:17 (which is only a few hours) other admins may not take the same view. The block was intended to protect the encyclopedia from your personal attacks and harrasment so be careful on how you deal with other editors. If you are polite and discuss the problems on the talk page I am sure other editors will then appreciate your points of view and a compromise and consensus can be made. With a couple of blocks your will note that they will get longer each time so please dont get provoked by others, but that should not stop you engaging with other editors and explaining your views. MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct; I apologize and throw myself at the mercy of the jury.

And if shown leniency, I will strive to forge new bonds of friendship and undertake to build strong and lasting bridges of conviviality and cooperation with all wikipedia's true patriots of knowledge and enlightenment...--Stoneacres (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As some one who has chastised you for bad behaviour in the past I just wanted to put on record that I am encouraged by your recent co-operative discussions on the Gatineau Park articles and the results that have been produced. Good work, Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jim Cowan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Electoralist (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoralist (talk) Please note that the material you removed was sourced. That Senator Cowan was the subject of controversy is not an opinion; it's a fact. I will rewrite the section as follows: Since his appointment, Senator Cowan has faced some controversies. First, Senator Cowan was criticized for allowing Senator Joyce Fairbairn to continue voting on legislative matters, while he knew she had Alzheimer’s disease and had been declared incompetent. ^[1] Second, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau removed all senators from the Liberal Caucus as a result of the Senate expenses scandal, in which Senator Cowan was directly involved.^[2] Third, a 2015 Auditor General report revealed Senator Cowan’s involvement in the Senate expense scandal, highlighting that he had billed the Senate for travel not related to parliamentary business.^[3] Fourth, Senator Cowan’s leadership has been called into question as a result of his billing the Senate for travel unrelated to parliamentary business.^[4]

See response at Talk: Jim Cowan. Electoralist (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]