156.204.57.243

@Billinghurst: I tried to contact you on your talkpage but it can't be edited so I'm contacting you here. Please view the two sources I added to the Religion in Canada article. Please note, the data is identical to the Islam in Canada article. The old figures were from the 2001 census. I updated it to the 2011 census. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The source points only to Ontario. Also, please stop changing IPs or register an account. between your various locations, you have passed three reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: You're not actually looking at the source then. The second source literally has the table with the 2011 figures for Canada and a breakdown of all provinces and territories. Spare me your threats. This isn't a battle you're going to win with you're combative bullying attitude. The 2011 census figures are clear whether you like them or not. You're not going to force the old 2001 figures onto the article. As I've mentioned many times already, see Islam in Canada for literally the exact same 2011 census figures. If you keep baselessly reverting and removing the sourced material, I'll be the one reporting you! 156.204.57.243 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, 2011, for Ontaio, and you're stating it's 2016 for Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You're mistaken, nowhere was 2016 stated. The sources are for 2011 and encompass the entire nation (all provinces and territories). 197.46.46.204 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Can an admin please kindly review @Billinghurst:'s actions. He refuses to communicate with me and I believe he is abusing his powers by blocking my ability to edit my own talkpage at 197.46.126.67. If you look at the edit history at that talkpage, when I had the IP 197.46.126.67, I had blanked a portion of my own talkpage. Yet this admin is hell bent on forcing his way or the highway. Since when are we not allowed to blank our own talkpages? Would appreciate some feedback. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Consider it reviewed. The admin is acting correctly. It is not your talk page, you are not on that IP. That IP will be assigned to someone else. If you want a talk page of your very own create an account. Be glad they protected the page instead of blocking you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I understand the difficulty in claiming ownership over the IP page after my IP has changed, but prior to the change, the actual IP blanked a portion of the talkpage which Billinghurst reverted. I don't believe he is acting correctly, and blocking me would've made their conduct even more egregious. The trajectory of events and his insistence on claiming the talkpage for himself despite the original IP's desire to blank a portion of their own talkpage is why I felt this warranted a review. If there exists an admin with special privileges that has the ability/tools to determine whether I am in fact the owner of the talkpage, I'd appreciate having my access restored. Otherwise, thank you for your suggestion to create an account. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect; the IP deleted a completely different warning[1], and that properly deleted warning was never reinstated. I'm sorry to say this, but you just don't have a case here. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Billinghurst will likely get off on a technicality, but that doesn't mean the sequence of events were not suspect or that I should be deterred from reporting it in case there exists an admin with special privileges who is able to determine that I am indeed the owner of the page. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

There was certainly no harm in asking (but now you know the answer). The thing is, when admin actions (or any edits really) are being reviewed for appropriateness, we judge them based on what information was available to whoever made them at the time they made them, and the admin can plausibly claim they didn't know you were "the other guy" at which point we'd have no choice but to assume good faith (against our better judgement perhaps). Not an ideal situation, but it is what it is; anyone can claim to be anyone on the Internet and so a situation where random IPs can go around deleting messages at will wouldn't be sustainable. You wouldn't want me to claim to be you and delete your messages from your talk page, would you? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. I completely agree with your reasoning. It is what it is. Billinghurst should be ashamed of themselves. Stubbornness, especially over a trivial matter, is a terrible trait for an admin to have. If I manage to regain access to my IP, I'll definitely exercise my right to make the revert. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Seeing how you have taken credit for the edits of 197.46.126.67 then you are already in violation of our WP:3RR policy. Instead of blocking you right away I will give you a chance to stop edit warring. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Prior to you posting this, I had already posted on the talkpage of the article in question so I'm not edit warring. If the editor continues to revert and vandalize the page, I'll escalate the matter to the content dispute resolution page. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Before you do that read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Thank you. The page says that "removing encyclopedic content without any reason" or providing a "frivolus" explanation for removing the content is vandalism. The editor's reason for content removal is to literally LIE and state that the source doesn't contain the information which the source explicitly contains. He rebuffs discussion on his talkpage, uses intimidation tactics to attempt to force their agenda, and refuses multiple attempts to advise them to actually view the source and view corroborating information on a separate wiki page with identical information. Describing them as a vandal according to the criteria you shared isn't a stretch. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

First off your edit was not removed by an editor, it was removed by multiple editors. People disagreeing with your opinion is not vandalism. You need to assume good faith, this is not an optional policy. This combative attitude of calling those who disagree with you vandals and liars will not serve you well here. Play nice with others please. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: The only other editor to get involved was Billinghurst himself and as soon as I explained the situation to him he withdrew. His isolated revert and subsequent immediate withdrawal can't be painted as "multiple editors disagreeing with me." It's literally one editor with a block track record longer than my screen size unjustifiably removing sourced content. His intimidation tactics and bullying attitude make it difficult to assume good faith, but despite that, I attempted to engage him multiple times only for him to revert and refuse discussion on his talkpage. Playing nice goes both ways. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Yes, as I previously mentioned, the only other editor to get involved was Billinghurst himself and his isolated revert and subsequent immediate withdrawal wasn't due to a disagreement in the first place. There is only one editor who disagrees with me. 156.204.57.243 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

---