User talk:Acadianraider

September 2021
Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fort St. Louis (Shelburne County, Nova Scotia) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The fort is in port la Tour,I have been on the archeological dig,and all the artifacts proved it was there Acadianraider (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * All information in Wikipedia must be sourced to a reliable source. You can make this change if you include a reference to a reliable source which supports it. You cannot make the change based on your own personal experience, which is unverifiable by anyone else. See WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Call the museum of nova scotia, Dr katie Robbins cottreau, this is my family history Acadianraider (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, asking everyone who reads this page to call the museum to verify the information is not practical and is not how Wikipedia works. You must provide a reference to a published reliable source and add it to the article along with your change. See WP:REFB. CodeTalker (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm a direct descendant of Claude de latour Acadianraider (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm a reliable source Acadianraider (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I won't let you British subjects decide this for me Acadianraider (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fort St. Louis (Shelburne County, Nova Scotia), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Bro ,I'm going to get the dr to do a write up,ok Acadianraider (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Acadianraider, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Yo Acadianraider (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Hello, I'm LucasKannou. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to 2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. LucasKannou (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

False info Acadianraider (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute) for a period of 72 hours for vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There are false info Acadianraider (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Acadianraider (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Acadianraider. Welcome to Wikipedia! It may take some time to get used to how things work on Wikipedia. Edits to Wikipedia articles are based on collaboration with other editors (see WP:CONSENSUS) and on sources that are widely agreed to be reliable published sources. Knowing that something is true or not true is great, but to get it changed in an article you need certain types of published sources to support what you want to put in. (See WP:RS.) See also WP:EW about how Wikipedia discourages repeatedly doing the same or similar edits when other editors are undoing them or disagreeing with them. Use article talk pages such as Talk:2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute (or click "Talk" at the top of a page) to discuss with other editors and try to convince other editors about the changes you want to make, rather than just repeatedly trying to make the changes. Feel free to ask me questions on my talk page, but be aware I may be away from Wikipedia for very long periods of time without warning so I might or might not have time to reply. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and find ways to collaborate. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to ask to be unblocked, you probably need a longer and more convincing explanation of your reason, and then you need to copy the special text shown above, with curly brackets and stuff, and put your reason in it. I don't have the ability to unblock users. Putting the special text attracts the attention of someone who is able to consider your reason and decide whether to unblock you. Or, you can just wait for the block to expire. You can also post questions here on your talk page; I or other users might or might not see them and answer. There's also the teahouse (see above). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The lobsters were not poisoned, most of this post is false Acadianraider (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm glad you're still here. Are the false statements also wrong in the newspaper articles being cited, or is the Wikipedia article saying false things that aren't in the newspapers? Did the newspapers publish retractions admitting they'd made mistakes? Can you find other newspapers or other published sources that have the correct information?


 * No individual Wikipedian, not me or anybody else, is accepted as a source for Wikipedia citations. Only published sources.


 * I think what the admins (who can unblock you) are looking for is reassurance that you'll try to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policies, such as the ones I gave links to above. I think your block expires soon, or maybe it's already expired, so alternatively you could just edit after it expires. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The media has it wrong, I was there,the lobsters weren't poisoned Acadianraider (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that the media have it wrong. Are you sure there aren't some media somewhere that at least mention the possibility that they weren't poisoned? Often media will present both sides of a controversy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The media was bias,they were on the Indigenous side Acadianraider (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Acadianraider. I just spent some time disintangling versions to revert your deletions while keeping useful edits by someone else. I don't want to have to do that again. Please don't delete anything from the article 2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute without first getting agreement from other editors on the article talk page. The article talk page is the proper place for you to post your arguments. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your October 17 post is false Acadianraider (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry. I don't know what you mean. I don't see any October 17 post on this talk page; and the only edit to 2020 Mi'kmaq lobster dispute this most recent October was by you. Could you be more specific about what October 17 post you're talking about, and why you believe it's false? Also, if you're discussing the article, I encourage you to discuss it on the article talk page rather than here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies
You might be interested in my comment here where I apologize and thank you. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)