User talk:Stntjnky

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Ken Gallager (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I have asked you (twice) to take your proposed changes to the article's talk page is that this discussion should not be only between you and me - it should be open to anyone who is keeping an eye on the article. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Provide substantiation for your claims or leave the article alone.
I know you've been editing this article for years and its based more on your opinion than it is actual truth as you have refused to reference anything OTHER than this wikipedia article to substantiate your claims, because of that there is nothing to discuss. Wikipedia is not a place to portray your hopes and wishes as actual truths and it is not a circumstance of whoever gets here first has the dominant right to portray their opinion as un-opposed truth. This article is the only major source of information that suggests the Bay of Fundy is part of the Gulf of Maine and this is also the only piece of information that comes up in a Google search about the subject, for these reasons it has the potential to create a "truth" that is not factual as it can be referenced by many young and/or inexperienced researchers and journalists who have been brainwashed since children to believe their country "runs the world". Other sources of information including other wikipedia articles, ocean charts, and other encyclopedia articles substantiate my claims and refer to the Gulf of Maine and Bay of Fundy as either: 1-separate entities; 2-Bay of Fundy draining into Gulf of Maine; 3-Bay of Fundy draining into Atlantic Ocean; 4-

https://novascotia.ca/nse/ea/whitespointquarry/09.Reference.Documents/15.Fader.Physiography.Geography.and.Bathymetry.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/place/Bay-of-Fundy

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/bay-of-fundy-new-brunswick-nova-scotia

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bay_of_Fundy

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bay-of-fundy-and-gulf-of-maine

https://www.charts.gc.ca/documents/publications/atlas/P241_Atlas_BayOfFundy.pdf

Now to plainly state the obvious.... THIS WIKI ARTICLE AND YOUR EDITS CONTRADICT MULTIPLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND THAT IS WHY I KEEP EDITING IT TO PORTRAY THE TRUTH.


 * If you bring this up on the article's talk page, I will respond to it, as perhaps will others. That is the correct venue for this discussion. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the talk page. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because we are still at odds, and there has been no other comment on the Gulf of Maine page, I will be requesting a third opinion on our content dispute. Please follow the link to look at the description of the process. --Ken Gallager (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You would also do well to read the edit history for the article. You will see that over 100 editors have contributed to it, and the statements you wish to contradict were made in the very first edit, long before I became involved. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I read the history long before we started down this process; please refrain from employing psychological projection in the future, I find it tiring, amateurish, un-productive, and quite frankly I'm getting tired of it. More importantly, as I've stated many times already, reference something OTHER than this wikipedia article for substantiation that the information is correct.