User talk:Canadiansteve

1900:

local butcher service, a legitimate service. I know I'll get flak if I write it on a company page so I'm not, let you editors figure it out, but they said I can't write anything I work with in an edit but I can go to talk and have editors do it for me. They said I was being distruptive and conversation was impossible because of "bad faith" because I was making threats. None of the things I said are threats to a non-involved wikipedia editor. If I made threats to them, then they have a COI. You can easily ask anyone not involved in either side if another editor threatening to bring other editors and open weird companies with Zellers on it is a threat to them. I don't actually come here to tell you about developments in tech or even mainstream articles that get published because literally nothing I ever wrote here wasn't met with a million problems. I can just write articles in magazines and not here and I get more done with my time. At any rate, take down the claims that all those accounts are sock puppets, I never talk on anything but my account here, and the second you take those down watch me go back to not talking, the effort of fighting there wasn't worth it, and besides I can make money selling the name to Natural News, the ZFreedomfoundation and others like Dr. Ardis and Dr. Morse and they will make "Zellers Death Vaccine Detox Centers", so I have a COI because now over that stupid drama on what should have been normal conversations page, I ended up talking to the guy and now I can make a bunch of money for little to no work, and more people to come kill me with more fancy guns and equipment I hope. So I'm a massive COI now, and also I want the guy close in case it was him that made those accounts and then I will flip it around very beautifully and then I'm a COI for the Bay. I don't know how to prove you those accounts aren't me, but until today I didn't have any skin in the game, and I am still on very much my own side and do not care about anyone's stupid drama and wastes of time in any of this. Also what kind of joke is me stating why you blocked me? It says it right there and I responded to every thing. Those are not my accounts, my inital post on the topic was completely fair and the other editors didn't continue any of the discussions, just said "you can't", except some edits apparently they allowed, and on one or two things like the discussion of the other store being separate from the HBC one they did participate, but only on one side of the argument and one or two things. If you go back to my first post, ignore the parts where I am simply trying to make it clear I want to hurry this up and don't have any connection to the subject matter or reason to care, it's a normal conversation. He wants to bring up the side things I said to explain why I don't care before getting into the conversation as the title of the conversation in vulgarized memes to avoid having legitimate discussions about what should be said about the Zellers pop up locations in relation to the Moniz guy Zelllers. It's not like I asked anyone to have a conversation about robots, that's what I do and it so clearly has nothing to do with the subject matter that it was there to be safely ignored. I strongly suspected a COI when he did that, you put the things I'm not interested in talking about here as the title? I did not accuse until it was claimed I was threatening him though. Anyways if I need this account like every company on de maisonneuve pays wikipedia editing groups to put their page up and it's not COI at all, everyone is just spitting in everyone's face and it's all a farce and I will just do that if I ever have a reason to be here and this will be deleted and there will be a WP: reason why my account should be back or another account will do everything and I don't care in the first place what happens to the account. As long as it's here that those aren't my accounts then it's kind of funny if you ban me for a lie and I'll take the joke, better than anything I was getting from helping with articles. So actually unblocking me or not is much less interesting to me than the question if the criminal is trying to use me or the Bay is trying to frame me. Did those accounts made just in the last few days, not including the Zellers Canada and Robert Moniz that commented here because I know when he made those, come from IP addresses in Quebec or Ontario? Would you guys know that? I need to know who to fight back against, everything here is largely irrelevant to everything about anything in my life besides that OK I went back to Zellers and the sign is a printout. Like I kind of also want to say things about both, again, you have anyone else here who visited them? I don't know what to say exactly but was sort of expecting people to ask me questions seeing as I talked to the guy and went there, and I don't need to promise to remain as entirely neutral and self-interested as I always have. I can make something newsworthy and people will come edit the articles because oh you saved me you saved me, or just leave my account alone and I already stopped caring about the page, when it became obvious it was just a fight to say anything I had a little investigation and got bored, also especially I thought it was HSBC in the first place.

2590:

hurting the page, change it and put excluievely back, and also "everyone else who isn't HBC we hate" too, what's the point of hiding, you can just tell them to see WP:COI if they have a problem. Please remove my edits then, and add something else for the case, maybe how hard the lawyers are working. Just leaving my edits and then banning me for a dozen reasons and each time switching the rules is making this part of the story. Or maybe you can stop spitting in my face and pretending this is a block for - me - not following procedure. The little cover up text wrote that the guy opened "stores" like there's a bunch, when it is two, so I wrote two and that stayed too. No thank you for that, banned, no one has a single thing to say about any improvements that need to be made on the article, or mine you have there? At what point was I not good enough to have contributing with my fellow editors?

1562:

reason those accounts exist is I said do it yourself, but I wasn't the one writing there beyond saying "say thank you very much" when you're mad. I saw what they did and I agreed it wasn't accurate. Also he was going to go to a university to ask someone and I felt bad. Anyways do whatever you do and you can prove I have no access to that account and anything on it was the Moniz guy doing it, and I do not want to start having anything to do with the account, sneaking patents is criminal. Kind of adds to how funny this story is for banning me for wanting to write about it. Totally worth it for the laugh either way thanks guys. Also anyone can come to my house and I will give them a foot or back massage if they are not vaxxed, I get paid for exercise and I sell them robots because only rich people can afford massages. Usually.

1338:

you're shooting yourself in the foot by fighting me. I'm not that special and if your pop up's on top, next step will be the guy and the next step will be the criminal record and then you have the Zellers page talking about criminals on the top. Leave it at the bottom and fortify that position while you can, it's accurate and you just get a new charity made or a new tech installed in the place to get your article about the location up top with a positive story and his Zellers is obviously not going to have anything noteworthy and you win. Usually people pay me a lot for this, so there, now you can definitely not say I care anything about anyone involved in this, and will help and hurt anyone on a whim for what I see will hurt Canada. Not that I spent much effort there.

1638:

anything for was a clear COI I didn't try to hide, and I really was enjoying the experience to have no skin on either side of the game and just enjoy the semantics debates. If you read over the things I was asking to be discussed, none are particularily one side or another, and if you want a COI, I care less about the article accuracy, the HBC or the Moniz Zellers than I care about embarasment to Canada. If latest news goes up top, then the drama belongs there technically, but it makes the country have more drama and therefore all the info can be put completely accurately in the little bottom section. To believe I am being recruited to do that makes me look bad, that's what you would pay for someone to say about you?

1744:

honestly didn't really enjoy my impartial editor experience, would not reccomemnd and I can't imagine I'll be back. I just think I will like the feeling of having this unblocked, as I feel like I'm being punished unjustly. I might come back in another 10-15 years again though, anything's possible. I looked at the admin discussion and they say "User:Stevecanadian" is me? OK lol, no it's not, no idea where it's from, never made it and didn't use it. Also I see you already knows consumers distributing was bought by the same people, I found that out yesterday and the story isn't even funny, also I was not alive when that corporation was around so no reason to get involved, don't care at all.

1334:

like the Bay less when I talk to you. If I considered this to be worth anything whatsoever, I'd spend more than two or three minutes other than the big first block. I outlined plenty of reasons for me to be here, and you want to call that a personal attack? Repeat that if you want it, and then I will list one by one all the obvious evidence and similarly pathetic attacks and there can be a big vote over you, I didn't bring a single person to help with this because other than you making drama that is going to be there long after their little Zellers.

1549:

other editors there was seen as a threat, a useful thing, and they claimed I was threatening them, which only makes sense if they have a personal connection to the company. The rest of what I wrote is obviously connected to deciding what should be said about a worldwide situation. Also no one else here talked to the guy and went to the stores. If the editors would be asking me and participating to understand rather than declaring that everything must stop, I could do something. Also the Moniz family bought the trademarks for

1410: 622: 1224: 1059: 478: 1382: 1272: 2498: 2297: 2122: 1957: 1814: 1658: 1463: 343: 284: 146: 87: 28: 397: 1013: 938: 533: 739: 230: 1255:

not begin to care. I know the pain in putting a company page up here, heck I'm learning from you. If you work with me to make the article something that isn't embarrassing our country, that would make me happy - the real reason I decided to get involved, and I will go back to my mountain and let everyone start shaking after their Justin Beiber faces and come back when it's over.

441:, who is right here, and you will confirm that to yourself. See other images ive placed here, and you just might find an obvious precedent. If Robotics Design Inc. owns the copyright who is Robotics Design Inc.? I am, for all you need to know, so let me do as I please, and if you want to contact the company, go to contact us, and call us, or email. 1752:) 10:34 am, Today (UTC−4) " 09:37, 1 August 2022‎ " - The first contribution of this SteveCanadian - obviously an attempt to copy my name. It's either HBC trying to hurt my account or the Moniz guy trying to promote his stuff and thinks my name is worth something here. Don't know, don't care, it's not me, go review your numbers. 2047:

less than trash. It's practically like getting a blue check on twitter to have a serious page here now, means you're with the sleazes, business kryptionite. That has nothing to do with me not being interested in ever making another account, remove the statement that I am a sock puppet, that is a lie.

2046:

Also I don't appear to want to make further edits, that's a rationale for upholding a ban? Lol the first time I came to wikipedia I was exicted, intelligent community of friendly individuals working on expaning knowledge. I consider everything about this place since I saw what it was like to be worth

1899:

I have no intention of making further edits. This morning I really just wanted to tell the editor that is being insulting with his titles to stop dissing the edible urban wildlife farm, it's pots with bird feed growing in the windows and quail living there with robots to maintain it and coordinated a

1743:

I asked the Moniz guy to go say my account is not him. I don't really know how to prove it beyond that go ahead and tell me. You say I did not address the reasons for the block. I'm not entirely sure what you would like me to address beyond what I have. I'm also not sure why I care if you block me, I

1633:

In what way, shape or form could this possibly be my side? I did not recruit anyone, the guy asked me to do it and I said no. When you guys told him he couldn't edit I agreed to do it, but I'm not on anyone's side, he's a clearly criminal, and I thought it was a bank. The Bay I like, but I don't have

1254:

I can't get you to participate in the discussion where it doesn't involve telling others they can't participate in the discussion, but I can get these so very serious warnings when I put the results of it on the page. It's pathetically obvious you have a blatant conflict of interest here, and I could

1155:

4. Your collapse of my comment was perfectly fine. That's what I was trying to sell him. Your ignorance on the topics do not make them any less real than if I said I was selling cherry soda pop. I shortened the conversation for you, you're welcome, and thank you for offering the option to shorten it

1561:

Also it says the Moniz and the account he made are my sock puppets? No they're not. He made an account on his laptop at my place because I told him to, but I have had my account there for years and have no access to his or whatever email he signed up with. That's just nonsense. Technically the only

1341:

Again, stop making pointless drama here that won't work out and just go to the talk page on the article. I come on once a day, no discussion a consensus is assumed, especially if you're active on the page. The issues are very clear, and your attempts at confounding it are defeating the purpose. Now

2597:

Can someone please explain to me how I'm the bad guy for saying that the place for them to write all the legal arguments and marketing language is a section below rather on top? Please, as a favor for only the sake of kindness, can someone explain where I went wrong without using a wikipedia rules

2589:

Also where's my thank you? How come there are no reverts to my inital edits on the article? You allowed me to remove "exclusively" and other blatant language to bring legal arguments on the page's first paragraph, and then there's a cover up statment and I'm banned? If I did nothing and I was just

2207:

I do not have another account and do not use any other accounts. Anyone who comes to my house can use the internet. How am I supposed to debate this? It's obviously happening because the Moniz guy made the Zellers account and then his account at my place. Then someone made 100 similar alts. Go see

1548:

My edits were not disruptive, I spent a lot of time there. It was obvious the editors there had a major COI, and so I threatened to open a Zellers strip club, which I previously showed would be funny to anyone not involved, and they said it was a threat. I said that because me saying I would bring

1637:

The guy mostly wanted the little side bar to say is a department store instead of was, and I am not someone that can be bribed, I see logical reasons why that is wrong and will not support it. Same with the HBC lawyer-editors, when they made logical points I agreed. The only other page here I did

1557:

Go ask anyone that doesn't work for HBC if me threatening to open a Zellers strip club (not that I ever would open any) would be a threat to them or just a off-topic part of the conversation. If either editor had answered any of the problems I made in my post, there would be no drama in the first

1333:

So there too, complete logical fallacy and off-point ad homenim attack to add to the list, my COI with a completely unrelated company that I didn't bother trying to hide, and the only relation is to explain how big of a waste of time this is, I'm much better off being busy for another 13 years. I

364:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be

305:

167:

108:

49:

2042:

There are 500 reasons you just blocked my account. If you want it concise then one at a time. This is my only account and I don't barely use it, much less any other account. I just questioned the Moniz guy and he didn't make steveCanadian, and all the other supposed sock puppets. If that doesn't

1337:

I can just go find the guy, get the Zellers name, give a license to a few dozen people per trade school/university and have them all join the debate. The total I gain from this conversation is $ 0 and it won't happen, but I can just go one by one and the edit history. I see the end of this, and

655:

request to two deletion discussions. I'm afraid that, once a deletion discussion is started on Knowledge, a herd mentality develops and deletion becomes almost a foregone conclusion. It's an interesting sociological phenomenon, but it's very unfair, and I think Knowledge ought to tackle it.

1558:

place, just a discussion on where the new pop-up Zellers and Moniz Zellers unfinished legal drama belongs on a mid-importance page. I would also much prefer someone else just goes and edits the facts in and could care less what happens to this account, but good on all you working hard here

444:

It isn't up to me to confirm the copyright status and we don't know who you are or what your relationship with the company is. Therefore your claims of owning the copyrights aren't valid here and you'll have to deal with establishing your ownership if you want the images to not be deleted.

1588:. We don't know if you are sitting behind the computer or not. You don't really address your violations of policy. I don't think you will be unblocked to further edit about the dispute you seem to be in, perhaps you should concentrate on resolving that first instead of Knowledge editing. 2208:

who made the account MonizZellers, and steveCanadian, obviously someone is doing a lot of work to give my account problems. I do thank them for laying out their tactics like this for anyone not involved in this to be disgusted with. The lightest investigation should show I am no alter.

2272:

Wow thanks. Can I say that's the first time I've seen someone use WP:anything in a sentence and it not come across as hostile at all? Yes what you said was there and I could read more. Lol I don't know what to say without getting some extra warning here, but nice things, on it.

1345:

Here's one I'm guessing isn't going to help you to answer: does Mr. Ollie have a conflict of interest? I'd much rather we continue this on the talk page and reach or don't reach consensuses, just like you didn't need to for the other edit that put the Moniz drama in there.

375:

deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines.

316:

178:

119:

60:

2043:

prove someone else is inovlved with a massive COI, what am I supposed to tell you? Find out where the ohter accounts came from, they're not me. Then you have your answer for my "disruptive posts" being the only one wanting to discuss what is happening with Zellers

766:

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.

257:

963: 504:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

1763:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. A menu of things that need doing can be found at

1204:

You literally deleted a message from the Moniz Zellers where he talked about some mafia looking things. I agree with deleting it and I understood and cared just about as much as when we spoke, but there, mafia sounding things.

1553:

and I can help in other things about this as well. I have very little interesting in adding that here because it's not that funny, if it helps him or not to write that he's buying everyone's names is an interesting question.

1634:

a COI for anyone, I did my best to make it very clear that I have no interest in anyone in the conversation, and there is no possibility of them comprehening my interests without years of experience or engineering degrees.

903:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

2593:

Perhaps then I need to get the other block off, then the admin can remove the checkuser block. If so, I didn't violate wikipedia biography policy for saying something on the evening news. Why are you guys doing this?

508:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

2620:

I am declining your unblock request 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

1641:

All the sleazy corporations and the sneaky criminals can have an iced tea. When they have funny drama like this, a little section in the middle of a page works. Is there anything wrong with any of that?

1630:"Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Knowledge and supporting your side of a debate." - Description of meat puppetry 111: 75: 361:

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

302:

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

164:

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

105:

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

46:

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

52: 367: 16: 331: 94: 80: 593:

I have removed your request for help from the user talk pages where the users have not replied yet. It is ok to ask one or two users for help, but doing to 30 users can be considered

170: 134: 35: 21: 2583:

It was confirmed that this is not a checkuser block in a response from admin. This is defamation, please remove the claim that I "abusively" or otherwise used mutltiple accounts.

405: 350: 336: 883: 757: 248: 153: 139: 959: 763: 254: 308: 2562: 2369: 2186: 2021: 1878: 1722: 1527: 926: 129: 272: 459:

Ive had to establish "ownership" or unlimited access to anything that has to do with the company before several times. How would you like me to do it this time?????

70: 385: 715: 188: 2684:

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.

2265:

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.

2105:

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.

1948:

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.

1805:

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.

1622:

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.

291: 277: 1231:. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Knowledge without adequate explanation, as you did at 675:

Re the AfD for RD Inc, calm down, let the process work through a bit. Yelling at everybody all the time raises hackles. Maybe stick to one post per day.

587: 467: 326: 609: 1386: 1102: 521: 842: 501: 2450:

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts.

1047: 1004: 871: 854: 836: 814: 699: 1101:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

786:

I think we are making progress. I have asked on the deletion pages what changes need to be made to your articles to satisfy the critics.

2538: 2403: 2345: 2162: 1997: 1854: 1698: 1503: 454: 217: 490: 439: 639: 2373: 2051:

I didn't even notice you added also violation of biography rules? How lazy is that. This guy's biography is on the evening news.

2586:

As for what I did, it says I violated biography policy, which I didn't. It also says I used multiple accounts, which I didn't.

1282:

the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Knowledge without giving a valid reason for the removal in the

1308:

And you accusing me of having a COI is pretty rich, considering that in 13 years your only interest in Knowledge has been your

542:—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence 332: 273: 135: 76: 17: 2052: 1765: 1369: 1095: 2669: 2659: 2647: 2533: 2397: 2340: 2288: 2250: 2157: 2090: 1992: 1933: 1849: 1790: 1693: 1607: 1498: 1430: 727: 417: 776: 2607: 2240: 1355: 1264: 1214: 1197: 1165: 635: 267: 1035: 999: 908: 795: 2556: 2510: