User talk:Sqrjn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mountain Meadows Massacre

Welcome to Wikipedia!! I'm glad to see you signed in so that we can talk about your recent edits, particularly to the Mountain Meadows Massacre article. From all indications, and from your most recent edit under your new signature, you were the editor that used IP # 70.136.198.203 on previous edits to this article. These are the notes I left you at the IP address:

1) I noticed your editing on a number of LDS related topics. On the repeated deletion of the section on a forthcoming book, the block of material seems a bit excessive to me as well. I think it would be best to reduce the material to a paragraph about ongoing research by LDS scholars. However, I think in the last few days of Jan 06, I and other editors have been reacting to your deletion of the material without explanation as blanking vandalism, and so we have restored it without much thought. If you have comments about the section and your deletion, please drop a note in that section on that discussion page. Also see the LDS movement project page for guidelines and group concensus. Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement Thank you. WBardwin 05:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

2) I have just reverted your edits once again. The talk page is designed to discuss, evaluate and defend edits. Please see the ongoing discussions there and add your sources and reasons for your edits. You are apparently quoting a questionable source --these repeated edits will continue to be reverted unless you join in the discussion. Thank you. WBardwin 19:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As you have made the same basic edits, yet again, I have reverted them to the previous version. Among the goals of Wikipedia is maintaining a neutral point of view by presenting material from documented well researched sources -- these may have POV of their own, but they can be cited when dealing with various points in the article. You have cited no sources for the material you persist in presenting, and it reflects outdated and speculative versions of this story that are common on the internet (not the most trustworthy of sources -- which is why we try and make Wikipedia very reliable). Also, you keep blanking an entire section of this article - a common form of vandalism. I myself am not too fond of that section -- please see the talk page -- but blanking others work is generally inappropriate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors seek to come to a concensus on articles -- particularly on more controversial topics such as this one -- through the use of discussion and negotiation on the discussion pages. Please, before you again make the same basic edit, place your source and your reasoning for this edit on the talk page. Thank you. I look forward to working with you. WBardwin 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wasting a lot of your time --- and the time of other editors. Do us all a favor and do a little research on this subject. Please come to the talk page. WBardwin 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent efforts on the article. Although I haven't had much Wiki time, I have been keeping an eye on the "action." I would appreciate your comments on my suggested outline/content for the article, which should allow us to include much of the current information (a good edit is always useful) and other information as well. Thank you. WBardwin 09:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive edit summaries

Greetings. It is poor form to make abusive edit summaries, such as "it enhances my understanding, maybe yours is broke?". Please use the edit summaries only to describe your own changes to the article. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You for your hard work

		The Original Barnstar
		I've gone over the history of a few articles and I am amazed by your tenacity. Keep on fighting the good fight! Duke53 | Talk 08:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation possible

If you continue with your incessant reverts you will violate the 3RR policy. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be Civil

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain Meadows massacre arbitration

Sqrjn, would you please take the lead in requesting arbitration (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration) on this issue? Enough is enough ... we are getting accused of unwarranted edits by the same peoplw who are rushing to revert themselves; outside intervention is the only resolution to this, I'm afraid. My attempts to get mediation have been ignored, mostly because of the lack of mediators, I believe. You seem to know the ins and outs of WP better than I. Thank You. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sqrjn, if you would prefer a private conversation feel free to E-Mail me at mailto:mountain.meadows.massacre@gmail.com. We can then exchange our real E-Mail addresses. I will leave this account active for five days, then delete it; I would suspect that I will soon be receiving large amounts of SPAM at such a highly public E-Mail address. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Please provide me with a list of questions you want to be asked in the upcoming straw poll on my talk page. Or post them here [1]WikieZach| talk 21:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/[2]]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. WikieZach| talk 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack at Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre

Your last sentence in this edit, about Visorstuff's wife, is a personal attack and should be retracted immediately. You tried to be oblique, but the context of your post gives it a clearly negative and sarcastic tone. Do not sully yourself with that kind of behavior; you insult yourself much more than you insult others when you act that way, because it conveys that you are less capable of rational and constructive dialogue than you truly are. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mountain Meadows massacre. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] 3rr

You have reverted Mountain Meadows Massacre three times over the past few hours. If you do so again within the next 24 hours you will be in clear violation of the 3rr rule and you may be blocked. Meanwhile, please try to resolve this on the article's discussion page, thank you. Gwen Gale 04:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:S.B.Anthony

Please be advised that the use of a sockpuppet to evade WP policy (including 3rr) can lead to a long term block. Please also be advised that sockpuppet checks can be requested for the purpose of enforcing WP policy where necessary. Gwen Gale 05:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[3] made on January 4, 2007 to Mountain Meadows massacre

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)