User talk:Gunn Sinclair

You've added information to the Kensington Runestone article twice but you haven't provided any citations for those claims. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources that other people can verify. Before adding information again, please cite your sources. Jonathunder (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some things to help you get started on learning how Wikipedia works:

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Gunn Sinclair! My name is Jonathunder. I just wanted to say howdy and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or press the "Request Help" button at the bottom of this message. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some pages that will help you edit Wikipedia:

How to edit a page

Sandbox, a place where you can experiment

Tutorial

What this site is based on

Where to ask questions

Wikipedia's style manual

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or press the "Request Help" button below. Again, welcome!

Stop

You need to stop pushing unsubstantiated assertions into the Kensington Runestone article. If you continue, you can be blocked from editing. 22:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Please go to Talk:Kensington Runestone and propose what you want to add to the article. Do not put it back into the article itself without discussion. Jonathunder (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kensington Runestone. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jonathunder (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Robert: your self-published website and power point presentation are not reliable sources that can be used here on Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:No original research carefully. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your thoughts about the Kensington Runestone. Jonathunder (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Your recent editing history at Kensington runestone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 01:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kensington Runestone shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources and Original Research

We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kensington Runestone, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarring noticeboard

I have reported your editwarring at the Administrators noticeboard.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunn Sinclair, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gunn Sinclair! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kensington Runestone

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gunn Sinclair reported by User:Maunus (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gunn_Sinclair reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making legal threats

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Making legal threats. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. See WP:No legal threats. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holand vs Breda

Just FYI: Yes, Holand thought that Breda was a fool. Breda thought Holand was a fool. Neither of those opinions are relevant for the topic, and hence none of them need to be mentioned on Wikipedia, as in science peoples opinions of each other are irrelevant. And if the opinions for some reason ARE notable, then please note that almost all archaeologists and all Scandinavian linguists think that it's Holand who was the fool, hence if any of these opinions should be noted, then that one wins per WP:NPOV. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]