User talk:Spradlagg

Welcome[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Springfield, Missouri, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Electric Wombat (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spradlagg, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Spradlagg! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Please refrain from using misleading edit summaries for your edits. Vsmith (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for edit warring at Missouri in the American Civil War[edit]

I'm not a template user, but consider this a warning for edit warring at Missouri in the American Civil War. You seem to have a habit here and on other pages of reverting/making changes with generic edit summaries and without using sources or the talk page to work out solutions. See WP:BRD. Red Harvest (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided a credible source. Many websites I have researched give the same number.

Spradlagg Is technically in trouble for running afoul of the three R (Only three reverts per day are allowed & He has now done four). Please take this to the talk page. The problem with the mid-Missouri Civil War Museum is that it isn't an anonymous site that does not give any footnotes or explanations on how they got the numbers. That makes it distinctly inferior to the Missouri Secretary of State Chet the official responsibility for counting veterans. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spradlagg broke the rules and is in trouble. He needs to talk this out on the article's talk page. Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history 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 get 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. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Columbia, Missouri. John from Idegon (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used for that particular edit are not currently functioning. Where did that information come from?Spradlagg (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Spradlagg[reply]

Playing stupid does not help your position. You changed the term "pro-slavery" to "pro-sessesation" without a reference. If you don't understand what that means, I don't know what to tell you. Your comment above makes no sense. John from Idegon (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me. I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia. However, you're not being civil. There's no need for animosity. What I meant to type was "pro-secession". That is, in fact, more accurate of the civil war era mentality of central Missourians. Also, the hyperlink on that section doesn't connect to any page. Therefore, no one can tell what the source is.Spradlagg (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Spradlagg[reply]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. No one cares what YOU think better reflects the mindset of historic Missourians. All that matters is what has been published on the subject. The edit you made fundamentally changed the entire meaning of the paragraph and for that you need a source. If you don't like what the section says currently, make an agreement based on sources at the talk page. As far as my civility goes, try to make an effort to understand how things get done here and you will find that people's courtesy toward you will improve greatly. John from Idegon (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. You have an agenda and anyone who meddles with it is in trouble. Look, Boone county is in the Little Dixie portion of Missouri. It has been well established on Wikipedia that that area of the state was very much "Pro-secession".Spradlagg (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Spradlagg[reply]

Pro-secession meant seceding for the protection of slavery, both characterizations are simultaneously accurate. (Post-war "Lost Cause" spin pretended/pretends that secession was not about slavery, but that was not what the secession conventions and secession commissioners were saying at the time and Lost Cause hagiography has been largely discredited.) A compromise might be "pro-secession/pro-slavery" but regardless it is time for those involved to take this to the article's talk page. Neither description is sourced at this stage. Red Harvest (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Columbia, Missouri. taking a word out is not adding content. Lying in your edit summaries is however, purely disruptive. Do not do it again. John from Idegon (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 below this notice: {{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.

Materialscientist (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]