User talk:Joshinda26

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Joshinda26, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Merbabu (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Anti-pornography movement, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alacante45 (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made two edits (1, 2), one to add three references to a statement that had remained unsourced since July and the other to add reference titles to them. Are you saying you believe referencing content is unconstructive? Joshinda26 (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Please don't revert on the Algae article again. The issue should be moved to the article talk page, as I have done. Thanks. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a core policy and edits that violate this policy should be reverted as it devalues the quality of the article. Joshinda26 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do consider User:Alacante45's edits to be vandalism, but I think he's inexperienced and inappropriately armed with little knowledge and a high speed editing tool rather than being malicious. Although I could be wrong. Still, the nature of his edits seem to be that he believes they are useful to the article. Again, looking at his editing history, it is not easy to see this, and I could be wrong, but it's still better to back off at some point, and find another venue to deal with the issue. If he had been adding things like cuss words and blanking sections an administrator would have put a stop to his editing soon enough. It's difficult for readers when a high level article such as Algae is repeatedly reverted, and what's being reverted is not cuss words or blankings or obvious vandalisms. Failure to cite is not sufficient to make it obvious vandalism. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never accused him of being a malicous editor. I simply removed unsourced passages from a high profile article in accordance with WP:V which states "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". Joshinda26 (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Algae. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z9

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Joshinda26 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block log states "Violation of the three-revert rule" however I only reverted 3 times, all 3 reverts were to remove a totally unsourced paragraph from an important article in accordance with WP:V. I haven't breached any Wikipedia policy, I wasn't edit warring over content, I reverted (along with consensus) a series of bad edits. WP:V even states "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed".

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My block log states "Violation of the three-revert rule" however I only reverted 3 times, all 3 reverts were to remove a totally [[wp:v|unsourced]] paragraph from an important article in accordance with [[WP:V]]. I haven't breached any Wikipedia policy, I wasn't edit warring over content, I reverted (along with consensus) a series of bad edits. WP:V even states "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My block log states "Violation of the three-revert rule" however I only reverted 3 times, all 3 reverts were to remove a totally [[wp:v|unsourced]] paragraph from an important article in accordance with [[WP:V]]. I haven't breached any Wikipedia policy, I wasn't edit warring over content, I reverted (along with consensus) a series of bad edits. WP:V even states "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My block log states "Violation of the three-revert rule" however I only reverted 3 times, all 3 reverts were to remove a totally [[wp:v|unsourced]] paragraph from an important article in accordance with [[WP:V]]. I haven't breached any Wikipedia policy, I wasn't edit warring over content, I reverted (along with consensus) a series of bad edits. WP:V even states "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The edits you were reverting were not vandalism, nor do they qualify for any other exception from the edit warring policy. You didn't violate the 3RR, I selected the wrong option in the block interface, for which apologise. I can make an amendment in your block log if you wish, but mot editors prefer to keep their block logs as short as possible. That said, you don't have to break the 3RR to be edit warring and the 3RR is not an entitlement. As a note tot he reviewing admin, the other aprty in the edit war was also blocked for the same duration (though their block has since been extended for multiple attempts at evasion). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I made good faith edits to remove unsourced content from a high profile article. I don't see how this warrants a block, even if my edits were considered disruptive then a warning would have been enough and I would have stopped, it seems over the top to proceed straight to a block. Joshinda26 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]