User talk:Joshinda26

Welcome[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

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]

I'm not accusing you of calling him a malicious editor. You can and should remove unsourced passages from a high profile article, and I appreciate that you monitored the article and did so. However, when you have an edit war going on, even if you are reverting vandalism, it is less disruptive overall to just let the edit go, report the vandal, and allow an administrator to take care of it. Don't retire. User:Alacante45 is disrupting wikipedia, and part of disrupting wikipedia includes dragging other editors into the drama. Don't let that happen. A 24-hour block for edit warring isn't that big of a deal, in my opinion. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 20:10, 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]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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".

Decline reason:

I was just typing this up when HJ Mitchell added his note. His reasoning is correct - three reverts is not an entitlement. Edit warring may be stopped with a block, no matter how many reverts are done. You received notices (above) asking you to stop. Remember BRD - you should have proceeded to the talk page instead of reverting again. TN X Man 19:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

He stopped reverting after I posted that request, and did not revert again after that:

"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)"

[1] at Current revision as of 16:50, 3 October 2010

--184.99.172.218 (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've looked further into this and have decided to reduce your block duration by twelve hours, meaning that you have roughly 8 hours left to serve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join a project![edit]

A nice way to get help with basics on wikipedia is by joining a project. You might check out what Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam is doing. Projects often have lists and alerts to the articles most in need of help, including articles that need citations. Adding citations to an article is also very useful work. Here is a wikipedia page that can help you with more advanced formatting of citations. Also, if you use books and popular journals, even academic ones, you can sometimes use one of these formatting tools to fill in the rest of the citation for you. I find the one called "Reference Generator" the most helpful. --184.99.172.218 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An apology[edit]

I apologize for not looking at your edit history more closely when I said at WP:AN/I that I felt blocking both you and User:Alacante45 for edit warring was appropriate. It was clear from your wording in your reversions that you were trying to help, but it wasn't clear that you had already been provoked by Alacante45 and that you were such a new editor to wikipedia. --184.99.172.218 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Islamic gardens[edit]

Hi, there's a little Islamic garden article I work on sometimes when I get wiki:stressed. It's practically a stub, and the photos are terrible. This is unfortunate, as I am certain there are beautiful, unique Islamic gardens in every country where Muslims have lived. Drop by sometime and add a garden, if you have an opportunity. Regards, Aquib (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]