User talk:Joshclark82

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Orion's Belt, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alnitak. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that I posted was accurate, positive, helpful, and doccumented.... So, please explain why you would remove it.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Alnitak. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start the editing war. Barek did. I posted valid, documented, accurate and constructive information. With no good explanation as to why he's deleting it. How do I find an impartial mediator? My facts are doccumented more than most other things on Wikipedia . If you don't allow me to update with correct information, I will have to get my lawyers involved for violating my freedom of speech, and violating the terms of Wikipedia. Nothing I posted violated any of Wikipedias guidelines.

Your recent edits to User talk:Joshclark82 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to cause. Problems. I'm really not. I'm just trying to understand. All I want to do is update a page with doccumented information that is on no way harmful. I don't understand your problem with that or how that violates Wikipedia. PLEASE EXPLAIN.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat by Joshclark82. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The International Star Registry (ISR) is a for-profit organization founded in 1979 for the purpose of giving the general public the novelty of unofficially naming stars." That means nothing from this company is either scientific or encyclopedic. We do not consider this to be a reliable source. Period. Doc talk 07:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I needed. Now was that really that hard??? Why couldn't someone have just said that from the beginning???

So you won't be "lawyering up" as a result of this, right? Then we can close the thread and move on. Doc talk 07:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for this edit which is making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I understand that you are a new editor and were trying to make an addition and didn't understand why it was being reverted. Welcome to Wikipedia... things aren't always as easy or simple as you might imagine. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that while others may know, you do not (yet). Here is a simplified ruleset that you might wish to look at. Also, you have discovered that making legal threats is not a good idea either. Personally I think you were just shooting off your mouth and needed a warning instead of an indefinite block. The admin that blocked you however seemed to think otherwise. Admins are people too.... and sometimes they behave like people. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. At this point in time, if you would like to be unblocked, you can follow the instructions in the block template above. You might acknowledge that you understand that making legal threats is against the rules, explicitly retract your threat and promise never to do it again. It's quite possible that this episode can be resolved and put behind. Good luck. – JBarta (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or... I can just create a new account using another email, and then edit stuff....

No shit. You got the benefit of the doubt before. If you want to be a punk: don't get caught. Unretracted legal threats plus a threat to sock: you're fresh out of support. Grow up. Doc talk 04:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]