User talk:Encyclopedic Joshua

May 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Marco Rubio, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Marco Rubio. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. WP:BRD: You've done the BR, time for the D. Calton | Talk 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be Joshua the Patriot (talk · contribs), would you? --Calton | Talk 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not this person by any means. And yet there's this conversation, which seems an awfully coincidental intersection of interests and name. So, perhaps I should have asked more directly: are you User:CentristFiasco? Because if you are, simply changing your username doesn't get you out of a block, since a block is on the person not the name. --Calton | Talk 00:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, let's get back contributing to articles in a professional manner. Well, "contributing to articles in a professional manner" includes not edit-warring, not deleting great swathes of text, not whitewashing or engaging in reputation management for your preferred political viewpoint, not trying to deflect attention from your actions, and not distorting other people's actions -- asking a question is NOT an accusation, and putting scare quotes around words ("contribution") is not on.

But as long as we're here, I'll change that from a question to an accusation: further reading of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco/Archive shows that CentristFiasco has used the name [[User|Encyclopedist J}} and has edited from Jacksonville, Florida -- say, didn't you claim that "...the articles that I have been involved in were articles involving my federal representatives in the Congress"? So yeah, I'll now state my opinion that you're obviously CentristFiasco, trying to evade your block. Not a good idea. Nor is trying to hide the obvious warnings. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Final warning of 3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Ander Crenshaw shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)