User talk:Belchfire

Welcome!

Hello, Belchfire! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! BelovedFreak 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Some of your recent edits

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed a few of your recent edits and, as a new editor, I would advise taking some time to read some of our policies and guidelines. Don't worry, no one expects you to know them all. A few things though: please don't remove material that is cited to a reliable source, with an edit summary like "Removed obviously untrue statement regarding Starbuck's." If you have a reliable source that says differently, feel free to add that. if you just disbelieve what the source says, please start a discussion on the article talkpage. Please don't make a large number of non-trivial changes to an article and mark the edit as "minor". This is misleading to other editors, particularly when the edit summary doesn't begin to describe the changes you've made. That edit introduced a number of errors into the article, including overlinking of common terms, changing links to specific articles to point at disambiguation pages and removing legitimate interwiki links to articles in other languages. For that reason, I have reverted the edit. I'm not familiar with the subject and don't doubt that you've made some good changes. I suggest you make smaller changes, with descriptive edit summaries, so that people can see what you're changing and why.

Lastly, please don't change gender-related pronouns or descriptions without discussion. Transgender issues are complicated anyway and can cause conflict on WIkipedia when editors try to decide the best way to describe people. It is not something that is done lightly. Our manual of style says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." In any case, describing male to female transexuals as "trans men" does not "clarify" anything, since the term "trans men" is used to describe people who are born women and have sex changes to become men. This is the opposite situation of that described in the article in question. If you think an article can be improved, feel free to start a discussion at the relevant talkpage, but coming along once a year to unilaterally make major changes without discussion is not helpful. --BelovedFreak 11:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

June 2012

Your recent editing history at Brett Kimberlin 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source for the Kimberlin article:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hAH9djcmqKs

Mattsky (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed PROD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Neil Munro (journalist), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Tacoma Streetcar Disaster, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Athleek123 04:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

Regarding this edit of yours, I must point out that there's nothing defamatory about a sentence in the lead that complies with WP:LEAD by summarizing content in the body of the article. That's why it's there. Looking at the article as a whole, it seemed to be kind of a key point, which is why I originally restored it after an anon removed it without explanation. I have restored it again. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do I really have to explain why that comment is defamatory towards conservatives? Seriously? At a bare minimum, that statement should be qualified by saying "some conservatives" or "some conservative-leaning groups", but to make a blanket statement and leave it bare is simply inaccurate, I don't care what your reference says. Belchfire (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Qualify the statement if you like, but to blank out a sourced statement in the lead that summarizes the body, as the lead is supposed to do, requires justification. If you have a problem with the body of the article, then argue to change it, but per WP:LEAD, the lead should provide an overview of the body regardless of your or my opinion on whether the body content should be there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I did justify my edit, I suspect you just don't like my reason. I suggest taking it to the Talk page, and let some other editors weigh-in. That's how WP:BRD is supposed to work. Belchfire (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You are still edit-warring there. If you want to change the meaning of a long-standing consensus version, particularly a non-controversial summary overview of the body of the article, supported by reliable sources, based on a personal perception that the long-standing version somehow maligns a particular group, the burden is on you to explain yourself on the talk page. Please do so. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Longstanding??? I reverted verbiage added on July 1 (500165823). It's hate speech and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Belchfire (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saw your last edit. Good call. Fair and accurate.

Thanks. We'll see how long that lasts!

Regarding my claim of long-standing: I looked further back in the history and see the phrase "some conservatives" has been there for several months (I went back to November), only recently being reverted and restored, about the time you came in. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, Belchfire, how was it "added on July 1" if you reverted it on June 29? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Check again. Look at version 500165823 and see the change made by Fayedizard on July 1, to the first sentence in the first paragraph. The reversion I made on June 29 involved the last sentence in the first paragraph. If Fayedizard's edit had been there on June 29, we could have fixed it all at the same time. As I already pointed out, Amatulic's most recent edit is fair and accurate, and avoids painting all conservatives with an overly-broad brush, so I'm happy now. Honestly, people are too quick to just revert without discussing, and that includes EVERYBODY in this dust-up, myself included. Belchfire (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Homosexual agenda. 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 adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"tax penalty"

A tax penalty is a penalty for messing up on your taxes. The mandate is something else. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not according to SCOTUS. Belchfire (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"we must accept the Government’s interpretation: §6201(a) instructs the Secretary that his authority to assess taxes includes the authority to assess penalties, but it does not equate assessable penalties to taxes for other purposes."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you can find all manner of sophistry to support your POV. There isn't any real need to prove that. A tax is a tax is a tax. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Calling it a "fee" doesn't mean it isn't a tax, it just means the politicians who put it in place don't want to be honest about it. Reality remains unaltered. As to the article, I offered my reasoning for my edit, and unsurprisingly I was overruled by the liberal whitewash squad. Such is life at Wikipedia. Belchfire (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 05:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Bold for polling

Regarding this edit, putting the leading position in bold is standard for polling for elections in the US and elsewhere. See polls listed at United States Senate election in Arizona, 2012 (three sections); United States Senate election in Nevada, 2012; Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010 (three sections); 40th British Columbia general election; Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election; Greek legislative election, June 2012. -Rrius (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

No prob. -Rrius (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Conservatism

I see you have an interest in conservatism-related articles. You might be interested in the most exciting, fasted growing group of editors in the entire Wikipedia:

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Come by and introduce yourself--we don't bite, lol! – Lionel ^(talk) 06:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Dead refs

We assume good faith that at the time the ref was added it worked. It is better to tag dead refs with {{dead link}}. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a good tip, thanks. Belchfire (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw it's unwise to revert multiple editors--even if it appears they are incorrect. You'll just get blocked and they'll change the article while you're on "vacation." This is exactly what Scientiom did to Lsufalcon at HA. Just wait for other interested editors--i.e. me--to show up. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To expand, dead links are not violations of WP:V, as discussed at WP:DEADLINK: Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online. Except for URLs in the External links section that have not been used to support any article content, do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. Recovery and repair options and tools are available. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In case noone mentioned it--blocks are escalating. The next one after 48 is a week. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL, well if you scroll up, you can see I've learned the hard way that 2 is the limit and as often as not, 2 times is enough. Thanks again for sharing, there's definitely lots to learn about this place. Belchfire (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned by name

here – Lionel ^(talk) 09:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)