User talk:Belchman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2009[edit]

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Calatayud. Thank you. No good reason supplied for removing teh Arab name which is the origin of the modern Spanish name Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference on Arenys de Munt query on Catalonia independence[edit]

The use of this reference was wrong. 41 is the percentage of the voting population (the potential voters- 6517 people) who voted (2671 people), while 33 is the percentage of the Arenys de Munt population (potential and non-potential voters) who voted (2671 people), out of the 100% villa's population. --Judesba (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi there! Could explain the reason for this edit? You had already done it some weeks ago and I had to correct it. I tried to explain in the edit summary that the first link you wrote is incorrect, since it does not correspond to Consell Comarcal, while the second one changing the domain .cat to .es uses an alternative alias for the same site which forces an unnecessary redirect. I have corrected again. If I got something wrong, please let me know. Cheers! --Carles Noguera (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought the "true" address was the .es one. --Belchman (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


For going on past your final warning I have blocked you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're a good admin if you're so aggressive and do things without thinking much. I've been warned for one "insult" and I haven't called names since then, yet you "block me indefinitely from editing Wikipedia". Not that I care much, but I'm sure that I could help more than one person here, and that includes telling users that create a poisonous atmosphere at the RD such as User:Baseball Bugs that they should stop such behavior. --Belchman (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You went on to shoot the word arrogant; now you continue to be uncivil. I do feel that some leeway is better but WP does not operate on those terms. However, another user is taking the view that your block should be reduced and I have said I will not stand in his way, so you may well find yourself able to edit in a week or so. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I reduced your block to 5 days. Any more incivility will lead to an increased block length. AniMate 22:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It's okay by me if a levelheaded admin feels I should be temporarily blocked, I'll wait patiently. Nevertheless I still think that you guys should do something with people that don't cross the line of incivility clearly with obvious insults but keep being arrogant and misuse parts of Wikipedia. Also, admin User:Blood Red Sandman blocked me indefinitely for using the word "arrogant" which is, in his opinion, name calling (which is what I was warned for). In my opinion I didn't go past my final warning because I didn't insult again, it's just Blood Red Sandman that is too aggressive. He called my last reply "uncivil" for no reason, too. He also seems to lack understanding of basic Wikipedia policies but I can't assure that. See you in 5 days. --Belchman (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Describing someone as doing things without thinking is uncivil. My policy knowledge is perfectly fine, thank you. Also, describing someone as aggressive is uncivil too, to my mind; at least it is given the circumstances. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Users at Wikipedia should be cool as a cucumber, and admins much more. --Belchman (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool as a cucumber.PNG
This is true. Calling another editor "arrogant" doesn't help lower the temperature. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Having slept on this, I've decided to reduce this block to 24 hours. So, your time has been served. You were without a doubt rude and insulting, and that kind of behavior isn't tolerated and won't be tolerated again. Still the incident was far from the worst I've seen, and others have had much shorter blocks than you. Anymore instances of incivility will result in longer blocks. From here on in, treat other users with respect, and if you feel you cannot, avoid interacting with the user who annoys you. AniMate 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Heck, you should have said this before. I've auto-blocked myself for 4 days now :) --Belchman (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

recent edits to this page[edit]

Do you have any idea why a blocked user's sockpuppet account made it's very first edit to your talk page? [1] He acts like he knows you, despite the fact that he's been blocked since before you ever edited Wikipedia, so it seems kind of odd. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who that guy is, but his name, being a Spanish translation of "Baseball Bugs" is kind of funny. On the other hand I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004 but I don't like having the same name for so long. Why do you say he acts like he knows me? Can you provide some information about him? --Belchman (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
It was an impostor account trying to draw attention to falsely impeach y ou. I've got a "fan" or two that crawl out of the muck once in awhile and do that kind of thing, usually trying to get someone else in trouble - like yourself. They're not fooling anyone, at least not for very long. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I only say that because of what I mentioned before: he created a sock, and the first thing he did with it was to come here and "offer you help" as if he had some reason to believe you needed/wanted help or from him, or maybe just wanted to "announce his return" as he did with several other users, at least one of which he did have substantial interaction with in the past. The original account was User:Axmann8, who I had a long unblock discussion with a few months ago. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to make some kind of backhanded accusation here, just trying to figure out why he picked you. It's often useful when dealing with block-evaders to understand their pattern. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
My assumption is he picked Belchman because we had recently had words with each other, so he decided to impostor me and try to fan the flames, trying to get one or both of us blocked in the process. That's his pattern. I'm not saying you shouldn't run a checkuser against my Spanish "doppelganger" (which, if he had half a brain, would have used "loco" instead of "insectos", because that's what "Bugs" means in this context), just to clear Belchman and also to confirm that it's Axmann8, unless you've already done that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
His mysterious and out of the blue offer of "help" for some reason reminded me of that Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns, disguised as an alien, brought people "love". --Belchman (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha! I love that one. I want a "Homer is a Dope" t-shirt. Anyway, I think Bugs has it right, it was probably more about stalking him than you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that Baseball Bugs is almost surely right. --Belchman (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
There was a recent sock that talked about "love". I've gotten to the point where I assume that all socks are created by just one guy - i.e. that PCH and Axman and ItsLassieTime and Censei and them others are all the same guy. It makes things simpler. (So much for WP:DENY) :( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
And don't call me Shirley. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I must admit that I enjoyed back in the day reading those special pages we had about notorious vandals, such as Willy on Wheels, MARMOT, Milkman and the pelican shit guy, but it's pretty obvious that almost all of them do it just to become (in)famous in the Internet. WP:DENY is, indeed, very important. --Belchman (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL, he's back again, what have I done to deserve this? :D --Belchman (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeh, he's back as "Calcetín", which is Spanish for "Sock". He's about as subtle as the Three Stooges on espresso. He went to Censei, since I mentioned him. Maybe I should mention someone else. Hmmm... maybe User:Jimbo Wales? I bet Jim has a sense of humor about getting vandalized. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pau Claris i Casademunt edit[edit]

I'm slightly confused by this edit. Your edit summary says you are reverting ridiculous POV pushing, but to my eyes it looks like you've just reduced the readability and sensical-ness of the sections edited.

Is this a mistake, or is there some separatist meaning to:

"While it is possible that his education may have been more extensive, it is only clear that Claris received a doctorate in civil law and canon law in the University of Barcelona."

that is missing from:

"There is a lack of studies Pau Claris, only know that his doctorate in civil law and canon in the University of Barcelona, which studied the race for the period between the 1604 and 1612."


Because it looks, to me, like the intended meaning of both is the same, with your version being considerably less clear and grammatical. What am I missing? (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Errr... honestly, I don't know. Maybe I was on something when I made that edit. --Belchman (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Okee doke, happens to us all :) Just glad to have cleared it up. (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

turnout for the BCN march[edit]

The lowest estimate is ridiculously low: 56,000 people is fewer than one person per square metre on the Passeig de Gràcia alone, when we have multiple sources saying that there were many more. I'm not accusing Lynce of political bias – they also produced a ridiculously low figure for an anti-abortion march in Madrid – I am merely saying that their system of counting obviously doesn't work. The vast majority of reliable sources have quoted figures of around a million for the turnout, and the article also quotes the estimate of El País which is about half that number (even though their estimate has a huge error in the capacity of the Gran Via barcelonés). If you continue to include a discredited source without discussion then I shall assume that I am reverting vandalism and not good faith edits. Physchim62 (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous reference desk[edit]

Hi. Why did you modify my comment that answered a question asked at the Misc Refdesc? If you find a comment inaccurate or misinforming, you can correct it with another comment below, but as an accepted rule you shouldn't edit other users' posts, unless there are formatting errors that impede the readability. Moreover, I don't think my comment was inaccurate, because I cited sources to support what I said. Please don't do that again, but instead discuss whatever you should find dubious. --Theurgist (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, I'm sorry. I just wanted to correct a mistake in your reply. I thought that since this is the Reference Desk, and your references said that it certainly didn't mean "lots of laughs" - which is a widespread myth among non-English speaking people - I could fix your reply quickly. Again, I'm sorry if this has caused inconvenience. --Belchman (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It's OK. :) Those who answer Refdesk questions can also sometimes make mistakes. But in that particular case what you corrected was not actually a mistake, because this article, this Wiktionary entry and this Urban Dictionary entry all list a load of possible meanings, which do include "lots of laugh(s)". Internet slang is usually not subordinate to any regulation, and a certain sequence of letters can be used to express many things. But really, when posting comments on comment pages such as the Refdesks, strongly avoid revising anyone's comments (except your own ones), and instead explain about the existence of an unpunctuality with a comment of yours just below. Only if the error is enormously conspicuous, you may take the liberty of fixing it, however, not forgetting to again report this below, like this:
Line 1: Line 1:
== Section title == == Section title ==
- This statement is completely wrong. --[[User:Username|Username]] {[[User talk:Username|talk]]) HH:MM, DD Monthname YYYY (UTC) + This statement is completely correct. --[[User:Username|Username]] {[[User talk:Username|talk]]) HH:MM, DD Monthname YYYY (UTC)
+ :I corrected a conspicuous mistake in the above comment. --[[User:Belchman|Belchman]] {[[User talk:Belchman|talk]]) HH:MM, DD Monthname YYYY (UTC)
Cheers! --Theurgist (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, even if you change your own, unless it's just to fix a minor spelling, grammatical, or punctuation error within a few minutes after posting, you should strikeoute and circle strikeout and underline the changes to show that you have changed the text. Others may have read it and replied to it (or even referenced it on another page) subsequent to your initial post. Changing it can lead to confusion and the appearance that the other editors are misquoting you.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Italian men[edit]

Please withdraw your unsourced claim at the Ref. Desk. about "almost certain" homosexuality. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't know much about Italian culture, do you? In Italy it'd be very hard to find two people holding hands unless they're in a romantic relationship - actually, it's a bit like they're saying: "hey, we're a couple" while walking down the street. I'm not saying it's impossible, it'd just be very hard. And same-sex couples are usually gay, aren't they? I honestly wonder what's your problem with that. I know it's unsourced, so take it with a grain or two of salt. --Belchman (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


That above warning about personal attacks is nonsense. I thought it was a stupid joke when I read him claiming to have warned you on WP:RD/C. Your comment "Thanks to everyone but Ludwigs2, of course" is in no way a personal attack and is a very understandable stance considering the user in question removed part of your post and gave nothing helpful to your question. Feel free to remove the warning per WP:TALK "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". It's quite frankly absurd to suggest you're required to thank a user who was unhelpful to you. (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, 82.44. --Belchman (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


You say you welcome corrections, so (in that spirit) I'm letting you know that "Let's all be retarded" is offensive language that makes life worse for people. While I'm sure you did not mean to hurt people, every time someone uses the words "retard" or "retarded" in this way, they are making this use more widespread. And that hurts people with learning disabilities, and their families. It is also completely unnecessary, as I am sure you have other words and phrases in your vocabulary that would do the job without the collateral damage. The euphemism treadmill moves on, and we move with it.

Hoping this is taken in the spirit of cheerful improvement that was intended. (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I thought you had something interesting to teach me about my English and all you gave me was an uninteresting rant. --Belchman (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

US Americans[edit]

  • I noticed this rather uncivil remark on Dbachmann's user talk page. I find "US Americans" completely proper, although slightly awkward. I blame the awkwardness, however, on my being a US American, who like most US Americans grew up thinking that "American" = "citizen of the United States of America". Outside the USA, it is not uncommon to find people referring to "having been to America" and meaning Argentina, Costa Rica, Canada, etc. Do Canadians or Brits use this term frequently, such that it could be considered a Standard English? I have no idea.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I have followed your request and been a pedant on my talkpage.

The "US American" is debatable, but that's a political debate, not a linguistic one. Yes, using "US American" rather than "American" carries the implication of hay mas de America que los EE.UU. This is a wiki: you are free to fiddle with things without placing bizarre personal rants on my talkpage. But you are also free to come back and rant some more, this kind of thing brightens my day. I do not "hate America", btw (to use a phrase cherished by US American patriots). I merely find that en-wiki carries a significant de facto systemic bias because it is so heavily edited by USians. Not because they are consciously favouring a US perspective but because they often don't realize that they even have an US perspective. The Common Era article is a good example. US Americans are so immersed in their political culture wars that they end up assuming that everyone is either a conservative straight bible-thumper or a liberal gay atheist. It doesn't occur to them that some people will use "AD" simply because that's what the thing has been called for a millennium and are not interested in following the most recent politically correct euphemism proscribed by the language police. --dab (𒁳) 08:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apostrophe pedantry[edit]

Pointing out where people have inserted an unnecessary apostrophe is really not helpful in the talk space. Please refrain from it unless you have something relevant to contribute to a given conversational thread. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Don't do that [2] again. Acroterion (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Why not? --Belchman (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I've reverted your vandalism-edit. If you don't like something, you can explain why, but you can't just remove comments by other people that you don't like. --Belchman (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If you restore it again, I will block you. Final warning. Acroterion (talk)

(edit conflict) Because if you ever make any comment like that again, I will block you indefinitely. (Written before your most recent edit and the resulting block, which I endorse.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you tell me exactly why is my comment problematic? Or is it because you're friends with someone who attacked me and wanted to ensure he "won"? --Belchman (talk) 01:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If you truly cannot see why your comment was problematic, then you lack the maturity to contribute. →Στc. 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is "per Σ". The answer to your second question is "no". Incidentally, I can't help adding that I also find your username to be problematic, although that is the least of my worries with your behavior at the moment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If you can't explain why my comment was so incredibly, amazingly, stunningly offensive for you it's because it wasn't. Some of you wanted me blocked for God-knows-what reason. --Belchman (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
If you can't see why it was so incredibly, amazingly, stunningly offensive then you have no place on Wikipedia. Goodbye. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Like I care. Goodbye to you, whoever you are. --Belchman (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to 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. Jac16888 Talk 00:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
More for personal attacks than harassment, but I've no doubt you got that--Jac16888 Talk 00:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think someone needs to read the definition of harassment here. --Belchman (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, its for the blatant personal attack. I considered making it indef, and I suspect that may still happen very soon--Jac16888 Talk 01:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
So calling someone who probably is —according to his user page since I don't know for sure, he may just deny it and I'll accept that as a fact— a homosexual a homosexual is a "blatant personal attack" for you. whoever you are? I don't think "homosexual" is an insult, at least not in my country. --Belchman (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother arguing this with you, your comment was meant as a personal attack on another user. You, me and everyone in the section above all know that--Jac16888 Talk 01:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're just admitting this is an unfair block, even you can see that. --Belchman (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
You're employing a variation on the perennial hostile "why are you people so ... " I see little chance you're going to have an epiphany on this subject, but it easily falls under "disruptive editing." Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha. Now I understand everything. I didn't notice you were an admin. So, to whoever reads this. I made a neutral comment to someone's insulting non-related-to-my-question reply at Wikipedia's RD/Humanities. This admin got deeply offended by my comment for God-knows-what reason. As said, he didn't like my comment so he removed it (pure vandalism). I restored my comment and he proceeded to call an admin friend of his to block me (and remove once again my comment). --Belchman (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Belchman, before I was aware of the above, I raised your behaviour @ Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Belchman. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. It's very late here, so I'm going to bed. I'll be back tomorrow (or maybe not, since I'm quite busy). --Belchman (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

At least part of the problem is that your comment assumes facts not in evidence. The biggest attention-seekers I can think of are folks like Jennifer Lopez and Kim Kardashian, who as far as I can tell are straight as arrows. Can you find any valid-source citations that suggest that gays are statistically more attention-seeking than straights? I very much doubt it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, could you please apologize to Jack on my behalf in his talk page? The problem is I'm unsure whether that would constitute editing in place of a blocked user and, thus, a blockable offence. --Belchman (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I will direct him to your page. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Belchman (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. He hasn't edited in more than 9 hours, and I think it's probably the middle of the night in Australia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I decide whether or not to accept your apology, I need to know:

(a) why are you apologising to me specifically?
(b) why are you not apologising to all homosexuals in general and to Textorus in particular?
(c) why are you apologising to anyone at all, when up above you show no indication you've understood why you've caused offence, or any interest in doing so? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I apologize to whoever might have been offended because I honestly thought the level of offensiveness of my comment was on par of that of Textorus and not far above that, as it turned out to be. And I apologize to you specifically because I saw you were deeply offended and it was by no means my intention to do so. --Belchman (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I am honestly shocked that you, even now, can read the comment you posted and not see the level of offensiveness it was, towards homosexual people in general, and towards Textorus specifically. That utterly confuses me that you could be living in today's day and age and not understand how to relate to all humans in a tolerant way, and how your comment was beyond the pale. I first thought you were saying it to be offensive; that you understood the impact of your comment. That you now still claim to not understand how completely offensive it was, that is incomprehensible. It's like you were teleported from 50 years ago into the modern world yesterday... --Jayron32 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You've been here two years, so you ought to know how things work. But just so we're clear (and because, despite you asking, no one has told you why what you said is unacceptable), I'll lay it out. Wikipedia in general takes a dim view on attributing general statements to some sort of group of people - it's not good form to make such "you people" comments, no matter how true they may be. However, while it isn't really acceptable to do this to any group, some groups are much more unacceptable to address in this way than others. If you had asked Textorus why "Texans like you crave attention so much", you probably wouldn't have got much flak for it, maybe a strongly worded talk-page note at worst - Texans are pretty fair game for insulting on Wikipedia. United States Citizens (AKA 'mericans) are also pretty acceptable targets, though certain users like user:Baseball Bugs might get a little upset if you do that too regularly. If you are American, a bit of good-natured ribbing at the old country is pretty acceptable. You need to be a little bit careful about Eastern Europeans, as you can get some more strongly nationalistic editors who might take greater offense to that (did I just make a "you people" comment myself in generalizing Eastern European editors? Perhaps, but most people probably agree with me, which makes it totally OK). It's typically less OK to make these comments about people with darker skin tones, although if you're Indian and you insult another Indian caste, it's just sort of shuffled away as an ethnic dispute that no one really wants to get involved in. I don't think you're Indian, though, so I probably wouldn't try that. I would definitely shy away from making these types of comments about religious groups, though if you were going to, it should probably be about conservative Christians. However, above all, there are two groups that you must dare not mention in any way that could at all be construed negatively on Wikipedia - Jews [3] and Sexual Minorities. There are significant populations of both on the encyclopedia, and there are a number of editors, both who belong to those groups and who don't, who will get very offended if you make any sort of generalization, especially negative generalization, about them. If you value editing Wikipedia under your current identity, I would strongly advise staying away from commenting on these groups of people.
My final piece of advice, and much more practical in surviving in this RPG known as Wikipedia, is if an administrator tells you not to do something, For Gods Sake Don't Do It. It doesn't matter how right you are or how wrong they are, you will get blocked. Buddy431 (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
God has nothing to do with it. I share Belchman's observation that homosexual persons often seek attention, notably by parading noisily with slogans that lack counterparts for the heterosexual majority. ("We're straight and we're here" wouldn't rhyme anyway) and by their de facto expropriation from orthodox English of the previously unknown-as-a-noun word "gay". Past and present discriminations against homosexuals provide good reason for these demonstrations. To observe that they do demonstrate is, far from being offensive, exactly the desired result of their effort. Why your question to Textorus is lambasted as offensive is not obvious to me. Textorus is known as a contributor on LGBT subjects but AFAIK does not, and must not be pressed to, declare a personal sexual orientation. Also AFAIK Textorus has not noticed untoward pressure from you to do so; if otherwise you could certainly give a mollifying reassurance that your question did not carry that intention. Homosexuals are as like heterosexuals as concave is to convex, and life is not only about sex (though that can be nice). I support neither the clearly punitive block by Jac16888 that you are experiencing nor a noisy stampede to demonise you on the altar of Political correctness. Cheers Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Cuddlyable, I suggest you read Stereotype, since you just demonstrated one. As for the rest of your nonsensical and seemingly attention seeking itself rant, I see no reason to defend my actions and have no intention of doing so, you and Belch are the only ones who object and neither of you have an opinion that holds any weight with me--Jac16888 Talk 18:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Like you Jac16888, I see no reason to defend your action. Learn whose user page you are posting on because it isn't Belch boy. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:::pssst Belch was short for Belchman. I assumed that was obvious, guess not--Jac16888 Talk 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It was obviously a rudeness to Belchman. pssst that's called "Adding insult to injury" Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, after all who wouldn't be insulted at being called an abbreviated version of a name they chose themself, just as "Belch Boy" did. Now if you're quite finished with your attempt to stir up trouble, its time I was asleep--Jac16888 Talk 03:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Tut, Jac16888 has a disambiguation malfunction. Belch boy is a properly registered user. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah the traditional fallback of the pathological trouble-causer, unable to come up with an a decent response so they decide to nitpick about grammar. --Jac16888 Talk 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Learn Muphry's law. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your name has been mentioned[edit]

At Wikipedia talk:Reference_desk#User:Belchman = User:Cerlomin ?. Buddy431 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, why did you post hi on your user page? HyperStudent (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Yuck Fou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)