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)

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)