User talk:Belchfire

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Hi Belchfire. Surely there needs to be a link to ' Myth ' in connection with Christmas or are you trying to say that is not a possibility? Would you like to suggest where you would agree to have the link ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zytigon (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belchfire - as I mentioned my intent to do the other day, I've gone ahead and rewritten the paragraph about the FLDS on the sexual slavery article. Since you previously indicated that you desired to look over my edits once I had made them, I figured I'd drop you a note here to make sure you had seen them, since I wasn't sure if you had watchlisted the article or not. Any constructive feedback about the newly rewritten FLDS section would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. At a glance, the added material looks like good work. I haven't had a chance to go over it thoroughly, but I will as time allows. Belchfire-TALK 03:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of "naked anti-religious POV-pushing" is false and a personal attack. Saying that the Books of Kings shouldn't be called 'historical books' complies with our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack (see the definition Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F); it's my observation of what you were proposing. Sorry that your feelings are hurt. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 07:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings aren't hurt in the least, but it's clearly a personal attack - discuss the edit, not the editor, remember? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but mainly because I've since noted the overall high quality of your edit history. We see a lot of drive-by POV pushing in Bible-related articles, and I mistakenly lumped you into that group. My bad. Belchfire-TALK 22:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belchfire - I was just curious if you saw any contradiction between this edit which you recently made to Christianity and homosexuality and this comment that you recently made at Talk:Men's rights movement? Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No contradiction at all. Belchfire-TALK 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've been busy. I find it interesting that after the CUs, that an ip used by a defacto banned editor has received a 6 month block during this SPI. Draw your own conclusions.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistently inconsistent" has always been the best way to describe Wikipedia. Belchfire-TALK 06:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a word like "lackidasical" or "negligent" would be more appropriate. [1] Belchfire-TALK 11:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is quite a bit out of line, Belchfire (and the associated edit comment all the more so). In fact, it is being discussed on AN (I expect someone forgot to notify you). Please tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. — Coren ^(talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me, thank you Coren, and apologies to Belchfire. I plead grandchildren as distraction; I should have notified you and forgot. KillerChihuahua 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given your own recent issues with sockpuppetry, do you think reverting to a blocked sock's edits is a good idea? Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid edit. Quite frankly, you should have known better than to reinsert the quote marks. Belchfire-TALK 18:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the edit - I was merely reverting all of Zaalbar's outstanding edits per policy. If you wish to own it (or any of his others) yourself, that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is that? Belchfire-TALK 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK ("the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed"); as I say though, if you want to "own" those edits, that's up to you. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there that talks about a project-wide, blanket reversion of a sock's edits. Belchfire-TALK 18:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously you wouldn't, as that particular sock agrees with your POV. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty asinine statement, as well as blatant lack of good faith.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I lost my good faith with Belchfire a long time ago, as he knows, and as have many other editors. I was just slightly surprised that given his recent problems with sockpuppets, he'd feel that reverting to a blocked sock's edits was consistent behaviour. But as I said, if he wishes to do that, it's his choice. If you feel my opinions are asinine, you're quite within your rights to think that as well, but I'm not changing my beliefs for you or anyone else, as that would clearly be hypocritical. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you about policy, BK, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an admin (1) to know policy, and (2) to follow it. No? Belchfire-TALK 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know policy. We don't allow sockpuppets of blocked editors to edit. That may or may not involve reverting their edits. But, yet again, if you want to restore them, that's your choice - I won't revert you purely for that reason. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you advocate reverting a sock's edits even if that means violating MoS guidelines? But I am the POV editor here? Good grief. Belchfire-TALK 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. If the edits are valid, someone else will restore them. This is all fairly standard, Belchfire. I'm not sure what you're complaining about. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've think you have poked enough.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off-hand, it's pretty obvious to me that reverting valid edits simply because they were made by a sock is sorta POINT-y. Belchfire-TALK 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting all edits done by a sock is not within policy. It would not be permissible to reinsert BLP removed by a sock, no? Whether or not BK came here to agitate you, he made an erroneous claim about policy which you called him on and then he sidestepped the issue by using a strawman arguement. Nothing further can come from this discussion. If he is an annoyance, just banish him from this page.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why some of your recent edits follow so closely in the footsteps of blocked Acoma Magic sock puppets Zaalbar and Windowwipe, but on the good faith assumption that you are actually trying to improve the the encyclopedia, I thought I would mention that the Manual of Style guideline specifically states:

"Quotation marks are to show that you are using the correct word as quoted from the original source."

In my experience, it is common practice on Wikipedia to use quotations around pseudoscientific and fringe terms. For examples, see Homeopathy, Creation science and Intelligent design. As such, I did not find your reversions here and here to be very constructive. You have also removed quotes from the phrase "ex gay" on several other articles: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11].

I would welcome your thoughts on this, and invite you to discuss such changes on the article talk pages. It seems that there are several editors (experienced contributors who are not suck puppets) who seem to agree that the quotes have utility in these cases. Thank you. - MrX 02:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that an edit should be reverted purely because it was done by a sock is a red herring, and in these cases a type of ad hominem argument. As another editor pointedly asked in a discussion above this one, if a sock removed damaging BLP content, would we revert it back in to an article merely because the sock got blocked? Of course we wouldn't, so it's plainly false to claim the socking policy demands we remove 100% of a sock's edits.

Thus, to revert policy-compliant edits in retribution for socking is textbook WP:POINT editing, in that it disrupts the project in order to put a point across. I get that POV-ish rank-and-file editors might be tempted to do such a thing, but personally I think there is no excuse for admins to do it. They should know better. Yet, here we are, dealing with the same childish behavior for the second time in a single day.

As to WP:BADEMPHASIS, the interpretation you propose only applies when we are both (1) quoting material directly from a source, and (2) when the quotes are necessary to avoid confusing the reader. Neither condition exists in the opening sentence of Conversion therapy, and it would be an extraordinary case indeed where those conditions are true in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Indeed, were such a case to exist, it would make for a very awkward lead and such an article should probably be re-written for better flow.

In any event, in specific instance we are talking about, when the quotes are placed around the word 'reparative' only, and not around both words, it is very obvious they are present in order to make a statement about the validity or credibility of the word "reparative"; not to tell the reader that "reparative therapy" comes from a source. It really doesn't matter how many editors are wrong about this - policy is policy and wrong is wrong. Belchfire-TALK 02:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that all of Acoma Magic's sock edits should all be reverted. In fact, he made several constructive edits, mostly in his earlier incarnations.

With regard to the quotes, I agree that "reparative therapy" as opposed to "reparative" is a better edit, specifically since "reparative therapy" is the pseudoscientific terminology referred to in the sources. I also agree that we cannot use quotes to simply discredit otherwise accepted terminology. It seems that we actually have a similar interpretation of the guideline. I think it comes down to editorial judgement and I tend to defer to local consensus in these articles.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. - MrX 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should chat more often. Belchfire-TALK 03:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than edit warring, let's take this quote dispute to the article talk page. I started a section at Talk:Conversion therapy to discuss this, please discuss there before further reverts. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Acoma Magic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! --> Belchfire-TALK 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to share Belchfire's "lol." This is one of the more asinine arguments I've seen in a sock accusation. In case anyone is interested, the most asinine was someone accusing User:Yobol of being sock because "Yobol" is "lobby" backwards. I mean, it's not but even if it was, just holy crap. Too much dopamine. Sædon^talk 00:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using the GF revert next time. The ip edits, while not helpful were factually accurate. Sorry, trying to stay consistent here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, but I'm inclined to disagree in this particular case. IPs using open proxy servers [12] don't generally make good faith errors of judgment. The article was recently attacked by a couple of Marlin1975's socks, using proxies. I suppose my edit summary could have said "Reverting sockpuppet" instead of "vandalism". It would have been just as accurate either way. ↦ Belchfire-TALK 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I'm not sure if I'm also facing charges regarding 3RR, but (as I mentioned in the noticeboard) I will accept temp ban if you think it is warranted or necessary. Location (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi there. Um, it's not my call to make, and in fact I won't even go out on a limb and try to predict what will happen. But I will say that being contrite and good-natured (and I have observed such from you on the Noticeboard) will be helpful towards mitigating the situation. Thanks for not being a sorehead! That's very refreshing around here. ► Belchfire-TALK 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you did there, you turd.  ;) Have a happy New Year! Xenophrenic (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. Things got unnecessarily heated in our last exchange, especially when we're usually on the same side of issues. I apologize for my part in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ► Belchfire-TALK 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belch, you consistently make very convincing arugments on Wikipedia. More adept then most people, including myself. This is regardless of whether or not you are "right" on the content of the subject, or with regards to policy. I won't comment on the correctness of your position on content (who am I to judge you?), however you are usually correct on policy interpretation (but not always). But adding comments like The complaint about the last edit is rubbish do you no favors, make you no friends and only rachets up tension and bias towards you. I suspect you don't care about currying favor or making friends here. If so, fine. But you should care about how your demenaor affects the enviornment around you. I'm not suggesting you stop being blunt and start suffering fools (of which there are plenty following your every move), but try and give editors whom you have not interacted with more leeway before giving them a taste of your tongue. Happy New Years.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. I appreciate your insight and your candor. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors obstructionists, edit-warriors and other general comments about the editors are not constructive. Please focus on content rather than contributors. Thanks. Insomesia (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich, coming just minutes after you post an edit summary that says: "revert edit warriors blatant attempt to stifle a perceived enemy" I mean,don't get me wrong... I appreciate that you reverted and all, but still.

Bottom line: you were editing against consensus after your arguments gained very little traction in discussion.

You first removed that material on the grounds that it wasn't sourced. Then when an incontrovertible source was produced, you claimed the source wasn't reliable. When that didn't work, you tried to claim there was no consensus to leave it in. This is called policy shopping, which is just another way of saying WP:IDHT. It's tendentious, and you needed to be stopped. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are tag-team edit warring to restore disputed content to the lead of an article. If there is consensus to restore then fine. But two against one in a very new thread was not consensus. If needed we'll keep getting more eyes on the change to see what consensus forms. I'm happy to get more editors to look over content and sourcing. In any case I see that this at ANI so perhaps others' opinions will help sway the editing there. Insomesia (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very mistaken about this being "disputed content". The content in question is attributed to a primary source, which in this case is perfectly acceptable. Your forum shopping attempt at RSN failed to garner any traction that the source is not reliable in the context provided. There was a question about one phrase, which was fixed by me and then improved upon by MrX. What we have here is a case of "I don't like it" and gaming on your part to remove content. Watch out for that boomerang.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how it's only tag-teaming when other people do it? This is further evidence of cognitive bias, IMO, which is the most charitable out of the range of possible explanations. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well familiar with WP:DATEFORMAT. Now what did you see there that justifies your edit? Debresser (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so familiar, how come you don't know that "Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros (except for the YYYY-MM-DD format)"? You've reverted that same leading zero back into the article twice now after two different editors provided you with a link to the relevant section of the MoS. Why? ► Belchfire-TALK 17:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I start to understand that we have different problems here. I have no problems with you removing the zeros. I have a problem with you deciding to use one specific dateformat, and to enforce that dateformat in the article and to even place a dateformat template atop the article. Please explain according to what part of WP:DATEFORMAT you decided to do all that? Debresser (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both formats are equally acceptable, neither is preferred per Wikipedia policy and you don't own the article.

Did you even look at the template documentation? I'm guessing you didn't. It says:

Place this template near the top of articles that use the dd mmm yyyy date format.

Wikipedia articles that use dd mmm yyyy dates, either because of the first main contributor rule or close national ties (see MOSNUM), are being systematically tagged with {{Use dmy dates}}. The template facilitates article maintenance by enabling bots to recognise use of this format and by adding the article to the hidden category Use dmy dates. The template is invisible except in edit mode.

So, you're having a fit about an invisible template that editors are supposed to add to articles in order to facilitate system maintenance. You don't have a leg to stand on here and none of this warrants a nasty-gram on my Talk page even if you did. I suggest you self-revert to clean up your errors and in the future, do a little checking before you fly off the handle. ► Belchfire-TALK 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your aggressiveness does not make you right. Including your allegation about wp:own. All the other things you write I already knew, but they do not answer the question. Why did you decide that in the specific case of the Ramadan article the dateformat should be dmy? Debresser (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you have a point. I'm grumpier than usual today and that's making it difficult for you and I to communicate. I apologize.

Honestly, I didn't realize at the time that template got caught up in the reversion. That being said, I think you'll have to admit that it doesn't affect anything tangible since it's invisible, and the instructions do say that it should be inserted into an article with that particular date format.

It matters not to me one way or the other which format is used, but the leading zeroes needed to go.

Again, sorry about the unnecessary roughness. ► Belchfire-TALK 20:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had a few rough days myself, Wikipedia-wise. :) I agree with you about the zeros, of course. As to the choice between dmy or mdy on the Ramadan article. I don't see a reason to choose between them, since 1. the article is not region-specific (if it were about England e.g., it would logically have to use dmy) 2. it is not exclusive in its usage of one specific dateformat, that we could say that the 1 or 2 exceptions must be brought into line with the rest of the article. So let's keep the status quo in that regard. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this comment was quite witty. Ankh.Morpork 19:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion on Talk. PiCo (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased with your self-revert, but did you realise your edit before that called what is obviously a content dispute vandalism? Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was inadvertent. I was in the wrong tab. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. I've done it at times - I do try to then make a null edit explaining that I hit the wrong button. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the hat! Was that a response to the post on my talk page? Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I figured the editor who was requesting help could learn by example. ► Belchfire-TALK 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenson himself has said that's what he will do as board president. It's not a violation of CRYSTAL to report that fact. 67.233.245.127 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello, Belchfire. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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.  Guerillero | My Talk 02:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm dropping these templates on the talk pages of every user who has posted at Talk:Men's rights in the last two sections. This is not meant to imply that I necessarily find any of your edits problematic, and is simply meant to inform you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call to your attention an RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I'm sorry, I think I failed to invite you to the discussion when I filed the RfC. If you notice any other potentially-interested editor that I also failed to invite I encourage you to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added to the Abraham article a few words saying that Wayne Pitard says that the purpose of oral tradition is/is not whatever. I can understand your motives, but I think it's misplaced. To say "according to Pitard" implies that Pitard invented this, but he didn't, or at least we have reason to believe that he did. No doubt it's according to someone, but we can be sure that Pitard didn't invent it.

When do we use "according to"? When there's a dispute between scholars. If X says that oral tradition is to record accurate history, and Y says it's not, then we note that an give the ascription. But when we have no reason to believe that our source is putting forward a disputed view, there's no reason to ascribe anything. PiCo (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? What edit war??? PiCo (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Pitard is wrong? His article is in the Oxford History of the Biblical World, which means that Michael Coogan, as editor, would have reviewed it and questioned anything he wasn't comfortable with. If you question the Oxford editors, you need very sound grounds.PiCo (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not read edit summaries? I'm not saying Pitard is wrong; I'm saying you are trying to make a sweeping assertion of empirical fact in Wikipedia's voice based on a single source, which is against policy. What's the problem with attribution? You need something more solid than a naked appeal to authority if you hope to be persuasive. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I'm quite satisfied with your last edit, which fixes the problem nicely. I don't see why you couldn't have come up with that when the issue was first raised. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad you're happy with that. The reason I didn't come up with it earlier is quite simple: I don't think that fast. PiCo (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do something useful, have a look at Leviticus, last para of the lead - do you agree with it or not? PiCo (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That material clearly doesn't belong in the lead. It might be OK further down in the article, but it needs better context to make it useful. Looks to me like drive-by POV-pushing. ► Belchfire-TALK 07:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thought too - in fact I don't think it belongs anywhere in that article, tho maybe some other article. But the guy won't listen to nice argument and I don't want to start a fight. (You might not believe it, but I'm actually confrontation-averse).PiCo (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Belchfire, I closed this report as no violation, but please be careful not to edit war, consider sticking to the best practices for reverting, WP:BRD. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, and thanks for your due diligence in determining that the content dispute was settled amicably here. If you'd like to know more about the user who filed the EW report without bothering to notify me, you may find this to be an interesting read. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please try to keep your edit summaries civil and focused on content, not behavior? I think it would make for a more collegial editing environment. Many thanks. - MrX 15:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary was focused on content. Could you please keep your own edits compliant with policy and consensus? That would be helpful to the project. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that "revert edit warrior" is helpful to the project?

I'm happy to discuss the merits of my edits on the article talk page. If you think my behavior is problematic, then I'm all ears. - MrX 15:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify: Are you endorsing edit-warring behavior in general, or only when it supports your preferred POV?

No, of course not. But the editor made one revert, which is hardly edit warring. Also, I think there's a benefit to providing guidance to IP editors, rather than simply reverting them without any kind of message on their talk page. - MrX

The editor made the exact same edit twice in a row, with only one other edit intervening:

[13] "Agreed referance"

[14] "summary fit, best place move not remove"

This is edit-warring, any way you slice it. Then you come along and repeat the edit without joining the ongoing discussion. What conclusion about your behavior should an observer draw from this? ► Belchfire-TALK 22:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say your behavior was an issue; I addressed your edit, which is precisely what you just exhorted me to do. Speaking of the article Talk page, I don't see you participating in the discussion about the material you just inserted. Why not?

I haven't yet, but I will. - MrX

Several editors have expressed in edit summaries that the content you just inserted doesn't belong in the lead per policy and per questionable relevance. But you just reverted it back in the article with the excuse that you didn't like an edit summary. Now you're lecturing me about policy. That's rich. ► Belchfire-TALK 15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I reverted it because it was sourced, and in my opinion, relevant and notable. - MrX 16:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - MrX 17:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring at The Bible and homosexuality. I strongly urge you to self-revert and stop edit warring to force your preferred content into the article. More alarmingly, you continue to remove properly sourced content for reasons that seem to suggest that you are trying to inject your own POV into the article against consensus. This pattern of editing in disruptive, tendentious and harms the project. Please rectify this situation and kindly stop it. Thank you. - MrX 04:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to rectify; my edit was perfectly appropriate. Your content may be sourced, but sourcing does not equal relevance and what you are trying to add has no place within the subject matter of the article. It's simple POV-cruft. I offered a suggestion as to where the material might be appropriate - if you feel so strongly that it belongs in Wikipedia, why don't you put it there? ► Belchfire-TALK 04:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early Christianity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoebe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked you for your edit warring on The Bible and homosexuality. Since you have a history of edit warring, I've escalated the length of the block to one month. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference the report is here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - MrX 01:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For continuing to create socks, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Male Rape of Females and Pregnancy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 13#Male Rape of Females and Pregnancy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. AFreshStart (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]