Welcome!

Hello, Heqwm2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Boy Scouts of America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dreadstar † 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Boy Scouts of America has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Josh3580_talk/hist 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Boy Scouts of America constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. Josh3580_talk/hist 00:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by to say I've reviewed some of your edits and agree they are unconstructive and would strongly urge you to review things like our sourcing and neutral point of view policies. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Boy Scouts of America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CardinalDan (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Boy Scouts of America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. CardinalDan (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for edit warring on Boy Scouts of America. Dreadstar † 21:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to actually present a justification for this block?Heqwm2 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. You have been blocked for edit warring and WP:3RR on Boy Scouts of America. You were warned but continued to edit war, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. WP:3RR is not an entitlement and "The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring"

I strongly suggest that you discuss your proposed edits to the article on the talk page an refrain from further edit warring. Dreadstar † 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not violate 3RR. As for edit warring, you are simply begging the question. I discussed my edits in the talk page, while the person reverting my edits did not, and instead engaged in extremely uncivil behavior. Did you block him as well?69.107.109.244 (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing reverts on the talk page does not excuse edit warring. If you supply diffs of this other editor's uncivil behavior, I'll be happy to review them to see if action is warranted. You were edit warring against at least three other editors, not just one. Dreadstar † 10:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am discussing edits on the talk page, and another editor reverts my edits without discussing them, it's rather ridiculous to accuse ME of edit warring. CardinalDan referred to me edits as "vandalism", when they quite clearly were not. Right here on my talk page, you can see him engaging in outright attempts to intimidate me into not editing: "Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Boy Scouts of America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia."Heqwm2 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Aparent Vandalism by CardinalDan deleted]Heqwm2 (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Roman Catholic Church. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Marauder40 (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Roman Catholic Church, you will be blocked from editing. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if I edit articles, I will be blocked from editing articles. You're an ass.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added the quote "In recent years, the Church has participated in slavery and rape." to an article that is up for FA status without any cites. That is extermemly unconstructive.Marauder40 (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC) I have been told that the lead section doesn't need cites. Are you seriously claiming that the RCC has NOT participated in rape and slavery?Heqwm2 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read articles concerning balanced POV and other related articles. To add a "contraversial" statement like you did, you need to cite it. If you have a problem with my edit, submit it to arbitration. Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heqwm2. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Searson (talk • contribs) 00:35, October 22, 2008 (UTC)

And what is this but a comment on me, a contributor? Your CONTENT is hypocritical, dishonest, and uncivil. If you're going to write blatant lies, I'm going to comment on that. If you feel attacked by me complaining about your blatantly dishonest CONTENT, then stop engaging in incivility.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your putting threats on my user page that imply blatantly false claims. I demand an apology.Heqwm2 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will not receive one. Your accusations of lying are personal attacks. I have now warned you that if you continue to make such personal attacks in violation of policy, you will be blocked. Heed the warning or not; your choice. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that wikipedia policy prohibits editors from asserting that a claim in an article is a lie is absurd. The policy says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." I commented on the article's content. You are now using my comments on the ARTICLE to justify at personal attack against me. Your claim that I am engaging in personal attacks is insulting and disparaging. That page also says "There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Now, you have made an accusation about my behavior that lacks evidence. You have presented no example of me making a personal attack. Apologize or I will pursue disciplinary action against you.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that something that someone has added to an article is a lie, you are in fact accusing the editor of lying. That is a personal attack. Don't do that. Oh, by the way, wikilawyering doesn't help. -- Donald Albury 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone has reverted to a lie is not the same as accusing them of lying. The personal attacks page specifically says to comment on the article. That's what I did. I'm not "wikilawyering" (and you are violating the AGF rule by implying that I am); if I look at a statement in a wikipedia article, and say that it is a lie, how can I be making a personal attack when I don't even know who the original author is? An attack maybe, but it most certainly is not "personal". Accusing someone of lying is making a claim about their state of mind, and I made a statement specifically about the article, not about the editor's state of mind. Now, either you are saying that I can't claim that someone's edit contains false information, or you are saying that I can say that someone else's edit contains a false statement, but not that it contains a lie. If the latter, which of us is splitting hairs? And what, exactly, is the line? Can I say that a statement is "false to a degree that is inconsistent with honesty"? "Wildly at variance with the facts"? And does KillerChihuahua somehow have the right to rule on what the rule means and threaten me with blocking if I don't agree?Heqwm2 (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would be much better off pointing out how reliable sources contradict something you think is wrong. The first words of our policy on verifiability are, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The problem is that one person's 'lie' is another person's 'truth'. Therefore, we go by what has been published by reliable sources. If a statement is not supported by a reliable source, it does not belong in Wikipedia. If a statement is supported by a reliable source, it may be used in Wikipedia, as long as other policies and guidelines are met and there is consensus (explicit or implicit) that it belongs in Wikipedia. If reliable sources disagree on a subject, we follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (The three pillars of Wikipedia are verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research.) To repeat, we do not deal in 'truths' and 'lies' in Wikipedia, we deal in what is verifiable from reliable sources. -- Donald Albury 10:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have been here for over a year, and have a numerous history of warnings on your talk page. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I encourage you to familiarize yourself with our basic, core policies, such as WP:CS and WP:NPOV. It is entirely inappropriate to add contentious, unsource, controversial opinions to articles, and present them as facts. For statements that are controversial, or not one sided, you need to present them in a manner, and attribute who holds those opinions, and most importantly, cite a source. Adding personal beliefs, without citation, to articles is never appropriate. If you have questions about this, feel free to ask. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have looked at my history, then you should know that I don't have much patience for ideologues who censor my edits while pretending to be upholding WP policies, or who come to my talk page to cite WP policies in a manner that strongly implies that I am violating them, without presenting any case in which I have done so. The WP policies clearly state, and basic civility suggests, that you put a ^{[citation needed]} tag on it a claim that you wish to see supported, rather than summarily deleting it. And if you're going to make a claim, or strongly imply one, on my talk page, you should actually have some facts to back it up.Heqwm2 (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel odd justifying myself to you, but ok, here is my case (I do this to help you because you seem ignorant of basic policies). You added unsourced contentious material to an article multiple times. Therefore, you violated WP:CS. From the intro to WP:CS, When to cite sources: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image.. You added material that was challenged. You didn't cite a source, even though you restored it, now twice. About {{fact}} tags, If a claim is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. As I mentioned, your edit was POV. Your edit contained the phrase "that refer to themselves as "pro-life"", which included not only scare quotes, but is phrased in a manner which implies that they are not actually pro-life, when it is clearly verifiable that the Catholic Church is officially "pro-life".(i.e. [9]) Then you introduced two contentious, unsourced claims "despite their efficacy in reducing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions." You have not demonstrated, nor cited that these methods reduce unwanted pregnancies, nor have you demonstrated that reducing unwanted pregnancies reduces abortion. It's original research and downright absurd to draw so many conclusions from the text, with no further citations. Your entire sentence served the purpose to debase/belittle the Catholic Church, while pushing the POV that your preferred methods of reducing abortion is superior (without support) than others. There is no reason for such attacks and unsourced claims to stay in the article. It shows bad faith on your part that you a) didn't attempt to dialog with the party disagreeing with your edits and b) you'd rather edit war than make attempts to address any of these concerns (which stem from basic wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and citing sources), and then to go off personally attacking my character here on your talk page.

Have you ever read WP:BRD? It presents a straight forward approach to editing and content disputes. It is always, always fine to make bold new edits, but if an editor reverts you, NEVER restore the material (something you have done twice already, and if continued, will lead to WP:3RR violations). Instead, take you proposal to the talk page, and start a dialog with others. Through the discussion, you may reach a common ground, or a compromise, or change minds, and improve the article in a manner which satisfies all parties. It is never, ever appropriate to edit war, nor are you exempt from making neutral, well sourced edits. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If a claim is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense." Are you seriously claiming that the claim is "harmful"? Are you using your common sense when you dispute the claims that using contraceptives reduces unwanted pregnancies, and that reducing unwanted pregnancies reduces abortions? What's next, are you going to ask for a cite for the claim that the sky is blue? "As I mentioned, your edit was POV." No, it wasn't. "Your edit contained the phrase 'that refer to themselves as "pro-life"', which included not only scare quotes, but is phrased in a manner which implies that they are not actually pro-life, when it is clearly verifiable that the Catholic Church is officially "pro-life".(i.e. [9])" You need to review the concepts of "fact" and "opinion". Contraception reduces abortions: fact. The Catholic Church is pro-life: opinion. I don't care if you have a cite claiming that the Catholic Church is pro-life, it's still an opinion. If you can provide a cite claiming that the Beatles were the best rock band ever, it's still an opinion. "Then you introduced two contentious, unsourced claims 'despite their efficacy in reducing unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.' You have not demonstrated, nor cited that these methods reduce unwanted pregnancies, nor have you demonstrated that reducing unwanted pregnancies reduces abortion." Anyone who has been paying attention to the issue is aware of studies showing the efficacy of contraception, and the idea that the claim that reducing unwanted pregnancies reduces abortion needs a citation is just absurd. You are clearly just being obstructionist. "It's original research and downright absurd to draw so many conclusions from the text, with no further citations." I'm not drawing it from the text, I'm drawing it from widespread scientific knowledge. "Your entire sentence served the purpose to debase/belittle the Catholic Church," If the Catholic Church finds the fact that it engages in policies which obviously result in more abortions debasing, then they should stop engaging in those policies, instead of trying to censor mention of those policies. Simply because a fact reflects unfavorably upon a group, that does not mean that that fact violates NPOV. "while pushing the POV that your preferred methods of reducing abortion is superior (without support) than others." That contraception and sex education is more efficacious than abstinence-only policies is not a "POV", it is a fact. "It shows bad faith on your part" You just violated AGF. "a) didn't attempt to dialog with the party disagreeing with your edits" Pot, kettle. "b) you'd rather edit war than make attempts to address any of these concerns (which stem from basic wikipedia policies of neutral point of view and citing sources)" All of my edits up this point have been prior to you making any effort to PRESENT these concerns. YOU would rather edit war than have a polite discussion. "to go off personally attacking my character here on your talk page." Again, pot kettle.Heqwm2 (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to discuss your specific proposals on the article's talk page (not here though). Make sure to bring sources to the discussion! In the future, generally speaking, please try to recognize that "commons sense" and "widespread scientific knowledge" still needs citations if the material is contentious and/or disputed. Please try to recognize that it is not helpful to add unsourced, contentious material to articles. Please try to recognize that edit warring is a form of disruptive editing. And please try to recognize the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you disagree with these basic points, or if you believe I am not an impartial party here, or you think I have abused my editing privileges or administrator privileges in any way, I'd be more than welcome for an independent review of the situation. WP:ANI or WP:30 are both good venues for such a request. See you on Talk:Pro-life. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Censorship. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Saddhiyama (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have not presented any case for it being an inappropriate edit. Second, your revert restored the use of an incorrect homophone for "rein". You might want to actually read an edit before reverting it.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the campaign finance reform is restricting freedom of speech is soapboxing because it is stating as fact what is only a point of view. You could just as well have written that the CFR is not restricting freedom of speech, that would have been equally soapboxing. Instead a feasible way to add the information would be writing something like "some critics of the campaign finance reform holds the view that..." and then of course back it up with reliable sources. And by the way you might have corrected one spelling error but you replaced it with another, so that kind of even things out don't you think?. Incidentally noone is stopping you from fixing the spelling error in another edit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is speech that is restricted by finance reform. That is not a "point of view", that is fact. Whether such speech is speech that a person has a right to engage in would be an opinion, but I did not say that CFR restricts the right to free speech, I simply stated that it restricts speech. If stating that CFR is censorship is "soapboxing", then so is saying that anything else is censorship.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section where you are adding this is not a section for specifics from a single country, it contains brief overall definitions of the various types of censorship. The campaign finance reform is already mentioned in the descriptive section below that contains specific examples of political censorship in various countries. Since you have still not provided any sources for your claim I have added a citation needed to that section as well as reworded it to NPOV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Censorship, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one violating NPOV. As well as WP:CIVIL.Heqwm2 (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have explained to you why your edit is inappropriate. I would suggest you drop the edit-war before you get blocked. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Censorship. Alan (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC) No, no one has explained why my edit is inappropriate. That is a false statement. A false statement that you have no reasonable basis for believing. I would put that more concisely, but apparently speaking directly about such matters is considered against the rules. If you have a problem with my edits, you should try to discuss the matter with me, rather trying to bullying me into submission.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have tried to explain this to you, in the section above this one and on Talk:Censorship#Facts are not "personal analysis". --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heqwm2. You have new messages at N5iln's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Keeling Curve, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that a graph doesn't start at zero is original research? That's absurd. Should I just delete the Keeling curve graphic, since having just the cropped version is obviously a violation of NPOV?Heqwm2 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sorry but you don't seem to have an understanding of this (no offense). If actual data was cropped and not shown that may be a problem. But both curves, the one in wikipedia and yours show the same data. There is no extra information by showing the axis go all the way to zero. Likewise I could ask, why does the axis stop at 450, not 1000? 2000? Do you get my point? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the relative change was about one third of the total amount was not shown by the graph. Simply because information can be INFERRED from the graph does not mean that the graph SHOWS the data. If they show the same data, why is it original research to mention that data? Starting at zero is a natural, nonarbitrary point. The graph is supposed to represent the data, and the data is that the value on the right is about a third higher than the data on the left. And yet, the height on the right is not one third higher than the height on the left. The current graph is deliberately presented to amplify the apparent size of the effect. That is not NPOV.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attention to detail, but please look more carefully at the Keeling graph. The Y axis gives the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere measured in parts-per-million. In 1958, when the Keeling study began, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 316 ppm. That's why the graph starts there. It could only "start at zero" if there had been no CO2 in the atmosphere when the measurements began.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in regards to the Keeling Curve article: That web sight from which you offered an alternative graph, pbase.com, it would not be considered a reliable source for much of anything, let alone any scientific data.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary is blatantly uncivil, especially since you apparently not only don't know how to spell "website", but don't know the difference between a GRAPH starting at zero and a CURVE starting at zero. The GRAPH should start at zero because then the distance from the x-axis actually represent a physical quantity. This is basic graphics, and the fact that you don't understand it shows that you are the one that needs to take a science class. As for the reliability of the website, either you can show that it is wrong, or not. This isn't something we need to trust the website for.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? Me (SPLETTE) or CurtisSwain? You complain about my uncivil edit summary while at the same time calling me an 'asshole' and making fun of Curtis' spelling? That is not very helpful. And you may realize that not all of us are native English speakers. Anyway, you still didn't get the point about the graph. Where did you get the idea that the graph is distorted from in the first place? Is it your original research or do you have any reliable sources that support your claims? If you feel so strongly about the Keeling Curve I suggest you discuss this issue at the article talk page. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want me to mention your incivility, don't be uncivil. How does the fact that you're uncivil give Curtis license to put a personal attack in his edit summary? I did not make fun of his spelling, I simply pointed it out. And don't pretend that just because I disagree with someone doesn't mean I don't get them. My claim is not that it's distorted, it's that it is cropped. That is obvious to anyone with any sense, and your disputing it makes it clear that you are not arguing in good faith.Heqwm2 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please enlighten me. Where did Curtis put a personal attack in his edit summary? I can't find it. He strikes me as one of the most civil editors around here. And why then did you point out his spelling mistake in the first place if not to discredit him? Where did I get the idea that the graph is distorted? Actually from your edit summary here [10] which reads 'graph distortion'. So you explain me. Oh and concerning the assumption of good faith: I find it difficult, given the fact that virtually every single message other editors left on your talk page is a complain, warning, block notice and the like. And to finally come back to the point. If it is so obvious that the curve is cropped, why can't you come up with any reliable source to point that out? Or for starters, with any source at all? Even a quick google search on 'cropped "keeling curve"' (KC in quotes) returns just a handful of hits and as far as I can see none about your claimed cropping. Regards, SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did get confused between you and Curtis. It was such edit summaries of yours as "Take a science class. The is nothing cropped off" and "Nonsense" that I was thinking of. I apologize to him for getting confused. I have no need to present a RS to defend my edit summaries. If we are discussing my edit summaries, then cries of "original research" are not a legitimate criticism. Most people don't post on any talk page unless they have some sort of complaint, and the fact that there are people who don't like me doesn't mean I'm not acting in good faith. As for why there is so little on the internet regarding the cropping of the Keeling curve, I believe this reflects the general unwillingness to be critical of anything that supports global warming.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that you have to justify your edit summaries with reliable sources, of course (I was just explaining why I said 'distorted graph'). But you do need reliable sources for your edits. I am sure you are aware of blogs like 'Watt's up with that'. They are not reliable of course but sceptical of global warming. Not even they suggest that the Keeling Curve is cropped (at least I couldn't find something when I had a brief look). So, either you have just found something that thousands of scientists and a bunch of very vocal climate sceptics have overlooked - or - you are might be simply wrong. Seriously, just out of curiosity, did you come up with this yourself or did you get this idea from somewhere? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Heterosexism. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. by---->Javierito92 (Talk to me) 18:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm getting REALLY tired of trying to deal with... people with no sense of civility, and trying to come up with a circuituous way of discussing their... lack of civility without being accused of being uncivil myself. And I really don't feel like doing it. Either discuss my edits politely, or piss off.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Employee Free Choice Act. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hrs to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Employee Free Choice Act. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rd232 ^talk 09:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block length is also slightly influenced by your incivility here. This is unacceptable. See WP:CIVIL. Rd232 ^talk 09:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your edit warring at Heterosexism and Employee Free Choice Act. I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for 3RR violations. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Heterosexism. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heqwm2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have tried again and again to discuss the issue on the talk page. The other editors have either reverted me without responding, or responded with simple declarations that they disagree with me, without any justification for their position. They are the ones violating the edit war rules, not me. The items in question were claims that were completely unsupported by citations. Dr. enh has repeatedly tried to add them, despite being made aware of the lack of citation, and that constitutes vandalism. The message that you are sending is that one can simply ignore the basic tenets of verifiability and civility as long as you have admins in your corner. The version that Dr. enh reverted to says "It would take away employers' present ability to decide whether to use only the card-check process or to hold a secret-ballot election among employees in a particular bargaining unit, and instead give the right to the employees to choose a secret-ballot election in cases where less than a majority of employees has chosen to unionize through card-check." Can you seriously say that isn't a blatant violation of what wikipedia supposedly stands for? Notice how it uses "ability" for the employers, and "right" for employees. That's blatant POV. It says it would "give" something that employees ALREADY HAVE. That's a blatant violation of verifiability (the very cite used for support says the opposite of what the WP article says). The WP article says that "employees" would be given the choice, when in fact the union would be given the choice. And the response to these sort of charges is not to discuss the issue on the talk page, but to run to an admin and have me blocked for daring to challenge their pro-union propaganda. And I'm edit warring?

Decline reason:

You weren't blocked for being "on the wrong side" you were blocked for edit warring. In the future consider requesting page protection instead. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heqwm2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unless Dr enh, whose behavior is more egregious than mine, is blocked as well, there is clear favoritism. Furthermore, you are being inconsistent as to the reason for the block. Here, you cite only my edits at the heterosexism page, yet elsewhere it is claimed that this is for my edits at the EFCA page. The edits at the heterosexism that were cited as supposed 3RR violation consisted of three edits over a 21 hour period, so simply by inspection, Dr enh's claim of 3RR violation was false (and somehow, Seraphimblade is using my pointing this out as some sort of evidence that I think that 3 reverts are an "entitlement"). Now, my edit was reverted on the supposed basis that it had bad grammar (and I say "supposed" because obviously, if that were the true reason, the editor would have simply changed the grammar rather than reverting). I fixed the grammar in the edit, and it was reverted again anyway. So, that is the basis for the charge of "edit warring" on the heterosexism page. I made an edit, it was reverted on the alleged grounds that it had bad grammar, I fixed the grammar, it was reverted, and I unreverted. This seems to be a popular trick for editors to use: revert one of my edits on some pretext, then when I address that pretext, count the edit in which I addressed the pretext as a "revert". I made, at most, two reverts over 21 hours. And the reverts were to remove a claim that I had clearly identified as unsourced, and which other editors had, in contempt of basic WP policies, re-added. Furthermore, for the second one, I put in the edit summary "Deleted unsourced claim once again. You do this again, I'll pursue admin action." Clearly, I was planning on pursuing dispute resolution procedures, and was simply giving other editors one last chance to back off before escalating the situation. For that, I get blocked. What, am I supposed to start a report on ANI every single time someone reverts one my edits? I was trying to be reasonable, and you're punishing me for it.

Decline reason:

I stopped reading after the first sentence. Please read WP:NOTTHEM and try again.  Sandstein  07:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I strongly advise you stop the edit warring. From your comment at WP:AN3, it seems you believe that 3 reverts are an entitlement. That is not correct, edit warring is not acceptable behavior at all, and you have had ample notice of that. If your edits are not accepted, take your case to the talk page or dispute resolution, do not keep making them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a definition is in a dictionary does not mean that's what the word means. --Heqwm2 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from [[11]]. What more is there to say? Until you desist in your bare assertion fallacies, I don't see how I can have any sort of discussion with you. --Dr.enh (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to have a discussion with me, then you forfeit your right to revert my edits. You are the one engaging in fallacies, not me.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your trolling (making hetereosexist remarks on the talk page for heterosexism) as per WP:CIVIL. --Dr.enh (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to someone as a troll simply because they don't agree with you is the violation of WP:CIVIL, not my actions. I haven't deleted anything on a talk page, even on my own talk page, but I'm thinking that I should start.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heterosexism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed WP:ANEW#User:Heqwm2 reported by User:Dr.enh (Result: stale), as you have not edited that article in several hours and are engaging in discussion at the talkpage. I recommend that you start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies if you cannot reach accord there. Please wait for consensus at the talkpage before making further controversial changes to the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Cognizable offense. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I created the page. How could I discuss the creation of a page on the talk page of a page that doesn't exist? Your advice is contrary to WP:BOLD, and bizarre, since you did not seem to have a problem with the Cognizable offence article.Heqwm2 (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Sectarianism, you will be blocked from editing. Nate • (chatter) 11:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with my edits, the place to discuss them is on the talk page of the article in question. No one has responded to my comment that I made in August. That's plenty of time for anyone who objects to discuss it.Heqwm2 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Further material on this matter deleted.]Heqwm2 (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no forgery. That user was clearly only attempting to separate a topic from another topic and there is latitude to streamline conversations to make talk pages easier to follow. Your comment was not altered in any way except to line it up at the beginning of the section. Please stop accusing others of stalking and collaborate rather than edit war. Thank you Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that I wrote something that I did not write is forgery. Anyone reading the talk page would think that I was the one who started the section and was failing to respond, when in fact I had no idea the section existed. I am not the one edit warring. Reverting without discussing it on the talk page in edit warring. Starting a whole new section, rather than not responding to previous comments where those comments were made, and not even mentioning in the original place that you are responding somewhere else, is edit warring. Pretty much every dispute Dr.enh is involved with, he either doesn't discuss it at all on the talk page, or he engages in evasive crap like this that is "technically" responding on the talk page. ("Ooh, look, I responded to your comments. I just hid my response somewhere you didn't think to look.") How can I collaborate with someone who has no interest in respectful discussion? How is it not stalking to follow someone around and revert edits simply because that person has made them?Heqwm2 (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the page history. Indeed you did write what was moved to it's own heading without any refactoring. Simply stated, there was no forgery at all, just an attempt to streamline conversation, which is perfectly fine under talk page guidelines. As you have once again taken to blanking page content on the article once again and violating the three-revert rule, I have no choice but to pursue a block. Nate • (chatter) 08:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgery is forgery. I did not write what was claimed I wrote. That is forgery. And I did not violate the 3RR. Now, what wikipedia rule have a broken?Heqwm2 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started an entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard , since you people seem completely unwilling to be reasonable.

And "vandalism"? You owe me an apology for that baseless insult.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Heqwm2. You have new messages at Jauerback's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You come here, you threaten me, you make baseless accusations, you give me absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and you call that a warning? No, that's not a warning. That's you being an asshole.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have a track record of edit warring. You've been blocked four times for it already. I didn't block you based on who's content was correct, who had sources, and who didn't. That's called a content dispute, which doesn't require admin intervention. The way you fix that is through discussion with the other editors involved. You were blocked, because you were fighting to have your version of the content through edit warring by continuing to revert to your preferred version. That's against policy. It's as plain and simple is that. Stop reverting other editor's changes and continue to discuss your justification for your content on the appropriate talk pages until you can reach a consensus. Continue to edit war, and you'll be continually blocked from editing. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have a track record of people accusing me of edit warring. I did try to have a discussion. Dr.enh refused to participate. So why am I the one blocked? He is the one who is edit warring.

And it's "whose", not "who's".Heqwm2 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming others for your actions and personally attacking them as you did above isn't going to help your case. Judging from the amount of attention you're getting and your lack of comprehension of what you're doing wrong, I don't forsee you having a long future editing Wikipedia. Hopefully, you'll prove me wrong. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not blaming others for my actions. It's rather hypocritical to be baldly misrepresenting me and yet accuse me of personal attacks. I do not see how my behavior is edit warring while Dr.enh's is not. That is not "blaming" him. That is me expressing confusion as to what constitutes "edit warring". Now, are you going to engage in discussion of these issues, or are you simply going to threaten me with blocks without making any attempt to clarify the standards?

As for "personally attacking", I simply made a factual statement: Dr.enh refused to participate in the discussion. Is making factual statements a "personal attack"?

You making false accusations against me is a personal attack.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, instead of focusing on your own personal behavior, you're questioning others' behavior. This discussion is about you, not other editors. Justifying bad behavior with other possible bad behavior is not an excuse. I never said you personally attacked me in this discussion, but you've attacked others in other discussions. There are examples of such in the discussion below. Heck, you used a personal attack immediately in the discussion above. Also, there are no threats of a block, just warnings that continuing on with your current behavior are likely to lead to one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Heqwm2#January_2010_2. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please do not swear at other users. Even if you didn't do vandalism, swearing at another user is not a good way to talk to that user, and attacking other users will not be tolerated. Thank you for understanding. Hadger 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With your block record, your accusations against others for edit warring when you're doing it yourself, and most seriously your personal attacks against other users, I'm making this your final warning — you will be blocked if you continue to make any more personal attacks. Moreover, although another revert at Political censorship will not push you over 3RR, you're at risk of being blocked for disruption for edit warring — as WP:3RR states, "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring...whether or not 3RR has been breached." Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What definition of "personal attack" are you using, that it includes my behavior?Heqwm2 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one or that one? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 09:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism and Disruptive Editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ASTILY ^(TALK) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Heqwm2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is outrageous. Every single one of my edits has been in good faith. Accusing me of "vandalism" is a blatant violation of civility. Furthermore, in the interval between Fastily's "warning" and my block, I made only six edits. Four of those were to me own talk page, and two of them were to the Edit Warring report that I created. I made no edit of actual articles. So... I am disrupting wikipedia by leaving comments on my own talk page and my own Edit Warring report? Balderdash. Fastily accused me of making personal attacks, and is now blocking me for disputing that accusation.

Decline reason:

I've reviewed this talk page and your most recent contributions. I agree that 'vandalism' does not accurately describe the edits I saw. However, it appears that you participate in Wikipedia primarily for the purpose of adding your own point of view to articles, and that you repeatedlly undo the edits of those who disagree with you. As I look at your talk page, I see that there are years of warnings pointing out the rules to you, so I know you have had a chance to become familiar with them. There's nothing in your unblock request indicating that you have any plan to edit differently in the future. Given that you appear either to be unable to understand the rules, or unwilling to follow them, I cannot see why unblocking you would be good for Wikipedia. In fact, I'm amazed that you weren't indefinitely blocked much earlier. Very few editors with editing patterns like this make it even six months before the indefinite block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.