User talk:USCentrist

Recent edit to Natural-born-citizen clause
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Natural-born-citizen clause, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you!  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Arun Kumar SINGH, I did EXACTLY as you requested and it still got removed. That page needs to be removed. It's full of political hacks that are trying to hide the facts for some reason.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Since you are new, I wanted to inform you about Wikipedia's three-revert rule, which basically says that if you make same edit three times within a 24-hour period, your account could be suspended or even banned. Rather than repeatedly making the same edit, you should go to the article's talk page to discuss why your edits are being reverted. (I can tell you, however, this particular edit already been discussed extensively.) --Weazie (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Further, our edit-warring policy says that if you repeatedly make the same change to an article, even when it's clear that others disagree with your change, you can be blocked for "edit warring", even if your editing doesn't violate the aforementioned "three-revert rule". Even if you are convinced that your change is write and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, that is still not a good enough excuse for edit warring.


 * I would also urge you to read the old, archived content of this article's talk page (Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause) and get a feel for the kinds of things that have been brought up in the past. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Richwales, thanks for the heads up. I had no idea my first post was walking right into an editing war. Further research leads me to believe that there are many people fully engaged in trying to push misinformation on that page for the left wing of our government. Makes me wonder what they are trying to cover up. That page should be removed. No doubt about it.USCentrist (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Another rule on Wikipedia includes civility, which requires you to assume good faith about other editors. Accusations that other editors are agents "push[ing] misinformation" will not be allowed, even if made on your own talk page.  --Weazie (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Natural-born-citizen clause article discusses numerous opinions regarding the meaning of the phrase. Although most of these comments lean toward the view that anyone born in the US (regardless of the status of their parents) qualifies as a "natural-born" citizen, not all of the included comments agree with this interpretation.  Our responsibility as Wikipedia editors is to report what the sources say — and if the sources disagree, we are required to note the disagreement and report all significant views without trying to choose which one (if any) of the various views is correct (read the Neutral Point of View policy, WP:NPOV).


 * And when existing material takes two or more differing opinions, it is almost never proper to change the article to state that one specific position is obviously the only correct one. Even if you believe the one and only true meaning of a primary source (such as a quotation from the Constitution or a statute) is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the text with an open mind, you cannot say this on your own authority (because of the No Original Research policy, WP:NOR).  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)