User talk:Belchfire/Archive 2

Your submission at Articles for creation

Tacoma Speedway, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

-- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Focus on the Family". Thank you. --Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tasitolu

Hello Belchfire! When was Tasitolu changed to a national park? Do you have a source? AFAIK there are still only plans to create a national park, although they build aluxury hotel there. Greetings, --J. Patrick Fischer (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See the DYK nom, its a new article not a 5 times expansion article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Waring

Please do not edit out what over dozens of referances show. You are trying to injet your POV in Viloation of Wikipedia standards. I also see you have been editing without even going to TALK, another basic standard of Wikipedia. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring consensus and... projecting your own nonsense onto others. Your edits aren't likely to survive the day, so I hope they make you feel good about yourself while they last. Cheers. Belchfire (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And where is this consensus? If you had even looked in the Talk section you would have seen the only references are supportive of the anti-gay title. You have not posted even once in TALK and provided no references. I have asked a Admin to look into this as you are not editing in Good Faith and have not even posted in talk, let alone added any good references. 216.81.94.68 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

While I have no strong personal opinion about the above user's changes to the article, you were very close to a 3RR violation by some's standards. Please try to keep this in mind and ask for another editor to review if you're unsure about a second or third reversion. Best, Blurpeace 14:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To give you additional caution, I will add that a user who has had prior blocks for edit warring should have gotten the message already, and will no longer get three free swings at the bat. In other words, you don't need to exceed three reverts to be blocked for edit warring. So please take care. While WP:BRD is neither an official policy or guideline, the long-timers and admins on Wikipedia generally adhere to it as if it were policy, so please read it over and do your best. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all the same, but I'll take the 48-hour block that was put on the IP user as a more concrete indication of how admins viewed this situation. I think I made it pretty clear to anybody watching that I was washing my hands of the situation. Belchfire (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For Defending wikipedia from bias on the Chick-fil-A page Algonquin7 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Focus on specifics?

It looks like your recent work at the FOTF article has been good! FYI: your last edit at the Talk page here could be perceived as a bit snarky. You might want to replace it with some positively-worded, constructive thoughts on specific wordings etc. The other editors seem to be taking a better attitude, and we should all do what we can to help that momentum keep going. --Noleander (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Belchfire (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Chickfila, Winshape". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.94.73 (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Equality Matters

Sorry if I'm being a bit obtuse, but I'm rather at a loss at what you're requesting with this edit [1] in Chick-fil-A. Equality Matters is already wikilinked for those who don't know about that organisation. So what needs 'elucidation'? Alfietucker (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for an explanatory phrase that helps the reader understand more about EM - who they are and their motivations. The narrative should stand on its own and it shouldn't be necessary to follow the wikilink unless a reader wants more in-depth knowledge. I would have added something myself, but you're doing a fine job on the article so I thought it better to make the suggestion and let you proceed on your own. Belchfire (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine - though I suspect some elucidation might equally be needed for those organisations listed by EM, with appropriate citations as per WP:REF. Alfietucker (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. It doesn't have to be long or involved, just an aside will do. I'm just pointing out that the story should make sense to somebody with no prior knowledge, and since I'd never heard of EM before a couple of days ago, that part jumped out at me as something that needs attention. Belchfire (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Much as I dislike your politics...

I have to agree that you're generally working for the good of the encyclopedia. However, this diff is not even close to qualifying. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Sarek. I respect your opinion as a veteran Wikipedian, even if I do strongly disagree. That heading is robustly supported by the contents of the article section, and strongly supported by the sources used in that section, as well. If you are unable to see that for yourself, I'm can only conclude it is your own politics that is clouding your judgment. Belchfire (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice Requested

Hi Algonquin here sombody named Aethersniper started an SPI investigation into me saying I'm Mantion I have not been editing wikipedia that long and the charges are horsefeathers should I be worried and is there anything I should do since I have never had to deal with this before here is a link to the SPI

Algonquin7 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know that much about SPIs here on Wikipedia, but if you aren't guilty I'd say you don't have too much to be concerned about. Belchfire (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Great news the two administrators who have commented have said a Checkuser is not even necessary, thanks for answering my question by the way. Already I can see being an editor who is willing to call out liberal bias on wikipedia is going to be a chore, keep up the good fight Belchfire I would say if William F. Buckeley was alive today he would probably let your write at the National Review as for me I would be lucky if he even let me sweep up the place, your fan Algonquin7 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah sheez, don't lay it on thick or anything.  :-) Yeah, it is a chore, but the truth is important. Keep in mind what some famous dude once said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Or something like that. Belchfire (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in other news... all 3 IPs (so far) belonging to our angry friend at the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security have been blocked for 72 hours. Now maybe the rest of us can get something done. Dontcha feel better knowing that guys like that are keeping us safe from terrorists? Belchfire (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Another fan here. That officially makes it a club, <grin>. That famous dude who the quote is attributed to is Edmund Burke, most notable for being the patron of WP:WikiProject Conservatism. To a much lesser extent, he is also known as the father of conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs. Thank you. 72Dino (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Please trim your opening statement at DRN to less than 2000 characters - it helps volunteers review the situation in a more timely manner - thanks :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 20:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have that done for you directly. Belchfire-TALK 20:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Sorry, I know it's long, but I believe context is important. It is now:

• Prose size (text only): 1968 B (312 words) "readable prose size"

Hopefully that works better for you. Belchfire-TALK 21:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks - I've also moved your comment from the discussion section to the opening statement bit - the discussion section is used once the thread is opened. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 21:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hi. I was wondering if you could sign your name on talk pages after starting discussions. Thanks. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. Belchfire-TALK 23:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, I just can't tell who said what when it's blank. Have a good day. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your side of the story will be greatly appreciated, and you also have a comment on the talk page involved to respond to. As a DRN volunteer, ~~Ebe123~~ → report 15:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Rjanag's talk page.

Thanks

I appreciate the hatting and the kind words. Unfortunately you seem to have inadvertently hatted the RFC as well and I can't for the life of me figure out where the problem is. I'm guessing it's an unclosed tag somewhere but I'm not seeing it. Any ideas? Sædon^talk 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a helluva time getting it to work at all. The nowiki tags wouldn't hide the canvas template, and the hab template forced the hide-bar down to the bottom of the section for some reason. If you have another idea, I'm all ears.

Listen, just one more thing. I was typing this into your Talk a minute ago, but since we're here...

I put my apology out there, and it's sincere, but I have just a small point of order to make so that we're clear on something. This shouldn't be taken as hostile, please, but I am going to be assertive about something because I don't appreciate being played for a fool.

There is absolutely nothing neutral about posting a solicitation on a specific, hand-picked Talk page looking for members of specific demographic or interest group to come and participate in consensus building. Not on a hot-button topic like FotF, especially when it's been all over the freakin' headlines for a week. Deny that if you want to, but I'm not going to be fooled. Putting a RfC out there and letting the chips fall where they may is neutral, and that approach is unassailable because there's no way to game it. You and I both know that's exactly the opposite of what was done here. And if the answer is anything other than "Yeah, OK Belch, you're right" then riddle me this: why didn't Still-24 go shopping for eyeballs at Southern Baptist Conference or Ku Klux Klan? Right, because he was consciously looking for people who would help him get an issue decided in particular way. He wasn't looking for a neutral consensus; he was crafting a specific outcome. You beclown yourself if you try to claim otherwise.

As I just now said on the Talk page, you're a bystander and nobody should hold it against you for coming to help. But don't take the rest of us for fools, please.

OK, rant over. I just needed to get that off my chest. If I can help with that hide-bar, let me know. Belchfire-TALK 11:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue at hand is FotF's views regarding homosexuality, so I went to homosexuality. If you wish to report me for this reasonable choice that is fully within what WP:CANVAS describes as the right way to do things, you are free to, but I suspect you're going to come out looking really bad. Remember how you misunderstood my example of question-begging? Like that. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I figured it out, the closing template had to be on its own line - weird I've never run into that problem. Do me a favor and let me respond to you tomorrow. Like you, I need some rest. I took ambien about an hour ago and it's just starting to kick my ass. Again, thanks for the gracious apology, and I will get back to you asap tomorrow. Sædon^talk 11:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope you got a good night's rest. A piece of advice if you're an insomniac like me: valerian root may relax you, but it may also make your head feel like it weighs 50 pounds the next day. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Well, I can understand your point but I think that if that was Still's intention it would be a fruitless exercise. Homosexuality has 827 watchers and I'm betting it's a pretty large cross section of the wiki. Also, many times a main topic's talk page will serve as a central place of discussion. Take a look at talk:astrology, for instance, the last topic there right now is an editor asking a question about another page, Hindu astrology, likely because HA isn't as trafficed. Ultimately it comes down to WP:AGF I think; call me naive but I try to assume the best in people until I have clear evidence to the contrary. If Still ends up consistently appearing to WP:GAME then I'll join you in condemnation, but as of now I accept his explanation above. Sædon^talk 20:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good points, all well-taken, and I greatly appreciate your "Wikipedia First" attitude. I must say, I am surprised that no new editors have appeared as of yet, although we have not yet reached evening prime-time on the east coast. It may yet be possible to write this off to "no harm, no foul."

It would be improper to go into any details here, but let me just say that even a saintly commitment to AGF can die the death of a thousand cuts. Belchfire-TALK 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

War on Women: "redefining rape"

Hello! Thanks for the note. I'm really trying not to get involved in this at all, but I'll take a look at it and see if I have anything to contribute. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Chicken

BDD has given you a Chick-fil-A sandwich! Chick-fil-A sandwiches promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot sammie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

For nominating the abominable POV fork that is 2012 Chick-fil-A gay-marriage freedom of speech controversy for deletion, I hereby award you this relevant foodstuff. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken on the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

Please revert yourself at CfA

You reverted my reversion, instead of taking it to the talk page. Not a big deal, because it can be handled in the talk, page but your claim of me misusing sources and attributing a POV edit to me is unfounded. Please correct this. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect me to believe you magically found a misquote in the article at this stage, after it's been gone through with a fine-tooth comb by every English-speaking politically-active Wikipedian that breaths, for two solid weeks? Seriously?

You're right, it can be handled it Talk. Best of luck to you. Belchfire-TALK 05:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually yes. I read the fucking title of the articles. Fasttimes68 (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hint: you have to read more than that. It's pretty important, actually. Thanks for the confirmation, though. Belchfire-TALK 15:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For the work regarding Chickfila and associated 'brouhaha.' HappyHippo69 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

WP:MYOB
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Battleground behavior Hi. I saw your discussion on Lionelt's talk page, where you referred to "pro-gay POV warriors". That kind of talk is generally discouraged per WP:NOTFACTIONS, which happens to be policy. I wanted to contact you and let you know in case you weren't aware of it. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks. There's no "battleground behavior," just a recognition of naturally occurring biases. I do have just one question, though. Are you following me around, or Lionel? Belchfire-TALK 08:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid we disagree. In my opinion, the discussion comments authored by you on Lionelt's talk page were a good example of battleground behavior outlined in Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground. You may want to consult the ArbCom archive, detailing how the community enforces this breach of policy. Usually, editors end up blocked and banned if they persist. As for "are you following me around", that sounds like a leading question. In the future, please strive for intellectual honesty devoid of appeals to fallacies. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I'm curious... is it important for some reason that we agree? And would you mind linking me to the policy on leading questions? I'm having trouble finding it. I did stumble across this one, though: WP:AGF. Looks to me like you need to brush up. Belchfire-TALK 08:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Now you're engaging in wikilawyering. Why would anyone assume good faith about battleground behavior? Please take a moment to think about what you are saying before you click "save page". This is only a warning. I'm required to warn you about battleground behavior before I escalate the matter. Thanks, and have a great day. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) You come to my Talk spouting policy and making threats, but I'm the one that's Wikilawyering? Good grief. Do me a favor and stay off my Talk if you're not going to bring your AGF skills along for the ride. And don't engage in any further harassment in the future, either. Belchfire-TALK 08:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution I'm supposed to attempt to discuss the problem with you before escalating it. I've done that. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, it is important that you recognise that battleground behaviour is problematic. If you view wikipedia as a place for an ideological battle, take that elsewhere. Your recent POV fork, and intention to create a problematic POV article are also troubling. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC) There are no threats in this section. "spouting policy" as you call it, is linking you to policies and guidelines, which I suggest you read. You are simultaneously accusing another editor of not assuming good faith, whilst complaining about them not assuming good faith. You are also, unduly, accusing an editor of harassment. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your unsolicited opinion. In the interest of AGF, I'm going to assume (1) that you don't realize I argued against inclusion of the vandalism incident at Chick-fil-A, and (2) that you haven't read the original version of the article I created this morning. But it's OK, I don't hold either error against you. Belchfire-TALK 01:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Radical gay activism

Any personal feelings of this aside, I feel that the best decision for you would be to drop everything on that article. It will become a huge vandalism and POV target even if you can manage to make it neutral. I will admit that I have not read it and don't intend to. If it is nominated for deletion, I don't intend to take part. I have no opinion on it's worthiness as an article at all. I will say that it is probably a fight you don't want to have. A good article for your time might be Timeline of modern American conservatism. It failed to become a featured list earlier this year, but you might be able to fix it up. In either case, I'm looking for someone to jump in with me on an improvement to GA. The five articles that I'm in the process of tackling (I need to pick one and stick to it) are Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary), HMS Doterel (1880), User:Ryan Vesey/Xerotine siccative (this one would be a DYK and a GA, I'm hoping to get it to GA status before I transclude it. In addition, this and the two before it would qualify as a good topic if they all were improved), Windom, Minnesota, and Dan Oates. Do you have any interest in taking part in any of those? Lionel is helping with Oates so that might be a good one that the three of us can get done. Ryan Vesey 03:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your friendly advice. Belchfire-TALK 06:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought the article was well-sourced and neutral. If you want to make the effort to keep the POV warriors off it (conservative and liberal), then I think it will be a good article. It may be nominated for deletion, keep or delete, you've already made the effort in creating the article so you may as well restore it and see the result, assuming it's even nominated. Acoma Magic (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no keeping people off it. I cannot over-stress that. I am in no way looking to protect that article from anybody. If it gets deleted, it gets deleted. But if it does get deleted, it should go through the correct process along the way. That's really all I'm looking for at this point. Belchfire-TALK 07:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Ryan--what do you mean "fix it [Timeline of M A Conservatism] up"?????? That is the best GD list in all of wikipedia--even without a bronze star. There has never been anything approaching the quality of that list. There's nothing wrong with the list--only the FLC process. The pictures, the audio files, the video, the sourcing, content selection. Did you read the FLC? It was sabotaged. Torpedoed. By an editor who thinks Richard Nixon was a conservative!!!!! The team working on that FLC was first rate. Toa, who has a zillion GAs, a new FA and a FL I think, and winner of the WikiGrail, the esteemed historian Rjensen, and myself (and you've seen my stuff). The whole thing was a TRAVESTY!!!! You want to get that list through FLC????? You'll have to wait until a certain editor goes on wikibreak. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I confess, I wouldn't have looked were it not for your comments, Lionel. But now that I've spent a few moments perusing that archived discussion, I can tell you unequivocally and without reservation that there is absolutely no way in bloody hell I will EVER voluntarily submit a piece of my Wiki-work product to that sort of hostile inquisition. Ever. EV-AR!

It's far easier to attempt writing about radical gay politics as an "out and proud" middle-aged white conservative. Belchfire-TALK 08:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Really? Would you like a worm to go with your fishing expedition? This just reeks of desperation and bad faith. Not to mention that you "forgot" to notify me so I couldn't even defend myself. Good thing I don't need a defense against something this blatantly bogus. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Notification was not required. Please keep off my Talk if you don't have legitimate business here. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion Hello, Belchfire. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. All fishing, no fish. Hey, guess who turns out not to be a sock puppet? :-) Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)