User talk:Belchfire

Belchfire Roadeater

---

Pol pos Mitt discussion

I think my comments at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Trimming too much can be addressed now. The drama with Still-IP is over there (and moved on to other venues, apparently). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted a reply for you there, I'm sure you'll find it. Really, when I was working on the article I was mainly concerned with the very worst of the messes. I totally understand that not everybody would fix them the same way I would. My beef was with somebody reverting my changes in bulk on flimsy grounds, and then demanding that I justify my own changes in fine detail (with no intention of accepting any explanation I offered, regardless of how detailed it was). Belchfire-TALK 02:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tacoma Speedway

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• You lucky dog! 6631 pageviews! On your first time at bat you make it into DYKSTATS! Well done! Now that you've made DYKSTATS are you going to Disneyland?– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 05:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your first barnstar--well deserved

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Congrats on the DYK for Tacoma Speedway! Let me also thank you for your hard work helping to keep Wikipedia neutral in the face of relentless POV pushing. Keep up the great work. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing you

This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#News. Viewmont Viking (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits

It's my opinion that the minor-edit function is completely useless anyway because so many people misuse it to mark non-minor edits as minor, but I'll nevertheless inform you that your edit to Mitt Romney dog incident isn't minor, nor is it a "copy-edit"; you added text and information. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an awfully nit-picky complaint. I didn't mark it as a minor; you will notice the lack of an "m". I reworded some broken grammar. It didn't rise to the level of "expanding article" in my estimation. You're free to hold a different opinion, of course. Yes, the minor edit function is pretty useless. If Wikipedia wasn't running on Fred Flintstone software, these things would be detected and categorized automatically. Belchfire-TALK 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I thought you had marked it as minor, and I was mistaken; nonetheless, I don't see how this can be described as "rewording broken grammar" or why you would describe it as copy-editing instead of "adding mention of Obama's book" or something. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did both. I fixed broken grammar AND added mention of Obama's book. I didn't misrepresent it as minor edit. An edit summary is just that: a summary. Yeah, I did leave something out inadvertently. It was originally a copy-edit (for grammar). I started out by fixing the awkward sentence, did a preview, decided more work was needed and added the book title, then did a save without updating the summary. My bad. I hope this helps. Belchfire-TALK 20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Templating the regulars

This is exactly the type of thing that is referred to in the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. In addition, the template you used was meant for vandalism. Ryan Vesey 04:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Without trying to argue whether it was the correct template, I will say that no, that is definitely not a vandalism template. And also, see WP:TR. Belchfire-TALK 04:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for that mixup. The disruption template is very similar to the old vandalism one. In either case, I meant that the warning in this case unambiguously qualified for don't template the regulars. In addition, notice that WP:TR says "Be prepared to stand behind your template". You hatted the discussion below. It may be appropriate to hat comments from an editor who you have asked to stay away; however, you should always be open to discussion of your edits. Ryan Vesey 04:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Belchfire, you just reverted[1] an edit I made after days of discussion and with full consensus. This is bad. What's worse is your edit comment, which has some false accusations: "Again, there is no consensus to include this. Please do not edit disruptively." It's one thing to say you disagree, another to accuse me of editing disruptively, particularly given the extended discussion, the lack any response to my final comment, and the fact that I added citations. Even worse, you placed this[2] false notice, accusing me of unconstructive editing. Edits that restore material with citations are inherently constructive. For all of these reasons, I consider your notice to be false and counterproductive, so I am removing it. Do not repeat this error. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC) You have a highly selective understanding of the word "consensus". Now please stay off my Talk. Belchfire-TALK 04:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I came here to make this comment not knowing that Still had commented as well. Belchfire, you are really allowing your opinions and emotions to get the better of you here. I will agree that Still made a change that did not have consensus; however, upon review, I don't see consensus against it. Your comments against it had to do with the quality of the writing and the Colbert source. No offense meant to Still, I believe it could have been written better, but that is not a reason to remove material. The Colbert source was not included. Instead, a book (among other sources) was used that devoted an entire chapter to views of Jesus as a liberal. For now, I will restore the material so that it can be improved there, rather than talked about behind the scenes. Ryan Vesey 04:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of being followed around and harassed by this other editor, quite frankly, and when he behaves in a manner that disrupts Wikipedia, I think somebody needs to speak up about it. He shows up at an article, makes an absurdly POV edit, engages in discussion long enough to be told by 3-4-5-6 people that he's FOS, then he declares that consensus agrees with him, and acts indignant when he gets reverted. And now you've appointed yourself to be his latest enabler. Well that's just swell. When you have this guy showing up to edit articles purely because you have edited there recently, maybe you'll understand. Until then, you ought to think long and hard about butting in. Belchfire-TALK 05:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes me his enabler? I agreed with him on one issue. I will be clear that he is not my favorite editor and he has made his similar opinion of me clear. Ryan Vesey 12:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

a heads up on refactoring talk page comments

Just as a note: per WP:TALK, refactoring of off-topic comments (e.g. those pertaining to the subject of an article rather than its treatment in the article itself), such as those at Talk:Chick-fil-a, IS allowed. While you're all correct in pointing out that this is not a forum, we do not have forum mods, etc., it is acceptable to remove comments from the talk page that are the author's personal views on the subject of the article with no relation to how that subject is presented on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't refactoring of off-topic comments. That was censorship of an opinion distasteful to the person(s) doing the removal. Belchfire-TALK 15:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. Conservatism content dispute and relevant ANI post

Just wanted to notify you that I've posted a follow-up suggestion to the content dispute on the conservatism article at ANI and the article's talk page. Basically, I've opened the idea of a content RFC to try and get a clear and broad consensus on how best to proceed.

Oh, and a word of advice — when discussing the actions of other established editors, try to avoid referring to their edits as vandalism. Using terms like that can needlessly inflame a situation and alienate every side of a given dispute. Just something to bear in mind.

Anyways, hope my suggestion helps. Hopefully the issue can be resolved without any further conflicts. Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks!

aww, thank you! That was a nice thing to see when I logged in this morning. I think we've all done a reasonably good job of keeping the powder keg from lighting on that page. MsFionnuala (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

FYI

[ User talk:Tide rolls#Still-24-45-42-125 / Belchfire ] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's rather striking when it's all laid out end-to-end as you have done. Belchfire-TALK 16:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice how he threatened to take it to ANI, then later he accused you of being uncivil for doing the same thing? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, I re-removed the phrase as RFC's are suppose to "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue." I'm sure you would want any RFC to adhere to the same standards. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me the policy that allows you to unilaterally make this change? I see nothing non-neutral about the RfC wording, but I see plenty of neutrality problems with your edit of somebody else's Talk page comments. I'm going to revert your improper change (again), and we can take it up at AN/EW if you like. Belchfire-TALK 20:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RFC; the sum total of what to put as a description states - "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template, and sign it," I'm sure if someone slanted the question in a way you thought was non-neutral you would be concerned as well. Neutrality applies to all but we can ask at the that noticeboard to see if there is a standard that should be followed we may be missing. Insomesia (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion of the wording; you are NOT entitled to alter it, and you are definitely not entitled to edit-war over it. You are now at 3RR on an article talk page and the appropriate warning template has been delivered to your Talk page. The next revert will result in a report at AN/EW. Regrettable, but unavoidable if you will not stop trying to force your unwelcome changes. Belchfire-TALK 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over the wording of RFCs. It's perfectly in order to tweak a statement of the issue for neutrality. It isn't in order for either of you to edit war. --TS 22:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard to clarify this, I'm sorry if you felt I was edit warring, I was really trying to ensure that the result of the RfC was strictly based on the case itself, not the wording of the question. Insomesia (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The time to worry about whether I thought you were edit-warring was 2 reverts ago. You are edit-warring, and your effort to discuss the issue, while welcome, is late. For my part, I have already engaged in discussion on the Talk page with another editor who also expressed a concern. Lack of discussion is not the problem here. You have a clear mandate in policy to avoid disturbing the Talk comments of other users, barring a small number of narrowly-defined exemptions. You do not have an exemption anywhere in policy to alter a RfC question on your own initiative, nor is there a 3RR exemption that applies in your favor here. NPOV/N is for article content; the place to discuss this issue is at the Talk page in question. Belchfire-TALK 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I raised the concern at the talkpage itself and I think WP:NPOV overrides the talkpage comments being altered when they are part of a RfC statement. You didn't phrase the statement neutrally, that affects the appearance and possible outcome of the RfC. In any case we have a discussion started at the NPOV noticeboard and I asked as part of that if RfC comments can be reworded for neutrality. Hopefully this will prevent future misunderstandings from escalating. Insomesia (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the gesture but I'll consider this de-escalated when either my RfC is restored or re-worded per a consensus. It's really easy for you to say "OK, it's all good now," while your unilateral changes are still in place. As I've said already, I don't see any neutrality issue with my original wording, and in fact I feel pretty strongly that it amounts to a more accurate framing of the question that what you have substituted. Belchfire-TALK 22:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't substitute anything, I removed the phrase "one of their political opponents" as not neutral and false. In reading more on the issue it seems that the neutral wording should have been achieved through consensus of those first in disagreement rather than one person presenting their view. However two mistakes don't make things right but perhaps WP:BRD might apply? You boldly started the RfC, I reversed one phrase, and now there is discussion. Do you think that phrase would have survived if there was a consensus process to make the RfC happen? I'm not sure it would. I am sorry we are spending time on a sidelined area but I appreciate that you care about the article enough to argue for what you feel makes it better. Insomesia (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You substituted your own judgment in place of mine, and you are still asserting rather aggressively that my wording was non-neutral, in spite of my explanation to the contrary - a prima facie failure of AGF. Your reasoning regarding BRD holds no water.

Here's the basic issue: the assumption that SPLC is non-partisan and/or authoritative is faulty on both counts, and provably so. Nobody can point to even a single conservative in a position of governance at SPLC. Multiple conservative news sources are on-record pointing out their bias. Their own hate group listings exhibit visible differences in how they handle right-leaning vs. left-leaning groups. The listings themselves have exploded in size over the last decade, in proportion to the media attention given. There can be no credible claim that SPLC doesn't have a political dimension.

OTOH, blithely pretending that SPLC sits in God-like perfect judgment arguably creates considerably more bias in favor of their pronouncements than would be created if the reverse assessment turned out to be correct. So if we allow that it's not knowable who is right about this (which could be the fairest conclusion), erring on the side of caution argues in favor of the original wording.

Moreover, the hate group listings against groups like AFA and FRC is in response to those organizations' political activities, which makes the "political opponent" label generically correct, even if SPLC is indeed a creature of mythical God-like perfection. Belchfire-TALK 23:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on many of the facets here. Insomesia (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything to offer in return besides "I think you're wrong because I feel it in my bones"? Belchfire-TALK 00:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If the two of you agree, I can review the RfC and the above arguments and choose text that balances the intent of Belchfire and the concerns of Insomesia. BTW, as I write this I have no idea what the topic of the RfC is. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is just one phrase in disagreement and another editor has also agreed there was an issue how the statement was already written. Please feel free to have a look, my first edit was here. Insomesia (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. Good of you to offer help. I'm open to any suggestion that might balance-out our concerns. Belchfire-TALK 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(Takes a look at the page history and a few revisions) Wow. A huge edit war, plus a serious question of policy. I am not touching that one with a ten foot pole. I am going to take the liberty of flagging this at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:American Family Association. BTW, has anyone who is editing that page ever heard of WP:BRD?

Southern Poverty Law Center article

If you go back in the history of the article on the Southern Poverty Law Center you'll find that it was once pretty much written by the Southern Poverty Law Center. One editor in particular had basically taken vast chunks of it right from SPLC publications. You'll find that our ol' pal the North Shoreman was protecting the article then just as he does now though I think that he pretty much had to concede that parts of it needed to be rewritten; not if it was up to him though. Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 2007! Good grief. And there's IP addresses in the history that trace to Huntsville, AL. Gee, what a surprise. Belchfire-TALK 21:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dishonorable Disclosures

Hello! Your submission of Dishonorable Disclosures at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Dishonorable Disclosures (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democrat Party

Freedom of religion in Yemen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to General People's Congress

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

I really like what you did with the article (although when it comes to the cite template, I am solidly on Team Unbunch). Keep up the good work yourself! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am much less impressed with you now upon seeing you nominated Mitt Romney's tax returns for deletion. Are you unfamiliar with WP:CFORK? Do you really want to merge everything there back to Mitt Romney's 2012 Presidential campaign? Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I speculate--and I could be wrong--that he feels the article should be deleted--not merged. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 10:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to recognize particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia Kirananils (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• (channeling Elvis) Thank you, thankyouverahmuuuch. Belchfire-TALK 19:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

FRC Hate speech lead

I just made a comment on the RfC at the FRC article which I thought you might be of interest to you. My concerns about the current addition are summed up there, as well as a "starter source" which somewhat backs up my thoughts about if the hate group tag is to be added, then it needs to be added as a result of the controvsy of comparing the FRC to violent hate groups.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. My sense of it is that the shooting has raised some valid questions about SPLC's methods, and I favor adding verbiage about that in every case where SPLC has designated a hate group on political grounds (which pretty much covers most of their "anti-gay" listings). IMO, the hate group listings don't belong in any leads due to undue weight and because the information simply isn't needed for a "concise overview", but if that can't be averted, then balance requires that the criticisms be mentioned as well. Belchfire-TALK 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the SLPC methodology uses to give the moniker. The only supporting opinions of it being an RS that I'm aware of is that the FBI uses the data. Most newspapers just use "is a hate group according to the SLPC". In short, it appears to be the sole research group with no peer review (or do they use peer review?) that is used by many. I don't have sufficient interest at this point to delve into it any further.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to see any actual evidence that FBI does anything besides piggy-back on to SPLC's notoriety, quite frankly. Yes, the FBI has a link on their website. Big deal. Can we show that is anything more than a P.R. stunt? The theory that's been proposed is that SPLC can gather intelligence that the FBI is unable to gather for itself because of legal restrictions. If that's truly the case, then SPLC is pure evil and should be shut down on those grounds alone.

You've hit the nail on the head, though: no review. No oversight. Nobody questions their judgment or methods. It's just wrong. Belchfire-TALK 01:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"SPLC is pure evil and should be shut down"--stop pussyfooting around and tell us what you really think! Why don't the 3 of us dress up as homosexuals and minorities (that would be fairly easy for me) and go down there and videotape what happens ala James O'Keefe, haha!!! – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 01:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making any negative judgment calls on the work SLPC has done over the years. In fact, I think the vast majority of their efforts are altruistic. I only question why they are considered a RS at face value.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they were an altruistic organization up until some point in time after Potok took over. Then it got to be all about the money. They basically worked themselves out of a job by being successful at what they do, and it became necessary to expand their horizons to stay in business. You don't have to take my word for it, just follow the money. At one point in the mid-90s (this is from memory, so don't quote me) they had something like $55M in the bank, after being around for 25 years or so. Potok came on board in about '98-'99 or so. Then they started inventing new kinds of "hate groups", and now they have almost $300M. In the business they are in, you don't create that kind of wealth by working from purely altruistic motives. I'd love to be wrong, and maybe I am. But I doubt it. Belchfire-TALK 04:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Todd Akin

Not trying to edit war. It was an adjustment. If you want to change it back, I won't 3r. Casprings (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll let somebody else tackle it, as I don't want to keep wracking up reversions. You know, it would be a lot easier to edit if people would simply follow the rules once the rules have been pointed out to them. It's not difficult, and you were asked politely. Belchfire-TALK 03:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking animals

Hi, I'm puzzled by this edit. Serpent (Bible) is about an animal that talked, and you did not remove it from Category:Christian mythology, so why take it out of the intersection category? Please explain... or perhaps finish what you intended. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I know you must constantly feel like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the Hill but your Diligence to keep up with advocating N-POV is impressive, Keep pushing the boulder Sincerely John D. Rockerduck (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Village pump WQA

FYI: I !voted at Village pump re WQA, and my vote went into the wrong subsection because the section titles were confusing I fixed mine, but it looks like you may also have placed your !vote in the incorrect subsection ... you may want to double check. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, much appreciated. Belchfire-TALK 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring by Belchfire

Your recent edit violates WP:BRD and constitutes edit-warring. By deleting this message without comment, you are acknowledging that you have received it and declining to dispute it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)