Jump to content

User talk:Belchfire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Algonquin7 (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 26 July 2012 (better link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome!

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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

DYK Tacoma Speedway

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]