User talk:Belchfire/Archive 3

Pol pos Mitt discussion
I think my comments at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney 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).   Belch fire - 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)

Informing you
This message is to inform you that you came up in a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 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.   Belch fire - 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.   Belch fire - TALK  20:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Templating the regulars
This is exactly the type of thing that is referred to in the essay 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.   Belch fire - 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)

Belchfire, you just reverted 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 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.  Belch fire - 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.  Belch fire - 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. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    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.   Belch fire - 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 &mdash; 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

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

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

FYI
[ User talk:Tide rolls ] --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.   Belch fire </tt>- 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.   <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.   <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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"? <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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! -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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!

 * (channeling Elvis) Thank you, thankyouverahmuuuch. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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 $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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 $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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 $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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  L ondon 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:15, 21 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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)

Wrong. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 06:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually he's not wrong. You deleted cited, sourced material without consensus to do so. I've reverted your edits; please be more careful in the future. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  10:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * SWAT I suggest you review the talk page where you will see a consensus against inclusion consisting of amongst others Arthur Rubin and Jclemens. May I suggest self-revert. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While I disagree that it's a consensus (3 in favor of deleting, one in favor of keeping. I'm not counting myself because I have no real opinion on the substance) I'll self-revert since it's on the "losing side" of the discussion at this point. I'll leave this up so Belchfire sees it, and he can remove this section again as needed. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  11:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Swat, if you don't think 3-1 is a sufficient consensus, I'm leaving this section in place purely for its comedic value. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  14:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the RATIO of 3-1 could be; I don't think that 4 people is a sufficient sample size for the topic. Put it this way -- I didn't get involved in the discussion, but if I had, I probably would have made it 3-2. Is your consensus clear then, with just 1 additional !vote? Of course it isn't. But, do what you want with the section, it's your page.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A friendly notice
just in case you were not aware.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- KillerChihuahua ?!? 21:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly heads-up. I did indeed miss the probation notice, so this reminder is quite helpful. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. KillerChihuahua ?!? 04:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Opsec
Why make it into a fight? Take a deep breath. There's no edit war; they just have to provide an NPOV RS cite like everyone else. guanxi (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no patience for somebody who performs 5 reverts in less than 20 minutes. You can discuss it on AN3.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't do that. It's too bad we're wasting our time and energy on conflict where there is no need. I thought your earlier edits were very good. guanxi (talk) 06:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in arguing about it. You're trying to push partisan cruft into the article using rapid-fire reverts while ignoring ongoing discussion.  If you get away with it, consider yourself lucky.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags
As you may not be familiar with the guidelines, anyone other than the article creator may remove speedy deletion tags, whether or not justified. Please only edit war in a good cause.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (sigh) Yet another goofy, nonsensical Wikipedia policy. Thanks for pointing it out, though.  Message on edit-warring duly noted, but I'm pretty sure my edit should be viewed as the "R" in a BRD cycle.  By the way, I was nominating the article for deletion but it edit-conflicted with your nom.  Great minds think alike, I guess.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Arthur. Another admin just told me the same thing; that I was allowed to remove that tag. But he said sometimes an article creator will log out of their account and try to remove that tag. Just so you know, I didn't remove it until after I searched the Google News archives for stories about that group. There were numerous results. And I added a cite, which Belchfire also inexplicably removed. Btw, the admin also said, "I disagree with the tagging that page, being an SPLC designated hate group is surely in indication of importance." --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The fate of the article is up to the wider community now, and that other admin has as much right to be wrong as anybody else. Just sayin'.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  01:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Battleground, etc.
Hi. I've come across your editing several times recently, and with a review of your edits, I believe you have a tendency to treat pages as a battleground. This may be a symptom of the multiple revert wars you continually find yourself in. Please consider this message an official warning, as 'official' as we get around here, that continuing down this road will lead to an enforced break from Wikipedia. My advice is to find a different, less contentious, topic area to concentrate in, as the naturally dramatic topics you frequent are dragging you into poor situations. Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A picture for you!
I am not going to say exactly who/what the following reminds me of OK, it's Talk:2012 Republican National Convention... (hint: not you) but somehow it seems appropriate. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Belchfire (I think), I ran across one of your comments on the RNC Convention concerning the Akin Plank. After your comment against and other comments against and my own comment against, the proponent still reentered his statement about the Akin Plank in the middle of the night and well I protested and removed it and Lionel loved me. Not trying to tout my own horn but throughout the long night protecting the very essence of Republicans everywhere, I actually came across a lot of your comments on Talk Pages and Discussions along with Lionel and a few others (I'm guessing you are all members of WikiProject Conservatism, not actually a guess). And I found your comments to be straight to the point and reasonable (I said a long night) and that you were often up against the same person again and again. Finally to the point I had also been looking at the FRC, the FOTF, and the SPLC. I cracked on the FRC Talk Page after reading the RfC and primarily the claim that the SPLC is a resource for the FBI therefore it is of good character. I wind up here because after I eviscerated that premise on the FRC:Talk I check my Watchlist and see that you just got reverted on the FRC Article. So hi, how are you, hope we always keep it positive, and oh, the SPLC is in no way a resource for the FBI as I outlined on FRC:Talk. I hope this information finds you well. I am East Coast America and though daylight now blossoms my night dawns. Yendor (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Violate of WP:TPG
This edit violates WP:TPG. I am free to redact myself, and you are not free to restore those words, especially the second time. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong. But whatever.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, StillStanding would be free to strike (cross out) his troubling post, but not to redact it, as Belchfire had already replied. StillStanding violated WP:TPG by deleting Belchfire's post.  (Yet another point for an RfC against StillStanding....)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Arthur, if you're going to weigh in, you need to do your research. Look at the diff's again and you'll see that I didn't delete Belchfire's post; I deleted my own, as nobody had responded to it. Your conclusion is therefore false, and it's yet another point against you. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues at Illinois Family Institute
I noticed you reverted an edit at Illinois Family Institute as a BLP violation. The material has been added back in, but significantly changed - do you think the BLP issues remain? StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is still a BLP problem with the material re-added in this diff: . Specifically, it's the same problem I have described elsewhere: SPLC is not a reliable source for contentious material on living persons because (1) SPLC lacks editorial oversight and (2) SPLC has a clear conflict of interest.


 * Other editors will argue that the matter has been settle at RS/N, and they are wrong, because RS/N simply does not have the authority to change and/or ignore our BLP policy. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * These "other editors" would seem to be wrong about consensus at RSN, as well. There is now an asserted prior consensus which certainly didn't exist prior to this month.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your approved HighBeam code failed to deliver: please email Ocaasi
Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please: Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

DYK for Los Angeles Motordrome
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Belchfire. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The section is Paul Ryan and speech reception. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

SPLC tag
I'd like to resolve the loggerheads on this article. Please send me an email, as I'm afraid a conversation on the talk page or here will get hijacked by the usual supect(s). little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just as soon do it out in the open. I'm not worried about the discussion getting hijacked, as this is my Talk page and I don't allow that sort of horseshit here.
 * That article has NPOV problems due to censorship - period, end of story. I doubt if it can be fixed without imposing some richly-deserved topic bans on at least 3-4 users (including, sadly, at least one admin), but I'll listen to reason if somebody has another idea.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  18:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you list the sources in question regarding SPLC critiscm here?  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For openers, I suggest looking at the material added in this string of edits:, subsequently (and tendentiously) reverted with a bullshit excuse here: . That's my baseline, as far as I'm concerned the article will remain defective without at least the majority of that material.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd personally like to see specific diffs and the rational for exclusion. There does appear to some cause for concern about ownership issues which might need to be raised after the current RfC ends.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at KillerChihuahua's revert for the rationale, which basically amounted to, "Oh fuck no, I'm not gonna let you put that stuff in my article." <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring over Dishonerable Disclosures
Just to remind you, with this edit, you're at 3RR. You need to stop and accept consensus. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Looks like 2RR to me. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm at the "B" in BRD. Or if you prefer, 1RR, since 216.81.94.73 is a sock.  But the real question is, "Why is Still-24 inserting irrelevant bullshit into the article?"  And that doesn't even approach the really obvious question: "Why are you edit-warring, Still-24?"  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In case you're not aware: a discussion is going on to resolve the edit war: Talk:Dishonorable Disclosures. — RCraig09 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing at Christianity and homosexuality. Restoring inappropriate material without consensus and with a false edit summary, and tag-bombing adequately cited statements because you personally dislike them, are not behaviors conducive to building an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You make one preposterous claim after another. But whatever.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  04:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is my Talk page, if there's any hatting to be done here, I'll do it.


 * Your argument is ridiculous. A single revert doesn't constitute edit-warring, ever. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  15:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BP edit warring
Stop edit warring at BP as you did here. You summarized the reversion in as "removing unsourced material and obvious original research" but of course the text you removed was fully cited to very high quality news articles. If you continue to edit war you will be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good friggin' grief. How in the fucking hell am I "edit-warring" if I've only edited the article ONE time, ever?  Perhaps you should learn what edit-warring actually means before you post this crap on somebody's talk page.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're edit warring by reverting perfectly good cited text with a misleading reason. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That isn't edit-warring. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.  Again, ONE revert is not edit-warring.  ONE revert is never edit-warring, ever.  You're just butt-hurt because your coatrack got reverted.  Maybe you shouldn't build coatracks?  Just a thought.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  05:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You can be edit warring with a single revert. "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is ridiculous. A single revert doesn't constitute edit-warring, ever.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  15:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You are expected to justify inclusions into an article on the talk page and not edit war. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors are also expected to refrain from making retaliatory reverts, no? Just askin'.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Belchfire, stepping in here as an uninvolved administrator, I've noticed that your actions on Wikipedia have drawn quite a lot of attention recently. You're pretty much constantly on one noticeboard or another -- often times invalidly, but still. It's pretty clear to me that you're viewing Wikipedia as a battleground to fight a war over conservative articles, and your edits are often times uncivil, and make personal attacks in the process of doing so. This is not a recent occurrence, there are several times you've done this. You also seem to use the phrase "coatrack" as a bludgeon to get your way in discussions.

Examples: Reverting a listing in a deletion debate, reverting large amounts of validly sourced edits, personal attacks and incivility personal attacks on an administrator, incivility and personal attacks, edit-warring back in a valid removal of a non-free image with questionable justification, while accusing a good faith editor of wikistalking, incivility, incivility, removal of sourced material, including sources from Department of Justice, Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, etc. with the argument "removing unsourced material and obvious original research", claiming other people's edits are "nonsense", sarcastic comments suggesting another editor you are in a dispute with should be topic banned, incivility, inappropriate removal of sourced content, inappropriate removal of sourced content, incivility, clearly misleading edit summaries to justify removing validily sourced material.

And that's just in your last 50 edits. Here's more.

Claiming information sourced to Britannica.com was "unsourced", removal of large amounts of sourced information, in an edit war, without consensus, incivility, personal attakcs, accusing others of bad faith because they oppose you in a content dispute, incivility and personal attacks, accusing opponents in a content dispute of tendentiousness, and again, admin aboose, calling other editors revisions "bullshit", accusations of bad faith, bad faith removal of content, blatant incivility ("nonsensical horseshit"), accusations of "wikihounding", incivility, bad faith categorization of opposing arguments, POV removal of content to significantly "weaken" the "pro-obama" side, incivility "irrelevant bullshit", categorizing New York Times sourced material as "original research", removal of sourced content, justifying edit warring because of "some hack at NYT",  snarky response when called on the previous diff, blaming Wikipedia, "Bilge", personal attacks, blatant incivility

And that's just from the next 50 edits.

Now, I'm sure you'll dispute some of the above and go off on how X was unreliably sourced, or Y edit was just sarcastic, and not incivil, or Z edit was "sourced but not relevant". In many cases, your arguments are spurious, misleading, and outright incorrect. In some cases, some of the above diffs may have been justified.The fact that I can pick out that many of your above edits as being problematic, out of your most recent 100, indicates major problems with your editing style. Just to be clear, your overall tone of editing is the issue here, not any one specific diff above. The fact that so many of your edits are disruptive, tendentious, or otherwise causing drama indicates that the problem more likely lies with your perspective and that you simply don't see your edits as being a problem. That is a major, major issue here.

Simply put, your conduct has been massively disruptive. Note I'm referring to conduct, not content -- I actually commend you for attempting to NPOV-ize articles, but what you're doing is driving away editors, creating a disruptive editing environment, and whitewashing articles to your own point of view by removing validly sourced content, then fighting people over the explanation.

It is time for it to stop. The next time you violate Wikipedia policies, whether that's civility, NPOV, edit warring, tendentious editing, removal of content, personal attacks, or any other applicable policy, you will be immediately blocked without further warning. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  13:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your points are well-taken. There is no question about it, I need an attitude adjustment.


 * That being said, you need to take another run through your examples and do a more honest analysis. If you do so, I'm pretty sure you will discover there are a couple of other editors whose names crop up continually.  And I note with interest that you haven't warned either.  How come?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's a reference to Still Standing, because there's already an AN/I going on about imposing sanctions him (or at least there was last I checked). There's definitely others but you and Still Standing are the two most noticeable.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, in light of your point above, I've asked another administrator for some assistance taking a look at the conduct of various other editors involved. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  18:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement with SWAT here. I've been watching this go on for some time and participating in many discussions, to which you have been less than receptive.  I've been working a little with Still (and there has been some improvement) because he has been receptive, but it appears I need to join SWAT and get more involved in this disputed area.  Belchfire, you are correct that there are others that are also, shall we say "problematic", but while that explains bad behavior, that doesn't excuse it.  It is very difficult to deal with 6 people at one time, so we do it one at a time, and chip away at the problem, working with (or issues sanctions to) the most obvious participants.  You would fit in that category.  ANI discussions aren't working, so I'm less inclined to use them and just make the call myself in these types of cases.  What we need from you (and everyone else in time) is a clear understanding of the problem, and a willingness to overlook the perceived faults of others moving forward.  Your comments here are certainly a step in the right direction, but we need more.  We need to know that you will redouble to your efforts to be more honest and straightforward in your actions (even if others aren't) and that you are trying to be part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.  Otherwise, we run out of options, it is that simple.  Leaving this issue alone is no longer a viable option.  You have to be able to set aside some emotional baggage and personal bias, and focus on building the encyclopedia.  We all have our own biases, that is human, but I've seen you around enough to know you are capable of participating at a higher level of integrity if you so choose, and I asking that you do.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, Dennis, and thank you for the clarification. As I stated earlier, I am highly receptive to constructive criticism when it is fair; but I am much less receptive to being singled-out unfairly.


 * I offer to you both that if Still-24's involvement were to be subtracted from the mix, Swatjester's laundry list of fouls would shrink to trivial proportions and we would not be having this conversation at all. Thus you should be able to imagine why there was a bit of consternation on my part when Swat comes here to read me the Riot Act without so much as mentioning the antagonist who provided him with so much of his ammunition.  Spin it how you will, that was wrong.


 * All that being said, I own the portion of this problem that I myself have created.


 * I think now I will resume my previous focus on making contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of motorsports history, but I'll be watching carefully to see how the other side of this problem is dealt with. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Still has a very different political stance than the others, so sure if he wasn't around, there would be more agreement, but that doesn't diminish his contributions or perspective. Sometimes, it takes people with radically different ideas in order to force an article into neutrality.  It isn't always pretty, which is why I'm very tolerant of heated but constructive discussion.  And as for Still, I've been active with him for a while, well before coming here, so I completely understand the frustration, but he hasn't gone without scrutiny or sanction.  I posted there before here by a day, and I have more than a couple times in the past as well.  It might look like I've singled him out, if someone were to honestly look at it.  He was being more disruptive, but is getting the point.  And I'm glad your attitude is one of cooperation here.  I have no interest in telling someone what the content should be, only in insuring the playing field is fair, and the end result is as well.  And yes, editing a variety of topics is probably good for all editors, so we don't get too absorbed into a topic.  Your contributions are wanted, we just have to work on keeping it honest and fair for everyone, and by everyone.  Honestly, for us admins, we just want people to figure out how to work things out themselves without us having to get involved.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:"You didn't build that" t-shirt.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

General Sanctions on Paul Ryan
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.''--v/r - TP 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Please do not remove sourced content as you did from Parents Action League. The source linked to this section of the article clearly supports the words that you removed. Your edit summary "removing unsourced original research" is both patently false, and potentially a breach of good faith.

Notably, your contributions to this article have consisted almost entirely of deleting content, in spite of the multiple, reliable sources in the article and in spite of protests from other editors. If you continue to engage in this type of disruptive editing, you may be blocked from editing. – MrX 23:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit summary was erroneous, my bad. I'm not sure what went wrong there.


 * That said, there is nothing wrong with the edit itself. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it removes important context from the section. I suggest we continue the content discussion on the article talk page and try to reach consensus about whether or not to keep the content. – MrX 00:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Final Warning: Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
This is your final warning. Articles relating to the 2012 Presidential Campaign are on article probation. Hcobb boldly inserted material and then you removed it, it was restored, and then you removed it again. You need to discuss disputed material on the talk page. Please practice WP:BRD so I'm not forced to issue a topic ban.--v/r - TP 03:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Dishonorable Disclosures for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dishonorable Disclosures is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dishonorable Disclosures until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —$Kerfuffler stalk harass$ 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Nothing that requires your attention, but I feel what I said there is accurate. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Re Christian Right
Can I urge you to be careful with wording choices, even if those you are responding to aren't always as courteous? I don't want to assume too much, but I have seen editors whose actions (whether intended or not) goaded respondents into strong language. This has the effect of changing the subject from the content to the participants. I've watched many such situation end up at ANI, and I can tell you from experience that it is hard to sanction only the instigator, when the respondents, out of frustration, share unfiltered opinions of the other party.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My remarks were directed at content, not at any editor. It really shouldn't be necessary to explain this.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  14:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Accusation of Edit Warring
You have been mentioned as having edit warred. There is a discussion concerning you on User Talk:TParis VViking Talk Edits 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Bite?
Hi Belchfire

Would you be so kind as to help me understand how you think I bit a new editor here, in light of my edit summary: "rv - removal of inline cites and addition of POV content to lede by a new editor." and the welcome that I placed on the editors talk page? I hope that I haven't breached any etiquette, but it seems as if you think I may have. Many thanks – MrX 14:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Spirit of general sanctions
Your recent reversion to a SPA IP on Political positions of Mitt Romney violates the spirit of the 2012 Presidential Campaign general sanctions, of which you were previously notified about on September 11, 2012. I wanted to take a moment to notify you of this issue in case you weren't aware of it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted to another SPA account today on a completely different article! What are the odds of you reverting to the version of two different accounts on two different articles, one IP used to violate general sanctions and another account created to make one single controversial edit?  This deserves admin escalation, I'm afraid. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, check out WinShape Foundation. After a moderate edit, found 4 consecutive throw-away, sock, or proxy accounts revert/vandalize. These new accounts also seem (especially for "new" editors) very interested in your ANI.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

War on Women rape issue
I did participate in that discussion but it was for "redefining" rape when I put "defining" in the lead. That aside, the issue of rape itself is what was omitted from the lead when its a major issue for the topic. CartoonDiablo (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is salient to the article, just not in the way that you falsely represented. Since you were a participant in the discussion, you know full well that nobody "redefined rape" or attempted to redefine rape.  So why the lie?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  13:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should be more clear, there's a difference between re-defining and defining rape and the latter is mentioned throughout the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We fixed this once. Why un-fix it, unless you're trying to push POV and false info?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at War on Women. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Courcelles 05:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't have kittens
Don't sweat the block it happens to the best of us, they're itching to block you some more so don't lose your cool, take a week off, hell you derserve it. As Richard Nixon would say you gave them a sword and they used it. Your the best editor I know; your fan

John D. Rockerduck (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

The Signpost: 22 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dishonorable Disclosures
The DYK project (nominate) 16:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban
I regret to have to inform you, but the community has saw fit to impose an interaction ban on you. I've closed the thread, the exact text is: "Belchfire is no longer allowed to interact with, comment about, or edit in contradiction with User:Roscelese on any page, talk page, or other space on Wikipedia with the exception of appealing this decision (which does not include more complaining about Roscelese) or engaging in dispute resolution or Arbcom (of course). Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this WP:IBAN with the normal progressive actions starting with 1 day blocks (at the uninvolved administrator's discretion)" Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any help.--v/r - TP 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Paternity Fraud Talk

 * I replied to your post on the talk page of Paternity fraud. I rambled on for the benefit of a 3rd party reader that might not know the "what was there before" and the "why what is there now" or may not even know what paternity fraud is to begin with, not to talk down or sound haughty. Reply there or my talk page, either/or.
 * I can try some rewrites of any conflicts you might find, what is there on the first sentence is the fourth one so I have practice doing so. :) --West Horizon (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * EDIT* forgot to add also can't use "Mother" in the definition. I can think of at least one case off the top of my head where the male paternity fraud victim is paying support to the child's biological father who has custody from the mother. Douglas M. Richardson, television news broadcasts are available online. --West Horizon (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we most definitely can and must use "mother" in the definition. Your example is an extreme outlier - so far from mainstream experience as to not warrant inclusion in the article, let alone is it a reason to foist a phony definition on readers.  For all intents and purposes, paternity fraud is a situation that exclusively involves a female actor and a male victim, and the article should reflect that.
 * The article itself is in need of a major re-work, as it erroneously attempts to restrict itself to instances that are legally actionable, and wrongly ignores the vast majority of cases, many of which are never even discovered. Just as no reasonable person would claim that a crime wasn't committed just because it went unreported, we aren't going to push a phony definition that pretends paternity fraud doesn't happen unless it winds up in court.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  09:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with your edit because in the sentence it uses the word "Usually", which is an accurate summation.


 * Mother cannot be used as an overall general definition which is what you posted up on the talk page, (1) because it's illegal, civil courts cannot issue judgements based solely on gender, which is why "parent" is used through the article, (2) sexist, which is an obvious POV issue (3) incorrect as a blanket term because cases are not always against a mother and (4) it violates constitutional protections of being innocent until proven guilty by assigning a predetermined guilt, so could not possibly be an acceptable definition for a wiki law page.


 * "Richardson" was just one example for context, from the main paternity fraud page, County of Los Angeles v Navarro, not the mother. As a Ref the case of Doe vs. Alberta, again, Governemnt of Canada is the defendant, the mother signed an affidavit that the boyfriend was not the father. It goes on and on. An overall definition should explain ALL cases, not just pick ones against a mother and call it good.


 * Twice now you have tried to say that the page, "restricts itself to instances that are legally actionable" which is false. Can you explain please where you are getting that from so I can try and address it? I seriously do not see what you are seeing here. Nowhere does the page say as an overall definition "legally actionable" or any variation of such. thx :) --West Horizon (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: QUOTE - Just as no reasonable person would claim that a crime wasn't committed just because it went unreported, we aren't going to push a phony definition that pretends paternity fraud doesn't happen unless it winds up in court. END QUOTE

Defining paternity fraud as a "Cause of Action" addresses your concern already. A cause of action means a set of facts that justify a right to sue, it does not mean you have the ability to do so. Can you raise a good point? yes. Can you show a DNA test that you are not a child's father? yes. Does that mean you have a cause of action? yes. Does that mean you can persue that action in a court? no. --West Horizon (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of your reasoning is simply preposterous. OF COURSE 100% of paternity fraud is committed by mothers.  If it is sexist to say that paternity fraud is an act committed by a mothers, then the very term "paternity fraud" is itself sexist, since it explicitly points to fathers as the victims.  This is not a gender-neutral issue; "paternity fraud" is not a gender-neutral term; and it is dishonest and ridiculous to try to make Wikipedia's article on the subject pretend that there is anything gender-neutral about the topic.
 * Your legalistic sophistry is equally nonsensical. Our goal is to define and explain the subject matter - hopefully without any artificial constraints.  You seem to be saying that no paternity fraud can exist unless the victim has standing to sue, and if that's the case it's a bunch of baloney.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  20:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Doe vs. Alberta, So lets see here. The Mother signs a contract and affidavit with her live-in boyfried that he is not the father and not responsible as such. She goes to the doctors for an IVF treatment to get pregnant. The Canadian Government, oddly enough apparently citing Australian law, says nope, any male living in the same location as a female can be found the father regardless of what the mother says. So, if 100% of paternity fraud is by mothers, where is the fraud here by the mother? While you are at it explain the fraud by the mother's in the other two examples also since it's 100% always a mother committing the fraud.


 * "Standing to Sue", this is now the third time you have tried to say the page, "restricts itself to instances that are legally actionable" which is false. You still have not yet exlplained yourself, can you please? Nowhere does the page say as an overall definition "legally actionable" or any variation of such, including "Standing to Sue". A wronged person might be "justified" to sue, but that is a far cry from "allowed" to do so. Thx :) --West Horizon (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That example isn't paternity fraud. It's something else entirely, and outside the scope of the article under discussion.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  23:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Establiment of paternity to commit a willful deception. Fits exactly within the page definition of when it occurs. If it isn't paternity fraud then what would you call it? Also if you do a search for Doe v Alberta and Paternity Fraud you will find sites that list it so as well.
 * So, what about the other two examples if it is 100% always the mother.
 * Can you also please explain your continued insistence that the page restricts itself to instances that are legally actionable? --West Horizon (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Doe v. Alberta is not an example of willful deception (an essential element of fraud). It's a case where the government has -knowingly- assigned paternity by default to a man who is not the biological father.  Happens all the time.  It's unjust in many cases, but it isn't fraud.


 * Perhaps this definition will be helpful for you:

"'The term “paternity fraud” defines the action of a mother who names a man to be the biological father of a child, often for the purpose of collecting child support, when she suspects or knows he is not the biological father. Victims of paternity fraud are numerous and include the non-biological father; the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, as well as the biological father.'"
 * http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=121502


 * Note the absence of any mention that paternity fraud needs to be legally actionable in order to exist.


 * Note the absence of any mention that paternity fraud needs to be legally actionable in order to exist. I have been saying that four times now. For the fifth time, can you explain how you have reached that conclusion? Nowhere on the page does it, "restrict itself to instances that are legally actionable". You seem to be making that up for no other reason to justify other baseless claims.
 * Still waiting for you to explain the fraud by the mother in the other examples. If not then your claim that it is 100% by the mother is in fact false. --West Horizon (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to bother looking at your other examples, since you've demonstrated that you lack understanding of the basic concept and everything you've come up with so far is irrelevant gobbledygook. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  00:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I removed your post as being sexist original research that seems to be pushing some sort of anti-woman hate message than trying to offer a general definition. Also note you have no definition of what it is, only when it occurs. Go ahead and start the grievence procedure if you like. Your claims that paternity fraud is only commited by a mother is false, as shown above. --West Horizon (talk) 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You haven't shown anything above concerning paternity fraud. You're just grasping at straws and making things up.  You nonsense about sexism is vapid piffle.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "i can't hear you" over and over again doesn't help. You do realize in Doe v Alberta your saying a live in boyfriend who is not a childs father and is stuck paying for someone else's kid is not paternity fraud right? Only if it fits into your restrictive narrow minded anti-woman point of view by being commited only by a mother do you consider it paternity fraud. Wrong on many levels. --West Horizon (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is sorta funny. Where is the deception in Doe?  How can you have fraud without deception? WHO is sticking their finger in their ears?


 * I'm done arguing with you, so please stop posting here. Feel free to make your case on the article Talk page if you like, but be sure to gain consensus before removing relevant, sourced material from the article.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You just posted on my talk page to post here, so which is it? If supreme court opinions, newspapers, television news broadcasts and legal dictionaries aren't good enough, then what is? --West Horizon (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's part of the template, but I think I've made it sufficiently clear: take your argument to the article Talk page and get consensus there. Bring your sources, you're going to need them.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  06:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)