Jump to content

User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 24

It's already covered

It's already covered in the 2nd paragraph; by returning the new addition, it's now covered twice in the lede. Why revert? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I have several real-life and wiki projects going at once. As for this, you're right - and I fixed it.[1] Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I also expanded the content again here; it's an important counterpoint to claims that the term was only used by activists or the media before the industry ditched it. Feel free to tweak if need be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AGF

I've noticed that you preface some of your edit summaries with "AGF". I know that's a reference to WP:AGF, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that you are assuming good faith? Or are you asking the other editor to assume good faith? Or do you mean something else? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's the usage I think you're referring to (like "AGF, but...") I usually mean, "I'm assuming good faith here, but here is why this edit can't stay," or something along those lines. Lightbreather (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In that case I suggest that you "assume assuming good faith". That is, since good faith is assumed, it's not necessary to say that you are assuming good faith. In fact, saying that you are assuming good faith might be misconstrued as an innuendo that you are questioning the good faith of the other editor's edits. Know what I mean? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I have never used "AGF" in an edit summary to mean anything other than "AGF." Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Good. And I hope you will take my suggestion in the spirit in which it's intended. Since good faith is assumed, it can be more collegial not to point out that you are assuming good faith. It will be obvious enough when another editor's actions force you to stop assuming good faith. Anyway, it's not a huge deal either way. Thanks for your replies here. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Clinton speech to Tech

This one I did not dawdle on... http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Watermark-Speak-at-Silicon-Valley-Womens-Conference-293839411.html ... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015

Hey Lightbreather. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexually Provocative Images on user Talk Page Violating WP:Userpages

There is an ANI discussion which may interest you. It concerns some old user pages that contain BDSM and spreading images that violate userpage guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the MFD you mentioned and tagged the F Machine article for speedy delete as well. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or why you came here to tell me about this, but thank you. This kind of crap is a black-eye to the project, IMO, and I know women who would never want to edit here knowing that we host that kind of "content." It's ridiculous. I guess some people don't want to have to pay for their porn!
As for the canvassing charges, I think some find that old chestnut a very handy tool to try to discredit or intimidate others. In cases like this though, it's ridiculous. Again, that kind of crap just doesn't belong here. No encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. Lightbreather (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Many send emails out when they want help from buddies but then scream canvass. As soon as I put that up it was taken down by the admin writing this article Draft:Enter_the_Dominatrix. It may have been on his watchlist. It got a GA template on it. It is blatant advertising and who the hell buys something like that anyway. I am an just an IP. I will not tell anyone to let their kids use wiki. It is a very disturbing culture in many ways. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

AW article

Wow, great work! It's really coming along nicely!! I'm making little tweaks, but its all based on your efforts. :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, there was just an edit conflict, I hope I did not undo anything. Sorry if I did... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No problem. How would you like to tackle this sentence in the "Political and legislative issues" section. I don't think it's a NPOV interpretation of what the NSSF said. I've gone back to it several times now, but the right way to re-write it hasn't come to me.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation considers it a politically driven catchphrase aimed to conflate non-automatic weapons with full-automatic assault rifles.[1]
  1. ^ ""Background Information on So-Called 'Assault Weapons'". National Shooting Sports Foundation. December 2011. Retrieved December 18, 2012.
--Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting question, after reading the source I would say just call it as it is. So maybe...
"The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group organized "to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports", states that the term assault weapon has been misapplied to many semi-automatic firearms because of their appearance and not their use in crime."
What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Way better than what's there now... but punctuation goes inside quotation marks. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
D'oh! I always mess that up... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Mike V, I'm starting this discussion on my page in the hopes that I can more easily chase off the little posse that likes to follow me. The events of yesterday that lead to the latest SPI against me: Can you explain why someone (172.56.9.123) in that range would start an SPI against me on January 16, and then someone (else? 172.56.8.170) in that range would come to my page yesterday to share their concern about smutty user pages? If I understand it correctly, these are the addresses involved:

Are they all likely the same person, or are two or more people involved? Is the "hotspot" a cafe wifi connection? Or is it from a device that an individual might use and perhaps share? I don't want to spend too much time worrying about it, but if you've got any insight into what might be going on, I'd appreciate it. Aside from having four brought against me now (the first, editing while logged out, was the only one that was me), I think I've started two SPIs and commented on three or four.

I am pinging Stemoc and DD2K as they seem to think they have some ideas about who this editor or these editors might be. Oh, and Iselilja and SlimVirgin, who seem to see some behavioral clues. Lightbreather (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand why this may make you uncomfortable. I have a clear suspicion of who might be behind the IP/s (or some of them), based on behaviour not related to you. Why they would turn their focus to you, I have no idea. I don't think I can say more without starting an SPI against the one I suspect to be the IP-master. Iselilja (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Semi" articles

The main one Semi-automatic firearm is already on the Cleanup list for the Firearms project. Please give me some time to draw attention to it and get it improved. Obviously it needs a fair amount of work as I'm sure that the related articles (pistol, rifle, shotgun) need as well. It's a good thing that you started work on these, thanks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Canvassing. I previously delivered a final warning on canvassing. At AN/I, it was admitted that you canvassed other users via email.. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Karanacs (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the diff acknowledging that you did attempt to canvass. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted GorillaWarfare, and I probably should have contacted Roger Davies, too. They were both involved in my original request for an Iban in December,[2] and the ARCA[3] that I started on February 1.
Did I canvass Newyorkbrad? No.[4]
Tparis? No.[5]
Opabinia regalis? No.[6]
Darknipples? No.[7]
IJBall?
BoboMeowCat?
Liz?
Knowledgekid87?
MrX?
Rationalobserver?
Isaidnoway?
AnonNep?
Calidum?

Meanwhile, we'll never know how many editors Hell in a Bucket canvassed or canvasses on a regular basis, but there are a handful who show up regularly when he needs support. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get dragged into more talk page drama, but out of respect for LB I must say that I was not canvassed by her regarding this recent issue or any other issue. I.e., she's never canvassed me even though she knows that I agree with many of her points. LB, I hope that helps, but it's only a 24 hour block, so even if it doesn't don't let this get to you. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna let it ruin an otherwise beautiful day. I'm just documenting events around this. Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not canvassed. I have WP:ANI on my watchlist. I don’t really have an opinion on the canvass block beyond wishing that if the evidence shows canvassing on LB’s part that she be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Karanacs has participated at WT:GGTF in a manner that appears to make her wp:involved, including directly expressing disagreement with Lightbreather’s proposals to increase female participation on Wikipedia.[8]. Karanacs has also participated at wt:ggtf to say women are put off by the task force due its "militant feminists" [9], which ironically inspired a new active female participant on the project objecting to characterizing ggtf in terms of "militant feminism" and saying she’s been put off by the battleground brought in by a subset of male editors.[10],[11],[12] Regardless of the accuracy of either of those positions, Karanacs seems involved and probably should have let someone else deal with any canvass concerns regarding LB. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to take me to ANI if you believe this is a bad block. It is not uncommon for an admin to take an action on someone they have interacted with before (there are only so many admins) provided they are not involved in the matter at hand. My edits in GTTF do not, per se, make me involved with lightbreather, as lightbreather is not GTTF. While I have opined, loudly, against a women-only editing space, my admin actions had absolutely nothing to do with that space. I am certainly not involved in her dispute with HIAB, although I have offered my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator at ARCA. I have, however, previously warned her about canvassing. It matters not that she didn't canvass X number of people; it matters that she canvassed at least one, after being specifically told not to violate that guideline anymore. Trying to obscure that canvassing by doing it over email makes it even more egregious. Karanacs (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Karanacs: I don't plan on filing an AN complaint regarding block. Honestly, I'd prefer to avoid the drama I suspect that would incite. However, I do think your stated opinions on LB and "militant feminists" appears to make you involved here. I also think the opening sentence of wp:involved seems to apply here: In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, any admin who has ever expressed an opinion on Eric Corbett would need to recuse from blocking him (in which case he'd never be blocked again, because everyone has issued their opinion by now). That statement on WP:INVOLVED is generally understood to apply specifically to the circumstances around the block. If I were editing an article and an edit war erupted, I would be too involved to make a block in that case. If someone made a personal attack against me, I would be too involved to make the block. Or, in this particular case, if I had opened the ANI, and LB had canvassed a few editors she thought would be sympathetic to her "side", then I would be too involved to make the block. My apologies, LB, for referring to you in the third person on your own talk page. BoboMeowCat, I'll be happy to continue this conversation on my talk page if you think it necessary. Karanacs (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What the...?

I wondered why you were not too active, then I come here to see that you've been blocked. Sorry that you've been hindered by this, see you on the other side. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Silicon Valley. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

LB, you know better. Given you participation in the GGTP and other efforts, this make it look like you're on some sort of crusade against Silicon Valley or the Tech Industry. Either use your Sandbox to develop a complete section with well formed ideas and content from multiple WP:RS or please just give it a rest. You're not helping anyone, especially yourself, with a method of "it's your way or no way at all". --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Scalhotrod, you know better. (Also, I think you mean the GGTF.) I have no "crusade" against Silicon Valley. Do you have some "crusade" to defend it? A lot of criticism is published in WP:RS regarding issues there like homelessness, gender and racial inequality, and sexism, but this criticism has been forced to the bottom of the article and has not been allowed to be developed. As for edit warring, some might argue that it was you who was edit warring with me on the Silicon Valley article, and that it's you has a your-way-or-no-way attitude. You seem to be showing some ownership issues again, unilaterally deciding which wording is better and what is due or undue. If you think that I've done start something wrong, start the appropriate process, otherwise collaborate or get out of the way. Lightbreather (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re who keeps dragging "feminism" into discussions

Montanabw, first, sorry you had to have surgery, and I hope it went well and you're back in the saddle again soon.

Second, about your comment here - [13] - there are a few things you ought to know. When EC made the comment, "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?" (18:46, 26 February 2015) I don't believe gender had even been brought into the discussion. (Which was my request for an IBAN with another editor - not EC. Please scroll down.) I certainly hadn't expressed any "feminist concepts," nor used words like "female" or "woman."

However, prior to this, RO had started a discussion on EC's page that turned rather nasty. Here is the revision of that page from two minutes before EC made his "militant feminist" comment at ANI: [14]. At that point, RO hadn't been involved in the discussion for over 18 hours. Now, I'm not going to defend RO's behavior in that discussion, but she hadn't expressed any "feminist concepts" either, or used "female" or "women." The first person to bring gender into it, as far as I can tell, was EC when he said, "That kind of behaviour clearly wasn't a one-off, but I suppose she gets away with because she claims to be a female."[15]

The point I'm trying to make is, I think quite often "gender" and "feminism" are getting dragged into these conversations by men (perhaps even more often than women bring up these things in discussions that aren't explicitly about gender). Why?

Well, I agree that I would qualify in some circles as a "militant feminist" so I find the phrase really annoying and a label that I do wish would just not be used, so I think we are on the same page there. However, I think RationalObserver was only there to bait Corbett and I really wish people would just leave him alone; he's not as bad of a person as everyone makes him out to be, I know he insulted you, and I think he even lashed out at me once, years back, but the reality is that he's not a troll and he's not the enemy. (If you want to see the real problem, watchlist the cesspool that is the talkpage of the Gamergate-related articles. There be the dangerous trolls...) Montanabw(talk) 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Part 2

Bishonen, I've been following what's happening to Coffee at ANI, but I haven't seen any of this enter this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As for another dust-up that happened, I'm going to tell you something and you can decide if you want to do anything with it. Admin Coffee warned an editor G. yesterday,[16] after he called RO a shit stirrer.[17] Within an hour of the warning, C. blocked G.[18] Here are some of the things G. said in that time span:

  • Pot stirring? well Rationalobserver you and the militant and trouble making wimmin of this project are the ones to recognize that. I applaud you. Why not block me too Coffee?[19]
  • Ah coffee, you may be able to help: I remember once when I was a boy at school, clandestinely watching a totally shocking film where nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burn at the stake. I doubt Eric is very handsome, but tonight I am minded of that film.[20]
  • ...it's nothing to do with women editors as a whole - the whole world knows that - they are as rational as the rest of mankind; it's to do with a small group of women who have formed a group, sucked in a few gullables ... and are now playing the sexist card for their own peculiar ends.[21]

After this, some editors tried to get Coffee in trouble for what they saw as implying Giano is racist. (Apparently, nobody saw any problem in what Giano had written up to that point.) When Coffee blocked an IP - who called somebody a nigger - posting on Giano's page, some of G's defenders thought that his edit summary implied that the IP was G.

(Actually, just before this, G. commented on C's "unusual name."[22]) Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that "coffee" is sometimes used as a descriptor for skin color for dark-skinned people (along with cocoa, chocolate, and cafe con leche), perhaps Coffee is a person of color? And is it outside the realm of possibility that a person who would label women editors whom they think are "militant" as "shit stirrers," impossible to imagine that a person who compares women editors to "nuns [who] masturbated while a handsome priest was burn at the stake" might be capable of racist remarks?

Now I'm going to relax with my husband and watch some tech TV. Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to add, Coffee is now being "discussed" at ANI. Lightbreather (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Coffee is certainly not "a person of color" and I've no idea where you've got that idea. Unless you think he's lying as regards the photos of himself he's uploaded (here, for instance), I'm not sure anyone could be any whiter. – iridescent 17:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I explained where I got that idea three paragraphs up. I'd never seen Coffee's picture. I'd never heard of him before yesterday and apparently neither had G, because he said to C:
coffee? What a curious name, I've never before heard of you...[23]
The IP posted on Coffee's talk page, after C. blocked him:
Last one was 2 weeks, so the nigger is learning,[24]
... so it seems like the IP might have thought C. is black. As I said, some refer to African skin tones as "coffee" and so on. (I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that it is. Read Langston Hughes' Harlem Sweeties. Some call it the Starbucks Skin Scale. Heck, there's even a DJ named Black Coffee. Is this really new to people?)
--Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep

Hey mentors, two announcements:

  1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
  2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Last Warning

Lightbreather I'm going to say this once and once only. There's a lot more to true civility than the choice of 4-letter words. I am all for the promotion of female editors, I also support male editors. Your agenda of "we poor women are being mistreated' has long exceeded the sell date. Your attempts to create a walled garden are an embarrassment to women everywhere. If you continue on this disruptive path then I will put a block on this account. Perhaps a read of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS would be a good idea. — Ched :  ?  16:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this meant to be a warning only, or am I allowed to reply? That is, if I ask questions or make comments, am I likely to get blocked for that? Lightbreather (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ched, I'm going to say this once and once only. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is about content added to Wikipedia - i.e. article edits (that's why it mentions WP:RS & all that technical stuff). There's nothing there about the editor. Perhaps a reread of the WP:TENDENTIOUS essay (not policy) would be a good idea? AnonNep (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have read Right Great Wrongs and I agree with AnonNep: it's about content. Did you mean to point me to some other essay?
I think you might want to read this part of the admin policy: Expectations of adminship. Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Devils

LB, I can't help but notice you've now put Giano's quote on your user page. As I pointed out at that mess of an ANI you are completely misinterpreting that reference. It's an actual film (by one of Britain's most famous directors) and the point of the scene in question is totally prescient to the point he was trying to make. Love or hate Giano, I'm just pointing out you've completely missed the reference where nobody else did, hence nobody thought anything of it. So essentially you've just put a quote on your user page about a film any halfway decent movie buff is eminently familiar with and most certainly isn't making the point you're thinking it's making. Capeo (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The film (from section header): The Devils. I understand that he was referring to a film. And it's also plain that he was comparing the nuns in the film to what he (G.) considers some women editors (like RO) and the priest who was burned to EC. Lightbreather (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather, I suspect that those quotes may be a violation of WP:POLEMIC. They're not being used in dispute resolution and even though there are only two items there at present, they could be considered to be part of [n]egative evidence, a laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems. Given the amount of disruption swirling around you, it might be a good idea to remove those statements and keep them off-wiki. Ca2james (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern, but if the two items you're referring to might be a problem, you might want to post a similar warning on G's[25][26][27][28][29] and EC's[30][31][32] talk pages regarding their user pages. Lightbreather (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
While I could do that, I won't because it won't make a difference to the pages and it would cause all sorts of unnecessary drama. I expect that they are familiar with WP:POLEMIC whereas I wasn't sure whether or not you were. If they're ignoring or flouting it, the last few days have shown that their behaviour is tolerated, if not condoned, by much of the community. I know that this situation doesn't conform to WP:CIVILITY and that this behavioural double standard is incredibly frustrating, but targeting them won't help and will just make things worse. In my opinion, it's better to embody the civility we want to see even in the face of the worst incivility and to encourage civility in all the editors we encounter. Over time that can potentially cause a tipping point where incivility is not tolerated. To me, demanding civility and being uncivil won't make anyone behave civilly. Ca2james (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Now subject to a community imposed sanction

Pursuant to this discussion on ANI you are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed. This restriction will be enforced by blocks escalating in length. As usual you can appeal the sanction to AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Request

Hey LB, would you mind staying off my Talk page and away from me for a bit? Now that you have your Iban with the above mentioned User, I'm not sure if you choosing to direct more attention at me or not, but how about if we give up giving each other grief at least for the rest of Lent? I've been making an earnest effort to respect the reason that we were Topic banned, but from my perspective I'm not sure if you appreciate it as much as I do. In the short time since our Tban has ended, you've also been blocked more than once. Neither of us has accomplished what Eric Corbet in terms of shear volume or quality of editing, so I hope that you have not become desensitized to being blocked. I can't imagine how that would help any of your causes or ideals.

That said, I'm going to direct my attention to the Ellen Pao article for a bit and see what I can do to expand and improve it. Miss Pao is an attorney in the tech industry who filed a gender discrimination suit against her employer. I've found several sources that state that the lawsuit has the potential to be a pivotal one for gender issues in Silicon Valley. So in the mean time, I'm going to leave stomping about the gun politics articles to you. Please keep in mind that adding politically oriented content to Firearm articles that are entirely or predominantly technical could be construed as a violating the spirit of our Topic ban. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but I felt like you were poking me a bit with the NRA article and the recent skirmish over including Assault weapon in the Semi-automatic... articles. I actually plan on working on some women related articles at least part of this month in honor of women's history month. That's not to say I won't be working on gun related articles, but I don't plan to focus on them exclusively. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, like I've said on many occasions, I can't control how you interpret my words or activities, all I can ask of you is to AGF before reacting. As for the "semi" articles, I'm concerned with politicizing firearm articles that are either exclusively or predominantly technical in nature. Expanding and preserving technical and historical information about firearms and related ordinance has been the focus of the Firearm Project from the start and that intention has been disrespected and/or ignored with egregious results in my opinion.
Mike tried to explain that and maintain its focus, but it gradually drove him to a breaking point that you are all too aware of. I'm not defending his actions, but the guy selflessly devoted himself to coordinating a project whose articles have been thoroughly battered, abused, and misappropriated. I feel sorry for him and know that others do as well. Just about anything religion, politics, morality, and/or human sexuality related on this site seems to not only invite, but attract controversy and derision. I have come to appreciate that introducing those kind of elements is just counterproductive to the entire project.
By the way, I have noticed a change in your viewpoint as well. Using phrasing like "recent skirmish" or referring to "the guys" with regard to a discussion that DN was having with other Editors is a recent development. You actually seem a bit more "civilly combative" lately and in some instances towards Users that seem like they are trying to help you. I have found that one of the best ways to "win friends and influence people" on this site is to simply take most things in stride and let pretty much any negative comment (whether real or perceived) roll off my back like water off of a duck. Also, one of the best ways to avoid a fight, is not expect one. I have not done enough of either with you and I probably will never be able to adequately apologize for that.
This is an interestingly diverse and "concept rich" community, to put it mildly, and something that I've learned is that "shedding light" on anything can be a double-edged sword. Sometimes it makes a subject grow and in other instances wither and shrink. Unfortunately, too often light is shed on negative things making them grow and not enough on positive things. You probably will never fully appreciate how much I wish I had never made my "brilliant" comment in reply to Eric's comment using the C-word last year or how absolutely idiotic I feel for missing his use of that abhorrent word to begin with. With that single comment, I reduced myself to the proverbial "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" of Great Chicago Fire fame.
Assuming that it's not inappropriate to say, I wish you a good Lenten season, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a little too long for me to digest. As for the semi articles, I hear your concern, but appropriately adding an item (or two) to a See also list is not politicizing. There is no way that gun articles, some anyway, are going to stay completely technical. It's a politicized issue, so the best we can do as WP editors - and per NPOV - is to give the political aspects their proper weight.
I'm sorry that you're concerned about my behavior, but as I said yesterday, I'm a bit concerned about yours. But wasn't the whole point of your posting here is that you want to take a break from each other? If you want to, then let's do it, OK? Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(Though I do thank you for the apology. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC))

POV Pushing on GSL

I may need some of your guidance. I may be being accused of WP:POVPUSH by Cullen328 in regard to my latest TP section on GSL. I am trying to talk it out with them, but aside from the TEAHOUSE, I don't really want to turn to anyone else for advice regarding GSL and my behavior. Please let me know what you feel is the right thing to do. For the time being, I am going to try and avoid adding ANYTHING to the article or it's TP relating to this seemingly personal matter. I don't really know what to do. Darknipples (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what to make of Cullen328's behavior in the past week or so. He just pinged me to a discussion on another editor's page, and I'd really rather not go there. (I'll probably make a reply and then take that page off my watchlist.)
As for the GSL page, I'd been meaning to chime in on that interstate discussion that you started, so I'll go catch up and add my two cents. Then, I'd think we'd be wise to give C. some space till he calms down. Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
So, WN inserted "intrastate" all over the article? At least they aren't going on about calling all GCAs hoplophobes again. Seriously, who does that? Isn't there a rule against this kind of stuff? Anyway, now MW is requesting I define GSL (for some reason?), while refusing to provide citations or answer questions about the validity of this "intrastate" assertion. All of this over a word FE insisted be inserted into the lead and then removed when it didn't fit his their POV [33]. Very strange indeed. Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
MW has been participating in GSL talk Page discussions since January 15. There is no good reason he should be asking you or anyone else that. Lightbreather (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
[34] Why do I CONSTANTLY get the feeling that NO ONE repsects what I have to say except for you (edited - and probably Cullen and ScalH) on GSL... SMH(Shaking My Head). Darknipples (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

After hitting a rough patch, I feel the funk evolving into a more productive coalescence. I've got images for the article now. My friend procured them for me after much effort. Look forward to another lively debate, and hopefully, a consensus! Darknipples (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For Cullen328 and LB to discuss...

First posted on another user's talk page,[35][36] then moved here.[37]

Doesn't the Bill of Rights of the Constitutution of the United States guarantee a right to "keep and bear arms", Lightbreather? And haven't the highest courts of the United States consistently interpreted that as an individual right? Everyone knows that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to other countries, but that certainly does not means that editors who understand and appreciate the Bill of Rights in the U.S. are incapable of editing articles about gun rights in other countries. I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. Do you? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I certainly hope that you do not oppose the Bill of Rights in the U.S. where it has applied for 225 years. I cannot believe that you're questioning my patriotism. I proudly helped my dad get his SAR membership. My oldest son was in the HHC, 1st Batallion of The Old Guard. He helped to honor many veterans buried at Arlington. He fired salutes at one of Bush's inaugurations. My heart still pounds to remember being at the National Mall on July 4, 2000, as those guns fired to the 1812 Overture. He later served in Iraq, was nearly blown up by an IED, and came home - to my home - with PTSD. I'll thank you to never again question my love of country and what my family has sacrificed for her.
As for your lecture on the Second Amendment: Yes, the highest court ruled - in a split decision - that it gives individuals a right to own arms. But even uber-conservative Scalia, in delivering the majority opinion, wrote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
But you'll rarely find the Wikipedia pro-gun crowd cramming that into the lead of gun-related articles. If you went by the lead in the many articles they've loaded with their RKBA BS, you'd think every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has the right to roll down the street in a tank with a rifle in one hand and a pistol in the other. Further, in the first section of these articles' bodies, you'll find quotes by Aristotle, Cicero, and Locke making it sound like every human on the planet has the right - perhaps even the duty - to be armed to the teeth. They might even go so far as to say (or to hint) that God himself wants all his children to be packing.
So, to reiterate what I've said before. My father owns guns. My brothers and oldest son own guns. My grandfathers owned guns. I've been taught to handle guns myself. I support the Second... but I believe the minority had it right in Heller (as do many), and even if I didn't, the majority in that decision made it clear that "well regulated" still means something. And my work on Wikipedia, when it comes to gun related articles, is to make sure that 2A arguments are not given WP:UNDUE weight, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Anyone who thinks I'm trying to do anything else should consider an appropriate DR process, or keep their opinions to themselves. Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your patriotism and I greatly appreciate your son's service. I feel no need for any formal dispute resolution, but reserve the option to express my view on any manner pertaining to this encyclopedia. By the way, I certainly do not maintain that Second Amendment rights are unlimited. As a matter of fact, I personally favor universal background checks and have not owned a gun for decades. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Gun Politics Task Force proposal

You might be interested in this. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI - I'm supporting this, and hope to be a part of the effort in diffusing polemics in such articles. BTW, where have you been? Darknipples (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Real-life stuff, plus feeling icky off-and-on. Unfocused on WP at present. Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You are ever vigilant Darknipples (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contributions to the NRA article. Thank you for your time in contributing to the recent RSN request. Since your comment there I have added what I think are some relevant points to the discussion. I wonder if I might impose on you to take a moment to review the latest discussion. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

So, this is where you've been? Looks like the gangs all there. I guess GSL is getting a bit stale? Feel free to ping me in if you'd like some fresh eyes on it. I'm going over it and it seems like it could use some additional updates. Deja vu? Darknipples (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been very busy the past few days on some women's articles, plus a few gun-related. When it rains it pours and all that. Do you know about how to see what another user has been working on? When you go to a user's page or talk page, in the left-hand column, you should see "Tools" and under that you should see "User contributions." Click on that and it shows diffs of what the user has been working on.
Also, do you know about your watchlist? If you click on "Preferences" in the upper right-hand corner, and then on the tab for "Watchlist" you should see your watchlist settings. I can't remember what the defaults are, but if you scroll down to "Advanced options" you'll see "Add pages..." that you can select (so that any page you edit, move, or create are added to your watchlist). You can also manually add pages to your watchlist; when you're on a page, for this example say the National Rifle Association page, you can click the "star" tab in the upper right-hand corner. It toggles on-off; white is off and blue is on (on my screen anyway). You can also use the "Watchlist" tab in the upper right-hand corner to see your watchlist and manage what's on it.
Sorry if you already knew all this stuff. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Index of gun politics articles) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Index of gun politics articles, Lightbreather!

Wikipedia editor WordSeventeen just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

good list article

To reply, leave a comment on WordSeventeen's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thank you, WordSeventeen. I can't believe there wasn't already an index for these. I still need to add quite a few. Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Congrats for being on Wikipedia for 8 years today! Here's a cup of coffee to keep you going! Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Get Well Soonest!

Hope you have a speedy recovery. I know we have had our differences, but I do respect your edits. And, I appreciate your contributions. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Lightbreather. I saw you were just matched to an editor in The Co-op recently, but I also just found out about your arm and how tough it is for you to edit right now. I'm really sorry to hear about it, and hope you have a quick recovery. Would you like to mentor them still, or would it be helpful if I find someone else to mentor them? I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JBT. I have been looking forward to participating in the program, so I'd still like to give it a try. I'll explain my situation to the mentee and if they're OK with it, we'll give it a go. Lightbreather (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks LB, and I gotta say, that's some real dedication! Also, if you want to stop from getting matched to additional editors so as not to get overloaded, you can go to your mentor profile and put a "1" in the unavailable= parameter, and remove it whenever you want to start getting matches again. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather/Archive_20&oldid=1089750272"