User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Lightbreather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 24

If he's interested, I'm still open to a voluntary, indefinite IBAN between myself and Hell in a Bucket. Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RetΔrtist (разговор) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your statements :) GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could give me a helping hand with this article on a (probably) notable DC academic and political advisor. The article looks like it's got enough "meat" on it, but there isn't much in the way of sourcing. I found a University of Maryland "distinguished alumi" award which should hopefully make the article stick, and there are lots of news hits, but most of them are pieces by her rather than about her. Can you assist? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am pinging Sarah (SV) as I think this topic interests her more than me. (I kinda stumbled into the subject and stayed for a while, but it's not a strong area of interest for me.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The top of the ARCA page, in the big scary pink box, says "This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive." If your submission isn't ready yet, I suggest you withdraw it, polish it up in a sandbox (e.g. User:Lightbreather/sandbox), and then resubmit. NE Ent 16:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's done, but thanks for the info. Lightbreather (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Moved your request to the clerk's board: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Clerk_help.3F NE Ent 01:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I made a well-meaning edit, with a reasonable explanation, on the page Women's rights in 2014. If you disagree wtih my edit, state the reasons why. Alialiac (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done [1] Sorry. I've been rather busy here on WP and IRL. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for adding RS refs to the section we were discussing and also for removing the bit about the Form 4473 that wasn't in the previous refs. I know that editing can be frustrating and wanted you to know that your edits were thoughtful, excellent, and appreciated. Thanks again. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I want you to know that I really do want to work with others to write a balanced article. I also think we can all help DN to become a better editor by being patient with her and explaining things. I am quite certain that part of the reason she is putting so much text on the article talk page is because she was scared early on by how some editors treated her, and now she's being hyper defensive. This is very much how I felt when I first started editing and I was getting it from all sides.

Anyway, again, you're welcome. And thanks for the thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Kudos LB. You've really done some fantastic work to the GSL page, today. It's bold, but it looks 110% better. It's inspiring for newbies like me, to see how it's done. I just hope I have been helpful in the process. Now, the fun part will be making it stick. ;-) Darknipples (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful, DN. My advice is to quit adding text to the talk page and to start doing more with the article, remembering to select the highest-quality reliable, verifiable sources available and to give everything appropriate WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. I will try to keep tuned in and help with the technical stuff, like how to format source citations and conform with our style guide. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

My other piece of advice is to try to keep the elements in chronological order. My experience with gun control articles is that everyone tries to jockey what they want to emphasize higher up into the article, and that's why there is so much bickering, IMO. If everyone agrees to a chronological order it forces some... order onto the article. When the article is in order, chronologically and from a policy and style perspective, then there should be less bickering about the lead, too. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Seen this debate? (it refers to this Kurier piece attacking WikiProject Women) I think User:Mautpreller nails it pretty well, cheers, --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit. I actually saw that earlier today and meant to go in and change it myself. Beat me to it.  :) Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I may need a few days. Felsic ticked me off. It's hard enough trying to compromise with people that disagree you on a fundamental level, but when someone that agrees with you undermines your efforts, it's too much. I'll try to keep an eye, but apparently they are a one-person army with a stubbornly narrow view of how WP works, and they can do it all on their own. Best of luck. Darknipples (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I know how it feels. Unfortunately, today I have my DIL and granddaughters visiting, plus I am facing some heat at WP:ARCA for trying to get an WP:IBAN between myself and an editor named Hell in a Bucket (long story).

By all means, take some time off. WP is two steps forward and one step back. Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lightbreather. You may have noticed by now, but as a result of the MFD debate on the Kaffeeklatsch page, the page will be kept. Just letting you know. Thanks, Harej (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great news - though I sure would like to hear from WMF re whether or not the page, or the project I proposed at the IdeaLab, violate the non discrimination policy. Siko (WMF) said she would ask, but now the MfD is closed. Lightbreather (talk)

Lightbreather (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Luis Villa rendered his opinion at the bottom of the MFD after someone asked:

“

Without weighing in on the larger question about how to provide safe spaces so that all users are comfortable participating in Wikimedia projects, I want to clear up the misunderstanding related to the WMF non-discrimination policy. In WMF Legal's opinion, the non-discrimination policy does not prohibit users from setting up a women-only discussion in their user space, because the policy was passed by the Foundation board to apply to acts taken by the Foundation and Foundation employees, not individual users. Other policies may, of course, apply.

”

Harej (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to merge some of the seemingly repetitive talk sections in order to make navigation easier. I must rely on you to help make the correct adjustments. Any advice you have for me in this regard is invited and welcome on my TP. Darknipples (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to be careful, especially when other editors' comments are involved. See WP:TPG. Lightbreather (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Any idea whats up with the giant strike-line at the bottom of the talk page and through all of Mudwater's contributions? It goes through other people's commentary and it's very unnerving.Darknipples (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a mistake, it appears. This edit [2] fixed it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

HA! oops, my bad! Thanks LB. Darknipples (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What are you trying to do with these edits?[3][4][5]? Why are you removing neutral language and a source? This is exactly the pattern of edits that got us Topic banned.

You might also want to read the Talk page as I have found a source that back up t

Please read the "Vote stacking" section. You are clearly cherry picking your notifications to areas where you expect support. If you cannot see your bias then I suggest you leave notifying editors about the debate to other people. Chillum 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

he Civil Rights claim. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that calling the NRA a civil rights group because it calls itself one is NPOV. What do the majority of high-quality RS call it? A gun rights group.

The Brady Campaign and Everytown like to call themselves "gun violence prevention" groups, but the majority of high-quality RS call them gun control groups. I kinda prefer the GVP designation, just like pro-gun people like to use the loftier sounding "civil rights groups" and "right to keep and bear arms groups." I believe as editors we're tasked with avoiding the advocacy groups' preferred terms - unless they've become the common terms used by people and the press. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You're putting your own "interpretation" on what WP:RS state and violating policy to do it. The organization calls itself a civil rights group and the U.S. government agrees with that description. Your interpretation of Google searches can't change this. As for common terms, YOU have posted more sources that use the description on the Talk page than anyone else and you're trying to convince me that it isn't common? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's not split the discussion. My comments about the NRA's self-declared IRS designations and what Giffords and Kelly have to say about whether or not the NRA is a "civil rights" group are on the NRA talk page. Let's keep it there, where others can chime in if they wish. Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm making the attempt to communicate my concerns with you directly. There aren't multiple Editors making the changes I cited above. Callanecc seemed fairly clear with their warning about the nature of our Topic Ban and to be careful once it had expired. This edit[6] alone seems to be enough to get Callanecc's or the attention of ARE considering that we are still in the midst of the discussion on the Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

At least two other editors are involved in that discussion - Civil rights organization - so I suggest we keep it there. Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not their edits that concern me nor AFIK have they been subject to the same sanctions that we were. One of your more frequent complaints during several formal processes was that Users did not try to resolve issues with your directly, well I'm doing that before being left with the alternative of escalating the situation.

I request that you self-revert the above difs until the discussion on the Talk has concluded or resolved itself. For the record, I will interpret your inaction or even a tacitly obstinate or coy reply as a refusal which will then result in me bringing the issue to the attention of Admins. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. In the past, I have asked you to come to my page if you have a problem with my conduct. However, since you've threatened to take make before an admin, I have met your demand. Now, from now on, keep content disputes on the article page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Last time I was on this talk page it was to inform you of actions I'd taken in your defence, so don't even think of accusing of me of favouritism, sexism, or anything else. This time I'm here to tell you to stop. Do not poke bears; that's no more civil than the profanity-ridden response you're looking for. And do not canvass other editors to make improper edits after being reverted by an admin for doing so yourself. Especially without informing them that it had already been reverted. As I'm sure you're well aware, editors are given very wide latitude in their own userspace; unless that header were a personal attack, no third party has any business meddling with it. I don't know if you're trying to cause trouble or just blithely wandering through a minefield, no doubt to wonder why there are explosions going off all over the place. Either way, knock it off. Go and write an article or do something else that's useful. If you carry on the way you're going, you will end up blocked. That is the only possible destination of the course you seem to have set yourself. You may have read my philosophy on blocking established editors on Roger's talk page yesterday, in which case you will know that blocking anyone other than common-au-garden trolls and vandals is not something I find desirable, but that's never stopped me from doing what's necessary to prevent disruption. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Harry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

My, apologies HJ Mitchell, that I'd forgotten that you are an admin. There are lots of admins and only a dozen maybe that are etched in my brain as anything more than another editor. And at the end of a long day (yesterday), I even forgot that Cullen328 is not an admin. (I was probably thinking of Callanecc, who has a similar username.)

As for personal attacks, WP:TALKNEW says, ... using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Anyone who looks at my history will see that I avoid putting usernames in talk headers, unless it's required (like at AE).

I am not trying to cause trouble, nor am I blithely wandering. I think admins who want to prevent disruption would do better to sanction offenders rather than the offended, especially when policy backs you up. And I am not talking about EC here. There is a group of editors who thinks I am out to get him. NO. There are policies in place to prevent attacks and harassment and a legion of defusers to act on them. The "poker" in this case wasn't I, it was the editor who put my name in that header (I'd asked him before not to do that). He harasses, and I get a lecture - and a block threat. I leave you and others to conclude what "ism" - if any - Wikipedia suffers from. Lightbreather (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:KAFFEEKLATSCH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop canvassing. Posting at Editor Retention was one thing. Spamming all of the women's wikiprojects is another. That smacks of trying to influence the debate. If you are going to notify random groups just because they have "women" in the title, you need to do the same for men's groups. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Since women only make up 10% to 15% of the editorial body, I think the most it "smacks of" is trying to find some women to participate. Why should 90 men and 10 women decide these things? If more than half of the voters on this question are women, take me to a noticeboard and make a charge. Besides, those projects aren't necessarily all women, or all editors who would vote for keeping the redirect. Look at us. We're both women, and you're voting to delete it and I'm voting to keep it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This was your warning. I will bring to ANI if this continues to happen or happens again. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather if you think some questionable stats on the gender of our editors allows you to campaign in a biased fashion then you are completely wrong. Do not engage in any further canvasing, even if you think some great wrong needs to be righted. Chillum 16:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute. I just went to re-read the canvassing guideline and it says:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.

Honestly, I don't see anything about my notices that constitute what is called inappropriate notification on the canvassing guideline page. I should very much like it if people extend a little AGF with me. I am trying, in good faith, to improve the project. Lightbreather (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the "Vote stacking" section. You are clearly cherry picking your notifications to areas where you expect support. If you cannot see your bias then I suggest you leave notifying editors about the debate to other people. Chillum 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Votestacking," it says, is about "selectively notifying editors," not projects. But since you and Karanacs seem worried that any editor in a project that has "women" in its name is going to vote to keep a redirect to a women-only space, I'll go put the notice on the Men's rights movement article, since the 280 watchers of that page are all bound to vote delete, right? Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd previously notified these projects about the existence of the kaffeeklatsch and then notified them of the RfD discussion, I don't think people would object quite so much. At least then the projects would have been aware of what was going on. It wouldn't even have been so bad if you'd posted on just a few projects. However, you notified what appears to be the majority of projects with "women" in their name (I haven't counted all of them so it's possible that you only contacted a small proportion of them. Some of those projects are lower profile and I can't think of a reason for contacting them unless you were contacting most women's projects). Moreover, you hadn't previously notified any of them about the kaffeeklatsch: you first notified these projects of the RfD discussion and only then informed them about the kaffeeklatsch. You also state above that you're trying to get more women's voices to the discussion. Taken together, you may not be canvassing to according the letter of the guideline but it is clear to me that you are canvassing according to its spirit. Ca2james (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't make up new rules like that, Ca2james, if you really are suggesting best practice to avoid canvassing would be for editors to give a two-part notice, to any Wikiproject that would likely be interested in any proceeding!

And, definitely, Lightbreather's notices were absolutely NOT violations of wp:CANVASS. For one, she did not post to user Talk pages, selectively or not. So wp:CANVASS does not apply at all. But suppose the wp:canvass policy were somehow extended to refine about postings to wikiprojects (which in fact it simply encourages), even then, on the four components of wp:canvass:

• Scale: This was limited, to a select number of wikiprojects likely to have interest, 7 apparently, as documented by LB in her posting about this canvassing accusation, and a bit more, at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and as shows in her contrib history. But first she posted at Wikiproject Editor Retention (WER) and also at GGTF, just the barebones notice ""There is a redirect for discussion that may be of interest to this group", and the latter is where i saw it. In wp:canvass terms: NOT Mass-posting. NOT "Excessive cross-posting (spamming)", at all.
• Message: neutral, completely, in the "There is a redirect for discussion that may be of interest to this group" part, to each of the other 7. Then in the second part of the message to those 7, e.g. this one to WikiProject Jewish Women, she provides the basic info about the KaffeeKlatsch...which is what Ca2james calls for her to do, just in reverse order! It is entirely reasonable to provide together! At WER and GGTF, everyone knows about the Klasch, so she didn't need to introduce it. On the wp:canvass Neutral to Biased scale, i say the message was informative, maybe arguably promotional about the Klatsch. Is it campaigning? Well, it was getting the word out about the Klatsch. I think NOT "Campaigning" in any bad way, about the RFD.
• Audience: the 7 women's wikiprojects, on scale of "Non-partisan" to "Partisan", well they're likely interested, but not at all likely to be uniformly on one side about the redirect, as suggested in diversity of women's opinions on the Klatsch, in the MFD and elsewhere. And she did notify WER and GGTF, where there surely would be quite a mix of views. It's NOT "Vote-stacking"! (in wp:canvass's term)
• Transparency: on the "Open" to "Secret" scale, it was open. No way is everyone not going to notice. The last of those was at time 16:01. The only thing she could have done further on this would have been for her to make an explicit announcement within the RFD, that she made those 9 notifications. I would recommend that, in any future situation like this, but I think LB is relatively new on this aspect of Wikipedia (and there simply was no canvassing, no notices to user talk pages!). Her posting to User talk:Jimbo Wales, later, is way-out-there transparent, too. And, well, she was immediately criticized here in this section on her talk page, at 16:12, and was responding here by 16:20, presumably investigating the guidelines in the meantime. No intent to be stealthy, no way she could have actually succeeded in anything secret, on-wiki: NOT "stealth canvassing"! (And everyone should be grateful the klasch is on-wiki, the activity is on-wiki, rather than truly secret somewhere else.)

I hope this analysis by me might help head off any further accusations in any other proceeding, or be useful in citing elsewhere if needed. sincerely, --doncram 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: your hope is misguided because you miss the elephant in the room. That is the problem when people wikilawyer: you need to consider spirit, not merely letter. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, I was trying to analyze the situation, not making up new rules. From my perspective, notifying the projects of the RfD discussion while also inviting the projects to take part in the kaffeeklatsch looked more like canvassing than if the projects had been previously notified about the kaffeeklatsch. I do not think a two-part notice is necessary, nor do I think the guideline should be changed, and I apologize for not making that clear in my previous post. Ca2james (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: I had been painstakingly reviewing the "women" project membership lists, updating them (moving one's who hadn't edited since before 2014 to an inactive section), and inviting a FEW from each that appeared to be women to join the klatsch. A lot of manual labor. When this delete thing came up I thought, WTF, I might as well tell the projects about it and tell them about the klatsch at the same time. I get accused of canvassing no matter how I do it, but telling the project seems less problematic than selecting individuals at random and inviting them. At this point though, the klatsch has so much garbage and graffiti spread all over it that who would want to enter? Still, I'm not ready to give up on the idea. If all the protesting dies down, maybe a few women will give it a try. I don't see how it hurts the project, and I actually think it could help to recruit/retain some women. Lightbreather (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever considered upgrading GGTF to a WikiProject? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Have you ever met Calliopejen1? She may provide some insight and guidance. . Buster Seven Talk 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

	Un saluto
	Good initiative Susanna Giaccai (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh thank you, Susanna. I love birds, and I love the image! (Also, I hope to learn Italian someday. So far, I have what's left of high-school German, plus an intermediate level of Spanish.)

Ciao! --Lightbreather (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather, I saw you post that you can't tell when someone's an admin. There's a script that turns admin signatures blue; see User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js. If you'd like it, add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); //Admin detector to User:Lightbreather/vector.js. (Fingers crossed it works. The idea of me giving technical advice is hilarious.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

More from SlimVirgin tech support. Re: this, for a notification to work it has to be signed at the time of a ping. So if you forget to add one, or if you mistype it, you have to leave a second message containing the ping and sign it. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried that first thing, but I don' think I did it right. Thanks for the heads-up on the second thing. Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit feels pretty divisive. I strongly prefer gender-neutral terms for myself, and I don't think trying to separate editors on the page by gender is constructive. It's a controversial enough topic already without adding anything else to the mix. (Please feel free to archive this comment ASAP - if there was a more private way to voice my concern I'd have used that instead.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering LB was talking to me, I'd like to state that I felt no intention of disrespect or "divisiveness" towards the rest of the "people", as you may prefer. To be honest, I assumed it was quite the opposite, but by all means, do express your concerns, Faceless Enemy. Darknipples (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a comment on an article talk page, so by definition, it is a comment to all interested editors, not just an individual. I am in an awkward position here, since I favor the neutral point of view here on Wikipedia, while supporting both Second Amendment rights and closing the gun show loophole off Wikipedia. When I read a formulation like "the guys", I feel pigeonholed. I am a guy who may disagree with some on the definition of an assault weapon, but agree with the same person on the gun show loophole. Glib phrases that separate and categorize people should be avoided. We should be here to build a neutral encyclopedia, rather than to categorize and factionalize editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NO hidden meaning. Reviewing language used on the page, maybe I subconsciously picked up on something F. wrote earlier in the day: You guys seem to like to argue more than edit.[7] At any rate, I changed it,[8] so let that be the end of it. Lightbreather (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather, just letting you know that an amendment request involving you has been declined by motion of the Committee and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 18:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Did I understand from the discussion that this is historic? As in without precedent? Courcelles said they thought we've never passed a formal motion to close something at ARCA without action.[9] Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That is correct; don't quote me, but to the best of my knowledge, the Committee has never declined an ARCA request by motion. (hence the less-than-standard message.) Cheers, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I still think gender-neutral is the best approach towards Wikipedia. But, if your heart is still set on creating a WikiProject for 'female' editors? then go for it. It will either succeed or fail. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Take your time LB. You should be proud of the work you've done there, and all that you've accomplished. The GSL article is stronger than I could ever have hoped. Reflect on all that we've been through together for a bit. Editors that forget to leave their agendas at the door always seem to fail around here. Take comfort in that. Darknipples (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I might take another break. Not that I ever really took one, but I think we've reached a peak on GSL where it's on only a matter of semantics and syntax at this point. Just ping me if you would like me to weigh in. I will keep an eye, but I think my efforts will now be better spent on some new articles, possibly. Like I said, just ping me, and I'll be there faster than you can say Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon ;-) Darknipples (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather I have been advised to take at least a week off from editing GSL to blow off steam, by the TEAHOUSE [10] . I am taking their advice. In order to do this I am not going to even look at what is going on. I don't know what else to say, other than that I will be back, and hopefully, the editor(s) that seem to have no respect for WP rules and guidelines will not be there. Feel free to use my talk page for support, but I need at least try their suggestion. (sigh) Darknipples (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe Cullen thinks I'm you [11] ...I offered to do a checkuser, what does that mean? Darknipples (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather. Just saw your post at User talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch (I had the page watchlisted out of interest) and wanted to say that the Tampon Run game is almost certainly notable given the sources you linked there and others I just found from a quick google search. I've started a (extremely barebones) draft at Draft:Tampon Run. I'll probably get round to writing it in the next few days but feel free to help. Sam Walton (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Once someone responds, its bad practice to move what you said, here, to somewhere else. It creates a hole in the conversation and the response no longer makes any sense. If you get your women-only page/project/site, you are going to have to be a better page facilitator. . Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If it bothers you, feel free to restore it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It didn't just bother me. It was already undone by DeCausa with the edit summary Undid revision 647149512 by Lightbreather (talk) Per WP:REDACT. Don't remove posts once they've been responded to - it compromises the responses. . Buster Seven Talk 06:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and soon after your "friendly advice" I received a notice of DC's revert, so your advice might seem to some more like a poke. If you're going to help facilitate editor-retention efforts you're going to need to be a nicer editor yourself. Lightbreather (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If I was any nicer I would be a woman. . Buster Seven Talk 16:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite! I had noticed the page (and was depressed by the predictable response from male editors) and have had it watchlisted for a while, but had been disappointed at the low amount of responses. Very keen to participate if it takes off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! It's a Catch-22 then. ;-) You want to join if it takes off... but don't want to join to help it take off? ;-) Well, do keep watching, ok? Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gun show loophole. 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.

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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WeldNeck (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

LB: if there's any doubt, do a voluntary self-revert and offer a day away. That's better than a black mark on your block log. Felsic (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf‎ maybe you got something to add. Felsic (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Result (of AN3): Article fully protected two days. User:WeldNeck gets a special mention for inserting partisan language into the article text.... per EdJohnston.[14] Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, that sort of comment, even though you will probably claim it is an aide memoire, does look rather like gravedancing. You've done it before but if, as you repeatedly say, you want to reduce the number of people who take an interest in your doings then perhaps it would be a good idea to make this the last occasion? It is the sort of thing that, rightly or wrongly, attracts moths. - Sitush (talk)

Sitush, I have asked you this more than once. Please. Leave. Me. Alone. Perhaps revisit this discussion from two months ago: Please take your own good advice - and please leave me alone. Especially the last half, where you wrote, "I haven't followed you anywhere." Please read that, and then leave me alone, as I've asked I believe more than once. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please take my page off your watchlist. Lightbreather (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's some meta-advice, Sitush: make sure people actually perceive you as wise before acting wise.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. I've lost count of how many pages he's showed up at - user talk pages, article talk pages, project talk pages - just to reply to me with uninvited "advice," or to reply to others about me. It's condescending and against WP:CIVIL. He (and others) carry on about content, yet he's one of the most opinionated, meddlesome gossipers on the project. Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I usually don't discuss others indirectly outside of procedural pages, but what I summarized here[15] is serious to me. I have no problem with previously uninvolved parties diving into focused content discussion, even in the middle of an edit war; the more the merrier. However, I don't appreciate being bossed around with orders of how I should or shouldn't conduct talkpage discussion. It all adds up to some pretty hostile, discouraging behavior.

And ping, Sitush. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about you behind your back.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please strike the personal attack in your comment above. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

First, if, on an open forum, Editor A can say to Editor B (me) "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one,"[16] in response to a question about creating a civility board - and have that response ruled not a PA - then it would be awfully unjust to sanction Editor B for saying, on their own talk page, that Editor C - who has been asked to stop but persists in harassing Editor B - is a gossip. Second, I could fill a page with the uncivil comments he's made about me, but here are a few diffs:

• 18 December 2014 Called me a whinger
• 18 December 2014 Called me an elephant in the room
• 11 January 2015 Called me a canvasser
• 27 January 2015 Accused me of campaigning; called me an elephant in the room
• 2 February 2015 Called me a "vexatious litigant" and a liar (His post was 357 words - and not one diff)
• 8 February 2015 Called me a canvasser
• 12 February 2015 Called me an elephant in the room
• 12 February 2015 Called me a canvasser (297 words: 12 uses of "you")
• 20 February 2015 Called me a gravedancer (72 words: 5 uses of "you")

So no, I don't think I will strike that. When he stops talking about me all over the project, perhaps my opinion of him will change, but I'm not going to be bullied into behaving better than Editor A or Editor C. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention of sanctioning you; I don't generally give civility blocks unless the comment was egregious. I made a comment today only because I find it hypocritical that you feel no qualms in leaving this on your talk page not very long after you expressed dismay that Montanabw made an oblique reference to you on someone else's talk page. My personal philosophy is to act according to my own values and not lower myself just because someone else has done so; however, it is your prerogative whether or not to refactor your own comments, and I have nothing further to say on this matter. Karanacs (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. However, I would like to point out a big difference between that discussion on someone else's talk page - [17] - and this discussion. I hadn't started that discussion, nor had I contributed to that discussion, and there was no reason why anyone should have been talking about me in it. (Though I wasn't surprised to see Scalhotrod drag me into it. He's one of a dozen or so editors who talk about me regularly, wherever the hell they please.)

But this discussion is on my page, had nothing to do with Sitush, and I've asked him before to leave me alone. And he's also one of the pack that likes to talk about me. I'm really tired of that. If someone has a beef with me, take it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, as they like to say to me, work on some content. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I think you may have misinterpreted what Sitush said in those diffs by taking them to apply to you the person when he was actually referring to your behaviour. Saying that you canvassed is not the same as calling you a canvasser; similarly, saying that you gravedanced is not the same as calling you a gravedancer, and saying that there's an elephant in the room doesn't mean that he's calling you an elephant in the room, he's saying that your behaviour is the elephant in that room. I know this might seem like a trivial difference but it isn't: commenting on behaviour instead of labeling the person with that behaviour is one of the fundamental keys to good communication and feedback. Sitush did say that were a vexatious litigant: there, he referred to you the person, but note that it was Salvio who first said you were a vexatious litigant, and Sitush and others repeated the phrase. Ca2james (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Before I archive this, sorry, but no I don't think I've misinterpreted what Sitush said in those diffs. I'm not the first to complain about his condescending manner, but more than that - I've asked him to leave me alone, so I'd like him to respect that. If he continues to opine about me, he'll only further my opinion that he's a busybody who likes to present himself as a benevolent, long-suffering, and misunderstood prince. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I just ran across this [18], if you did not, thought you should know about it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about it, but thanks for thinking of me kindly. Lightbreather (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how is it different from your efforts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the big thing is it's not women-only. Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, got it! I guess I was surprised to see no discussion about your project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The analogy was a sarcastic tongue in cheek that your name dare not be mentioned on Corbett's talk page for fear that we'll all be dragged into another round of troubles and debate by the mere appearance of your username on his page. Frankly, I'm not feeling particularly apologetic because I'm disappointed in your persistence in seeking scapegoats and I think that you need to stop going around looking for drama. Just drop the stick and edit. Fix the actual problems with articles by being a woman editor and writing about topics you care about. Montanabw^(talk) 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Scapegoats? I'm not scapegoating - I just want people to stop talking about me. Focus on content and not on contributor and all that NPA stuff. As I said, I don't go around the project talking about you - or others. I'm not asking for an apology, just please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(BTW, your article space edits make up 56% of your total and my article space edits make up 47% of mine. I do hope, someday, it will be higher, but considering that not all of my current projects have to do with articles, I think I'm doing pretty well nonetheless.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, reasonable enough request. Good luck with your content editing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and you too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi LB,

On Thursday, February 19th, there was a women's only breakfast meeting at a tech conference in Silicon Valley. I listened to several radio reports about it and meant to find a link about the story that day. I've just spent the last hour and a half looking for a link with no luck. I'm sorry that I could not find it, but it was evidence that the tech community supports "women only" events that exclude men.

I did run across this in my search...

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/02/06/what-silicon-valley-thinks-women-302821.html

Hope it helps. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)