User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Keep up the good work

You've been busy at Gun politics in the United States. I look forward to reading it when the dust settles. Thenub314 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC closes

Are not done by anyone actually directly involved in the RfC. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:EW warning

Please read that policy, and note that 3RR is not a licence to commit 3RR. I suggest you self-revert and continue actual talk page discussions to obtain consensus and compromise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

And do you plan on warning Scalhotrod, too? We were working together, and he felt no reason to warn me... just as I was dealing with him collegially. [1] I am asking you kindly to back off, and if you have a problem with an edit, deal with that edit, and don't just revert everything. I carefully read and responded to Scal's nine edits individually. The way you treated mine was uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert please

Sure. What precisely would you like me to re-add? If you cut and paste to my talk I'll put in whatever you suggest. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

Discretionary sanctions notification

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, does this mean that Scalhotrod is going to get away with removing the same, single "See also" article link three times, and then moving/renaming the article so as to avoid removing the link a fourth time? Isn't that gaming? Lightbreather (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comment re: Gaijin's ban

Do you realize that with your comment, "Also, I third Salvio's and Andy's suggestions to reconsider Gaijin's ban. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)", that you just recommended that Gaijin be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia? It's not an unusual request for Andy to make. In fact I've seen him make it enough times I have to wonder how many Admins take it seriously any longer. I've also seen Andy state that if a certain change is not made or content removed that he will "report" the "offending party" and start a formal process. This is the kind of thing that can turn even your most ardent supporters against you. Differences of opinion aside, working to get someone banned is in my opinion the most egregious kind of censorship there is. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually voted to lessen the sanctions proposed against Gaijin at ArbCom. After what he did in recent days, plus the comments of several arbitrators and yes, curmudgeonly Andy, I've changed my mind. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdent

When using {{outdent}} or {{od}}, like you did at WP:ANI, please make sure to include a parameter with the number of colons that the previous post had. For example, if the previous post had four colons (::::), use {{outdent|::::}} or {{outdent|4}}. This makes sure that the line properly connects to the previous post. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Xlnt! Thanks for the correction. Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Olive branch

    I'll extend the olive branch.
    Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey LB, Happy Mother's Day (if that's appropriate to say), I know that you are female, but not much else. You've mentioned that you are an NRA member and that you've been the president of a non-profit.

I'm posting this template for two reasons. First, I'm extending it on my behalf in order to say that I know you are a capable editor and a good writer and I am fairly confident that we can work together if we try to forge an understanding of each other. In fact, things used to be better between us, but I'm not sure where it went off the track. Second, assuming you did not know of its existence, I'm hoping that you will use it as well to reach out to others. It's not a recommendation or even an inference, its just meant to be a peaceful gesture. I'm sharing some "peace" with you... :)

I know what its like to be a passionate editor, I'm guilty of the same. Furthermore, I hope you can agree that its for the good of all (on Wikipedia) that passionate people with convictions about any number of topics learn to work together.

Sound good? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharing some experience...

So since we've been working on so many gun related articles, I thought I'd mention something that I've learned the hard way on more than one occasion. This might come across as ridiculously pun-ish, but Wikipedia articles are like bullets fired from a gun. Regardless of how well you "aim", once they are created you have no control over the direction they go in or what impact they have on others. I'm not saying this not to placate you, but to hopefully save you from some future stress over it. My attitude towards article creation is that I can't wait for someone else to edit the article as I interpret it as an endorsement of the content I've assembled. This goes for new sections I've created as well.

Does this backfire (or boomerang in Wikispeak) on occasion, sure. But IMO that's what makes the site so great. Other people can take your ideas, modify them, expand on them, and create things that you never imagined. The only truly frustrating part of this is that it takes time which is complicated by the fact that almost no one communicates at the same speed. Patience is by far the most undervalued concept on this site. By the way, something I personally take pride in (in regard to article creation) is the fact that pretty much any article created becomes the highest ranked Google search result for that search term or keyword. If I start typing "assault" into Google, by the time I hit the space bar the top result in my window is the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban" article... :) This is the point where you get the smile to yourself and enjoy the fact that regardless of all the petty BS, bickering, and such that goes on behind the scenes on Wikipedia, what we're doing has an affect on the REAL WORLD. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the friendly gesture, I think it's an example of why we bump heads. When I type "assault weapons ban" in Google and the only Wikipedia article that pops up - and on top, at that - is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired 10 years ago, that does not make me smile. The searcher gets the impression, via Google/Wikipedia, that the only ban that ever existed was that defunct one. If it were still in force, that search result might make sense.

Not to cast any shadow on you personally, but after editing here less than a year, I sense that it is no accident that after all these years that old assault weapons ban article is the one that Google and Wikipedia searchers finds easily.

Again, though, let's please keep it on content and not get into general discussions. I think that would be for the best. You might be a nice guy that I would have a beer with in real like, but on Wikipedia - I just think this would be best. Lightbreather (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can understand that viewpoint, so let me offer something else. As part of the various volunteer work that I've done, some of it has been on campaigns including a state governor and a congressman. I'm talking about actually working in their campaign offices alongside paid staff people. So I've had access to and have developed an appreciable understanding of how our "actual" political process functions. Granted, Congressional staffers do not look to Wikipedia for hard facts, but their constituents do. An article like the Federal ban along with the Assault Weapons Legislation one go a long way to providing information to the people that influence our politicians. This is why our edits are so important and its critical that we get them right.

Even though its expired, having an ever present reminder like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article isn't as dire as you might think. The fact that it passed once means it can pass again, but it won't be in the same form. Like you've championed so well, it needs updating. But the fact remains that it happened and existed for a decade, what would be worse is to forget about it altogether. I still think you can proud of what you've accomplished. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your Revert in High-Capacity Magazines

I'm sorry, but while what you put is essentially a direct quote, without the context provided by the reference, using the phrase "generally considered" makes it appear that this is common or expert consensus, instead of a definition applicable to some legislation, which you can see that the reference is clearly applying to by looking at the following:

1) The name of the paper you cited is "Laws on High Capacity Magazines" 2) The only sources it provides are past legislation, two of which define it as something other than ten rounds. 3) If it was talking about general consensus or expert consensus instead of consensus in legislators who are trying to limit magazine capacity, it provided no sources or research to substantiate that claim.

So there are two options:

A) The source is talking about the legislation it cites.

B) It is talking about general consensus. If it is, then it does not provide any sources or research in order to validate that it is general consensus, and is as such not a reliable source for this particular fact.

As such, I am reverting it back to the wording which makes more clear what the research is most likely referring to, namely the legislation it cites as sources.

Also, I am quite confused how you including the NRA when supporting your revert is applicable? My revert isn't about presenting both sides, it's about what the reference is actually talking about. Thank you for your time. Eleutheria Sleuth (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow...!

This person called me anti-gun...!?!?! I don't know if I should feel complimented or insulted... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request(Gun control :Gaijin42)

An arbitration amendment request(Gun control :Gaijin42), which either involved you, or in which you commented, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 208.54.35.173 (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do not edit others talk page comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.173 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comment. I added a subsection header above your comment, which I believe is OK per WP:TPO. Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears you may be canvasing

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Please refrain from canvasing as you did here regarding an open Arbcom about you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scalhotrod#Heads_up_2

"as you did here"? Do you mean that link to Scal's talk page? What exactly was I "canvassing"? Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaints About Gun-Related Articles

Please do not post complaints about behavior on gun-related articles to WP:ANI or WP:AN. While you have the right to do that, those noticeboards are called drama boards for good reason. They inflame existing passions and seldom result in constructive changes, or even in constructive sanctions. Since the gun-related articles have already been litigated, please go to arbitration enforcement if there is disruptive editing. It is quicker, more likely to result in action, and less likely to result in endless ranting. The topic was arbitrated largely because the noticeboards couldn't resolve the repeated issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the most recent thread was not one that you started, but one where an IP "reported" you and wound up being blocked by boomerang. Was the IP a sockpuppet of a blocked user, a banned user, or a topic-banned user editing logged out? If you have reason to think that the IP was a sock, you can go to WP:SPI. However, the IP might just be an unregistered user. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Lightbreather!

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

This article is expertly written and quite informative. Thank you!

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

Learn more about page curation.

Agree with Newyorkbrad

Please follow the advice of Newyorkbrad and report the IP addresses at arbitration enforcement or at requests for page protection. If you think that the IPs are topic-banned users editing logged out, then you can request sock-puppet investigation, but only if they quack like topic-banned users. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request(Gun control)

An arbitration amendment request(Gun control), which involved you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Laura Langbein) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Laura Langbein, Lightbreather!

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

Thank you! Great article!

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

Learn more about page curation.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gun politics in the United States. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of NRA

I know what you mean, but here is where I see problems with it. Now I am going to oversimplify in the interest of brevity, so don't take it 100% literal. What would be considered reliable sources for criticism? Obviously if you go to NYT, Bloomberg (little Napoleon who ran NYC into the ground as opposed to the news org that bears his name), (Rhymes with) Chuck Schumer, MSNBC, DU, etc. you will find criticism saying that they are too powerful, they should be more concerned with hunting and conservation issues, etc. If you go to the other side of the aisle you will find people heaping praise on them. Go a bit farther out and there will be those who say they backstabbed gun owners in 1934, 1968, 1994 and they don't do enough for gun rights. Former lobbyists who worked for them say they care more about stirring up the fight than working toward something reasonable, etc. I'm keeping out of the political stuff for now, but see nothing but bad blood and aggravation coming from this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...

I just wanted to thank you for this edit. After the stellar advice given to you on Hipocrites Talk page I figured you'd start to get it, but when almost immediately an opportunity was presented to you, you blew it. You've convinced me that its pointless think you might choose to act more consistent with the rest of the Wikipedia community. And yes, you can accuse me of acting the same way, but the vast majority of it has been in reaction to your actions. I've lowered myself to a deplorable level in my interaction with you and as George Bernard Shaw was found of saying, "...never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." Good luck to you, the people you'll likely tick off next (or have already and they're dealing with more important issues at the moment) are far less forgiving that I am on my worst day. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Given to me? My advice is meant for everyone. - Hipocrite 16:05, 29 May 2014.[2] And you're calling me a pig? And somehow I'm responsible for you lowering yourself? You have a right to your opinions about me, but not to spread them without evidence all over Wikipedia. I thank you for at least bringing your latest complaint here, to my page, but I'm asking you again what I've asked you many times now: Keep It On Content, Not Character. Lightbreather (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)