User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 1

[Untitled]
Please read the 'talk' page for the AWB article. The matter has been discussed previously. Scrubbing the word cosmetic from the article because it doesn't appear in the law isn't a valid reason. The cited sources state that the differences are cosmetic. It is the cited sources that matter here. Anastrophe (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I did read the 'talk' page for the AWB article. There were only three identifiable participants in the conversation. Certainly, no-one invited me. But at any rate, the cited sources do not support the claim that assault weapons features are cosmetic. The NRA citation does not work, and the VPC citation says, "Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing 'post-ban' assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts." That is not the same as saying that the banned features were cosmetic. Lightbreather (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The specific citation for the graf in question states that the differences are cosmetic. While the VPC cite does not directly state that the banned features were cosmetic, the implication is the same. If a feature detailed in the law was functional, it is not possible to circumvent it with a cosmetic change. The matter is cited. Anastrophe (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with you about this indefinitely. I will start some sort of dispute process, after I decide which one seems most appropriate. Do you have the article locked right now? I am trying to fix the link to the NRA citation, which has been moved from nra.org to the NRA-ILA page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, I can't lock articles. Anastrophe (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop
I have read your comments on my talk page, and archived them. You then added a second copy to my archive, which I removed. Then you posted your personal comments on the AWB page, which is an inappropriate use of the page. Please stop. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I had known that you would read and archive my post within a matter of minutes, I would not have posted other copies. I honestly thought they were lost in the posting process.


 * You do not otherwise wish to respond to my request? Lightbreather (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There were no requests in your comments. Anastrophe (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You request for help
I'm sorry but I do not see how I can help you with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban article. I would normally have suggested you discuss it on the that articles talk page but you have already done that. RJFJR (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP
Like you, I am not a gun supporter. I don't see any particular need for assault weapons. If anything I am neutral on the subject, perhaps with a slight bias towards banning them. But what you are doing is NOT the way things are done. You are upsetting people, and eventually somebody will complain, perhaps even me. (Tho that is not anything I wish to do at the moment) Your actions are disruptive, and can actually get you into trouble if you don't step it down. I am saying all this to you because I think your heart is in the right place. Please stop what you are doing. Seriously. You are swamping the discussion with trivia, and that is considered very disruptive. Stop. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop [moved here from Sue Rangell's talk page, by Sue Rangell]
Lightbreather posted this on Sue Rangell's talk page on 1 SEP 2013, but she moved it to Lightbreather's talk page.

FWIW: I posted a notice last Monday (Aug. 26) on the AWB talk page that I was going to be away from my desk. I don't know if you saw that, but I am back now.

Please, if you disagree with something I do give me details and links so I can know what you’re referring to. If you believe that other editors have reached consensus on something that I missed please give me details and links so I can know that too. For example:

1. You wrote on August 23, “The changes you made were supported by sources, and you did not discuss them here.” I replied with a detailed explanation of what had been discussed and what I’d changed (including clear reasons for WP:WORDS). I also asked you to identify what you were referring to, which you never did.

Then, on Aug. 30, you inserted “NOT” into the middle of your same Aug. 23 statement so it now reads, “The changes you made were NOT supported by sources…” (you have to scroll down) - And you still left unanswered my request for specifics on exactly what you were referring to.

2. Today (September 1) you deleted WP:BALANCE that I added on Aug. 15 to a sentence in the Expiration and effect on crime section. You wrote, “Sentence fragment was removed with consensus originally.”

The sentence fragment you are referring to was rejected because it was in the summary of the cited report. The replacement text (that you deleted) was not in the summary. After I made this change, no further objection was raised. (In fact, the first part of the same sentence cites the same source.)

3. Re: my Aug. 15 addition, you also wrote that I’d “replaced the term unilaterally and started discussion thereafter.”

I see no evidence that every change to the page is preceded by consensus, and I see no WP policy that says that every change should be. Nonetheless, because of your comments and others’ comments, I have started discussions on things that I might otherwise have just changed per WP:BOLD – just to be WP:CAREFUL, but…

4. Now you tell me that I’m “swamping the discussion with trivia” – but without any details or links to what you think is trivial.

Is it your wish that I make no changes and engage in no discussion? If not, please stop reverting my changes, give me details of your objections, and let me participate as an editor who is trying to participate in good faith. I am beginning to feel hassled by you and a couple other editors.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not going to get into this with you. You and I both know what you are doing. If you choose to continue, somebody will make a complaint. That is all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to answer my questions, I can respect that, but please don't claim to know my intentions. Also, short of just giving up on being an editor on the topic in question, I am afraid someone may complain about me. I hope not - but what you wrote makes me feel like you're hoping someone will. Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop [moved here from Sue Rangell's talk page, by Sue Rangell]
Lightbreather posted this on Sue Rangell's talk page on 6 SEP 2013, but she moved it to Lightbreather's talk page.

You edited my comment on a talk page. I accidentally hit Save page instead of Show preview. Perhaps you have never done this. At any rate, I finished editing my own comment less than 10 seconds after I hit save - and before anyone else had commented on it. If I changed it after a comment, I would have used struck-through text. WP:REDACT allows this, and also says: "Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission."

You keep saying you're done editing my posts, but you keep doing it.

Please stop. If you have a problem with something I post, please say it - civilly - on the correct page.

Also, please don't SHOUT at me.

Thanks.

--Lightbreather (talk) 11:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: I also just realized that you changed my post without my permission and then you closed the whole section.

Since you are the closer, I don't want to revert the change you made without my permission. Please change it.

Thanks again.

--Lightbreather (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

PPS: Also, please stop using WP:REVTALK for personal attacks and remarks, like "please do this yourself in the future," "trivia," "no drama please," "topic ban?" "cite sources please," and "please change them back." Also, please don't personalize so much with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 15:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked you not to post this sort of thing to my talk page. I do not enjoy drama. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell, please stop
Lightbreather posted this on Sue Rangell's talk page on 17 SEP 2013, but she moved it to Lightbreather's talk page.

Sue Rangell, please stop using edit summaries to war with me. If you feel you must revert an edit I make, then please cite the relevant policy, guideline, or principle. If you want to discuss an edit I make, then start a talk page discussion. I do both of these things, as directed in WP:ES and WP:REVTALK.

I am trying to focus on content, and you keep making this personal (by making "you" statements and directing commands at me). You have reverted numerous edits I've made, and you basically keep telling me I need to discuss every edit I make before I make it. That's not civil. Lightbreather (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. GregJackP  Boomer!   01:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake, and I apologized on the talk page. Since you came here, I will also apologize to you personally. I am sorry. I had to reset my computer in the middle of composing a response, and I must've botched it when I restarted and refinished my post. I would not delete a talk page on purpose. Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I want to thank you for the link to the mentor page.


 * Second, I have never intentionally vandalized a page. I accidentally added a comment to a user's page instead of his talk page over five weeks ago - just a few days after I became active as an editor - but I corrected and apologized for that. Then I accidentally deleted AWB talk page sections above the one I was responding to yesterday, which someone else caught and corrected, and for which I explained myself and apologized. Your warning is a "last" warning about removing or blanking page content or templates. Shouldn't there be one or more previous warnings to that effect before a "last"? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a template warning. BTW, you have received earlier warnings, here, here, and here on your talk page.  That doesn't include the discussions and warnings on the talk page.  As long as you work with everyone, there shouldn't be a problem.   GregJackP   Boomer!   15:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Realized I archived this without addressing GJP's final comments. My response:


 * Re: the first "here," it was a misunderstanding. On 10 AUG 2013 I made a newbie mistake and accidentally posted to another editor's user page instead of his talk page. It was the first time I'd ever posted to another editor's space. The warning was removed by the same editor who posted it.


 * As for the second "here", from 28 AUG 2013: There are no diffs in the editor's comments. In fact, if one studies the assault weapons ban talk page archive, one will find that the editor gave no diffs between 16 AUG (when I asked for her help) and 28 AUG. During this time the editor accused me of whitewashing and didn't give diffs - even after I asked for them.


 * Re: the third "here," from 5 SEP 2013, again: Accusations, but no diffs. In fact, from 9 AUG to 18 SEP I was engaged by at least 10 other editors' questions and comments; many were WP:PA on contributor, not content. But in either case I was kept very busy trying to reply. In hindsight, I experienced POV railroading (didn't know the term at the time). Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know, but (with the exception of hidden text) that's what I experienced. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)