User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 14

Retiring?
I don't like to see anyone retire from the 'pedia. Please reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, don't want to see you go; leaves progressive people trying to change things with fewer allies, though this is typical - progressives in general tend to not like fighting, when they do, they pick the wrong target, it boomerangs, and so they quit. (Frustrates me a great deal) Nonetheless, I hope you do not view me as one of the "women with my head in the sand"; I just know what works here and what does not, who to go into battle against and who is not worth the bother. By my view, WP is full of drama queens of all genders, and no more uncivil than some of the old right-wing boards I used to engage on in the old days of bbs systems, before online chat.  The online world has always been harsher and less civil than the real world.  But IMHO, WP is less uncivil than some online arguments I've gotten into the gun nuts and the right to life crowd.  Doesn't mean it should be this way, but we ARE dealing with a base of predominantly as the Guardian puts it, "what you get in Wikimedia is the world according to the young white western male with a slight personality defect."  Montanabw (talk)  17:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have my head in the sand too, but that's also because my butt looks so great. Don't go, Lightbreather. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have decided to leave. I think the only way that Wikipedia can be more welcoming and diverse is if we help it along by our very presence and action. It's really amazing how one person can change the world. For example, if you decided to stay here and be welcoming and encourage diversity, you could be the change you desire. If you don't believe me, try this experiment where you live: decide on a certain day when you wake up, that you will smile at everyone you see and meet, whenever you are. That means smiling at people on the street, smiling at people at work, and smiling at cashiers and other service people you encounter. Try it and, and see what happens. And then consider whether you might still have an impact on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say...

 * Quitting a website over other people is a really dumb move in my opinion. For every idiot out there you will come across someone who is supportive and helpful. I know my words will prob have little meaning and I know you don't know me at all but I really wish you would just stay here at Wikipedia as there are people who value you here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You will be missed. Your farewell message above reflects underestimation of your accomplishments. I am not a Christian, but I appreciate the strength, wisdom, and humanity of those able to turn the other cheek. Thewellman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 2014 Jefferson County Public Schools protests
— Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

A kitten for you!
Just because...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 

revert
The revert of your comments on the ArbCom page was accidental. I was viewing the diff of the newest comments and accidentally bumped the revert button. I have self reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF case talk page: hatting
Carolmooredc, please ignore this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not continue to post to a section after it has been hatted. I have reverted the extra comments you made. Please do not restore them. Roger Davies talk 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion was not hatted when I started my last comment. Please see my comment there. I hope that you or another editor will restore it. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To anyone who tries to understand this. The discussion was this Gang Bangers, and the comment Roger removed was:


 * As for the "Carol is American" BS, I'm a Yank, too, and I can tell you the two meanings I know for "gang bang" and "gang banger." The first goes way back, as I've seen depicted in many movies. A "gang bang" is a girl/woman being fucked one at a time (consensually or not) by a group of boys/men lined up nearby. "Gang banger," I learned, is a street gang member, which my oldest son told me when he was in high school. When I first heard the term I was confused, because I'd only ever heard the other term, with its purely sexual meaning. I don't know what Carol meant, but I can tell you that there are at least these two meanings here in the U.S.


 * Regardless, it's obvious that she's burnt out. So I'll tell her now what several editors rushed to tell Eric when he did the same thing and called Jimbo Wales a "dishonest cunt of the highest order" - after this case was opened. Carolmooredc: Unless an arbitrator asks you a direct question related to this case, hush! There might be hope for you yet, just as Eric received an early Christmas present four days ago with Proposal 2.3. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If this comment is restored to that discussion, I will delete this discussion.

Carolmooredc, please ignore this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I considered your request, and I understand your annoyance at Roger Davies@undefined's revert. However the utility of having a comment in a hatted section is minimal, especially given that Carol has been banned from that talk page anyway.  I suggest you remove your request, before someone with my sense of justice, but a little more impetuous follows it and gets their knuckles rapped.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC).