User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 9

In reference to your NRA 3O request
FYI. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll see where that goes, and possibly just go to the RSN. Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gun Show Loophole
I was wondering if you might know what the protocol is for changing that section header. Should I wait for more people to respond to my query on the talk page, or did Cullen have the final say on that? I thought I'd ask you instead of just going straight to the Tea House, but I'll leave you alone, if you prefer not to be bothered. Thanks again for talking Darknipples (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * From what I gathered at the TeaHouse, there needs to be some sort of consensus on a compromise for any disputed changes to be made. I'm not sure how many editors there are, but there are 55 watchers currently. Is there a chance that most or all of them are going to chime in with different opinions? Seems like that would be kind of a cluster****. Not to mention the way the talk board is formatted could lead to major confusion. Anyway, thank you for the vote of confidence. I really just want to improve this article, and I don't really care about sides. Chow for now. DN 18:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknipples (talk • contribs)
 * Consensus is a tricky thing. There is also the WP:IGNORE policy. That said, articles related to gun control are under discretionary sanctions now, so we must not be turds. Take it slow. Be respectful. Follow the rules. But don't let either side intimidate you. (I was bullied and tag-teamed mercilessly when I first started here.)
 * I support the Second Amendment, but I also think we could have better regulations. IMO, a lot of the Wikipedia gun related articles have a decided pro-gun or gun-rights POV. Like you, I only want to improve them, which from my trained editor's eye, usually means adding some WP:BALANCE using high-quality WP:V, WP:RS. (The quality of the sources some of these guys cite is terrible.)
 * Again, if you have any questions, I will do what I can to help. It really just takes time. And knowing a few editors who will give advice, kindly, is nice, too. For the first few months I edited here, I felt so lonely. Almost gave up many times, but I kept hanging in there. Remember to breathe - and don't let anyone bait you. And remember to sign all your posts with the four tildes. You seem to keep forgetting that. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: If you do rename that section header, do it with only the first letter capitalized - "Gun show loophole" - per MOS:HEADINGS. Lightbreather (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't plan on editing the header without a consensus, or at least a compromise, which by the way, doesn't seem like much considering how biased "controversy" sounds to anyone with a different point of view. Speaking of which I found some articles that may help dispute that...

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2013-02-13/html/CREC-2013-02-13-pt1-PgH481-3.htm

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/16/opinion/la-ed-guns16-2009dec16

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/gun_owners_vs_nra_leadership_salpart/

"So, if 69 percent of NRA members favor closing the gun show loophole, that's an issue where there's really not as much controversy as some might want us to believe."

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2010-09-07/gun-violence-prevention/gun-show-question-stirs-controversy-at-mn-state-fair/a15829-1

I also feel kind of like I'm being ignored by everyone but you...

Cullen's demeanor really surprised me since he basically ignored my response and then said something on my talk page that seemed somewhat contradictory to his recent statements..."I probably won't have much more to say on the gun show issue. I rarely enjoy editing in divisive topic areas, and find this particular area polarizing. As I take a middle ground personally, I find both sides of the dispute to be inflexible."

I guess I'll be backing you up for a while, since no one has responded to me, really. Darknipples


 * Cullen is a pretty good guy, in my experience. I think he's just trying to prevent edit warring, which happens a lot on these gun-related pages. However, some of the worst offenders (who happened to push pro-gun POVs) were banned a couple of months ago, and discretionary sanctions on the subject in general were put into place, so, believe it or not, this discussion is going pretty well. Lightbreather (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring you, DN. I own a business and have to devote 90% of my attention the needs of paying customers, and didn't have time to respond to every one of the points you made, many of which were good ones. I just commented that I would be happy with a compromise section heading that you suggested. Once this is resolved, I will probably take the article off my watch list, for reasons previously stated. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cullen, please excuse me while remove my foot from my mouth. Darknipples (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No need, DN. You are new here and are conducting yourself well so far. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does Mike seem to have a somewhat obstinate demeanor about him? Darknipples (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not just you. Stand your ground, but don't let him bait you. I think he's one of those best-defense-is-a-good-offense guys. I just keep on responding civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I am starting to think the term "Gun Show Loophole" needs it's own page on WP. The other editors do not want this term associated with the "Gun Show" page, and I can only think of a few particular reasons why. Nothing against them, I just think that if they believe the two terms should be separate, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. The page will never improve if editors are constantly at odds, as it is now. Darknipples (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the exact same thing. My granddaughter is here but she'll go home later today. Can we talk then? Lightbreather (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been putting together potential sections and links in my sandbox. I'm not sure if you're able to view any of it, but I'd love some feedback before I start adding it to the talk page later. Hope you are having a good day. Darknipples (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Yes, I can look at it. I'll try to get to it later today. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So I just went to your sandbox and I saw a lot of small sections with raw URLs, but I didn't see anything that looked like a finished draft that you would move into the article. Do I need to look somewhere else? Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't added much to it yet. I keep finding bit and peices and adding them to my sandbox. I have something to add to the criticism section later. I keep seeing references that also refer to GSL as "The Brady Law Loophole" or "Private Seller Loophole"-FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darknipples (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Well let me know when you have something you want me to look at. Remember the scope of the article... it shouldn't go off into detail about other gun-control and gun-rights related topics (though mentions of, summaries, and Wikilinks to other articles are OK). You might want to look at what I've been doing on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Specifically, I added a Universal background check section and I've been bringing some of the other sections up to date and WP:MOS. I am saving the lead for last, per the good advice of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Lightbreather (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've added to the controversy section. Please make edits as you and Anastrophe see fit. Darknipples (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that some of the editors on GSL might be taking advantage of my inexperience in order to assert their WP:POV on the subject. Delete this message after reading. Darknipples (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * POV pushing on both sides of the issue is common on all articles relating to gun control. Saying "delete after reading" is not a good tactic, since the edit history of this page is there for all to see. I have seen that comment. Transparency is best. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cullen - Please understand that I simply do not wish to share specific info with anyone other than LB. I do not trust the intentions of some of the people here, but I see your point, and feel rather ridiculous, now. Darknipples (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're doing fine, DN. I'm sure Cullen didn't mean for you to feel ridiculous. I know exactly how you feel - I've been there myself - and I'm trying to keep an eye on that article and your work. Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Erin Bilbray
Yea, I posted without !voting. I'm not sure what my option is. Clearly she is/will be notable. Not sure if the current sources support that. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Re comment
"That shouldn't really matter, but I share my thinking on this in case you really only can imagine use of these terms as indicating an editor who's trying to present synthesis. However, of course, whatever his/her gender, it doesn't really matter, unless DN truly breaks a rule".

Bringing up gender, suggesting (passively) that it matters, then suggesting it doesn't matter, in order to attack my behavior is unacceptable. Gender is irrelevant in an anonymous medium. Your presumptions about what I may or may not 'imagine' are uncivil, and the passive suggestion that gender matters in how an editor responds to or interprets another editor's comments is uncivil.

There isn't a single word of my comments that you called out that are: personalized attacks, that don't assume good faith, that violate any WP rules. I tendered some helpful guidance to a new user. I do not appreciate being threatened by a "warning", which seems a patent attempt to cow and silence me. If my impressions are incorrect, well, I truly apologize. Clarification may help. Why are you "warning" me? If you believe I'm violating the rules, you have an obligation to approach administration with your concerns. They can clarify for you whether your impressions are correct. In the meantime, 'warnings' strike me as baiting. Anastrophe (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe my obligation is first to discuss concerns with you and then to seek outside help. And if you do keep doing what you're doing - which appears to me to be biting a newcomer - then I will escalate my complaint. In the meantime, if you have a complaint with my behavior, by all means, take it to admin. Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also warned you because there are discretionary sanctions on gun-control related pages. Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of discretionary sanctions. I am not biting the newcomer (which is a new addition to what you first warned me about - are you attempting to game the system? That can be particularly dangerous when discretionary sanctions are at play). I've violated not a single rule. I've not employed attacks, ad hominem, or anything less than civil discussion with Darknipples, and have provided useful guidance to this newbie. I repeat what was one of the first things I had to explain early on: Blunt is not uncivil. Please don't conflate the fact that I do not raise my pinkie whilst sipping tea to mean that I am attacking users and violating the rules. I am not. Anastrophe (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming we're talking about the same post (the one that I referred to on your talk page), if you think that was completely in line with WP:TPYES, I don't know what to say except that I disagree. Ditto for this reply that you've made to DN since then. Again, if you have a complaint about my behavior, and my answers here don't satisfy you, please take it to admin.Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your disagreement is noted. We will have to agree to disagree on the scope of civility within the bounds of policy. Anastrophe (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:ErinBilbrayforCongress2014headshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ErinBilbrayforCongress2014headshot.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ErinBilbrayforCongress2014headshot.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ErinBilbrayforCongress2014headshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI
Citations do not necesarrily have to be in any particular format (although, I personally think everyone should make use of the citation templates and when adding cites to an existing article they should be in the same format, but that's just me).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. When I made that edit, I didn't mean that he/she should use like WP:CS1 or something like that, only that he/she had used... what's it called? (hang on, while I look it up) - [|embedded links] like the "Do not use this style" in that WP:ECITE article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, gotcha! Yeah, bare url's in article space like that are a pet peeve of mine, too. Looks like you got a triple crown (unformatted, bare url and a blog as a source). Good work!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

ARE, My last request...
Why bother with this...

"My last request, barring any other accusations by Scal, please check out this discussion, including the edit summary that deleted it:"

Are you trying to give credence to my comments? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions, Template:In use and your Sandbox
In light of this comment, it would seem that you are unaware of these templates, Template:In use. Part of the disruption that occurred in the Gun Control Act of 1968 article was because I and no one else knew that you were "in the middle of expanding the section and is working from 1963 forward". These templates are typically used as a common courtesy and as a practical tool whenever making a major copy edit or (as often with your style of editing) a series of edits.

If you find these template too restrictive, you might want to consider using your Sandbox for article development instead of a place to store random links, content, or other information you deem worth saving. That way you can as many edits as you like, take as much time as you like to locate sources, and hone your text before loading the content to Main Space. For example if you wish to start a new article or section you can create a specific subdirectory by simply typing the article name in your browsers URL box. Something like... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lightbreather/sandbox/New_Article (don't forget the slash) and then (assuming its not in use) when the page comes up that says "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name.", just click the "Start the User:Lightbreather/sandbox/"New Article page name"" link and you'll have a blank article space. You do not want to add Categories on these pages and it affects main article space, that should be done once its moved to Main Space.

Now that you have been made aware of these items, obviously you can choose to use them or not, but their use is in the spirit of civility. I would have to say that the use of the templates is in your best interest as well as many others that you interact with. In fact, I plan to start using them again as I had forgotten about their existence. I have also added a link on your Sandbox page for your convenience. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but yes, I already knew about these features/options, though I apparently was using my user space wrong because I wrote this "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lightbreather/Laura_Langbein" in my space, but not in my sandbox. I use my sandbox mostly to hold snippets of text temporarily and to hold sources.
 * As for the in-use tag, I was aware, but when I read about it I chose not to use it. I haven't been aware of any other editors of articles that I watch/work on using it either. Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What I meant when I said that your edit confused me is that I can't recall anyone else ever editing my sandbox. Lightbreather (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)