|
User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 12
On CivilityI came upon your comments here, and while I haven't nearly read all of it, I have to say: I agree with you 110%. There are so few women on here because there are constant battles over insignificantly petty issues that involve either outright insults and nasty language or sarcasm-dripping posts full of in-jokes or other mockery from someone who believes him/herself to be intellectually superior. Civility isn't clear cut, that's true, but the WMF could easily do something. There could be various "user conduct levels," for example, ranging from green (no violations in the past x days) to red (you get the idea). Let the green/yellow-green users patrol the red/orange-red ones, and let the latter group get flagged more or something. I suppose some would argue that this would bring about a sort of hegemony or tyranny, but given the transparent nature of the site, I doubt this would be much of a problem, and if it is, there will always be ways to ameliorate it. Anyway I just thought I'd leave my thoughts here, along with some encouragement, because we need to be fighting more proactively for these kinds of changes if we want to reverse Wikipedia's stagnation in growth. Have a great vacation! - SweetNightmares 03:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
GOCE July drive and August blitz
Your concerns have been taken seriouslyJust not on Wikipedia. See this statement on FARK. It's amazing that Wikipedia can't get itself together to do the right thing like other sites have. I wonder why. Actually, I don't wonder at all. Wikipedia has always been driven by a conservative, right-leaning libertarian ideology that gives lip service to civil liberties. Anyone who tries to tell you that Wikipedia is "liberal" or leans left, hasn't been paying attention. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
ANI by CarolMooreDCThanks for your comment. It does deserve a response, but I'd like to avoid commenting on the noticeboard thread which I think should be closed. (IOW, I don't want to add to the drama.) Yes, there are disputes that need DR and editing behaviors that need admin review or RFC/U. But putting all three editors into one thread was the wrong approach. CMDC has brought up SPECIFICO on other noticeboards and this is simply another page in the on-going friction between them. (I've urged an WP:IBAN for them.) Of the two other editors, Two kinds is fairly new with 2,000 edits and one block and Corbet has a good record of editing articles; his block log shows that blocks were usually reverted fairly quickly. (Still, Corbet needs to bite his tongue more often.) But then Carol's own behavior gets thrown into the pot (thankfully that thread got closed quickly). I wish the admins had taken my hint about NOTHERE and closed the mess. Will something constructive come of the thread? I doubt it. The Gender gap project has been around for 10 years now, and this bit of drama on the task force talk page is simply a diversion from what the Project ought to be achieving. (Hopefully a temporary diversion.) IMO a better course of action would be for some of the more senior editors and admins to monitor the project more closely. (For example, SlimVirgin did so to some extent with SPECIFICO.) In accordance with WP:TPO purely personal remarks on the talk pages should be hatted, {{rpa}}'d, or moved to the talk page of the editor who started them. Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC) RfC: Rebecca BardouxHi, notifying all previous talk participants of an RfC: Talk:Rebecca_Bardoux#RfC: Should the article mention her comedy career? -- GreenC 13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) stalkingre blowjob, seriously I am not stalking you, although I know you will find it hard to believe. I saw your post at village pump. Although I will admit that when I see your name scroll by I perhaps pay more attention than to the random editor. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush-Carol interaction banYou should know Carol signaled her support for a mutual interaction ban with Sitush. While I understand you do not consider that the best sanction, perhaps it would be good to signal your acquiescence to such a result given that it seems to be the only option that stands a chance at the moment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC) AnchorsCopying this from where it was originally:
Thanks, Lightbreather. (By the way, is it OK if I call you LB for short here in future, as the full paraphernalia is really only needed for notification purposes on other pages?) Anyway, yes I did see your reply, and was planning to talk to you about it in due course, but only to ask you did you know of anything even better, or of any specific objections, because as far as I can see they're perfect. I think I am using them as intended, which is seemingly called subsection linking in the relevant section (here). They seem potentially extremely useful, but the section on them (already mentioned above) fails to adequately explain their benefits (or alternatively if there are problems it fails to mention them at all) - but presumably that's something I may want to take up on that place's Talk Page (or just be bold and edit it there myself and see what happens).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Actually on re-reading, I'm not entirely sure it is what the section means by 'subsection'. But the next section makes clear you can use anchors to link to a row in a table, so I see no reason for not linking to a sentence (which is the logical equivalent of a row in a table), given that it's extremely useful, works, and nobody has said it's forbidden, let alone given a rational reason why it should be. In any case even if it were forbidden by some rule, I'm 100% entitled to take the view that WP:IAR (ignore all rules if they prevent you improving the encyclopedia - one of the 5 Principles of Wikipedia, though unfortunately seemingly the principle most ignored, except for the even more ignored Civility requirements) would override it in this case. Incidentally if you haven't yet restored your own anchor, I see no reason why you shouldn't do so (unless you really don't want to do it). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I've now added a sub-section on 'Linking to part of a section'. Hopefully nobody will object (or alternatively they'll let me know why it's a bad idea, if it is). And assuming it's a good idea, my thanks to again to you, as it wouldn't have happened without you.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Somewhat qualified apology re 'makes things worse'Having thought about it, and read about it, I still doubt if it was uncivil, and I'm certain it wasn't "completely uncivil". Nor do I accept that it was some kind of unnecessary addition, as it was necessary (in order not to have a misleading edit summary) to say that I wasn't only reverting due to lack of consensus. However with hindsight I now conclude that I could have said for the first undo something like "undoing today's edits 1 by 1, due no consensus per BRD + removal of vital protection, etc, per Talk" and for subsequent undos something like "continuing today's undos", and that is what I would probably try if there ever is a next time (hopefully there won't be), though I'm not sure it would necessarily be less upsetting in practice (after all, 'removes a vital protection, etc' is just a more specific way of saying 'makes things worse'). But to the extent that I could have done that had it occurred to me that 'makes things worse' would be thought uncivil (something which never did occur to me, though perhaps it should have), I apologize for hurting your feelings, which was never my intention.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Afterthought: Incidentally, it would probably still have been necessary for me to say something fairly similar in meaning to 'makes things worse' on the Talk Page (indeed arguably 'removes a vital protection, etc' already does that in my alternative summary), although given enough time there is more space there to use soothing phrases to cushion the blow. But time is not something I felt I had, as I was concerned that another edit by somebody else would go in and have to be undone if I was to be able to undo you, and I didn't want to have to revert any more people than strictly necessary. Or else I'd have had to try 'manual reverting', which had other worrying problems of its own. Plus I was worried, rightly or wrongly, that if the undo wasn't done quickly it might never get done at all, as has happened elsewhere in my experience, with regretable consequences. And those are always going to be the kind of problems a reverter faces, at least when reverting changes in the Policy area. 05:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
rsnI struck part of my comment at RSN, I feel it was unduly snippy. I apologize. There is much going on both in RL, and on-wiki. In addition to our past friction, I saw some of your recent contribs [3][4] etc where you are tagging folks for notability that have won major awards and been inducted into the hall of fame, clearly passing WP:PORNBIO which made me feel as though you were acting with undue haste - however, even if such is true, two wrongs do not make a right and the issues are not directly related, so I apologize for my snip. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC) A7 declines of two pornographic actor articlesNeither of these articles should have been tagged with A7 as both have claims of significance, if for no other reason the awards they've won in the industry. Please don't tag articles like these again. If you want to take them to AfD, that's up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Seriously?I thought we were cool and it was water under the bridge.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
GGTFHi Lightbreather, I hope you'll consider restoring your name to the list. We need your energy and ideas! All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
RfCUI wonder whether the RfCU is a good idea. He has said he's left for a few months, and he won't object if you remove his name from the GGTF list. If you, in turn, stay away from porn, that's it resolved. It's up to you, of course, but in your shoes I would return to GGTF and just carry on. The risk of the RfCU is that people will post negative comments about your pursuit of the issue, and that will make you feel even more affected by it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
FederalistI want you to know that your edits were largely very good, and I appreciate your efforts. Your abilities as an editor have grown and it shows. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC) SigDid you recently change your signature? If not I think you may be accidentally using 5 tildes when you sign posts, because your name isn't appearing next to several of your recent posts. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
