This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lightbreather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If there is, I haven't found it. I just cut and paste. Sometimes sentences - sometimes whole paragraphs. It would be a great tool for some WP programmer to develop. Lightbreather (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I had a look at a couple of automatedwebsites. I tried using the url for the article "Lung cancer". The Flesch–Kincaid grade is 7–8. That seems to be rather low for the complexity of the article. Perhaps the automated websites are including the inline citation numbers and reference list, creating a spuriously low value? Axl¤[Talk]10:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't use those kinds of tools. I use ones where you copy in a sentence, a paragraph - or maybe a few paragraphs at most. Also, grade level 7 to 8 is not bad, IMO. It really depends on the subject and the audience. I think most Wikipedia articles - except for some of the more technical stuff - should be accessible. Lightbreather (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Housekeeping and realized that I never replied to this. I'm not talking about writing for children or English-language learners. I'm just talking about plain, good writing. Per WP:TERSE: Wordiness does not add credibility to Wikipedia articles. Lightbreather (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazi gun control, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New World Order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I just posted a discussion on your talk page. Please show the diffs for what's 3RR on the GPUS article by your count.
Also, if you have a problem with one or more of my edits, revert them individually and start a discussion. As far as I know, the GPUS page isn't edited under any special rules. If you know something to the contrary, please share. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
NFCC
You recently uploaded the image File:Page_3_of_4-page_glossy_NRA_ad_in_American_Rifleman,_Oct._1993.jpg You are making a fair use claim for the image, but per Wikipedia:Non-free content non free conent MUST be used in an article, and MUST meet the criteria outlined to be kept. Currently the image is not used in any article, so clearly fails the first test, and since it is not used in an article, it also implicitly fails the second test (how the content is used in an article). I have not nominated the image for speedy deletion, since you recently uploaded it, but you should make sure it gets used in an article in an appropriate manner very quickly, otherwise someone else is likely to delete it. There are several automated bots hunting for fair use tagged images which are not used in any articles Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Such a use is not supported by wiki policy. Even if you were citing the image for some content in the article (The NRA said X) it would not be compliant. Basically for copyrighted images, the article text needs to be commentary about the image itself, so unless that particular ad caused controversy, which itself can be reliably sourced so that we are discussing the image itself in the article, it will get deleted. For your purpose of talk page discussion, you will need to host the image off-wiki and just point people to it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The ad caused controversy... and continues to. If it gets deleted, I won't cry, but I think it falls under some kind of fair use. Maybe I'll ask at the Teahouse or one of the boards. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are you naming me on this? I have never commented on this and I do not know why I am named. I do not know why I am being included (or targeted) in this, aside from the fact that perhaps there is an ARBCOM on gun control which lightbreather is fully aware of????? I believe this is terribly unfair and unjust to me on the part of Lightbreather, to attempt to bait me into this argument when I have very clearly never commented on these terms here on this article. The last time I edited this article, to the very best of my memory, was to edit the timelines of the first responders where I added a table with the times from the editors and to include the names of the defenders who died valiantly trying to defend the school. Lightbreather, could you very please (and I'm being very polite here under extreme duress from you) articulate where specifically where I "Justanonymous" have attempted to "stop" or "restrict" you (specifically) from using the terms "assault weapon" or "high capacity magazine" in the LEDE against "you" (specifically), in this (specific) article? Please be very specific with difs please.............. Otherwise, I will expect a "full" apology from you here AND on my talk page -- Otherwise, I will be forced to report you for personal harassment to appropriate oversight groups if you are engaging in these activities against others. Please be specific.....this is extremely serious in my mind. -Justanonymous (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't include you to upset you. I am looking for editors to help resolve the dispute. In the discussion on the Sandy Hook talk page, another editor provided a link to a past discussion "with previous consensus on this matter." You were involved in that discussion, so that's why I included you here. Not everyone I listed is involved in this particular dispute, but some have expressed opinions in other discussions that were brought up in this dispute.
I disagree with your motives given the impending ARBCOM and your activities there. I cannot and do not take your activities as "good faith", sorry and I do not wish to participate here given the ARBCOM impending decision.-Justanonymous (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Source
Well, if the bill makes it ok to legally own a grandfathered firearm, but bans the future transfer or sale of that type of firearm; what do you think happens? Look at the laws in California that this is modelled after. In California if the owner of a registered Colt AR-15 dies, then the gun has to be transferred out of state, surrendered to the DOJ or rendered inoperable. Here's a quick hit for a direct source to feinswine's bill: [3]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. Listen, I don't want to argue with you. I just want a good source for what you wrote in the article. What you've given above is from tha NRA - and pre-dates the bill's introduction in the Senate by four weeks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That NRA page also says what they're responding to is a draft. What you've written is contentious. If it's true some reliable source must've commented on it after the bill was officially introduced. All I'm asking for is a WP:RS. Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty, I'll put one up. The thing most people do not realize about proposed bills like this is that they are writen months and even years in advance. They do not get introduced until the politicians see a chance to dance in the blood of dead children, however.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't really want to see your piece deleted. I really do think it should be part of a broader piece, mostly because I find your choice of title misleading. There was no ban. And to paraphrase a former VP nominee, Sec of treasury and chronic bedwetter: "I've read the ERA and the 2013 AWB legislation was no ERA".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ23:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In the 1988 presidential elections (probably before you were born) Dan Qualye compared himself to JFK with regard to his age, senate experience etc in his debate with lloyd bentsin. Bentsin said "Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy and you're no Jack Kennedey". I was paraphrasing. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ00:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no, I would've got that. I started voting in the 1970s. I just thought someone made a play-on-words with that re: the AWB 2013 debate. Sorry. Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material.
The article is not recently created, though its history, taken out of context, might make it seem that way. The AWB 2013 article was used to create a separate article on the expanded topic of "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" - although that might have as easily been done separately, or the material you want to focus/expand upon might have been added to one or more of these already-existing articles:
To put it another way, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 is now essentially a split page of the larger topic of "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting," although its method of becoming a split page is unorthodox, to put it nicely. AWB 2013 is WP:N in its own right and does not need to be buried in a broader article.
You picked the scope. You put all the stuff from Obama in it. You put all the state stuff in it. You put the polls in it. You put the NRA in it. you cant say it was hijacked, when it was all YOUR CONTENT. just rearranged. If I had come in and added all of those bits when you had it narrowly on the AWB, then you would have a case, but the diffs are exceptionally easy to read here. All of the "expanded article" content was in the article, written by you, prior to my first edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control_after_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting&oldid=604313540Gaijin42 (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Every bit that I put in there I chose carefully because it was directly related to AWB 2013, though some of it may have been related to other things, too, like the Sandy Hook shooting, or other gun control proposals. Also, I DID NOT INCLUDE THE OBAMA EXECUTIVE ACTIONS EXCEPT TO SAY THAT HE'D SIGNED SOME. YOU ADDED THE DETAILS OF THOSE. I added the details of his Proposals to Congress - which included an assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban.
Enjoy the evening (Seriously, and honestly). We can all get too heated on this stuff, and I am sorry it went south - I thought our collaboration was going fine earlier. One minor quibble. I did not add anything about Obama. the only thing I did was break it out into a section. All of the bullet points were already there and added by you. You added the legislative proposals in this diff [4]] and you added the other points in this edit [[5]] Of those bullet points, only #2 and #3 seem on topic for the "narrow" article. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mrfrobinson (talk)20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not 3RR when removing poor sources and marketing links that you inserted, nor when removing inflammatory opinions and statements which had nothing to do with the citation. You are not an uneducated bumpkin, so stop embarrassing yourself. You know what you did.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ23:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing in wp:3RR about what you're claiming, and at any rate, I dispute that they were poor sources for what they were being cited for: that "high-capacity magazine" is commonly used term - which is something that you tagged as needing citations. High-capacity magazine is a commonly used term, in a preponderance of sources. Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That first note? Nope, not me. Probably Anythingyouwant, or maybe Gaijin. I disagree with that kind of and amount of Nazi material in the body of the article and in the notes and in quotes. It gives it far too much weight, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that nobody mentions how Senator Thomas J. Dodd requested an English translation of the Nazi Gun Control Laws through the Library of Congress before penning GCA68.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ19:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting that you posted your comment here, Mike. Is that what you meant to do? Since you have, I've seen that brought up before. I guess the implication is that some members of Congress wanted to use Nazi gun laws as a model for gun control? Maybe they wanted to see what Dingell had referred to? (My curiosity would have been up under the circumstances.) Maybe they wanted an example of how not to write gun laws? Who knows? And I don't care. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course you don't care, but sadly if you compare the 2 laws it is pretty much an exact match. See, that is my fundamental problem with the anti-freedom crowd. Most are nice, well-meaning people who just want a safe world for themselves and their families; unfortunately they falsely believe that government control is the answer. The minority have an evil agenda where they want to disarm anyone who disagrees with them on their road to despotism and tyranny.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ19:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Disagree with what? That GCA68 was based on Nazi gun control? That most gun control advocates are not people who want safety or do you think they all have a fascist agenda to march a disarmed citizenry into mass graves? I didn't think you were that hard core.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Truce
I honestly didn't think we were fighting. To be honest I don't even like touching the political pieces. I prefer the factual articles like the history and technological aspects. I'll put it this way, if I thought that they were being written from an objective point of view, I wouldn't need to go there at all.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Dude - and this is meant in good humor - do you not hang around with women? Your style is absolutely confrontational, to me, and causes me a lot of stress. Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
That's just me, I'be been a fighter my whole life from the street to the ring to the USMC and beyond...sometimes what I think is normal is seen as aggressive, but don't stress...it's just the interwebz. I don't mean it to cause stress or anything. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ20:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,'
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature,
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records,
And so on. "Taxation without Representation" may have been a slogan, but it was not the primary basis of the Revolution per the Declaration. It appears as For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: more than half way down the long list. Most interesting is He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
I trust this will improve your understanding of what the reasons were for using the term "Despot" in that declaration. Collect (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I rely on sources, like everyone else, not OR. I gave mine on the pages I edited - which are not exhaustive studies of the revolutuion, but summarize key points. You might want to check out American_Revolution#Origins, too. Looks like the editors there agree that taxes were a huge part of the revolution's origin. Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that any admin who sees this might well note that you are in serious breach of the principles behind WP:EW so I really do urge you to self-revert. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've reviewed them all carefully, several times. First, they cover more than a 24-hour period. Ignoring that, all were part of what I considered a BRD process. Numbers 4 and 6 were unambiguously good-faith edits. (In fact, number 6 - the oldest one - kicked off the BRD process.) The others will be harder to explain, but I can, and if you feel compelled to report me, I will explain them and accept the consequences if necessary. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The "just over 24 hours for 6 reverts" is a strange attempt at Wikilawyering, indeed. Again -- self-revert as being urgently suggested. Collect (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It's just an observation. My husband is home and I'm calling it a night. If I get an opportunity to explain myself, I will. (I leave detailed edit summaries, but they're like trying to tell a story in a tweet.) If I don't get to explain myself, I'll live with the consequences if necessary. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In general, 3rr is a "bright line" rule. If everyone is in agreement about an edit process then it can slide, but if someone chooses to complain, there is generally not a defense. It's "strict liability" so to speak. The only exceptions are consecutive edits, obvious vandalism, and blp violations. I have not read the diffs, and due to the pending topic ban will not comment on merits, so consider this just a policy explanation. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sending requests for comment to ALL[12] editors who've commented on this topic in the past year - for or against. They're all worded the same way:
Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
I thought about including you, North, Rog, and... I'm missing someone. But as you're apparently about to get topic banned, should I? Would your votes count? If I did something wrong, let me know. Lightbreather (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I didn't invite admins who were arbitrators in the Gun control ArbCom... That seemed like the appropriate decision, too. Lightbreather (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you missed the part about "excessive posting". The vast majority of these people made a single comment. They are not "involved". Gaijin42 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am also posting on related article talk pages. And I added the RfC to the "hist" and "pol" categories, so there should be random input from there, too. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and assuming this is about the bullet button article (which I thought was a good idea - I think I even thanked you?) - did you know there was already material about them on Wikipedia? (I didn't.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm good, I actually needed the laugh. Yeah and I made it its own article, expanded it and sourced it. Its called building an encyclopedia and not working from an agenda.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I figured you didn't know. As I said, I didn't. When you spin-off a new article, don't you usually mention it on a talk page somewhere? And put a "Main" hatnote at the top of the related article or section? That's what I've been doing. Maybe it's unnecessary? (I should think that if I did such a thing, I'd be accused of trying to create a content fork.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I never accused you of any such thing. Nor do I think all that other stuff is necessary if the topic can clearly be expanded upon. For example, say its 2003 and the first day of Wikipedia. Someone creates an article called Reptile and sees that there is no snake article, although snake is mentioned in "reptile", would it not make sense to write one?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ20:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say that you did. I'm just suggesting you might want to leave notices on related pages when you spin-off something new. Using your example, if there were a Reptile article that had a Snake section... If someone started a new article titled Snake, they should put a notice on the Reptile talk page, and/or a "Main" hatnote at the top of the Snake section of the Reptile page. Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've never done it in the past, don't really see a compelling reason to do so now. But yeah, some people get off on making mountains out of molehills, especially on here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe so, it's easy to lose track. FYI, one of the reasons why I'm taking such an interest in this is because it seems symptomatic of a larger problem at Wikipedia. When there is a hot political topic, inevitably there will be partisans who want to simply delete or discredit info related to the other side. My philosophy is "let it all hang out", simply because the danger of censorship is so troubling (I'm not going to analogize it now to Nazis!). As you once said, let the reader decide. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
