Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 20 February 2015

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Kaffeeklatsch discussions

Kaffeeklatsch request to close

Nice idea, but not at Misplaced Pages. Things are going reasonably well at the moment, so why erect a target to inflame the situation? Please close it down before the inevitable WP:MFD because those pages cannot be reconciled with standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the Kaffeklatsch is a good idea, too. — kikichugirl  01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the idea of the Kaffeeklatsch. --Thnidu (♂) (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaffeeklatsch pledge

Hi Lightbreather, I left this comment on the Kaffeeklatsch page, but I haven't signed the pledge yet, so I've moved it here. Sorry about that.

I noticed that the Systers email list asks subscribers to confirm "that you are a woman". Perhaps it's best to leave it there, and people will identify with that statement or not. I wouldn't include the issue of user preferences being set to she, sexual orientation, or whether someone has joined a certain category. I can't see that those matter for this. Just my opinion. Sarah (SV) 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I hope that my "Response" below explains my thinking better. For a group in my user space, the pledge seems reasonable. If the proposed WikiProject Women group gets going, with WMF resources and guidance, maybe a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I was concerned with the pledge, especially parts 2 and 3, but had trouble finding the words for it. Here are my thoughts now that I have had some time to gather them.

• Line 1: I am a woman (cisgender or trans-woman, of any sexual orientation) is a big improvement from its previous form, but isn't totally inclusive of intersex persons or female-sexed persons with non-binary gender (agender, intergender, genderfluid, etc.).
• Line 2 requires that participants out themselves as females by being in the Category:Female Wikipedians. Why is this a requirement? Is not participation in the Kaffeeklatsch outing enough?

• I understand that the project wants to encourage women to come out of invisibility and make their presence more, well, visible, but revealing any degree of personal information, including age, sex, gender, location, name, etc, and the method of revealing it, should always remain the choice of the person themselves, and not be requirement to join any group, especially when that group is the only women-only on-wiki space available.

• Line 3 requires that participants set their Internationisation user preference to "She edits wiki pages." Again, why? To alter some number to make female presence more visible in statistics? Again, this should be a suggestion only. I fail to understand why this is relevant to participation in the Kaffeeklatsch. As said, there probably are more women than just me who have left it at "prefer not to say" for reasons other than fear of sexism or harassment. For myself, it's because of my native tongue and culture. --Pitke (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pitke, see my "Response" below. But I have a question for you: Are your native tongue and culture genderless? If so, cool! Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would sign the pledge, as I am a woman editor who greatly appreciates this effort, but I do not want to identify myself as a woman via preferences or categories. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Ongepotchket. Maybe if the WikiProject Women proposal gets off the ground, with WMF resources and guidance, a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No and also Hell no. I'm one of the "they" sorts and that won't change. It's a safety issue. Montanabw 00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, do you believe an editor who sets their user preference to "She edits," or who joins the "Female Wikipedians" category, is less safe than other editors? If so, in what way do you mean? For instance, on Misplaced Pages, or in real life, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed myself from the group. I joined with concerns about the pledge - concerns others share - but your response makes it clear you do not agree. I can not therefore remain. LadyofShalott 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

As you wish, LadyofShalott, and no hard feelings on my part. While hosting this test group in my space, these requirements feel safer to me. As I said, perhaps if WikiProject Women gets off the ground a better way to do this will be agreed upon. Perhaps someone should start a test group in their space with different requirements? Lightbreather (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Response

Why ask those who would like to join the Kaffeeklatsch to change their user preference to "She edits wiki pages," and add their username to the category "Female Wikipedians"?

The objective is to have a women-only space on Misplaced Pages as a place first and foremost for women to feel safe - a refuge. I have based the idea on the Anita Borg Institute's Systers list. Although the groups would be similar in their goals - a safe place for women to talk about tech (Systers) and Misplaced Pages (Kaffeeklatsch) - their framework is different. The Systers group has been active for over 20 years. The Kaffeeklatsch is a test group while the WikiProject Women proposal is under consideration at the IdeaLab.

When a person registers an account on Misplaced Pages, they have to give a username, which does not have to be their real name, and... that's it. You don't have to give your real name. You don't have to give an email address. You don't have to state your gender. However, as we all know, gender does end up being divulged, intentionally or otherwise. The editing environment is hostile, which feels unsafe to a lot of women, and little is done about it, nor is little likely to be done about it in the near future.

When a person subscribes to the Systers list, they must be approved by a moderator. They give their email address and their name, and they have to 1) tell their involvement in tech (1-2 sentences suffice), 2) say that they are a woman, and 3) say that they have read and agree to the list's rules (a lengthy set). Then the person's request is evaluated by a moderator, and the email address is confirmed. This process goes a long way toward assuring the list members that they're safe. This process has been successful in making and keeping Systers a valued place for women in tech for a long time.

I don't think those who want to join this group should have to share their real names and email addresses. However, I do think that asking them to make a small sacrifice for the peace of mind of other group members is reasonable. If it is more important to a woman Wikipedian to keep her user preference set to something other than "She edits wiki pages," or not to join the category "Female Wikipedians," than it is to be a part of the group, there is still the Teahouse to reach out to for support. But for women who are members of the group, there is some comfort in knowing that other members of the group are "out" as women on all of Misplaced Pages, and not just for access to the group.

At any rate, as I said, this is only a test group for now, and it is to be hoped that the IdeaLab proposal may get off the ground, and then perhaps there will be better ways of managing membership. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand the model you're trying to emulate but I don't see it working here on Misplaced Pages for a couple of reasons.

First, the Anita Borg Systers group is completely private: non-members are unable to read the list and message are not publicly archived. A completely private area isn't possible on Misplaced Pages and so you cannot apply the same membership standards. You're asking people to give up their privacy and to expose themselves for not much in the way of a return. If you want to offer privacy you'll have to take this off-wiki.

Second, you say that women need a safe space but you are excluding some of the women who need it - ones who might not want to specify both their gender and the internationalization. You say above that they can go to the Teahouse but you say elsewhere that the Teahouse isn't well-run because men run it. The overall message is that if women aren't willing to be out and proud as women, they can't join your group. If your goal is to provide a place free from disruption, you'd be better off with some kind of moderation that allows disruptive people to be banned from the page rather than focusing on requiring that prospective members specify both gender and internationalization (which doesn't actually prevent disruption because people can lie - and some women contributors can be at least as disruptive as men contributors).

As an aside, you're basically proposing that a social space be set up on Misplaced Pages. Some will see as unnecessary because people are supposed to be here to build an encyclopaedia and discussions on wiki are supposed to be focused on ways to improve articles. If you want this proposal to succeed then you'll need to address that aspect. Ca2james (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote above, to participate in the Systers group one must give their name and their email address. That would be asking too much here in this public group. However, asking a woman to give something here isn't unreasonable when the something they're asked to give is a token compared to what the private Systers group asks. In other words, both Systers and this Kaffeeklatsch ask women to say, "I am a woman," but the Systers group (smartly) asks additionally for two substantive pieces of information, to give some peace of mind to the group. Since it would be too much to ask women here to share their names and email addresses, asking for these other assurances is reasonable.

As for taking the group off-wiki, I am in the middle of collaborating with the Systers-keeper to set up a Misplaced Pages Systers space, which will be a private space to complement to this Klatsch (and, it is to be hoped, a future WikiProject Women space).

As for the Teahouse, yes, I don't think it feels as safe for women as a women-only space would feel. (I was once told by a Teahouse host that I was being too sensitive. This is a common way to belittle women.)

No, I am not proposing a social space, or at least not a mainly social space. I want it to be more focused on community, policies, and guidelines than on content, but content discussion will not be off limits. The space's goals are:

• Create a space conducive to women's participation on Misplaced Pages (No trashing allowed);
• Maintain the space for women to seek advice from women peers;
• Maintain the space for women to discuss the challenges they share as women Wikipedians;
• Increase the number of women editors on Misplaced Pages.

However, it does not have special rights or privileges, and it cannot make rules (that apply outside the group), nor can it impose its preferences on articles, policies, or guidelines.

I'd like to make two final points. 1. Some have scoffed at the idea that Misplaced Pages can feel unsafe to women - but turned around elsewhere and suggested that it is unsafe to set your preference to "She edits" or to add your username to the Female Wikipedians category. And 2. Some have suggested that to say that one feels unsafe here makes light of the fears of women who are or have been physically unsafe in the real world. However, many women who suffer real-world abuse suffer it hand-in-hand with electronic abuse. And psychological abuse effects how safe one feels in the real world.

Please read the "Vote stacking" section. You are clearly cherry picking your notifications to areas where you expect support. If you cannot see your bias then I suggest you leave notifying editors about the debate to other people. Chillum 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

So a good question for someone to ask somewhere (please, please not here): Is it unsafe to do these things? Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:KAFFEEKLATSCH listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Misplaced Pages:KAFFEEKLATSCH. Since you had some involvement with the Misplaced Pages:KAFFEEKLATSCH redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop canvassing. Posting at Editor Retention was one thing. Spamming all of the women's wikiprojects is another. That smacks of trying to influence the debate. If you are going to notify random groups just because they have "women" in the title, you need to do the same for men's groups. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Since women only make up 10% to 15% of the editorial body, I think the most it "smacks of" is trying to find some women to participate. Why should 90 men and 10 women decide these things? If more than half of the voters on this question are women, take me to a noticeboard and make a charge. Besides, those projects aren't necessarily all women, or all editors who would vote for keeping the redirect. Look at us. We're both women, and you're voting to delete it and I'm voting to keep it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This was your warning. I will bring to ANI if this continues to happen or happens again. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather if you think some questionable stats on the gender of our editors allows you to campaign in a biased fashion then you are completely wrong. Do not engage in any further canvasing, even if you think some great wrong needs to be righted. Chillum 16:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, wait a minute. I just went to re-read the canvassing guideline and it says:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Misplaced Pages collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.

Honestly, I don't see anything about my notices that constitute what is called inappropriate notification on the canvassing guideline page. I should very much like it if people extend a little AGF with me. I am trying, in good faith, to improve the project. Lightbreather (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the "Vote stacking" section. You are clearly cherry picking your notifications to areas where you expect support. If you cannot see your bias then I suggest you leave notifying editors about the debate to other people. Chillum 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Votestacking," it says, is about "selectively notifying editors," not projects. But since you and Karanacs seem worried that any editor in a project that has "women" in its name is going to vote to keep a redirect to a women-only space, I'll go put the notice on the Men's rights movement article, since the 280 watchers of that page are all bound to vote delete, right? Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If you'd previously notified these projects about the existence of the kaffeeklatsch and then notified them of the RfD discussion, I don't think people would object quite so much. At least then the projects would have been aware of what was going on. It wouldn't even have been so bad if you'd posted on just a few projects. However, you notified what appears to be the majority of projects with "women" in their name (I haven't counted all of them so it's possible that you only contacted a small proportion of them. Some of those projects are lower profile and I can't think of a reason for contacting them unless you were contacting most women's projects). Moreover, you hadn't previously notified any of them about the kaffeeklatsch: you first notified these projects of the RfD discussion and only then informed them about the kaffeeklatsch. You also state above that you're trying to get more women's voices to the discussion. Taken together, you may not be canvassing to according the letter of the guideline but it is clear to me that you are canvassing according to its spirit. Ca2james (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't make up new rules like that, Ca2james, if you really are suggesting best practice to avoid canvassing would be for editors to give a two-part notice, to any Wikiproject that would likely be interested in any proceeding!

And, definitely, Lightbreather's notices were absolutely NOT violations of wp:CANVASS. For one, she did not post to user Talk pages, selectively or not. So wp:CANVASS does not apply at all. But suppose the wp:canvass policy were somehow extended to refine about postings to wikiprojects (which in fact it simply encourages), even then, on the four components of wp:canvass:

• Scale: This was limited, to a select number of wikiprojects likely to have interest, 7 apparently, as documented by LB in her posting about this canvassing accusation, and a bit more, at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and as shows in her contrib history. But first she posted at Wikiproject Editor Retention (WER) and also at GGTF, just the barebones notice ""There is a redirect for discussion that may be of interest to this group", and the latter is where i saw it. In wp:canvass terms: NOT Mass-posting. NOT "Excessive cross-posting (spamming)", at all.
• Message: neutral, completely, in the "There is a redirect for discussion that may be of interest to this group" part, to each of the other 7. Then in the second part of the message to those 7, e.g. this one to WikiProject Jewish Women, she provides the basic info about the KaffeeKlatsch...which is what Ca2james calls for her to do, just in reverse order! It is entirely reasonable to provide together! At WER and GGTF, everyone knows about the Klasch, so she didn't need to introduce it. On the wp:canvass Neutral to Biased scale, i say the message was informative, maybe arguably promotional about the Klatsch. Is it campaigning? Well, it was getting the word out about the Klatsch. I think NOT "Campaigning" in any bad way, about the RFD.
• Audience: the 7 women's wikiprojects, on scale of "Non-partisan" to "Partisan", well they're likely interested, but not at all likely to be uniformly on one side about the redirect, as suggested in diversity of women's opinions on the Klatsch, in the MFD and elsewhere. And she did notify WER and GGTF, where there surely would be quite a mix of views. It's NOT "Vote-stacking"! (in wp:canvass's term)
• Transparency: on the "Open" to "Secret" scale, it was open. No way is everyone not going to notice. The last of those was at time 16:01. The only thing she could have done further on this would have been for her to make an explicit announcement within the RFD, that she made those 9 notifications. I would recommend that, in any future situation like this, but I think LB is relatively new on this aspect of Misplaced Pages (and there simply was no canvassing, no notices to user talk pages!). Her posting to User talk:Jimbo Wales, later, is way-out-there transparent, too. And, well, she was immediately criticized here in this section on her talk page, at 16:12, and was responding here by 16:20, presumably investigating the guidelines in the meantime. No intent to be stealthy, no way she could have actually succeeded in anything secret, on-wiki: NOT "stealth canvassing"! (And everyone should be grateful the klasch is on-wiki, the activity is on-wiki, rather than truly secret somewhere else.)

I hope this analysis by me might help head off any further accusations in any other proceeding, or be useful in citing elsewhere if needed. sincerely, --doncram 23:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: your hope is misguided because you miss the elephant in the room. That is the problem when people wikilawyer: you need to consider spirit, not merely letter. - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Doncram, I was trying to analyze the situation, not making up new rules. From my perspective, notifying the projects of the RfD discussion while also inviting the projects to take part in the kaffeeklatsch looked more like canvassing than if the projects had been previously notified about the kaffeeklatsch. I do not think a two-part notice is necessary, nor do I think the guideline should be changed, and I apologize for not making that clear in my previous post. Ca2james (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: I had been painstakingly reviewing the "women" project membership lists, updating them (moving one's who hadn't edited since before 2014 to an inactive section), and inviting a FEW from each that appeared to be women to join the klatsch. A lot of manual labor. When this delete thing came up I thought, WTF, I might as well tell the projects about it and tell them about the klatsch at the same time. I get accused of canvassing no matter how I do it, but telling the project seems less problematic than selecting individuals at random and inviting them. At this point though, the klatsch has so much garbage and graffiti spread all over it that who would want to enter? Still, I'm not ready to give up on the idea. If all the protesting dies down, maybe a few women will give it a try. I don't see how it hurts the project, and I actually think it could help to recruit/retain some women. Lightbreather (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever considered upgrading GGTF to a WikiProject? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Have you ever met Calliopejen1? She may provide some insight and guidance. . Buster Seven Talk 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Ciao!

	Un saluto
	Good initiative Susanna Giaccai (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh thank you, Susanna. I love birds, and I love the image! (Also, I hope to learn Italian someday. So far, I have what's left of high-school German, plus an intermediate level of Spanish.)

Ciao! --Lightbreather (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Spotting admins

Hi Lightbreather, I saw you post that you can't tell when someone's an admin. There's a script that turns admin signatures blue; see User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js. If you'd like it, add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); //Admin detector to User:Lightbreather/vector.js. (Fingers crossed it works. The idea of me giving technical advice is hilarious.) Sarah (SV) 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

More from SlimVirgin tech support. Re: this, for a notification to work it has to be signed at the time of a ping. So if you forget to add one, or if you mistype it, you have to leave a second message containing the ping and sign it. Sarah (SV) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried that first thing, but I don' think I did it right. Thanks for the heads-up on the second thing. Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"The guys"

This edit feels pretty divisive. I strongly prefer gender-neutral terms for myself, and I don't think trying to separate editors on the page by gender is constructive. It's a controversial enough topic already without adding anything else to the mix. (Please feel free to archive this comment ASAP - if there was a more private way to voice my concern I'd have used that instead.) Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering LB was talking to me, I'd like to state that I felt no intention of disrespect or "divisiveness" towards the rest of the "people", as you may prefer. To be honest, I assumed it was quite the opposite, but by all means, do express your concerns, Faceless Enemy. Darknipples (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a comment on an article talk page, so by definition, it is a comment to all interested editors, not just an individual. I am in an awkward position here, since I favor the neutral point of view here on Misplaced Pages, while supporting both Second Amendment rights and closing the gun show loophole off Misplaced Pages. When I read a formulation like "the guys", I feel pigeonholed. I am a guy who may disagree with some on the definition of an assault weapon, but agree with the same person on the gun show loophole. Glib phrases that separate and categorize people should be avoided. We should be here to build a neutral encyclopedia, rather than to categorize and factionalize editors. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NO hidden meaning. Reviewing language used on the page, maybe I subconsciously picked up on something F. wrote earlier in the day: You guys seem to like to argue more than edit. At any rate, I changed it, so let that be the end of it. Lightbreather (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request archived

Hi Lightbreather, just letting you know that an amendment request involving you has been declined by motion of the Committee and archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 18:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Did I understand from the discussion that this is historic? As in without precedent? Courcelles said they thought we've never passed a formal motion to close something at ARCA without action. Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

That is correct; don't quote me, but to the best of my knowledge, the Committee has never declined an ARCA request by motion. (hence the less-than-standard message.) Cheers, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Starting a WikiProject.

I still think gender-neutral is the best approach towards Misplaced Pages. But, if your heart is still set on creating a WikiProject for 'female' editors? then go for it. It will either succeed or fail. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Miller Time

Take your time LB. You should be proud of the work you've done there, and all that you've accomplished. The GSL article is stronger than I could ever have hoped. Reflect on all that we've been through together for a bit. Editors that forget to leave their agendas at the door always seem to fail around here. Take comfort in that. Darknipples (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I might take another break. Not that I ever really took one, but I think we've reached a peak on GSL where it's on only a matter of semantics and syntax at this point. Just ping me if you would like me to weigh in. I will keep an eye, but I think my efforts will now be better spent on some new articles, possibly. Like I said, just ping me, and I'll be there faster than you can say Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon ;-) Darknipples (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather I have been advised to take at least a week off from editing GSL to blow off steam, by the TEAHOUSE . I am taking their advice. In order to do this I am not going to even look at what is going on. I don't know what else to say, other than that I will be back, and hopefully, the editor(s) that seem to have no respect for WP rules and guidelines will not be there. Feel free to use my talk page for support, but I need at least try their suggestion. (sigh) Darknipples (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe Cullen thinks I'm you ...I offered to do a checkuser, what does that mean? Darknipples (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Tampon run

Hi Lightbreather. Just saw your post at User talk:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch (I had the page watchlisted out of interest) and wanted to say that the Tampon Run game is almost certainly notable given the sources you linked there and others I just found from a quick google search. I've started a (extremely barebones) draft at Draft:Tampon Run. I'll probably get round to writing it in the next few days but feel free to help. Sam Walton (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

friendly advice

Once someone responds, its bad practice to move what you said, here, to somewhere else. It creates a hole in the conversation and the response no longer makes any sense. If you get your women-only page/project/site, you are going to have to be a better page facilitator. . Buster Seven Talk 22:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

If it bothers you, feel free to restore it. Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It didn't just bother me. It was already undone by DeCausa with the edit summary Undid revision 647149512 by Lightbreather (talk) Per WP:REDACT. Don't remove posts once they've been responded to - it compromises the responses. . Buster Seven Talk 06:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and soon after your "friendly advice" I received a notice of DC's revert, so your advice might seem to some more like a poke. If you're going to help facilitate editor-retention efforts you're going to need to be a nicer editor yourself. Lightbreather (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If I was any nicer I would be a woman. . Buster Seven Talk 16:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaffeeklatsch

Thank you for the invite! I had noticed the page (and was depressed by the predictable response from male editors) and have had it watchlisted for a while, but had been disappointed at the low amount of responses. Very keen to participate if it takes off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah! It's a Catch-22 then. ;-) You want to join if it takes off... but don't want to join to help it take off? ;-) Well, do keep watching, ok? Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gun show loophole. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. WeldNeck (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

LB: if there's any doubt, do a voluntary self-revert and offer a day away. That's better than a black mark on your block log. Felsic (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaf‎ maybe you got something to add. Felsic (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Result (of AN3): Article fully protected two days. User:WeldNeck gets a special mention for inserting partisan language into the article text.... per EdJohnston. Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

LB, that sort of comment, even though you will probably claim it is an aide memoire, does look rather like gravedancing. You've done it before but if, as you repeatedly say, you want to reduce the number of people who take an interest in your doings then perhaps it would be a good idea to make this the last occasion? It is the sort of thing that, rightly or wrongly, attracts moths. - Sitush (talk)

Sitush, I have asked you this more than once. Please. Leave. Me. Alone. Perhaps revisit this discussion from two months ago: Please take your own good advice - and please leave me alone. Especially the last half, where you wrote, "I haven't followed you anywhere." Please read that, and then leave me alone, as I've asked I believe more than once. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please take my page off your watchlist. Lightbreather (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's some meta-advice, Sitush: make sure people actually perceive you as wise before acting wise.

Peter 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. I've lost count of how many pages he's showed up at - user talk pages, article talk pages, project talk pages - just to reply to me with uninvited "advice," or to reply to others about me. It's condescending and against WP:CIVIL. He (and others) carry on about content, yet he's one of the most opinionated, meddlesome gossipers on the project. Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I usually don't discuss others indirectly outside of procedural pages, but what I summarized here is serious to me. I have no problem with previously uninvolved parties diving into focused content discussion, even in the middle of an edit war; the more the merrier. However, I don't appreciate being bossed around with orders of how I should or shouldn't conduct talkpage discussion. It all adds up to some pretty hostile, discouraging behavior.

And ping, Sitush. I don't want you thinking I'm talking about you behind your back.

Peter 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, please strike the personal attack in your comment above. Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

Hey, I just ran across this , if you did not, thought you should know about it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about it, but thanks for thinking of me kindly. Lightbreather (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how is it different from your efforts? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the big thing is it's not women-only. Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, got it! I guess I was surprised to see no discussion about your project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment

The analogy was a sarcastic tongue in cheek that your name dare not be mentioned on Corbett's talk page for fear that we'll all be dragged into another round of troubles and debate by the mere appearance of your username on his page. Frankly, I'm not feeling particularly apologetic because I'm disappointed in your persistence in seeking scapegoats and I think that you need to stop going around looking for drama. Just drop the stick and edit. Fix the actual problems with articles by being a woman editor and writing about topics you care about. Montanabw 01:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Scapegoats? I'm not scapegoating - I just want people to stop talking about me. Focus on content and not on contributor and all that NPA stuff. As I said, I don't go around the project talking about you - or others. I'm not asking for an apology, just please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(BTW, your article space edits make up 56% of your total and my article space edits make up 47% of mine. I do hope, someday, it will be higher, but considering that not all of my current projects have to do with articles, I think I'm doing pretty well nonetheless.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, reasonable enough request. Good luck with your content editing. Montanabw 03:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)