User talk:Sue Rangell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Non-Admin Closures[edit]

Reminder: WP:NAC is not policy, it is only an essay. My closures follow WP:NACD (actual policy), thank you.[edit]

Please place your complaints here. It appears that no matter how an AfD is closed, it will offend SOMEBODY, therefore please place your complaints below. I will read them all, but I will not respond to them if they are rude. I am also likely to ignore your threats helpful comments and advice if your own closures are regularly up for deletion review... I do not take a simple head count of the !votes, I consider consensus and Wikipedia policy. I close Afds that are WP:SNOW keeps. Or if they are hopelessly locked, with three or more relistings, as WP:NOCONSENSUS. If they have less than three listings, I relist. If I closed a 20 day old hopelessly deadlocked discussion as "no consensus", please do not accuse me of doing a NAC on a "controversial" thread, as obviously there was no consensus, and it was wasting everyone's time, and needed to be closed. --Sue Rangell 18:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have undone your NAC as it met none of the criteria listed in the appropriate conditions for a NAC. Please review WP:NAC and restrict yourself to appropriate cases where appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You are free to do so of course, but I think it's a big waste of time. There is no chance of it being deleted. I closed it as "no consensus" because there isn't a consensus, nor will relisting likely result in a consensus, as it has already been relisted... In the interests of saving a lot of people a lot of time, I hope you will reconsider, but if not, it will most likely be closed as "No Consensus" anyway. Be well. --Sue Rangell 04:30, 5 January 2013
You were wrong sue. The article was closed by an admin as a Keep. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no right or wrong. No need for drama. "No Consensus" defaults to "Keep", so there is no real difference in how the article was closed, just a (very slight) difference of opinion between the closing admin and myself. Since the nominator was angry at my closure for not DELETING it, I am sure the backlash would have been considerably more had I closed it as a Keep, rather than "No Consensus". Either way, the article still stands. It was not deleted. --Sue Rangell 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me say this another way: You were unable to see the consensus that was right in front of you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let me say THIS another way... I don't like drama. I try to be very friendly to everyone that I meet on Wikipedia. The last thing I want to do is quibble with somebody, on my own talk page, the difference between a "No Consensus" and "Keep". It is the tiniest of judgment calls. The absolute tiniest. Other than what you are doing here, you seem like a very nice and rational person, so I am willing to discuss this trivial matter with you, but I will not muddy up my own talk page with it. This discussion must continue on your talk page, thank you. --Sue Rangell 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No Thanks.I have made my point PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Very well then, I appreciate your input. Happy editing! --Sue Rangell 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Robert Spitzer political scientist.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Robert Spitzer political scientist.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 {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> 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. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it. If you don't want a picture of the guy on his own article that's fine with me. --Sue Rangell 20:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not about wanting, it's about our rules on non-free media. We don't use non-free headshots. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the photo is well within Wikipedia policy, but if you disagree go ahead and remove it. Just let's not make a big hairy deal about it. --Sue Rangell 20:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sue Rangell reported by User:Lightbreather (Result: )]]. Thank you. —Lightbreather (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  • result was Pictogram voting delete.svg No violation
...per WP:SNOW, I should think, considering how fast they threw the complaint out. Please, for the love of Pete, stop wasting everyone's time, and learn how Wikipedia works, how to work collaboratively, and particularly what a revert is. Thanx. --Sue Rangell 22:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you[edit]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop interacting with Lightbreather[edit]

I am asking you to stop interacting with User:Lightbreather and editing articles in the topic of gun control where she has been editing. She is maturing as an editor and there are enough editors in this controversial area to watch over these articles. Your following her to articles interferes with this process.

On Jan 25 Lightbreather created Global gun cultures and began to add contents, some copied some over from Gun cultures in the USA. She gave the reasons for this (also on Jan 25) at Talk:Gun cultures in the USA#In support of Gun cultures as uniquely notable WP:N topics. Rather than waiting for the article to develop, you nominated the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global gun cultures on Jan 26.

I had asked Lightbreather to ask for explanations when material she adds is removed as part of edit, revert, discuss. On Jan 26 after removing sourced material she added to Gun cultures in the USA, you refused to discuss your removal. Instead, at Talk:Gun cultures in the USA#How does removing Spitzer citation and material improve the article you of harassing you.

Please stop doing this and work instead in other areas. Thank you. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

StarryGrandma, I have been editing Wikipedia for a very long time. Over that time I have been trusted with responsibilities for a lot of duties, including handling personal information. I do not have a history of fighting constantly with other editors, as Lightbreather has. Lightbreather has been in a constant state of combat since she re-appeared and began disrupting the Assault Weapons Ban article. (It has been stable since she left it after her ANI boomerang) You are Lightbreather's mentor. If she has a problem with my edits (or anyone else's), I suggest that SHE move to other areas and edit something besides Gun Control. I personally see no need, as yet, for a step like that, but if she really has anger/frustration issues, she is the one that needs to be proactive. If she is maturing as an editor, as you say, she needs to learn how to back off when things get frustrating. That is what mature editors do, they take wikibreaks or edit other areas of wikipedia, they don't demand that other editors move in their stead. I will also point out that at least ten other editors have expressed concerns about Lightbreather's editing behavior, and have called for topic bans fairly recently. Rather than suggest that I am the problem, why not mentor her? --Sue Rangell 02:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice per WP:DISCUSSAFD[edit]

Reasons given in your AFD nomination of Global gun cultures have been addressed. The nomination should be withdrawn now. Would you please do so, so that the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin? I imagine you've just been too busy to follow-up on this. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive_editing_per_WP:DISCUSSAFD. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Yes check.svg Done --Sue Rangell 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - from N4[edit]

Brownie transparent.png Thank you for your help with the RfC! N4 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop now[edit]

Sue, the SALW article, which your first edit immediately preceded Lightbreather's first edits is one of the most blatant examples of following a user I've ever seen. If you do not stop reading Lightbreather's contribs and following them around, you'll find yourself blocked. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. This is the very definition of your activities with respect to Lightbreather. Whether or not you feel they are a POV-pusher and SPA, you've failed to gain consensus several times that their editing is problematic. I understand your concerns with Lightbreather, I know you have strong feelings about them, but reading their contributions is inappropriate. In addition, we have no rule about not removing content unless we have consensus. In fact, the policy says the exact opposite. Editors do not need to seek consensus before removing content from an article.--v/r - TP 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Since when is a single edit considered Wikihounding? Her edit triggered a notification, and so I went and checked it out. TParis, I do not follow lightbreather's contribs and edit them. I just looked at her recent edits since, and she has made something like 500 edits since I last interacted with her, and on various articles, none of which have been followed by me at all. On the other hand, apparently if I make a single edit that Lightbreather doesn't like, I get threatened by you. Who is doing the Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding here? Do this again, and it will be *me* who complains. --Sue Rangell 19:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need_interaction_ban. Thank you. v/r - TP 20:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll (Lightbreather and Sue Rangell) both appear to be valuable long term contributors to Wikipedia based on your edit count. I'm not; I'm essentially a wiki-rat that lurks in places like ANI (like 2,000 edits last I checked). I've seen enough to know that when an editor gets dragged into ANI thread, their primary goal should be to get out of as soon as possible. The best possible outcome is for the two of you to work it out somewhere other than ANI (like someone's user talk page). If you can do that without getting onto each other's nerves please do so. Suggestion is to forget who said what to whom in the past and figure out how to go forward. I've seen lots of interaction bans end up going south and they're just aggravation you guys don't want unless its absolutely necessary. NE Ent 19:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Taking others' good advice, Sue, please let's bury the hatchet. Here is my offer to you. I will voluntarily avoid articles that fall under the WikiProjects you belong to, which appear to be: Computer Security, Sociology, Universities, if you will voluntarily avoid articles under WikiProjects that I belong to, which are: Firearms, Journalism, Law, and Politics. (Actually, you only need to avoid articles in Law and Politics that cover Firearms or Journalism.) If one of us accidentally edits on another's turf, the other will AGF and give a friendly warning. Is this agreeable to you? Lightbreather (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You've pulled me into ANI something like five times. How about if we just let other editors of the article decide when someone needs to go to ANI?? --Sue Rangell 19:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Three times: First, for WP:OWN: I named three other editors and possibly you.[1] Second, for possible 3RR.[2] Third, for DISCUSSAFD.[3] How many times have you proposed or suggested, at ANI or on talk pages, that I be topic banned? ...
At any rate, if there were an approximately equal number of active pro-gun to pro-control editors, I could agree to letting other editors decide about ANI, but there aren't.
So, leaving those items aside, how about if we:
1. Give other editors 72 hours to respond to our edits first.
2. If after that time we respond, we do so with one-issue-at-a-time edits/reversions with proper edit summaries per WP:EDSUM How to summarize.
3. That our talk-page comments be WP:CIVIL with no WP:PERSONAL attacks. And...
4. If either slips up the other will AGF and leave a friendly reminder on the other's talk page.
(Numbers 2, 3, and 4 are things we should be doing all the time anyway, IMO. Number 1, I propose for at least the next 12 months.
--Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
"At any rate, if there were an approximately equal number of active pro-gun to pro-control editors, I could agree to letting other editors decide about ANI, but there aren't." Lightbreather, this is what I find so exasperating (Olive branch here, ok?) That whole mentilty is combative. My problem with you is not your stance on gun control. My problem is that you put your politics ahead of Wikipedia and assume that all of the other editors are doing the same. May I make a couple of freindly suggestions? They are the same suggestions I made when we first met. (Still holding out olive branch)
1. SLOW DOWN. pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease. If you open up the page history and a whole string of edits that are all yours, you are dominating the article. Try restricting yourself to one or two edits, and then move on to a different gun control article. It gives people a chance to discuss your edit(s). Do you realize that I and others, would almost never revert you if you did this? People generally would rather talk than revert, and if there is a revert, the BRD cycle can take place. Don't be in such a hurry, you can't save the whole world in a day.
2. WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE. Wouldn't it be nice to have me as an ally, rather than locking horns? Something has gone terribly wrong, one would think that we would be supporting each other, right? We share the same politics, the problem is that we don't share the same emotional base. Put Wikipedia first. If one of the gun toters makes a good point, support it. You'll find that they will begin supporting you as well.
3. UNDERSTAND THAT I AM NOT FOLLOWING YOU AROUND. It comes off paranoid. I just looked at your edits for the first time since September. You have made hundreds of edits on scores of pages, and I haven't "followed" you to any of that. Can you realize this? Your recent edit sent me an alert, so I went. I opened up the article history and every edit visible was yours. If I had seen just one or two edits, instead of an edit avalanche, I would have brought any concerns I had to the talk page. Those edit avalanches are spammy, and people won't be arsed to pick out the gold from the dross.
4. PUT WIKIPEDIA FIRST - Try to be an editor first, and a gun control advocate second. You'll notice that I do not lock horns with the Gun-toters all the time like you do. Give it a try. Don't push the agenga. When I see someone pushing POV, it sets me off, and I will call that editor out regardless of what side of the issue they are on. You should do the same. Just relax a bit is all. Slow down and lighten up a bit. Fair enough?
Here is what I am going to do. I am going to wipe the slate clean. I am going to pretend that I do not know you and have never met you. If you, say, push some POV or make an edit avalanche, I will politely point it out, and try to calmly and point out my concerns on the talk pages. I will make a sincere attempt to work with you, just as I did when we first met last year. I hope you do the same. If you don't that's fine. I have found that on Wikipedia all things eventually shake out. be well. --Sue Rangell 00:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There is nothing in my last offer that is combative. This is what I find exasperating: When you write things like, "If you, say, push some POV or make an edit avalanche...." You haven't offered me an olive branch - you're saying the exact same things you've said in the past - and I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Will you please consider my last (previous) offer that begins with giving other editors 72 hours to respond to our edits first? Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We can give the 72 hour thing a brief shot for a few weeks and see if it works, I have no problem with that. But our problem goes deeper than a set of rules. We cannot have an honest conversation without being honest with each other. I admit that I've been hard on you, and I am going to try to do better. Now that having been said, are you going to say you've never pushed POV? Never created an edit avalanche? Those are the two biggest things you do that drive people crazy. What do you think it is that you do that upsets me? Not just me, but LOTS of people. I don't say this to offend you, I say this to be honest with you, and to help you be honest with yourself. Do you actually think I've been drama-free on Wikipedia for seven years and suddenly one day I went insane and started getting upset over nothing? Is it even remotely possible that you have been putting your politics ahead of the encyclopedia? If you can't step back and take an honest look at yourself, then what is the point? Your actions will get us both blocked from gun control pages altogether. Is that what you want? If you think you are perfect then I cannot help you, and eventually your account will be blocked, because when you aren't locking horns with me, it's someone else. All I am asking is for you to A) SLOW YOUR EDITS, and B) EASE OFF ON THE POLITICS, I am pro-control, just like you, but next to you I look like a toothless gun-toting paranoid red-neck prepper sitting on a stack of ammo cans with two AK-47s across my lap. Please, just take a deep breath and consider that I *might* be trying to help you. If I am just a normal mom who happens to believe that guns pose a danger to society, what do YOU look like next to me? Is that the image you are going for? If I think your edits are sometimes extreme, how do you suppose that your edits appear to a gun-toter? I do not want to present you with too much of a text wall. Please consider my words, I have typed them tonight with 100% sincerity. There is nothing I would like more than 5 years from now for the two of us to look back and laugh at this whole thing. But to do that, you have to do what I did above, and be honest about your behavior. Otherwise there is no point. Be well. --Sue Rangell 04:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am happy you're willing to give the 72-hour thing a shot. Just to be clear, that's No. 1 of a four-part proposal. We're including 2, 3, and 4, too, right? As for everything else you wrote, I'm going to ignore that except to say that "you" or "your" appears in it 35 times (including in CAPS once). Also, the evidence shows that you are following me around, and at least two other editors agree. I will present the evidence separately from this discussion, so it doesn't muddy up our agreement, which I have high hopes for. I hope that in five months we can look back and say, Wow! I'm glad we worked that out. So, can we try this for five months? Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
2,3,and 4 go without saying of course. It is not productive to keep accusing me of following you around, if you keep doing that, I will give up on this. You are not going to convince me of doing something that I know I am not doing. If I were following you around, you would see me on the other 90% of the gun pages you edit, where you are presently NOT seeing me. Would you like me to actually follow you around so that you can tell the difference? I would be more excited about this if you were more willing to examine your own actions and give some consideration to my four points and not just yours, but whatever. --Sue Rangell 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I begin and end my days with self-examination. To be fair, the extent of yours above was to admit that you've been hard on me. The rest was your opinion of me. I have my opinions about you, which if I were to express them here - as you've done - would not, IMO, be helpful. Let's please just keep it on content and policy, not character. :-)
All that is unclear in my mind at this time is how long we're going to do this. My proposal was for 12 months. You agreed to a few weeks. Can we say five months - until July 15?
If it works out for a few weeks, assuming we continue to make edits the other wants to revert, I'll do it permanently. I'll even write it up as an essay and suggest it as policy. --Sue Rangell 20:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Government: NationStates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Friendly reminder question[edit]

Hi, Sue. You and I reached an agreement on Feb. 17 of the following:

1. Give other editors 72 hours to respond to our edits first.
2. If after that time we respond, we do so with one-issue-at-a-time edits/reversions with proper edit summaries per WP:EDSUM How to summarize.
3. That our talk-page comments be WP:CIVIL with no WP:PERSONAL attacks. And...
4. If either slips up the other will AGF and leave a friendly reminder on the other's talk page.

I have been editing as if that agreement were still in effect. Are you? I ask because I added a two-paragraph Background section to the Federal assault weapon ban article at 13:45, 14 March 2014, which you modified less than 24 hours later.

Also, although I thank you for making 1-at-a-time edits, and writing fairly civil edit summaries (though some seemed less so than they might have been), you practically gutted and re-wrote the whole thing. It seems like starting a discussion on the article talk page or my talk page might have been more advisable.

1.) the 72 hour thing referred to reverts. 2.)It's been a few weeks, we have kept our promises. 3.)Perhaps it's not a good idea to make major edits like that to an article where you have had lots of problems in the past. You should also avoid ownership issues. Saying that it's been "gutted" makes it sound as if it was perfect to begin with just because you wrote it. I will also add that article has been stable for months now, why are you starting up again? Have you become bored? It is beyond me why you would make a major edit like that, adding an entire section, to an article where you have had nothing but trouble, and without discussion. --Sue Rangell 02:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
1. The 72-hour thing referred to edits and reverts, which is the exact agreement we came to. Here is the link to the original [4] as shown at the top of this discussion. 2. Therefore, "It's been a few weeks, we have kept our promises," isn't true. Also, does it mean the agreement is now over? (I am willing to keep abiding by it, if you are.) 3. "You should also avoid ownership issues" violates agreement No. 3. I didn't say that you "gutted" what I wrote, I said you "practically gutted," which is a much less confrontational statement, about a specific edit on your part. (Notice that I didn't write something broad, like "You should avoid ownership issues.") Since you have already deleted the side-by-side comparisons, I will provide them again. They in fact show that you did practically (that is, for all practical purposes) gut what was written. Only one sentence remained intact, and all but one of sources that I added - and the absolutely relevant background material they supported - was removed.
That is all I will say here for now. I will now return to the article talk page itself, since other editors are involved in that conversation. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
and your point is?
You don't like the way I edited YOUR section, I got it. Those are the ownership issues I was talking about. --Sue Rangell 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Friendly request[edit]

Re: the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 article, would you mind waiting at least until after noon on April 15 to start editing it? I created the stub on April 12, and this would give me 72 hours to actually get it into something closer to a start state. I think this would be a nice thing to do since we already have an agreement about waiting 72 hours before reverting each others edits. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No. See above. ...and I didn't revert anything. Get a handle on your ownership issues please. Sheeez. --Sue Rangell 20:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say that you reverted anything? What I meant by my request was since we have effectively have an agreement to give each other a little space (72 hours) before changing edits. Also, this is a reminder that part of our agreement is to leave civil edit summaries, unlike the one you just left on the AWB 2013 article.[5] No-one - you nor I nor anyone else - owns that article; I've only asked for 72 hours to get it from stub- to start-level class, since I'm putting all the work into researching it and writing the basics. That's a reasonable request... just until midday tomorrow, please? Lightbreather (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
You said "waiting 72 hours before reverting each others edits"...and thanks for conceding that you do not own the article. I will take that as having your lofty permission to edit as I see fit. Use your sandbox, that's what it's for. --Sue Rangell 21:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I said that, referring to our agreement, and asking you to extend it in this situation, which I think most editors would agree is practically the same. Sue, please, stop. There is no need to treat me this way. Your behavior causes me a lot of distress. Just please give me until midday tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
If you are feeling stressed because you don't have complete control over an article, perhaps it's time for you to take a Wikibreak, and step away for a while. --Sue Rangell 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)