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)

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)

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)
ADDENDUM: After this post I gave myself a voluntary interraction ban from lightbreather, and stopped editing any pages where she was involved. To anyone reading this, Lightbreather has since gotten herself topic banned all on her own. --Sue Rangell 00:43, 14 July 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? ...
Apparently I haven't been the only one making the suggestion. You have managed to get yourself topic banned without any help from me. I hope that your topic ban will give you time to reflect on your actions. When that happens, I will be very happy to edit along side with you once again. --Sue Rangell 00:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I like your signature.[edit]

Would you mind if I take your signature code and customise it for my own? --Biglobster (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU! By all means feel free, and I am honored! --Sue Rangell 19:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision[edit]

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

humor article[edit]

Dear Editor, I realize that there is a possibility that I am taking things too seriously but I have been troubled for a long time by a humor page in your user domain. I am familiar with the generally inviolable protocol of leaving the contents of a user's page to the individual contributor. Nevertheless, I redacted the page in question. You may take it that this is my way of indicating to you that you may wish to remove the page altogether or on the other hand may wish to change it back to the way you had it originally. I've decided to disengage from further interaction or editing of the page in question. I do express the hope that you do not return it to something that spoofs a sister project. I suspect that many of that project's editors have put a lot of work into the work product. Again, I'm going to defer to you entirely on what you want to now do with this page. As I said, I'm letting the page in question drop off my concern radar now, hoping that you will take into account this concern. With my regards. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to my user page have been noted. --Sue Rangell 05:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Hi Sue, Thank you for your comments in the recent ARE proceeding. My apologies if I ruffled any feathers or brought up any bad memories. I should have given you more of a head's up when I involved you in the fray. But I know that you have shared my frustrations. I hope all is well with you otherwise... :) Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! You did me a favor. I have never had so much trouble with an editor in my entire time on Wikipedia, and I have been on for a very long time. That editor is the ONLY editor that I actively avoid. Please feel free to ping me anytime she drags you (or anyone else) into ANI, so that whoever she is picking on will know that they are not alone. Eventually (I Hope) the powers-that-be will wake-up to her behavior and finally do something. Thank you again. --Sue Rangell 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, now LB is dragging you into the fray. Not very civil behavior for someone who accuses so many of being uncivil towards her. I've asked for permission so that I can comment on your behalf. I'm also asking why her personal attack on me during the ARE was not addressed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollbacker.svg

Hi Sue Rangell. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for enforcement[edit]

I have made a request for enforcement against you at ARE: [4] Lightbreather (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(sigh...) You just did this with Scalhotrod. This has become boring. --Sue Rangell 00:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

AE Warning[edit]

As a result of this request for arbitration enforcement, you are warned that you may be made subject to sanctions in the future should you continue to focus on contributors rather than content in the manner discussed in the AE request. Additionally, you should take a hard look at the admin comments in the last section and remember to remain civil despite the contentious nature of the topic. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for being frustrated with Lightbreather. I have never had any problems with anyone else in almost 8 years on Wikipedia. I already have a self imposed interraction ban with Lightbreather, and now that she has been officially topic banned, I don't anticipate any further troubles. be well. --Sue Rangell 22:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA[edit]

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you have resolved the issues I had with your earlier request. The RfA isn't a process that I would wish on anybody. You will enjoy my support should you make another go at it. Good Luck! --Sue Rangell 19:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings. 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) 00:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not have time to structure my language to meet the requirement of encyclopedia or wikipedia. However, what I have put down is true.

"The first goods transport was on human backs and heads, but the use of pack animals, including donkeys and horses, developed during the Stone Age. [Horses are believed to be domesticated around 4000BC and donkeys 3000BC. So, it is unlikely that human has used dokeys or horses during the Stone age.] "

The information within the square brackets are from wikipedia as well. Your opinion that my contribution adds to the information seems to be irrelevant. Using such an excuse to undo someone's else contribution is both arrogant and impolite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.111.63 (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)