User talk:Sue Rangell

Sue Rangell is

offline

Welcome to my talk page.

If you are here about an AfD, please keep the discussion on the AfD discussion page.
If you are here about a PROD, please keep the discussion on the prodded page's talk page.
If you are here because you don't like the way I closed a discussion, make your comment HERE
WARNING: If you choose to ignore the above requests, I will move the conversation myself, answer and quote you per Wikipedia:Etiquette
I make errors... a lot - if you are here to complain about a tag or a warning please assume good faith.
I am human. I make mistakes. If I have erred, don't hesitate to tell me, but being rude will get you nowhere.
I will generally respond here to comments and notes that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
I am always around. Talk page messages will get a fairly timely response.
Please click here to leave a new message, or talk to me on IRC HERE.
I am Offline. It is 9:16 PM where I live in Alaska.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Non-Admin Closures

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No Thanks.I have made my point PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, I appreciate your input. Happy editing! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Robert Spitzer political scientist.jpg

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:

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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)[reply]

result was 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)[reply]

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

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)[reply]

Please stop interacting with Lightbreather

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice per WP:DISCUSSAFD

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)[reply]

ANI notice

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)[reply]

Request for comment

Done --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - from N4

Thank you for your help with the RfC! N4 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now

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 - T P 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice

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 - T P 20:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. 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. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]