User talk:Lightbreather

After over seven years of editing - over one year of active editing - I am throwing in the towel. Of my edits, 50% of the 11,000+ were to the mainspace. I worked, hard, to balance the POV on gun-control related pages. Ditto for porn coverage. (I wasn't very successful at either.) I was just getting started on some feminism and sexism pages. I also worked hard to see civility improved in the editing environment, to align with the civility policy. The gun-control and civility discussions were some of the most aggressive, uncivil "discussions" that I have experienced in my nearly 40 years as an adult and as a professional communicator. I sure hope Wikipedia becomes more welcoming and diverse before my granddaughters grow up. There are a lot of men here, and some women too, who have their heads in the sand regarding how the aggressive, uncivil editing environment on Wikipedia effects not only the makeup of the editorial body, but also the quality of the encyclopedia's content. - Lightbreather, 12 October 2014

Retiring?

I don't like to see anyone retire from the 'pedia. Please reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, don't want to see you go; leaves progressive people trying to change things with fewer allies, though this is typical - progressives in general tend to not like fighting, when they do, they pick the wrong target, it boomerangs, and so they quit. (Frustrates me a great deal) Nonetheless, I hope you do not view me as one of the "women with my head in the sand"; I just know what works here and what does not, who to go into battle against and who is not worth the bother. By my view, WP is full of drama queens of all genders, and no more uncivil than some of the old right-wing boards I used to engage on in the old days of bbs systems, before online chat. The online world has always been harsher and less civil than the real world. But IMHO, WP is less uncivil than some online arguments I've gotten into the gun nuts and the right to life crowd. Doesn't mean it should be this way, but we ARE dealing with a base of predominantly as the Guardian puts it, "what you get in Wikimedia is the world according to the young white western male with a slight personality defect." Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have my head in the sand too, but that's also because my butt looks so great. Don't go, Lightbreather. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you have decided to leave. I think the only way that Wikipedia can be more welcoming and diverse is if we help it along by our very presence and action. It's really amazing how one person can change the world. For example, if you decided to stay here and be welcoming and encourage diversity, you could be the change you desire. If you don't believe me, try this experiment where you live: decide on a certain day when you wake up, that you will smile at everyone you see and meet, whenever you are. That means smiling at people on the street, smiling at people at work, and smiling at cashiers and other service people you encounter. Try it and, and see what happens. And then consider whether you might still have an impact on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

Results of the August Blitz and September Drive
A few changes around the Guild's pages
Sign up for the October Blitz
Review the Coordinators election results

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say...

Quitting a website over other people is a really dumb move in my opinion. For every idiot out there you will come across someone who is supportive and helpful. I know my words will prob have little meaning and I know you don't know me at all but I really wish you would just stay here at Wikipedia as there are people who value you here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will be missed. Your farewell message above reflects underestimation of your accomplishments. I am not a Christian, but I appreciate the strength, wisdom, and humanity of those able to turn the other cheek. Thewellman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your contributions on behalf of Gender Gap

		Mind the Gap Award
		For your contributions to the Gender Gap Task Force. Even though you are "missing in action" in the line of duty, your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. May there always be new editors who will pick up where you left off, and continue to make Wikipedia the kind of place your granddaughters can be proud of. —Neotarf (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminists Engage Wikipedia

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrienne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you an award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2014 Jefferson County Public Schools protests

On 11 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2014 Jefferson County Public Schools protests, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that hundreds of Colorado high school students are currently protesting a proposed curriculum change? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just because...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

revert

The revert of your comments on the ArbCom page was accidental. I was viewing the diff of the newest comments and accidentally bumped the revert button. I have self reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GGTF case talk page: hatting

Carolmooredc, please ignore this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to post to a section after it has been hatted. I have reverted the extra comments you made. Please do not restore them. Roger Davies ^talk 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not hatted when I started my last comment. Please see my comment there. I hope that you or another editor will restore it. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who tries to understand this. The discussion was this Gang Bangers, and the comment Roger removed was:

As for the "Carol is American" BS, I'm a Yank, too, and I can tell you the two meanings I know for "gang bang" and "gang banger." The first goes way back, as I've seen depicted in many movies. A "gang bang" is a girl/woman being fucked one at a time (consensually or not) by a group of boys/men lined up nearby. "Gang banger," I learned, is a street gang member, which my oldest son told me when he was in high school. When I first heard the term I was confused, because I'd only ever heard the other term, with its purely sexual meaning. I don't know what Carol meant, but I can tell you that there are at least these two meanings here in the U.S.

Regardless, it's obvious that she's burnt out. So I'll tell her now what several editors rushed to tell Eric when he did the same thing and called Jimbo Wales a "dishonest cunt of the highest order" - after this case was opened.[1] Carolmooredc: Unless an arbitrator asks you a direct question related to this case, hush! There might be hope for you yet, just as Eric received an early Christmas present four days ago with Proposal 2.3. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this comment is restored to that discussion, I will delete this discussion.

Carolmooredc, please ignore this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I considered your request, and I understand your annoyance at Roger Davies

's revert. However the utility of having a comment in a hatted section is minimal, especially given that Carol has been banned from that talk page anyway. I suggest you remove your request, before someone with my sense of justice, but a little more impetuous follows it and gets their knuckles rapped. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Defending yourself against claims (linked to in notice above), I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in this day and age there are so many guys who don't like GGTF-type efforts who know how to fake the appearance of coming from an IP in a specific locality, not to mention fake a similar writing pattern. I've seen cases with much clearer evidence rejected. Just more dubious stuff going on... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per this reason, which I found after following and reading the dozens of links one encounters when reading the guide to appealing blocks.

Decline reason:

I don't see anything there which justifies your abuse of multiple accounts; perhaps you might clarify in a future request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

If there are privacy concerns that administrators may not be aware of, that's fine, but as such the unblock request will need to be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question. It should be noted that I consulted with GorillaWarfare yesterday before I posted my findings. She informed me that she was unaware of any privacy concerns through the functionary or arbitration avenues that would discourage me from posting the behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. GW may very well be unaware, since I have not been able to share my concerns explicitly and privately with her. Clerk @Rschen7754: is aware of who I have reached out to. Could you consult privately with him and see if one of those people is able to reply to the pleas that I sent? Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question

@Mike V:, am I allowed to post here on my talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, linked in the block notice about, which will answer this and other questions you may have. I do so wish you'd taken my advice given when you posted on my talk.[2] EChastain (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]