User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Stop editing for a bit. Let's discuss what to do next..

Sorry that I have been away from a computer. Husband is in the hospital and had a very bad day Tuesday, but is alive. So stop editing and let me think. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, StarryGrandma. So sorry about your husband. I will say a prayer for him. getting ready to go take a nap... I've been sick for two weeks. Waiting for results of chest X-ray for next course of treatment. I edit when I'm awake and not feverish and not in the midst of coughing fits. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm reading. I'll get back to you. I need to look at info on my computer at home. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Go work on something other than gun control for the next week. I think we need to take a different approach, and I'm working at it offline. I'm also working on writing an article offline, one of those that I started in my sandbox. I'll ask you to look at it when I have a draft. I hate writing if I can't get it perfect the first time, but my new year's resolution is to get these written. So some reverse mentoring will be greatly appreciated. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. There was a request for some copyediting that I was going to work on soon, but I'll get started on it now.

As for the Nazi material - now unduely, IMO, in at least two articles - I thought my split proposal was an excellent one. Like I said on 28 Dec 2013 in the Gun control RfC Survey: "The subject of Nazi use of gun control should be its own article. Mention of it in articles such as this one should be brief and deep down, or simply in the See also section."

If Wikipedians try to squelch this argument completely, the pro-gun editors will just keep trying to put it back. But if we give them someplace to put it, then it can be given its proper weight in pertinent articles, where appropriate, and a link.

Take care, dear SG. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I DID just finish up some edits on a related page that I'd been drafting on the side. MOSTLY formatting, but one bit of balancing content. Lightbreather (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be talking with Sue about this. Can't guarantee that this will go well. Don't comment unless I ask. Hope you are feeling better. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, SG. Early on in our relationship, I almost said to you, "Run away, StarryGrandma! Run away!" If you did right now, I'd miss you, but I really couldn't blame you. This is a Moby Dick sized can of worms. I'd just started working on an RFC/U about one hour ago. What shall I do with that? Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I moved it to my sandbox and deleted it from the RFC/U space. I don't know if I did it right - but if I did it wrong, I guess I'll hear from someone. Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As a heads-up: you may have noticed I did some work re: categories American gun rights advocates and American gun control advocates. I would have waited on that, but I got a notice Wed, Feb 5, that the former was up for deletion, so I thought I'd better finish up what I'd planned to do with it when I created it on Jan. 16. Namely, to categorize gun rights advocates in a similar fashion to gun control advocates, per the categorization policies and guidelines. I think that project got sidetracked by the Spitzer brouhaha.

I've been trying to honor your request to avoid gun-control related edits for a bit, and staying away from more material edits - though I am still disputing the proposed deletion of Global gun cultures.

Also, just out of curiosity: Is it weird that Anythingyouwant is continuing to make LOTS of edits to the Gun politics in the U.S. page when he's before Arbcom re: the Gun control page? The edits he's making seem completely ill-advised under the circumstances, and I'd be more involved if I weren't trying to honor your instructions. So much of the opposition I've run into re: these kinds of articles is stuff like, "Well, it's been in the article 'x' (days, weeks, whatever)," as if that is a good reason to keep otherwise questionable material - some that's even against policies. I'm not urgently awaiting an answer, but I'd love your two-cents on this at some point. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

In response to your message: No, I don't support merging the US material in Global gun cultures to Gun politics in the United States. I want to see Gun cultures in the USA merged because it's too underdeveloped and, for now, unhelpful (like I said elsewhere, too many irons--and this constant moving and creating creates more problems than it's intended to solve). In the global article, it's an entirely different matter: a relatively small but well-verified section on the culture(s) of one country is perfectly appropriate in what is a more general article on the subject. It's for a similar reason that I think a merge is, for now, a good idea: a brief section on "culture(s)" is fine in an article that deals with politics--as Gaijin42 might say, it serves as a kind of introduction, to set the scene, but it shouldn't be overdone.

BTW, I'm not clear on who created what, and removed what, and merged or de-merged what, and I don't really care that much. I don't know if with my merge vote I'm opposing the pro-gun or anti-gun activists or both, and that's just fine with me! Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, I hope you don't mind my revert of your last edit in Gun cultures in the USA--see the edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you completely on the first part. As for the second part, that doesn't matter as much to me. I just thought the article should show that this idea to approach the topic from a global level is not unique, as the earliest discussions on the talk page show - especially the 11 Nov 2006 one titled Added worldwide tags - as well as the material that had been added to it prior to creation of the Global gun cultures page (as in this 25 Jan 2014 revision).

Here in the U.S., I follow Chicana/Chicano issues, and I do volunteer work in Central America. Partly for these reasons, I belong to WP:CSB, and when I saw this article tagged "worldwide" and with a section called "Present day gun culture outside the United State," (both of these were on/in the article on 25 Jan) it seemed like a global article was the next logical editorial step.

My observation is that wherever "gun culture" appears in a WP article, it gets politicized. For instance, Overview of gun laws by nation is currently politicized. It has an Arguments section with four subsections. A short Gun culture section is also currently in the Culture of the United States article. It is apolitical, though the article and talk page history show that it has been politicized in the past. I think we should keep politics on the politics pages. Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor review notes

Ɱ, I've started a second read of your article - again, it looked great at first read - and will comment here, if you're still interested in my comments. I will have two lists here: things that I feel need attention, and things that I feel might need attention. Hope that works for you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Need attention

• End of sentence in Toponymy, "... it is often erroneously called Briar Cliff Manor, although historically there has been little distinction." I would replace it with "... it is often erroneously written Briar Cliff Manor." Also, none of the three citations seem to work. (They don't work for me, anyway. Are the supposed to show the erroneous spelling?)

ɱ: I'll reword it as suggested. The citations link to three URLs, all of which are working for me on the latest versions of IE, Firefox, and Chrome. Perhaps Macs won't allow it to pull up, or you might have an outdated plugin/browser/OS/computer. Not really sure. The links are to NYT articles from various years with the unusual "Briar Cliff Manor" spelling.

 Done --ɱ (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• "It is also referred to more formally as the Village of Briarcliff Manor." I would drop the "more formally." Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: For what reason?

In this case, it's a subjective qualifier that doesn't improve the article. Have you read the Wikipedia essay Writing better articles? It is one of my favorites; I refer to it regularly. Also, one of my favorite writing tips ever: Always check your drafts for intensifiers such as "very," "extremely," and "really," - and for "ly" adverbs. They're usually  ;-) unnecessary. Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have thoroughly, it's helped me with several aspects of writing the draft. I suppose that it would be good to remove it.--ɱ (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ɱ (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Under subsection Early history: "the family, who were Loyalists" should be "the family, who was Loyalist". Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ɱ (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Under Progressive Era:

After its 1902 opening, Briarcliff Lodge was a premier resort hotel. The Tudor Revival-style building was surrounded by dairy barns and greenhouses (all built by Law), and hosted well-known guests including Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, Tallulah Bankhead, Johnny Weissmuller, Jimmy Walker, Babe Ruth, Edward S. Curtis, Thomas Edison, George B. Cortelyou, Mary Pickford, F. W. Woolworth and J. P. Morgan.

I would also reword that first sentence to get rid of the WP:PEACOCK word "premier." In fact, you might want to scan the whole article for superlatives and promotional sounding language, unless it's due some weight and attributed to some individual or organization. Lightbreather (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: Done, and checked by Miniapolis and me for such words.

• Under Post-Progressive Era: "In 1964 a new Village Hall opened, replacing the Municipal Building." Unless those are proper place names, they should be lowercase. Ditto for "Parks and Recreation Department." (See Generic words for institutions.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Ditto "Appellate Division Court. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: They're all proper names, always referred to in all-caps (Briarcliff and outside publications). Briarcliff Manor has too many of these: the Briarcliff Manor Village Library, the Village Clock, the Village Pool, the Justice Court, Village Hall, Municipal Building...

Might need attention

• Rename "Toponymy" section to simpler "Place name"? Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: “Toponymy” as a subsection heading is used in the London and Chadderton articles, and perhaps with greater clarity in the former. Perhaps we should consider rephrasing the first sentence of that section of the draft.

• I think the Prehistory section, after the sentence about the "Sint Sinks," would be a better place to put the info about the town nearly being named Sing Sing East. When I read about that name proposal in the Toponymy section my reaction was "Huh?" Lightbreather (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: Instead perhaps I'll consider adding an explanatory note connecting the Sint Sincks to the neighboring village of Sing Sing (now Ossining). I did want to mention in the section that the residents preferred the name over other given choices. Tell me what you think.

 Done Okay, I added a note to that sentence. Tell me if that helps to clarify, and tell me if anything else you read is unclear or perplexing so I can add further notes.--ɱ (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• In subsection Name, I would change "Walter Law bought James Stillman's 236-acre (96 ha) farm and named it Briarcliff Farms" to "Walter Law bought James Stillman's 236-acre farm and named it Briarcliff Farms". This is the first use of "acre" in the body text, and the Acre article explains about hectares. I find the acre/hectare conversions throughout the article distracting. Lightbreather (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: I often do as well, but Miniapolis consistently added them in; I suppose MOS suggests them, and I'm okay with leaving them in.

• In the Early history section, the first time I read this sentence, it tripped me up: "It became known as Whitson's Corners for John H., Richard and Reuben Whitson, three brothers who owned adjoining farms totaling 400 acres (160 ha) in the area."

I think this reads better: "It became known as Whitson's Corners for brothers John H., Richard and Reuben Whitson, who owned 400 acres of adjoining farmland in the area." Lightbreather (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ɱ (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Under Progressive Era: Only one of the two sources given for "more than 5,000 acres" is easily verifiable. Again, the parenthetical conversion to square miles seems distracting. Is simple conversion considered OR? I don't know if I've ever considered that. At any rate, if any of your sources say it, I think it would be more interesting to answer the question: What percentage of Westchester County did Law's 5,000+ acres make? Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Simple conversion is covered under WP:CALC but comparing it to percentage is probably WP:SYNTH or WP:OR unless a source has done that for you. Better than a parenthetical would probably be Template:Convert though Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, it's only about .02%.

• Mercy! Under Progressive Era: conversions to meters (American English; "metres" is British English, yes?) and liters? Are you anticipating a lot of international readers? Just wondering because, again, I find the conversions distracting - though again, I've never edited an article like this before. Lightbreather (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Under Post-Progressive Era: "the Briarcliff Lodge property would reopen in 1998 as Northeastern Bible College." I would change "would reopen" to simply "reopened."

 Done --ɱ (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also under Post-Progressive Era: "Each board has 90 days (until March 12, 2014)...." I would just say "Each board has until March 12, 014...." Lightbreather (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --ɱ (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

American Gun Rights category

While I commend you for creating this category, keep in mind wiki's laws on using categories. It should only be used if the category is mentioned in the article. I do not necesarilly agree with that, but it is what it is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. With you work with me on this? That's meant as a sincere, friendly invitation. Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. My time on wiki is limited due to my paid writing and film commitments, but I would be glad to help out in this regard when I have time. (I strongly prefer editing to the politicking)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do - and think would improve the project - is make the categorization of gun rights/control more apples-to-apples. However, categorization is an area I'm inexperienced in when it comes to how they're used in templates. There are probably templates that currently use "Gun rights advocates" and "American gun control advocates." I'm not sure how to determine this, or change it, but a clue is that there was NO category "American gun rights advocates" but one called "Gun rights advocates" with virtually ALL Americans in it. Conversely, there's hardly anyone directly under "Gun control advocates" - but there is (already was) a category called "American gun control advocates" with a boat-load of people in it. Do you see what I mean? I started working on this a few weeks ago, and then got sidetracked. Lightbreather (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're on the right track with this; just keep in mind if an article does not explicitly state the category, that someone will remove the category tag from the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only been adding them where they already existed under the "Gun rights advocates" category. When I'm done, I'll go back and double-check, OK? What about templates? Can you help with that part? Or maybe someone else in WP:GUNS? Lightbreather (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I added all the American "Gun rights advocates" to "American gun rights advocates," I've started checking the members to see if they really are advocates, as you've suggested. The very first one - Texas guv Greg Abbott - has the word "gun" nowhere in it except for the category. Should I remove it - and others like it? Should you or I put this step on WP:GUNS? Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed, unless you want to add information stating that he is an advocate. Think of the categories almost like any other article content.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

gun advocates cat

Take a step back on these and do a bit of WP:BEFORE so far all 3 have been well known gun rights advocates. Cooper is a board member of the NRA. Reynolds writes extensively on the subject (and should proboably hav emroe added to his article) but it does say "I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons." currently. Rawles is a HUGE name in the survivalist/prepper community and reccomends everyone have a personal armory. 5 seconds with google would tell you about any of these. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gaijin. I'm pinging Mike on this, so please take a breath OK? As you can see from above, I'm actually working WITH Mike on this. I've given reasons, which he seems to understand, and have asked if this is something that should go on the WP:GUNS project - so please don't start reverting everything, OK? Lightbreather (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rawles' article currently reads "Rawles is a strong proponent of the right to keep and bear arms, having said that people are "merely exercising a pre-existing right" when they carry firearms to public events such as political rallies. When he was asked about open carry, "but...without a permit?", he replied, "We have a permit—it is called the Second Amendment,"[53]" Im not sure how you are justifying removing these cats. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Good argument. It was also a good-faith edit. My edit summary said: "Bold edit: I wouldn't be surprised if he were an advocate, but there's no mention of advocacy here that I see. Maybe I missed it." Did you miss that? Was it necessary to WP:REVTALK at me? "Reverted 2 edits by Lightbreather (talk): Stop removing categories just because you dont know." I can appreciate that you're stressed right now, with the ArbCom and all, but was that necessary? Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gaijin42 (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles 1) several of the articles you remove DO have mention. 2) The guideline about categoriztion specifically says to tag and not remove cats if you think there is an issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of them seem to require WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to get from Point A to "gun rights advocate." Also, where is the tag or the discussion about the tag you're referring to? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I linked you to it right there? If you did this to one article, it would be understandable. It would be fixable. Doing this to 20-30 articles all at once is disruptive with no WP:BEFORE. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I followed the link you gave. I did a find on "tag" and I couldn't figure out which you're referring to. Could you please just tell me the name of the tag? I'm sorry. I'm an experienced editor, but NOT an expert WP editor. Lightbreather (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Template" and "Tag" are often used interchangeably. (See Wikipedia:Tag_bombing for example) "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category." Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

gah! that didnt work right, it applied the templates here! anyway, its the first paragraph of that link. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you trust me to go add these to the articles that I removed from American gun control/rights advocates? Lightbreather (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be preferable, that way people can go through and do some research on a case by case basis. I apologize for the quick escelation. I could have discussed here more. But your initial response above made me look at your recent contribs, and when I saw the mass removal (vs just the 3 I happened to have watchlisted) it tripped my trigger. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Then I hope you'll trust me to do this task in the morning, as I was about to join my husband in the family room when this whole thing happened. Lightbreather (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. Enjoy the evening, sorry for the drama. Just slow down a bit next time ok? :) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think i can close the ANI, since Im not an admin, but I have asked drmies to close it for me. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, that template should be in addition to the category tag, not instead of the category tag. The way it is now, the articles are not actually in the category. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

if you really want me to work with you...

Please don't waste my MFing time. I don't mind name-calling, etc, but like I told you, I only have so much time I can devote to Wiki and I know what it is like to be confused when starting something new. The "newbie mistake excuse" is wearing off though. When you constantly undo mass changes it looks like you are trying to be disruptive. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but someone more conspiratorially minded might think you are trying to tie up certain resources of a different viewpoint than your own. I would like to think this is not the case, but I can see why you have been going back and forth at ANI over some trivial junk lately. Slow it down, kid. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike, I do want to work with you, collegially. What name-calling are you referring to? What newbie mistake excuse did I make? What undoing of mass changes are you talking about? ... ANI? That was Gaijin jumping the gun, as I'm sure he'll be the first to admit, and Drmies can confirm.

You thought this American gun rights advocates category was a good idea last night. I was proceeding - with your OK, I thought, from last night's discussion - to go through the people in the category to determine to the best of my ability which could truly be categorized as people who've actively worked for gun-rights advocacy, as opposed to those who'd simply espoused an opinion. I'd also asked if you thought we should put this on the WP:GUNS page.

To determine if someone belonged in the gun-rights or gun-control category I relied on my own knowledge (for instance, Wayne LaPierre? Sarah Brady? sure), and a scan of the article, and searches for words like "gun" and parts of words like "advoca" in the text and in the references. Did I make a few mistakes? Sure. Do I fix my mistakes? All you have to do is bring them to my attention. It is sh*tty to bite my head off over them. And are you threatening to take me to ANI? I can't tell.

That handful of mistakes - which I was quick to offer to correct - was ALL of the awful flak from executing my good idea. And why the heck ARE all these pages categorized as gun-rights or gun-control advocates if it's NOT CLEAR (per WP:CAT) to the general reader why they should be? In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny in "Bully for Bugs": Stop steaming up my tail! What are you trying to do - wrinkle it?

What, if anything, do you want me to do next? Should we recruit help from the project page? Lightbreather (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's part of our discussion from last night:

Lightbreather: ...Texas guv Greg Abbott - has the word "gun" nowhere in it except for the category. Should I remove it - and others like it? Should you or I put this step on WP:GUNS?

Mike: It should be removed, unless you want to add information stating that he is an advocate. Think of the categories almost like any other article content.

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a very big difference making that type of change on one article vs 20. Making that type of BOLD edit on a single article is absolutely fine. If you made almost ANY mass change across many different articles it is much better off to develop a consensus. On the other hand switching from advocates to american advocates is fine. There is no loss of information, and if someone by chance wasn't really american its not a huge deal they would still be found. When you remove them from the cat structure completely though, there is now no way to associate them with the topic anymore. Without looking at the history of each article individually, there is no more record. Thats a much bigger deal. This type of sensitivity is not limited to gun issues, there was recently a HUGE blowup (receiving real world attention) about moving "Female Poets (or maybe authors, dont remember)" into "Poets", because there was no equivalent "Male Poets". It was a major dustup. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin, but if you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if YOU would give me a little space right now. As for "no way to associate them with the topic anymore." I think you should (re) read WP:CAT Articles. I am more competent than some would have others believe. (As in WP:BRICKS...) Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Howdy

Hi, tag was removed here without obvious comment, unless there is an abbreviation there that I don't understand. So no problem, it wasn't you ;). Sorry for any confusion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Small arms

Hi, some thoughts. If "The terms small arm and light weapon have no official or universally accepted definitions" then it is not an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia topics have to have a clear definition and they can not be "terms" per WP:DICTIONARY. Also when the reference says small arm and light weapon are two different things then they don't belong in the same article. Some time (when I am not to lazy ;)) I may put Small arms up for merger into Firearm since the referenced definition of Small arms - " revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, sub-machine guns and light machine guns." is the same as Firearm. Websters has "a handheld firearm (as a handgun or shoulder arm" - a sub of Firearm. Again, just some thoughts, laziness or my own lack of ideas on what to do with the article may keep me from doing anything for a while. Since your editing it right now you may see ways to make it encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just having my first cup of coffee, so I need to think some more on your thoughts. In the meantime, some social stuff... that's easier. I, too, enjoy stargazing, though the extent of my knowledge is being able to identify a half-dozen constellations, and the planets visible to the naked eye. I have a really old telescope, but I never really mastered it - especially now that I wear glasses. I love my Celestron binoculars for watching birds. I don't know if we have anything else in common.

Again, I'll finish my coffee and reply re: "small arm" and "light weapon." Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Coming around. I just found this at "http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r710_3/main.asp" from 2008/2009:

Small arms/light weapons - Handguns, shoulder-fired weapons, light automatic weapons up to and including 50 caliber machine guns, recoilless rifles up to and including 106mm, mortars up to and including 81mm, man-portable rocket launchers, rifle-/shoulder-fired grenade launchers, and individually operated weapons that are portable or can be fired without special mounts or firing devices and that have potential use in civil disturbances and are vulnerable to theft.

Perhaps when the topic was first presented on Wikipedia it was before the small arms (light weapons) trade had become so notable? ... More thinking now. Lightbreather (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Small arms have been a concept and notable for a very very long time (1800s) [1] [2] (The OED there Small Arms : those not requiring carriages, as opposed to artillery) . I think the fact that there is possibly ambiguity in the definition does not mean that that is not a notable topic. Although generally all small arms are firearms, I would not say the terms are synonyms, as firearms covers weapons which are not small arms. (Cannons, tank shells, howitzers etc are all firearms) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

If we're talking about small arms, agree they're not synonymous - from what I've read so far, anyway. So do we have one article that tells what both kinds are, or do we have two like Small arms (UN protocol) and Small arms (military), plus a WP:2DABS page? And military - would all militaries define them the same way? That might open both pages up to pro-gun or pro-control POV forking. (It gets my goat that WP seems to present so much as if the U.S. view - military, politics, whatever - is the primary/World view. I love my country - but we are just one country.) Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would think that we would have one "small arms" article that perhaps had a small section on each set of definitions. However, if one of those subsections did have substantially greater content that was unique to it, it could be cause to fork out per split/summary. There is enough overlap that the vast majority of content would be the same across the board imo. Its not like its completely different concepts that just happen to share a name (which would be cause for disambiguation). Its more like Driving_under_the_influence or something. The concept is universal even though exact definitions and boundaries vary widely. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

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 - 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 19:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, NE Ent. I will try posting my offer on her talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ɱ/sandbox7

Hello again Lightbreather,

Miniapolis has finished her copyediting of the Briarcliff Manor draft, and I've finished all of my work (except images down-the-line), so if you'd like to make further suggestions, I would appreciate them. Thanks. --ɱ (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• End of lead paragraph #2: "... to the 7,867 residing there, as of the 2010 census." Sentence sounded funny to me on first read. Will re-read later and keep/comment if necessary.--Lightbreather (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: I agree the sentence may be a bit off, perhaps we can come up with a way to rephrase it.

• "The village is distinguished by its history, sense of community, and school district." Beginning of paragraph #3 in lead. Delete. Lightbreather (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: Miniapolis removed this and I'm okay with it gone.

• I've never worked on an article about a town before, so I may be wrong about this, but the beginning of the Toponymy section:

The name Briarcliff Manor derives from the name Brier Cliff, a combination of the English word Cliff and a variant of the English word Briar. The name originated in Ireland, as the name of the family home of Reverend John David Ogilby, a professor of ecclesiastical history at the General Theological Seminary. The professor had named his New York summer home Brier Cliff after the family home in Ireland. In 1890, Walter Law bought James Stillman's 236-acre farm and gave it the name of the Briarcliff Farms, and further on adopted the name Briarcliff for all of his property. Law's friend Andrew Carnegie would refer to Law as "The Laird of Briarcliff Manor", and since the title appealed to all concerned, the village found its name as Briarcliff Manor.

Is that whole chunk of material being attributed to the citations named "NYTBriarcliff" and "Changing Landscape"? I think the former, from The New York Times real estate section, sounds overly promotional. I would remove that completely, or to the External links section, and attribute the rest (if appropriate) thusly:

According to Mary Cheever, author of "The Changing Landscape: A History of Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough," the name Briarcliff Manor derives from the name Brier Cliff, a combination of the English word Cliff and a variant of the English word Briar.... Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: Yeah, the NYT article may be somewhat promotional, but I included it as a source before I did the Cheever history, which has the NYT information and more, so the NYT article is unnecessary. I may try to find a place somewhere else to cite it, because external links shouldn’t include what isn’t necessary. I am not sure whether or not it would be better to say “According to Mary Cheever”, but it seems redundant if I already have the citation to Cheever.

• Under Progressive Era:

At the time, New York State required a population density of at least 300 per square mile as the first step towards incorporation as a village. A proposition was presented to the supervisors of Mount Pleasant and Ossining on October 8, 1902 that an area of 640 acres with a population of 381 be incorporated as the Village of Briarcliff Manor....

This should be simplified. Lightbreather (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ɱ: I don't know if it needs simplification, but I'm open to suggestions about how that could be accomplished.

Back to this. My brain was just spinning when I read this, probably because the first part mentions 300 per square mile and the second part mentions 381 per 640 acres. I went and ran a acres-to-square-miles conversion and learned that 640 acres IS one square mile. I found that annoying. Maybe something like this would be more reader friendly?

In 1902, New York State required a population density of 300 per square mile (640 acres) as the first step toward village incorporation. In October of that year, it was proposed to the supervisors of Mount Pleasant and Ossining that an area of that size, with a population of 381, be incorporated as the Village of Briarcliff Manor....

I dunno. Just as it reads, it's distracting, IMO. Lightbreather (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that I should change "640 acres" to "one square mile". If I fix that, then would it all read fine for you?--ɱ (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Under Progressive Era:

After its 1902 opening, Briarcliff Lodge was a premier resort hotel.

"After" might be better as "At." Also, I see WP:PEACOCK word "premier" is still there. Was that simply overlooked, or did the sources give it enough weight to include it? Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Done, and the sources strongly support its prominence and extravagance in the hotel/resort industry at the time, so I thought that one was okay. --ɱ (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's your article, but FYI, Merriam-Webster defines "premier" as 1: first in position, rank, or importance; 2: first in time: earliest. So I'd think you'd need a number of high-quality sources saying the resort was one of the first and/or the best in the world - no? Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I do say "a premier" and not "the premier". Having the "a" article acts as a reverse-intensifier (a downtoner); that the Lodge was a great hotel, not the best one. I suppose I could instead say "At its 1902 opening, the Briarcliff Lodge was a prominent and extravagant resort hotel." --ɱ (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Of course, I brought the matter to WP:ANI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)