User Talk: Anastrophe

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{archived annually}}<br/>
<div style="text-align: center;">{{larger|''Posts here will be archived after I read them, or after any ongoing discussion has wrapped up.''}}</div><br/>

Go away little faux flowers and bees

thumb|Purdy Flower ↗
I find quite unpleasant the simplistic block-style 'flowers and bees' graphic that exists on the page when there are no comments. Therefore, this page will now host—in perpetuity—this faux comment, as well as a photo of an actual flower (an Iris) that my wife grew. She grows hundreds every year. It's a tiny slice of heaven in suburbia.

Deal with it.<br/>{{small|anastrophe}}

Reply to a reply, posted per request, sort of, I don't know, don't really care, it'll be here indefinitely

::Oh dear, where to start.
::{{tq|"Since I've got nothing better to do now, I've been surfing your talk page archives and how interesting they are. ('''Though some things are missing, so you practically have to step through it edit by edit.''') You've received a few blocks. Plenty of ''threats'' to block. Dozens (maybe hundreds) of warnings about edit wars and civility from rank-and-file editors to admins. And those are just on your talk page. If I had the inclination to look at other talk pages, and edit summaries, I think it might actually run into the thousands. Am I threatening to share them? No. I just find them entertaining in light of the shade you've been throwing."}}
::If there are things missing (other than minor bureaucratic administrative notifications and such), I'll be happy to add them back, but you'd have to identify them, and I'm in no position to ask such from you. I've never intentionally left anything out of the archives that I can recall, whether it disparages me, is an actual administrative action, a claim that I was 'misbehaving', or anything else. Vandalism on my talk page I probably would toss. Your perceptions of my behavior are...sad. A 'few' blocks - three - sure, if that's the number. If it's four, mea culpa. I don't recall specifically, '''since getting blocked has been an approximately once-per-decade here phenomenon'''. What ones there were were brief, and if I challenged any, it was good faith misunderstanding of what I was doing wrong.
::Your entertainment is my first priority. I'm happy to indulge where I can. I sometimes stroll through the archives myself, primarily for laughs when people have lost their shit over minor things and attacked me for them, or, on the other hand, the one block I had where it turned into a friendly and pleasant chat with admins who opined they'd never had a block discussion that was as pleasant as that one was. Oh, also the whack-jobs who would go crazy when I'd delete their vast swaths of 'personal expertise'-informed opinions and OR from articles. Those are usually a hoot.
::Bad behaviors? Sure, I've had a few. Lightbreather? Ahem.
::Oh - and on sharing them? Meh. I maintain archives since I'm transparent (though I do cast a shadow when in the sun).
::{{tq|"ArbCom didn't make you my parole officer. In policy terms, what you did yesterday and what you're threatening to do is called wikihounding and threatening."}}
::What, exactly, am I threatening? Please - quote - chapter and verse. I don't see a threat of anything, or even a carefully veneered implication of a threat. ''I want you to go away like you promised'', I have no interest in drawing this out further.
::On hounding - well, okay, that's fair. I've put a little pressure on you since your predictable return to a gun topic after the recissions - I've detailed my feelings on your behaviors that resulted in a seven-plus year ban, an accomplishment that is astonishing, if not entirely unexpected, having seen how you work and interact for a very long time (except for the blissful, seven-plus year gap). I'd bet my edits on gun topics during your years gone and up to March of this year were likely trivial and sporadic; I happen to ''not'' be obsessed with those dirty evil guns. I edit elsewhere, in various realms of information here, often just as a byproduct of something new piquing an interest. But, I digress.
::{{tq|"But you won't. You say you don't want to be bothered to use them, but what you know is that you're likely to be boomeranged if you start down that path. No, at some point you figured out the system."}}
::Oh that's precious! No, it's because I despise bureaucracy with the heat of a thousand suns, so intentionally staying ignorant of how the medieval processes work prevents me from falling down that fucking wormhole. You one the hand, actually know how to work the system, to punish people as often as possible when they pushed back on your behaviors. The numerous screwups I made in the process when I felt compelled to argue against removal of your restrictions should make it patently obvious that I've no fucking clue how that process worked. I was a naif - and aside from the embarrassment, glad of that.
::By the way, how'd it work out for you, you know, jumping back in the deep end to 'fix' string-of-letters (ilghjn, Lighjn, hgjhjt? I've never been able to get it right) delete/merge actions? Talk about a boomerang. You worked mightily to prevent the outcome it had, and pushed to the end to fluff up the former article in order to argue that 'see? look at all that content! it's clearly needed as a separate article!' (you know, since we're here guessing at motivations and such, like - sauce for goose, sauce for gander).
::{{tq|"If you can get a tag team going, so much the better,[...]"}}
::Not sure if you're implying covertly working with other editors to fight against you, but you're ...hmm - barking up the wrong tree? Whistling in the wind? Three bricks shy of a wheelbarrow? Whatever, I find that kind of behavior distasteful and unethical, so no, I've never engaged in it. I can't speak for you.
::{{tq|"Added bonus: Your aspersions will probably be hard to find later."}}
::Come on now, don't sell yourself short! I believe in you. I ''know'' you'd unearth whatever ammunition (pardon the reference) you needed to take me down, if you chose to! You've got to believe in yourself!
::{{tq|"You're obsessed with me and I find it very disturbing."}} <rolls eyes> Is this a first shot at suggesting I'm an IRL stalker or some such? LB, I ''don't care about you''. I care about unethical behaviors, from a repeat (and repeat and repeat) offender, who managed to get banned. I never tried doxxing you, I've never written about you on another website (nor created an entire website of my own to safely disparage others while preventing them from voicing their counter-testimony)(and nice job getting that site scrubbed[doh!] from the internet). In the seven years you were gone, there were a handful of times when some yutz would push something inappropriate to a gun-related article, and I'd remember some of our interactions (that's not saying you're a yutz, it's saying that seeing the particular article would trigger a memory). Same thing has happened with other editors I've had disputes with, albeit they are few and far between. The only reason we are here, now, back in disputation mode, is because of your inability to keep your promise to the community. As you fade into your retirement, any memory I have of you will fade proportionally.
::{{tq|"So why am I posting this here and not on your talk page? Because there's no guarantee that you won't delete it, rather than archive it. If you must respond to this, do it on your own talk page. If you do it here, I will remove it forthwith."}}
::I'm responding here because that's how user talk page conversation works. It's absolutely in your purview to remove whatever you like from your talkpage, as am I, albeit I again don't believe I've ever intentionally removed anything from my archives other than as described above. I think I'll add it to my own archives, just to assuage this belief that I intentionally do _not_ archive everything. fun times.
::I will close with this - not an olive branch, not a mea culpa, just an observation, take it however you like. I ''imagine'' that in real life, you're a lovely person, kind, friendly and well-liked. You are, objectively, a formidibly intelligent and perspicacious person. It is entirely possible that if we were to happen to meet (no, it will assuredly never happen, the odds of two in eight billion people accidentally meeting are...slight) without knowing who we respectively are, we'd likely get along as well as any two people. I have close friends who are virulently anti-gun, as you. I value friendships more than political arguments, so we simply don't talk about those differences.
::I don't hate you LB. Your shortcomings, proportionally probably within just a few degrees of my own, don't override your other characteristics; it's why they're called shortcomings, because ''most'' people are reasonably decent human beings, all other things being equal, so where they come up 'short' isn't definitional, it's a footnote.
::And yes - I apologize for litigating my disagreements with you on the article talk page. I regret them only for the turmoil they've stirred up for you (and me); a scarlet letter so-to-speak isn't a nice thing to have follow you around, but personally recognizing the validity of its existence is important. I don't regret the thrust of it, because I felt unaware editors should be made aware, but it wasn't fair to do so. It simply drives me batty that your broke the promise to the community.
::I say this sincerely, rather than the cheeky way I said it a day or so ago: I do hope you enjoy your retirement - whether just here, or a more formal sort of retirement in professional terms (I retired some years back, and the lack of 24 hour a day stress and anxiety was a watershed moment in my adult life). But I digress. I wish you well. I hope we never interact again, said only for both our sakes. Neither of us needs this shit, really. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Since you've made an effort to take it down a notch or two, I've read your reply. I may read it again tomorrow, but for tonight I'll address these two things that jump out at me...
:::{{talk quote block|What, exactly, am I threatening? Please - quote - chapter and verse. I don't see a threat of anything, or even a carefully veneered implication of a threat.}}
:::If you read WP:HOUND ↗ all the way through you will see it's followed by a "Threats" section. It says, in part: "Threatening another person is considered harassment. THIS INCLUDES any real-world threats, such as threats of harm, and THREATS TO DISRUPT A PERSON'S WORK ON WIKIPEDIA." Can you guess what you might have <s>said</s> posted, on two article talk pages plus my talk page and yours, that threatened my recent work and continues to threaten any work I might want to do if I ever return?
:::{{talk quote block|And yes - I apologize for litigating my disagreements with you on the article talk page. I regret them only for the turmoil they've stirred up for you (and me); a scarlet letter so-to-speak isn't a nice thing to have follow you around, but personally recognizing the validity of its existence is important. I don't regret the thrust of it, because I felt unaware editors should be made aware, but it wasn't fair to do so. It simply drives me batty that your broke the promise to the community.}}No matter how you feel about it, it's not your job to judge me. (Have you ever actually read ''The Scarlet Letter''?) Tend to your own "moral and ethical compass"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anastrophe&diff=prev&oldid=1355575793 ↗ As I've said many times, if you've got a problem with my behavior, take it to the appropriate forum. (Or let it go.)
:::If you want to try to undue some of the damage you've done, you could strike those threats and colorful quotes you pulled from ARCA and apologize as you did in Nov. 2013 on the FAWB talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
::::Forget it. You weaponize everything and make demands. I'm done. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 08:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::I studied our joint edit history last night, you were the first to pull out your weapons. Also, "if" is not a demand. Toodles. Lightbreather (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)