Revision as of 02:00, 15 January 2007

Please post new TOPICS to the TOP of my talk page (but below this notice). For adding comments under existing headings, use contents box to get to the right section

Greetings to all friendly editors

NO REF DESK OR SCZ POSTS --IM NOT INTERESTED ANY MORE

-- 

Here's my edit count.

Archives

• user talk:Light current/Archive#1
• user talk:Light current/archive2
• user talk:Light current/archive3
• user talk:Light current/archive4
• user talk:Light current/archive5
• user talk:Light current/archive6
• user talk:Light current/archive7
• user talk:Light current/archive8
• user talk:Light current/archive9
• user talk:Light current/archive10
• user talk:Light current/archive11
• user talk:Light current/archive12

Does it not occur to you...

...that it's impossible for you to have a productive working relationship with people at the same time that you're calling them names ('hippo', 'schitzoid')?

You've put a tremendous amount of effort into putting together Ref Desk guidelines. Why are you sabotaging any hope of a reasonable and constructive relationship with the other parties? Do you want to throw away the work that you've done?

I've stuck up for you a lot. I've lifted blocks on you. I even turned a blind eye when you were editing anonymously on the Ref Desk back when you were blocked, because you were posting useful responses. I've tried to build a good working relationship with you, and I thought it was going well. So why the hell are you trying to piss people off right now?

Get a good night's sleep. Cool down. Have a beer and relax. Then consider restating or withdrawing your remarks. For your own good, please bear the following advice in mind—accusing people of mental illness when they start agreeing with your viewpoint is a really blindingly stupid way to win an argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Ten (and others if the cap fits)

1. I've explained 'Hippo' as my diminuitve name fot Hypocritical. Friday is displaying a schizophreinic persona. No need to get worked up about it;.
2. No I dont see why that should be necessary.
3. I seem to remeber you restored my block for no good reason
4. How do you know I was editing anonymously. Do you have any proof?
5. Im not trying to pisspeople off
6. I am cool
7. Ive had a few beers
8. I shall not be withdrawing my remarks becuase they are true.
9. Im not trying to 'win an argument'-- Im stating what I feel to be the truth
10. Why dont you get off my back?

Hava nice day! Light current 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, I find your responses genuinely perplexing, LC. You are highly critical of Friday's (so-called) strict position on trivial content and have argued strongly against it. Friday has expressed an opinion that, appears to me, to be a softening of that position (perhaps you have made a convincing argument and turned him, perhaps he is simply giving up or perhaps you interpretation of his position was more extreme that it actually was. Doesn't really matter which). But instead of embrace that as a step nearer a compromise, you instead attack this also. Now you appear to me to be a guy with a firm understanding of logic. So consider this as a logic puzzle: If you criticise him for having the stance that you oppose, and you also criticise movement away from that stance that you oppose, is it technically possible for this debate to end in compromise? With this in mind - I have to ask - what exactly is it that you want to achieve in this whole RD debate? Rockpocket 08:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an example of Fridays duplicity--Light current 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current, I really just can't believe your behavior sometimes. However you intended this, it comes off looking like you're just out to stir up trouble when you say things like this or this or this. This is far from the first time other editors have expressed concern about your editing behavior. Do you understand yet that we do not welcome editors who are just out to stir up trouble? I have bent over backward to explain myself to you, in an effort to move forward and reach some mutually acceptable agreement. I can explain myself to you, but I cannot force you to read or understand what I write. Ultimately, I don't care if you respect me or my views. But, I do care when you actively obstruct useful discussion. Friday (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, explain your apparent schiztoid behavoir!--Light current 01:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Invoking logic here is quite sensible. I also do not understand why you are incredulous that people can change their mind. This is why we have these in-depth discussions. To be snide because you are bringing people around to your own position makes no sense. David D. (Talk) 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a change of mind. This is a way of hedging ones bets.--Light current 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the rest of it, and regarding diminutive... you keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why dont you look it up before attributing bad meanings?> Also I seriously question your knowledge of the English language--Light current 01:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing etiquette

Replying to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/StuRat_2#the_way_forward.3F here since it's not related to the StuRat RFC.

You're asking about editing etiquette. We expect people to cooperate in a sensible way. One thing we specifically want is this: If you make a change, and someone else disagrees strongly enough to remove what you put in, you should not just put it back. You should instead take it up on the talk page. To do otherwise is edit warring. Hopefully this explains where I'm coming from when I say that editors should not put back removed content- particularly without making a case on the talk page, when the person who removed it has already done so. Friday (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF are you on about?--Light current 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry- what's unclear? Friday (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ref desk guidelines

Looks like you are getting a nice set of guidelines together. Thanks for the effort. David D. (Talk) 04:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for those kind words. Its nice to be appreciated! 8-)--Light current 05:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Things are going better...

...than they have in a long time. Most editors are being civil, and I think we're making constructive (if somewhat erratic) forward progress on the RD guidelines.

I think in large part, it is because the participants remaining in the discussion have been willing to speak politely and listen to one another, despite past disagreements.

In that spirit, would you consider withdrawing or rephrasing this comment? It has rather an air of 'Don't let the door hit you on the way out', and I don't think you want to give that sort of impression when we're trying to get Ref Desk participants to buy in to the guidelines. Be the bigger man. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

...Bloody hell...should have read the rest of my watchlist before commenting...

Also, this type of remark is waaay over the line. Given that I just finished warning Hipocrite that flat rudeness isn't appropriate behaviour – and that I'm prepared to block him for further lapses in civility – be aware that I'm prepared to do the same with you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

THere is no need to threaten me. Sorry that is a true staement. He has repeatedly called me a troll or implied I am a troll. And Im not aware that you warned him. Where?--Light current 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I just seen it. I now know you are aware of Hipos attitude and Ill leave it to you. I did not consider it worthwhile to have his talk page on my watchlist--Light current 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you feel it was appropriate to call him Hippo? If you're in a dispute with someone, it's easy for something like that to be read as a slight instead of a jocular whatchamacallit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Short version. Why?--Light current 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

How? What? Where? I think I'll need the slightly longer version to understand your question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

JC. Hippo is a diminutive of Hipocrite. If he was to prefer Hipo, or Hip, I dont mind--Light current 22:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the context, this definition of diminutive is closer to how it appeared, namely "Serving to diminish". Context is important, remember that it's very difficult to interpret connotation via text without various cues that are present in face to face conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you look up diminutive by any chance Chairy? 8-)--Light current 00:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't chat at the ref desk

Please stop using the ref desk as a chat board. This is not helpful to the project. Friday (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm aware of your "no ref desk comments" statement above. But, this is an unreasonable request. If you're editing, you should expect, and welcome, feedback on your editing from other editors. This is how things go here. If you are not planning to be responsive to feedback on your ref desk behavior, please stop editing at the ref desks. Friday (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not editing the RD pages (aprt from Qs). Im discussing pertinent matters on the RD talk page. Is that what you refer to as chat?

See Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Humanities#Women_and_risque__jokes. for one thing. What kind of encyclopedic answer were you hoping for? Friday (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have expalined before, (sigh) that was a Q to which I wished to know some answers. Do you see that as chatting? Do all answers have to be encyclopedic. If so, you should edit the guidelines to indicate that.

All my posts on that topic were questions. You can tell that by the ? at the end.--Light current 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

RFAR, tubenutdave, talk pages

Hi. Looking at the case tubenutdave is trying to make, he has at least one valid point which you need to address. This edit, which you commented as "archiving", removed discussion which was barely a day old. That's pretty much out of line; archiving discussions currently underway, especially heated discussions that you're in the middle of, doesn't look very good -- it's a way of stifling discussion. You could probably dispose of the part of the arbitration involving the talk page refactoring by recognizing and apologizing for your incorrect action; otherwise, I'll likely find myself agreeing with Fred Bauder and voting in favor of accepting the arbitration to look at your actions on the talk page. --jpgordon 16:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As I explained lower down this page, the talk page was in a complete mess. In order to try to prevent it getting any worse, I achived the page so that new posts to talk would not futher confus e the issue. THere was no intention of deliberately hiding anything. I also archived the page sothat I could refactor it into an understadable form. I mentioned on the live talk page to tubenut that if theer was antything he wanted to bring up, he could just copy the relevant bits from the archive to the talk page. I dont believe I was doing anything wrong - I was just trying to stop the talk from becomeing completely undeciperable with the multiple interlevaings. However, I admit it does look suspicious and I suppose now it would have been wiser for me not to have done it. But hind sight is a wonderful thing! 8-)--Light current 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. Hindsight is the thing that gives you the ability to say, "Oops, I was wrong, that was a mistake, sorry about that." Which I strongly suggest you do. This is a stupid case, and I'd rather have no reason at all to accept it. --jpgordon 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt realise that the above was not sufficient. I was wrong to archive, it was a regrettable mistake, and Im sorry for doing it.--Light current 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Tens of hours have now been wasted in discussions with you that are going nowhere. You seem determined to bait me into further endless debate on the talk pages rather than pursue any genuine attempt to improve the article at hand.

You have now gone so far as to grossly re-arrange the structure of the valve audio amplifier discussion page such that the sequence, the argment and the attribution is imho impossible to follow, most seriously with a number of my texts now hopelessly out of the context and in places where imho they now look rediculous, which imho misrepresnts me and brings my professional reputation into disrepute

You have imho systematically undermined my efforts to improve this page, and its related pages "valve amplifiers" and "valve sound", and over many many attempts to move forward in a civil and objective manner you have imho simply blocked progress with this at every turn. I note that you have irriated other editors to the point of frustration (eg capacitor)

You have admitted that you are not an expert in the field of tube audio amplification. As explained in detail in the discussion pages, imho a number of your edits to the page have been potentially serious misleading. I do not question your immense contribution as an editor regards layout etc., but I do question some of your edits regarding technical content.

My sole interest is improving the qulity of these few pages on an issue I have great interest in, which you have indicated you do not even consider to be serious

Sadly over a huge number of discussions it has proven impossible to reach a way of working together with you. I have proposed a solution which is that these pages are replaced with a stub inviting others to write them, and we stand aside, but you did not respond positively

I have concluded that the only way forward is to seek arbitration. My suggested Resolution is that the pages are wiped, since they (and especially thier related discussion / history) are now in an awful state imho, and that BOTH you and I are banned from editing them further tubenutdave 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to arbitrate over. If we both follow the editing procedures, there will be no problem--Light current 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wish the pages to be 'wiped' as you put it, you can put them up as 'Artices for Deletion' WP:AFD candidates. Although I doubt youll have much luck. 8-|--Light current 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current, I saw that there was a rather bitter dispute going on between you and Tubenutdave, and I have given him the advice not to pursue an arbitration case (which would not be accepted at this stage), but to look into either mediation or asking an administrator to look into the matter and advise how best to proceed. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject-matter of this page to figure out whether this is a pure conduct dispute or whether it's a user conduct issue, and if so, who (if anyone) is at fault. Therefore, I've posted to ANI asking an administrator with some science/tech background to look at the page and give you both a recommendation as to how to proceed. I hope you will understand that this has nothing to do with the other page you and I were in disagreement on last month. I hope this situation can work out for both of you. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this was a bitter 'dispute'. I was trying to guide Tubenut in the Wiki way. He has misinterpreted all of my actions as hostile, which they were not in any way. You may wish to know that a similar sutuation occured about 6 months ago. In the middle of mediation, Tubenut disappeared.

BTW I have forgotten all about our other disagreement. I hope you have too ! 8-)--Light current 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad of that; you told me at the time you had a long memory. :) With regard to the current issue, you will want to post a short summary of your position on the requests for arbitration page, WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at many of the differences and LC's edits seemed to improve the article. I'm not quite sure what specific differences tubenut sees as being the crux of the dispute? David D. (Talk) 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well neither do I really! 8-?--Light current 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I read, I can believe that. David D. (Talk) 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring

While from my review of the edits I have come to the conclusion that you are an excellent editor and have added value to the article, I don't think it is good to engage in extensive refactoring of talk pages. Best to leave them alone and put anything new at the bottom. Moving others comments around is sure to upset them. I expect the request will be rejected, but thought I would share this thought with you. Fred Bauder 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont usually do this (refactor) but the talk page was getting so twisted and interweaved even with only 2 posters that something had to be done as it was getting bigger and bigger.

It also badly needed archiving in order that we could start afresh- so to speak on talk. One of the problems was that Tubenut did not sign/date many of his posts and none of his interjections despite my pleading with him. This makes it difficult to refactor the archives and keep logical sequence. --Light current 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect you did your best under the circumstances. Fred Bauder 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to guidelines

Hi LC. You can delete this if you want—all that matters to me is that you have read it. I am attempting to start a dialogue about your edits to the guidelines page. You, meanwhile, mislabeled my revert as vandalism (since rvv stands for "revert vandalism," you should clarify if that's not what you meant) and called a section BS and removed it with no explanation. This is not a productive way to edit... it is very confontational and unlikely to result in consensus. Can you consider discussing what you're trying to do instead? -- SCZenz 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK Please dont continue to stalk me everwhere I go or ill have to report it. You have already pushed me off the RD answer pages by criticising every single posting I made there. Please leave me alone to edit in peace. 8-(--Light current 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm stalking you; rather, I'm trying to edit a set of pages that you are also active in, and unfortunately what each of us is trying to do is in conflict. However, if you disagree, please feel free to report me for anything you believe I am doing in violation of policy... perhaps filing a request for comment would be an appropriate venue to get community input on your grievances...? I will certainly listen to what comes out of that. -- SCZenz 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year Light current

Too early, but I'm saddened and sorry. Nuff said. All the best. ---Sluzzelin 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your chance to define 'disruption'

Lets see what everybody thinks its means! Please add your defns here:

Noitpursid backwards. Re: your block. I like your banter on the Science reference desk (only place I've come across you). Parts of this current campaign do remind me a bit of "The Crucible" and some people shouldn't be given a little bit of power because they won't be able to stop themselves from using it. But (there's always a but!) some of your comments (the photography one spring to mind) are offkey. Does it really matter? (When people are vandalising the place with "This is shit!" etc.) I don't know (I'm not an administrator.) Anyway, look forward to seeing you back.Mmoneypenny 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yers, that was an unfortunate 'throw away' comment. Surprised it brought so much -ve reaction. 8-( Mind you, it was removed pretty damn quick even before I could amned it. No doubt some people saw a sexual meaning to it. Unfortunate 8-(--Light current 01:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I see we have no takers yet!--Light current 00:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If a person's actions, by themselves, make it difficult to edit or enjoy the project, that's disruption.
If you simply get distracted by them, or if people are choosing to  respond to the individual, then it isn't disruption.
I think the key sentence is, "Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption."
It's the difference between a bully and a troublemaker.
A troublemaker may stand there and be objectionable, but you have the choice to walk away, ignore him, and enjoy your life. 
If you get upset and feel "disrupted" by him, that's YOUR fault. But a bully won't let you walk away. 
And that is the difference. If people are choosing to be disrupted, then you can't call the instigator "disruptive."
Disruptive: Erasing large amounts of text, adding large amounts of nonsense text, messing with system functions, etc
Not disruptive: Expressing anger or frustration, disagreeing with an admin, expressing an unpopular opinion, questioning an admin's judgment, etc. 

Tragic romance 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP 'Blocking policy' defn of disruption

Disruption:

A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.

Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Misplaced Pages.

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Misplaced Pages, or pose a sufficiently severe threat to it. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Vandalism
• Excessive reverts (3RR)
• Inappropriate usernames
• Abusive sockpuppet accounts
• "Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group
• Anonymous and open proxies
• Bots must have prior approval on Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval and may be blocked if an admin thinks they are malfunctioning in a damaging way

my italics.--Light current 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• ...or you could try not doing it. Is that not an option for you? I have to tell you that looking at your edit history the phrase "no loss" springs to mind. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not doing what? And you mean my recent edit history?--Light current 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Extract form WP:DIS

Disrupting Misplaced Pages is a serious offense, blockable under Misplaced Pages's blocking policy. Wikipedians want to produce a comprehensive, correct encyclopedia, and disrupting the mechanisms we have in place to ensure that we are working towards that goal makes us very very mad.

Because of the extremely negative connotation the word "disruption" has on Misplaced Pages, it is tempting every now and then to use the word to refer to certain acts that, while they should not have been committed, do not actually disrupt anything, either. Please try to avoid this.

For instance, one user gratuitously insulting another user, while inappropriate, is not disruptive. Neither is simple small-scale vandalism.

Furthermore, don't cause actual disruption in an effort to fix a perceived disruption. An excellent example of this is the Great Userbox War of 2006; several users who claimed userboxes were disruptive, set about deleting and trying to stop further creation of such userboxes. The ensuing fight was orders of magnitude more disruptive than any supposed disruption for which the userbox opponents were able to provide evidence. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption. Disruption is a large-scale hindrance of Misplaced Pages's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially. An insult, or even a string of insults targeted at several users, does not do this.

Certainly, acts which, taken by themselves, are not disruptive may be part of of a larger disruptive act.

Slimey faces

• 8-| neutral

• 8-? quizzical

• 8-o surprised (or wearing goggles and respirator)

• 8-) satisfied/happy

• 8-)) very happy/laughing

• 8-( unhappy

• 8-(( very unhappy

• 9-) joking (one eye winking)

• 9-| sarcasm?

• $:-( angry/frowning

• %-) only half awake/drunk/tipsy/

• |-) blind drunk

• |-| asleep

Be sure and spellcheck all section headings. ;-> Edison 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah well the above is a deliberate mistake! 'Smiley' is too obvious. I like anagrams But full marks for spotting it.--Light current 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the second word! Edison 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If You mean its missing an 'e', your just talking shit!8-)--Light current 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Those who ignored the instructions - please put your posts here

Posts placed here may not recieve replies and may be deleted.