User talk:Light current: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:57, 2 February 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

Hmm Anyone can accuse me of being severely mentally ill and get away with it. But I suggest someone drop from a great height and I get blocked for a whole frigging week. How does that work?????

Please use headlines when starting new topics -----------Thank you---------

Saying of the day: Beware the Phoenix

Here's my edit count.

A riddle

Which is the odd one out?

Man
Woman
Carpet
Admin

Answer Admin. Because you can:

beat a man
beat awoman
beat a carpet

But you cant beat an Admin (especially when he uses his FUCKING BIG STICK to beat you into a slimy pulped submission. How frigging brave is that?) Fucking cowards all of em--Light current 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a lighter note

What does it say about me that, when you posted "For instance I know sweet FA!" on the RD, I spent a few seconds wondering what Featured Articles had to do with it? Obviously, nice Featured Articles...Skittle 22:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck All!--Light current 22:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that's what it means in this context, but still it took me seconds. Just thought I'd try share a normal wiki-moment. Or were you swearing at me? In which case I'll restrict my comments to you to serious matters. Skittle 22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High count editors-as much shit as they can swallow

Now I know why there are so few high count (> say 25k) non admin editors. Its because they've had as much shit as they can swallow--Light current 22:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise surprise

THe Admins win again. How novel (actually its getting a bit boring -- cant you let the underdog win once in a while?). Maybe you could try playing without that fucking big stick in your hand to even up the odds a bit/?--Light current 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoress statements

If Anchoress is truly sorry for calling me psychotic or mentally ill or not in control of my senses, she will come here to apologise in person. Those remarks truly hurt me. If she also gives me a big kiss (like this: XXXX) I will forgive her completely and we can be best friends again!--Light current 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

If you remove that thread again I will block you. Thatcher131 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you would 8-)) That would nearly be a RRR violation. Is that right? --Light current 15:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redaction

How did you feel that this edit was in any way appropriate? Unilaterally deleting someone elses conversation because you don't like the subject is poor behavior. I find it fantastically unlikely that you didn't know this, especially considering your level of experience here. Have more consideration for your fellow editors, please, and use your judgement wisely. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because it is well off the topic of User:Friday stalking me and is intended to divert attention from the problem. Posts of that nature do not belong on the AN/I 8-)--Light current 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where else do you think administrators should discuss the topic of an allegedly disruptive editor? Thatcher131 15:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate for you to unilaterally removing conversations other people are having in the matter you chose to employ, Light current. If you feel the posts were "off topic" or otherwise damaging, and the topic is YOU, then you should ask someone else to remove it instead. If you were removing a thread about someone else, that would be somewhat more defensible, but there is a distinct conflict of interest for what you did. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK SOrry. I dont think that thread should be there. Would you consider removing it please?--Light current 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be removed, people are using it to talk. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well! Time to go have some tea and talk to the wall instead!--Light current 15:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

I like you, I really do. But you're all over my watch list at the moment and the edits I've seen make me really worried that you're talking yourself into a block. I'd be sad to see that happen. Please don't. I'd advise a Wikibreak, but I think you've just been on one. I'd advise WP:TEA, but actually I think right now that'd be like taking an aspirin to cure decapitation. Whatever, please do chill a little. --Dweller 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tanks for warning. Which particular edits are you referring to?--Light current 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to politely decline to respond, because I don't want to be drawn into an unnecessary row with you. You've got enough on your hands at the moment and I'm about to go offline. Just accept well-intentioned thoughts. Suggestion that's more productive than tea, or Wikibreak etc... find some electronics stubs or otherwise tagged articles and give a fresh lick of paint and leave alone any pages that begin "Wikipedia" or "User talk" for a while? --Dweller 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti funny template

Dear {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}: Your edits, as in this diff, have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you run the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. — User:Light current 01:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC) {{subst:#ifeq:|n| |-- ~~~~}}[reply]

RDs better or worse without me?

moved from RD talk--Light current 10:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better

worse

(Worse without Light Current, just in case the ambiguity throws anyone off) - I say, the more = the merrier, and I've found LC's contributions to be helpful (not to mention human)! V-Man737 04:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse Without LC at his best, when his amazing span of knowledge is used to provide factual and sourced answers to questions, with a light-hearted tone. These high quality posts are sometimes offset by excessive metadiscussion and drama regarding disagreement about what should be included or the order in which comments should appear, and there sometimes is a seeming intent to draw administrative sanctions. "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?" - Rodney King (1992) Edison 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just as bad

⁪froth^T 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

It depends, as with all users, on what he posts. -- SCZenz 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt a vote, its a gauge of opinin. look I didnt stay away from RD talk for 10 days for nothing. i want to know what people think!--Light current 09:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have very little more to add to what I have written above, and if I am honest I think there are some people a lot worse than you. I hope you won't take it the wrong way if I say that, in my estimation, you sometimes act a little like the court jester. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though it's important to maintain a sense of proportion. Wit and gravity should walk hand in hand. Clio the Muse

Maybe I'm an attention seeker? even tho the truth might hurt, I prefer it!--Light current 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the unit of measurement of light current? Lamperes?Edison 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good 8-) Same as for heavy current I should think! Or could be 'Camps' or maybe photons/sec to be serious!--Light current 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on recent events, the best unit is blocks/sec--Light current 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I noticed your absence and did my very best to cover the lack of jollity thus ensuing. I wouldn't be surprised if people failed to notice your absence merely because of my antics. As it is, I'm thinking about taking a 24-hour Wikibreak, so you'll have to cover for me! V-Man737 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Court jestorship

Aha! You wanna take over as Court Jester?--Light current 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In literature, the jester is symbolic of common sense and of honesty, notably King Lear, the court jester is a character used for insight and advice on the part of the monarch, taking advantage of his licence to mock and speak freely to dispense frank observations and highlight the folly of his monarch. This presents a clashing irony as a "greater" man could dispense the same advice and find himself being detained in the dungeons or even executed. Only as the lowliest member of the court can the jester be the monarch's most useful advisor.

Hmmm! 8-))--Light current 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee! Only you can be the jester. I'll, uh, be the, uhh, understudy... ^_^ V-Man737 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes acting the fool is a very serious business! Also you can get thrown into the dungeons at any time for making a bad joke ! 8-(--Light current 01:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better stock up on foolscap : 13" × 8", 330mm × 203mm for drafting your merriment and for chapeaus. Edison 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlant

If you know any other mature and experienced users, you should nominate them for adminship. —Malber (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm difficult--Light current 22:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Scratchpad

User:Light current/RFC_in_development

RfC

I see that you've identified me as one of your targets for RfC in this edit. I'd be glad to help you with it in any way you need, if jabbing out at me will make you feel better and could help you get past whatever strange thing you're going through, then let's get started. Since you're current under sanction, might I suggest that you begin work on the formal RfC in your userspace on a subpage instead of soapboxing on your talk page? That way, once your block is over, you can move it straight over to RfC and get the ball rolling. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Chairboy on this one. I'll be happy to co-operate with you in anyway I can. Rockpocket 00:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont be sarcastic, hypocritical or condescending toward me. Thanks 8-((--Light current 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain please how anyone other than you is being any of the above at the moment? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Look at your own edits for a start.--Light current 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I note that you appear to have accidentally deleted this section, so I've restored it for your response. As you've just 'promoted' me (I take it you disagree with some things I've been saying) on your enemies list, I strongly urge you to consider my offer above more than ever. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange you should all be as keen as turkeys at Xmas. Seems to be a cocky attitude to me8-?--Light current 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're just trying to help. That your behavior has been egregious is obvious to everyone but yourself. If an RfC can give you the reality check that gets you back on the right path, then we should do it by all means, and immediately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No youre not! Please dont try to patronise me 8-(( You will feel the full force of an Rfc. Are you braced for it?--Light current 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're frustrated, but I'm not patronizing you. RfC isn't a weapon, btw, it's a tool to gauge community consensus on something special. No 'bracing' is needed, and like I mentioned above, I'm offering to assist you in any way necessary in your efforts to file the RfC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe you! What about blocking: is that a weapon, punishment or preventaive measure?--Light current 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the admin who's currently blocking you if they'd consider unblocking you on the condition that you'd only edit the RfC you're filing for the remnant of your block, I just want to make sure you'll abide by those conditions before I make the request. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not worth the effort. I have so many things to say to so many people. Not just about inapproporiate and outrageous admin actions and comments.

Maybe its best for me to be forced to store them up and let them fester in order to vent them with maximum ejaculatory force, virulity and damning damage when I am finally unblocked? 8-)--Light current 01:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your block is up, I assume that you'll be filing the RfC. Can I assist? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im just recovering from a painful shoulder injury so my response time may be a little longer thtn normal 8-((--Light current 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the prolific number of edits you've made today, I take it you've healed! Good to hear, I'm glad you had a speedy recovery. I assume you'll be creating the RfC now? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you im getting better. but part of my editing ability tonite is due to lots of pain killers and a few beverages. I shall need to recover my emotional strength before embarking on tha RfC (which of course can only be on one person). so I would ask you to have patience. remember, this is not a persnal revenge attack against the unlucky admin: this is an attempt to get admins to abide by the current blocking policy -- thats all. nothing personal you understand. basically i would like to say that i have nothing against the individual adm=ins as people: its just some of their actions i disagree with. 8-)--Light current 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would hope that the community is prepared to give me just a little 'warm up' time after my recent spell in the cooler. Im warming up by doing some editing on real (important) articles (how novel!)--Light current 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light current, if you're going to go ahead and file an RfC (or several RfCs), then do so. You've been expressing disinterest – sometimes rather rudely – in receiving advice or input from the community in the informal setting of your talk page ([1], [2], to choose a couple just from today). If you feel that a more formal and structured request for comment is the route that you need to follow, then so be it.

I dont really understand what you re saying here! 8-?--Light current 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're engaging in a ranking (and reranking) of editors for your RfC threat ([3]). Calling those editors 'evil' – which is what you're doing, whether it's struck through or not – and playing silly games with their rankings is both impolite and unproductive. Either file an RfC or quit playing Sword of Damocles. You've said (just up there ↑) that you're interested in contributing productively for a while rather than filing an RfC, and that you're not driven by a desire for personal revenge—good on you. Live up to those statements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna block me again? What ewxcuse this time?--Light current 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been taking jabs at people like this quite a bit over the last 24 hours. If you want to make yourself a martyr, you'll succeed; if you want to contribute, then stop playing games. As Ten said, either file an RfC or move on. -- SCZenz 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why so impatient my furry friend? And what do you mean by jabs?--Light current 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOAT comments

(after edit conflicts) I'd actually prefer that you stick with being a productive and polite editor, and try to resist the urge to goad other editors into blocking you by being rude and keeping a ranked shitlist. I don't get some sort of perverse pleasure from seeing you blocked, you know. You're a very intelligent contributor who is capable of doing good writing and being a net benefit to Wikipedia. I wish you'd stick to doing that, rather than trying to figure out how to make me – or someone else – block you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vote of confidence in me. I'd actually prefer to stick with being a productive and polite editor, however, this is made difficult by virulent comments on my edits from various quarters.

In no case have I intiated these exchanges, but I feel obliged to defend myself. When this proper defence results in my blocking I have a right to feel aggreived.

I want to make sure that All Admins are operating withing the blocking policy and not according to their own loose interpretation of it. And this is the purpose of the RfC Im not trying to get blocked: believe me I try to avoid it at all costs. But what I see as an innocent comment is spometimes taken by some others as being offensive when it is not meant to be. I see the problem as some Admins not AGF enough and of trying to read something smutty or troublesome into EVERYTHING iI say. Other editrs get away with far more risque comments thqan I could possibly hope to these days. in other words Im being victimised by a small group of Admins who will block me for no good reason other than their own erroneos interpretations of the bvlocking policy and out of revenge or temper tantrums: like you did to me over THB when I was only offering him support and trying to make light of his block.--Light current 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

brenneman

I've made this offer before, so I'd hope you don't think I'm being sarcastic: If you want help framing a request for comment, I will place myself at your service. Regardless of the outcome, it might help to put whatever problems/concerns you've got into a more structured format, so that not only can someone else look them over but you yourself can re-examine them. - brenneman 01:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But things like this aren't going to fly: Don't call other users vandals, and either make a serious attempt at creating a request for comment of stop threataning to do so. I am going to re-remove the section and if you replace it I'll block you for disruption, while still extending my hand to assist you (via email perhaps) in creating said requests for comment. - brenneman 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be disruptive to WP to organise my own talk page?--Light current 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage you in a long discussion on this, per my previous (e.g. Not _this_ week) discussion with you, but here's a short one: Actually creating a scratch-space request for comment mean digging out diffs, writing some convincing prose, etc. This would indicate that you're willing to do some work in order to solve a percieved problem. Just plopping the list there is (assuming good faith of course) fantastic trolling-by-accident. Look at the proportion of response (and diverted effort) to input.

proportion of response (and diverted effort) to input. I dont understand that. Could you pls explain?--Light current 02:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think there is a problem, I'm all for solving problems. But I'm also no-nonsense about stopping problems, and the manner you've chosen to proceed to date with this has been a problem.

brenneman 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I intend to do this work as soon as +the present harrassment stops and im feeling well enought to do it. You think I should prepare all the stuff in secret and then plop it on an RfC page Yes? Also what problem are you referring to?--Light current 01:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem = you are being harrassed (your perspective); you are baiting admins (admins perspective).

Problem, with respect to proposing RfC but not actually moving down the path (trolling-by-accident) = wasting time of many editors, including yourself, if stand off continues without useful discussion (wikipedia perspective).

Solution = RfC to bring all concerns to the table to enable a productive discussion hopefully leading to a resolved conflict.

RfC scratch page is not secret if it is on wikipedia in your user domain. I expect Aaron already has it on his watch list. David D. (Talk) 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not hear that Im recuperating from a serious shoulder injury that makes typing difficult? I can only type one handed The amount of typing the RfC will need Im not fit enough for yet. Althogh the doctor has said to keep my arm moving, it is extremely painful. Also being in pain causes confusion of the mind as Im sure you know.--Light current 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I didn't. Clearly time for a break and I hope it recovers fully. Forget the RfC if you're restricted to typing with one hand. Hey, maybe you won't need the RfC by the time you're back typing like a ..... can't think of what to call it, a whirl wind? ...must be something better; like Whirling Dervishes? None of these are working for me. Nevermind, and make sure you rest well. David D. (Talk) 08:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you miss the point; Some AdminS are acting outside the blocking policy. I want to do something about it. An Rfc on one of the worst offenders seems the only way. --Light current 11:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the point, but they clearly think they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia. While the blocking policy may be quite specific there is also non specific leeway for neutralising disruptive influences. That will be the focus of the debate. The only reason i say you may not need the RfC is that you may be less interested or have even changed your opinion. We'll see. David D. (Talk) 11:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thought but i'll stick with the unwashed masses. ;) I really don't have a need for the tools and i sometimes find it is more effective in disputes to not have the admin tool. Sometimes being an admin can get in the way of a serious discussion (dispute). Speaking of which, i see you are in the cooler again? Take the time to heal or play with your RfC page. Don't spin wheels on this page too much, it wastes your time. David D. (Talk) 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, come on David. I know you could do it. I couldnt! Honestly, speaking as a person who does not like Admins genarally, I think you definitely have the temperament and good judgement to be one. I say this even after you have chastised me (but fairly). You couldnt have a stronger recommendation than from the the 'bad boy' of the Rds and WP generally!! Any way have a think about it. If you decide in favor Ill back you all the way! You know it makes sense!! 8-))--Light current 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I really truly disruptive to WP?

Well I have let this subject go about 5 or 6 six times in the past. The admin 'attacks on me' problem seems to be getting worse. What would you do in my shoes? Also, would you honsetly say I was disruptive to the encyclopedia. Ie preventing others from editing properly?

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.
Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and may be blocked if an admin thinks they are malfunctioning in a damaging way

--Light current 11:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those who ignored the instructions - please put your posts here

Posts placed here may not recieve replies and may be deleted. Please do not complain afterwards. You have been told! 8-)

Allowed section for freinds only

Placing posts here so they will be out of your way and you won't trip over them: Post modernism Post-punk Post-structuralism Post pounder Peruvian Fence Post The Washington Post Post Cereals Fake post "School sues over Wikipedia Post" the last of which which actually contains the description "Wikipedia - the website that “anyone can edit” that’s popular with teenagers and the unemployed." Regards. Edison 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 210: / Line 210: @@
 :Thanks for your vote of confidence in me. I'd actually prefer to stick with being a productive and polite editor, however, this is made difficult by virulent comments on my edits from various quarters.
-:::In no case have I intiated these exchanges, but I feel obliged to defend myself. When this proper defence results in my blocking I have a right to feel aggreived.
+:In no case have I intiated these exchanges, but I feel obliged to defend myself. When this proper defence results in my blocking I have a right to feel aggreived.
 I want to make sure that All Admins are operating withing the blocking policy and not according to their own loose interpretation of it. And this is the purpose of the RfC
 Im not trying to get blocked: believe me I try to avoid it at all costs. But what I see as an innocent comment is spometimes taken by some others as being offensive when it is not meant to be. I see the problem as some Admins not AGF enough and of trying to read something smutty or troublesome into EVERYTHING iI say. Other editrs get away with far more risque comments thqan I could possibly hope to these days. in other words Im being victimised by a small group of Admins who will block me for no good reason other than their own erroneos interpretations of the bvlocking policy and out of revenge or temper tantrums: like you did to me over THB when I was only offering him support and trying to make light of his block.--[[User:Light current|Light current]] 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)