User talk:Light current/archive11

List

I didn't mean to initially delete your comment. [1] . However you did alter it into your list. [2] At this point, I restored my full comment, without distorting your list. [3]. You then redeleted a portion of my comment [4]...I'm not about to edit war, however I'm going to restore my comment in full one more time.--Toffile 04:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its OK now 8-)--Light current 05:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time

I gotta say, this seems like PURE trolling to me. I recommend you back off and let things take their course. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, let things take their course.--Light current 18:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were forgetting all past annoyances with "adversaries". That comment appears to be nothing but gloating over Friday, though. Patstuart^talk|edits 17:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the posting date! And OK it was a bit silly to taunt! 8-)--Light current 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi LC. Can I ask you to try to make your edit summaries a bit more helpful? Sometimes I get the impression that you're trying to see how funny you can make them, as in this edit. -- SCZenz 02:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that my edit summaries are always extracted from the text of the post and tend to include the 'essence' of the post. But I do spend quite a few microseconds in deciding which particular phrase is best. I am not about to start writing edit summaries that are longer that the post in question. Thanks for your enquiry! And best wishes for Xmas!--Light current 02:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good wishes; I hope you had a nice Christmas as well. The "essence" of the post was not farting at all. It was, rather, an example of a borderline case. You could have written "a borderline case," for example; the edit summary, as it was, looked like a personal declaration. -- SCZenz 17:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I must have picked the wrong phrase that time. But actually its true (I do) and can be very embarrasing but its something doctors take no notice of. When yo tell them, all they say is : Flatulence will get you nowhere! 8-(--Light current 17:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't really the place to share information about your bodily processes. I know you're just trying to be funny, but there is such a thing as over-sharing. There's just no need for that. -- SCZenz 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Must you always have the last word? 8-(--Light current 18:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Leaving this comment here, because it's meta-discussion. You asked "can we have a consensus here ASAP". Well, you don't need to ASK that- that's what we're DOING. It goes without saying. We're discussing it. My analysis of that discussion so far is this:

We pretty much have a consensus, as much as we can so quickly. One comment was made that the comment was "fine" - which I guess I could interpret as meaning "we should leave it, despite longstanding tradition that we don't do medical advice." Other than that one, everyone's saying that removing it was right, I think. Ned Wilbury 18:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its ok Ned, Im just trying to defuse the situation and show StuRat that there is in fact a majority of peole who think it shouldnt be there. The quicker this happens, the less liklihood of a lot more nastiness 8-)--Light current 18:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't like how you're saying "majority" but rather than fight all day long about that, I guess I'll just say, sounds good- thanks for helping out. Ned Wilbury 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying majority because StuRat beleives in majority voting (as you will know) 8-). Im just trying to prevent a big blow up here! 8-)--Light current 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

Ahem, do you really think this edit removes off-topic posts? I'm very, very curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall reexamine my deletion there. 8-)--Light current 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry Rick, I was getting confused as to what page I was working in the heat of the moment in reaction to one of my comments. The posts are not off topic. I see thay have been replaced otherwise I would have replaced them myself.. Many apologies, my error 8-(--Light current 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas

As it is approaching Christmas, I am trying to adopt the attitiude of forgiving all my former adversaries during 2006, and I hope that 2007 with be a year when we can all understand each other a little better and show a great deal more tolerance for one anothers views.

I apologise if I have upset anyone this year and, belive me, its not my intention to purposely upset anyone (its just my personality Im afraid). I also hope that others will also try to forgive me for the mistakes I have made this year. (Im not really a bad person you know- Im quite nice when you get to know me-- honest! [5] 8-) )--Light current 02:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERRY CHRISTMAS LIGHT CURRENT! from hydnjo :)

And reciprocal reciprocities to you too! 8-)

merry christmas, LC. please don't let the wikistress break you. r b-j 03:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Xmas to you too. Actually my Wikistress level is very low ATM (dont know why)

Let old dogs lie

Don't you think you should drop this "I was blocked unjustly" routine? You were given another chance in this last block, and you blew that one. Are you just looking for amusement by seeing how many chances you can be given? Honestly, from the looks of your block log, and the way you continue to behave, many many people would get that exact impression. Ned Wilbury 20:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked. I was merely answering your questions by illustration. It is certainly not amusing to be blocked -no! It is a very serious issue when people are wrongly blocked. Im sure you agree. 8-)--Light current 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also did you read this:

If you have any questions about LC's reblocking, I'd be pleased to address them.

by Ten --Light current 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing you could do is: stop the kinds of behaviors that have gotten you blocked 10 times. I've read the discussions at AN/I, I don't see how more is needed. The situation looks pretty clear to me. Ned Wilbury 21:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like what, replying to other editors on Stuys page, or telling jokes on the Rd or something else? ?--Light current 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that part of your behavior pattern is to do something wrong, they say "What? I don't get it! I did nothing wrong!" I would suggest you cut this out. Ned Wilbury 21:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im may do something that you think is wrong. So what am I doing wrong ATM in your opinion?--Light current 21:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're continuing your ridiculous persecution routine, but I doubt that's blockable. It's not really disruptive- the only harm done is to your esteem in the eyes of others. I'm not here to rehash your entire block log. If you've learned nothing from your 10 blocks so far, I guess it's foolish for me to think I can get you to understand. Good luck. Ned Wilbury 21:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Who do you think Im prersecuting and why? Also the first few blocks were admin finger trouble: so it less than that. Ill count them up whan I have time.--Light current 21:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your posts on AN/I

Considering your pages say youre on Wikibreak, you are making a rather a lot of edits on AN/I. Also since you are not an administrator, why do you feel compelled to offer your opinion on whether editors should be blocked or not in each and every case?--Light current 16:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(removed extensive comments from others: see User talk:Patstuart)

To Light current: I'm sorry to see that I've made your list of grudges on this encyclopedia. However, as I can tell, it's getting pretty long at the moment; I'm not sure I could count on one hand or even two the amount of administrators and users whom you seem to have it out for. Instead of holding grudges every time you get blocked for incivility, maybe you could learn to live and let live.

Otherwise, I have to be blunt, I have every right to comment on the noticeboards, and it isn't any of your business to tell me I don't; so please don't. If you have any constructive criticism, go for it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say I had a grudge? I was just wondering how you felt confident and knowledgeable enough to comment on each and every incident on WP:AN/I 8-)--Light current 01:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(removed extensive comments from others: see User talk:Patstuart)

I do feel comfortable enough in my knowledge to post on WP:AN/I. I have over 15000 edits, which is more than most administrators. And, for the record, while your comments did seem a bit rude above, I'm willing to forget about it if you say you didn't mean them, just as I expect you would forget about comments I made at WP:AN/I in the past that you were unhappy about. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did feel you were hammering in the nails a bit hard, and seem to be jumping on the bandwagon during my recent blocking issue, Im willing to forgive and forget if you promise to try to look at both sides of these complex issues before commenting on them. THanks --Light current 14:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh BTW, if you thought my wording was rude please accept my apologies. I was concerned that some one may have stolen your ID. THe latter part of my post could also have been worded more politely. Sorry!--Light current 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salt

Maybe the guy doing the hitting had a flashlight in the other hand? --Justanother 22:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry?--Light current 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-salt and battery. --Justanother 22:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! But also see batter--Light current 22:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well see, I missed that part of the joke or I would have deleted it right from the get-go. Why don't you delete it now? --Justanother 22:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave deletion on the RDs to others! 8-)--Light current 22:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have good reason to be careful. But I would prefer someone else be responsible for pulling inappropriate threads too so I will wait and see. --Justanother 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its obviously a troll thread. But quite funny!--Light current 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil

In case you don't know, this is rude, and this is uncalled-for. Ned Wilbury 22:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the former comment was actually intended to be rude; it's not a big deal as far as I'm concerned. It's an illustration, perhaps, that some of LC's remarks may seem more uncivil to those who don't know him as well... which is something to remember, LC. -- SCZenz 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it might not be intended as such. But, one way to read it is "Wow, you made sense for once. You must be drunk!" Since LC has been blocked for incivility before, and he still says he doesn't understand why he gets blocked so much, I thought I'd try to help him out in knowing which remarks may or may not be appropriate. Ned Wilbury 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say SCZ is being quite mellow at this time. Perhaps he is relaxed, I would encourage him to be relaxed more often. Is that better Ned?--Light current 23:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it really is beyond belief to me to be accused of being incivil when I am actually complimenting one of my former adversaries on one of his posts! (and including a little joke only addresees to him with no innocent newbies around). Now really you people ought to lighten up, get a life outside WP and WP:AGF--Light current 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what AGF means? It doesn't apply here - everyone did assume good faith. Do you understand that telling people to "get a life" is considered rude? Ned Wilbury 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its good advice to those who have become obsessed with the minutiae of Wikiperditon.--Light current 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second post: I believe it is called for!!. Its is my interpretation of the state of affairs. Prove me wrong if you will! Oh and BTW: get off my back! Thanks!--Light current 23:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subject closed!

Comments on recent blocking/page protection

I invite comments from interested parties as the the appropriateness of my recent blocking and page protection. Please add comments below stating your reasons/arguments. Thanks.

In favour

Favour, since you have come to Wikipedia you have had ongoing arguements with me. You have reverted my work and refused to explain why. You have been uncivil to other users such as pschemp. You have bullied me and made editing the Wikipedia very difficult. And this latest incident shows that you have been disruptive on the reference desk. I fully support an indefinite block being imposed against you. Cedars 01:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well I am surprised at that (I dont think!) Would you care to define ' disruptive'?--Light current 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway as its that time of year I say to you and your friends: 'Peace on you all!'--Light current 02:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Against, particularly the page protection...how could you have possibly done any damage on your own pages ? StuRat 01:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normal persons cannot of course do any damage. It takes special talent to disrupt WP from your own talk page. Apparently I have that talent! 8-)--Light current 01:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against. These heavy-handed admins, etc, who label any disagreement "disruption," "personal attack," "trolling," etc, should be held to account for it. My biggest problem is, you tried to work it out and they wouldn't even discuss it with you (except to arbitrarily repeat their position).Tragic romance 16:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page unprotected

I see someone has unprotected my page 6 hours early. I thank whoever it was for that.

Looks like User:Chairboy took it back off: [6]. In any case, welcome back ! StuRat 23:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, but I didnt want to mention it. And thanks! I sould be unblocked in about 6 hrs if I dont upset anyone between now and then 8-)--Light current 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, did I take it off early? I must have misread the time code on the reinstated block. Well, be good. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will! 8-)

Im back again -- for how long we dont know!

Welcome back Light current!!! -THB 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Protected

Light Current, I'm concerned that you're not using the opportunity your current block affords to reflect on the problems that led you to this position. If you continue, I'm afraid you'll end up saying or doing something here that'll get you blocked further, so I've protected this page from editing. If you have any concerns, please review this (especially the part near the end where I discussed this protection before implementing) which I hope will answer them. This is not punitive, and neither is your block, but you're on a bad road and I hope this helps you avoid going off a cliff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that you protected my page. I dont think it was the right thing to do (especially as it was your own unilateral decision) 8-(--Light current 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship?

C'mon, LC, you can be a useful member of the community. Would you be interested in Wikipedia:Mentorship? I can't do it because I'm not around often enough, but if you want to contact me by email, I'll contact the blocking admin and we can see if we can work something out. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iam a usegul member of the community. Its just that some people dont agree with my taste, sense of humor etc. Call me a maverick if you like!

I think somewhere theres a Wikpedia tool that tells how many edits youve done and how many have been reverted. I think that should be quite a good way to determine the usefulness of any editor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs).

Number of edits is a pretty useless indicator. We have people who've made tons of edits to their user page but never contributed meaningfully to the project. And, really, we don't usually have a reason to bother wanting to "judge" other editors, so I wouldn't worry about that very much. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a "community" only insofar as is necessary to work on the encyclopedia. Since you've been blocked a few times lately, I can only assume people think you've been disruptive to the project. From what you say, this isn't at all intentional, so mentorship sounds like a great idea to me. If you mean well, but have trouble knowing what is or isn't helpful to the project, this is EXACTLY what mentorship is meant to help with. Ned Wilbury 15:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes people think I've been disruptive to the project

Would you care to define disruptive?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs).

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Wikilawyering really isn't the right path here. If you'd like to argue whether or not you've been disruptive, you're free to, of course, but if you're not here to edit the Wikipedia at all, please let us know. Like others, I stuck my neck out for you to try and keep you on the project. I'll be disapointed if you self-destruct and sad that you're not here any more. Please don't let us down. If the block wasn't long enough and you need some more time for soul searching, you can request an enforced wikivacation. It's rare, but sometimes people in extraordinary situations do it. Personally, I'm hoping you can get it together and move on. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not trying to self destruct as you put it, Im trying to understand the meaning of the therm 'disruption' so that I dont get accused of it. Trouble is, everyone has his own definition of the term. As for editing the wikipedia, you only need to look at my contributions to answer that Q. 8-)--Light current 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding you, you want a list of what's not allowed, so that anything NOT on the list can't get you in trouble? This sounds like what we call Wikipedia:Wikilawyering - maybe you should read that page about why it's unhelpful. Ned Wilbury 17:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think the most important rule is Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. If you understand this, everyone else will fall into place. Ned Wilbury 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But its OK if youre wearing a mask isnt it? 8-)