User talk:Light current/archive8

Posting at the TOP

Geesh this posting at the ^{^*top*} is well, you know, confusing! Anyway, I noticed that you repositioned Blockle's posts at the RD/talk and appropriately so. Having noticed his "barging" I looked around only to find out that he's a sock of a banned user. If you follow his edits and come to the same conclusion, I say we delete his comments. Let me know so that I'll know whether to ignore or delete his stuff. --hydnjo talk 04:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

xmas thoughts

Would it be so that we were allowed to live in a secular world. Not so my colleague. So, our choices are to:

Find a secular place where xmas isn't celebrated (I don't know where) or,
Stay where you are and mentally compartmentalize yourself apart from the xmas goings on (like ignore it) or,
"Spark up", sit yourself in the centre of it all, and watch the "Fools on the Hill".

It can be reassuring to just watch but careful, you may be captivated by the essence of it all. Be strong my WP friend, be watchful that no tear glistens or that no fond memory interrupts your solace, for it is all designed to do exactly that.

I sometimes have felt your feelings and have stayed abed 'till way past my usual arise. Folks around didn't know what to make of it but I didn't care. By late afternoon when all had settled down to normal (whatever the hell that means - just use your judgment) I would feel OK to come into the gathering. I'd feel it from within, that the main bullshit was over and I could just be part of the wallpaper and slide in or out at will. But, just 365 days to go and I'd have to go through it all again - awe shit! Our best wishes for your grand escape, be sure to let us know how it all worked out.

Joe (from hydnjo) --hydnjo talk 06:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Im sorry but I do find Xmas depressing. I tend to be depressive any way so Im trying to avoid further depression. 8-)--Light current 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic Bearings

If I add a more detailed description of how a magnetic bearing works where should I put it?

OMG! I didn't know that Lc was running his own mini-RD here! Well whatever, please take the time to read our North Pole article and then if you are still confused please come back and Lc will enlighten you. I (hydnjo) just happened to be here on another matter. Sorry if I've confused anyone, I just couldn't help it. --hydnjo talk 05:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well under magnetic bearing would be a good choice I feel! 8-)--Light current 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of a new section called Basic Operation or a similar title.

Oh I see!. Between 'description' and 'advantages' would be good. You could call it 'operation', 'How they work', 'operational details' etc! 8-)--Light current 16:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, It would involve a diagram or two... PS... pardon my naivety..but mini-RD ?

No problem! Just be bold and do it! BTW RD = Just a joke about the Reference Desks [1]--Light current 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that magnetic bearing, I thought it was this one. :-) --hydnjo talk 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Im afraid that article has no bearing on the subject matter whatsoever! 8-)--Light current 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Mind your business" is good advice

postscript - Mr Spunky Toffee has been blocked as a sockpuppet account of a banned user. Carcharoth 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

How on earth is my Wikipedia handle offensive to anyone? I think it's whimsical and happy. I hope you got your satisfaction on the administrator's noticeboard and won't be harassing me anymore. Mr Spunky Toffee 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt harassing you! I was asking a question about your user name. I take no satisfaction from posting on AN --Light current 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current, please stop making up artificial complaints to try to test the limits of "censorship" on Wikipedia. Can you truly not tell why your complaint was ignored? Would a detailed explanation be helpful to you? -- SCZenz 05:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?? Im not testing any limits. It was not a complaint. It was a question of the same form I used for User:Da Niggers. If you realy think that, then I suggest your judgement is faulty.--Light current 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, do you understand why the one user was promptly indef blocked, while the other complaint was ignored? -- SCZenz 05:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because some people found the one user name more offensive than the other? I really dont want a long discussion on this. I thought the name was a bit dodgy. I asked other peoples opinion. THey said its ok-- so OK!--Light current 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because one uses a racist term and the other uses a word whose primary definition is "cheerful." Because one could reasonably be expected to cause offense and disruption, and the other could not. -- SCZenz 06:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well actually that is not its primary meaning over here! How about 'Jism sandwich' as a user name over there?--Light current 06:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! but that depends on who you are and where you live, whether your balck or white, and what terms are offensive in your country doesnt it?--Light current 06:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on using common sense. -- SCZenz 06:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also you may not be aware that those two substances are used in certain occult practices.--Light current 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be on a mission to prove that the judgements that Wikipedia administrators make are subjective. Of course they are; that doesn't mean we can or should stop making them. -- SCZenz 06:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously made a mistake putting it on AN/I. Happy? But I really didnt expect such a hostile reaction. I wont bother reporting things like this in the future-- its not worth all the hassle. 8-(--Light current 06:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to prove you wrong; I'm trying to help you understand that there's more to running this place than the arbitrariness implied by "some people found the one user name more offensive than the other." I think you'll be happy once you see there's a method to our madness. -- SCZenz 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EOT

Overtone

hi. I've rewrote the article, please have a look. also, please try to answer my question in the talk page about perfect sound. I'm really glad I finally got this al lharmony thing right!! thank you. :)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intendation changes

Hi LC. I removed your latest round of indentation changes on the ref desk talk page, as they destroyed information about who was responding to what comment. The conversation forked at some points, and the indentation shows what points it forked at. -- SCZenz 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please illustrate. --Light current 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your confusing indentation changes as well. Hope you don't mind me demonstrating one widely accepted way to indent threads on Wikipedia:

Original post (OP). ~~~~

Reply to OP. ~~~~

Reply to reply to OP. ~~~~

Another reply to OP. ~~~~

Yet another reply to OP. ~~~~

Reply to yet another reply to OP. ~~~~

New topic. ~~~~

Massively indented reply. ~~~~

<unindent> Unindented reply to avoid silly page wrapping. ~~~~

Of course, this should become moot when m:Liquid Threads arrives... Carcharoth 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that OK. However it appears some people (Im not talking about me yet) do quite often ignore the above protocol. That leads to confusion. Also the protocol, even if adhered to, eventually leads to massive indentation. If there are only 2 people talking, why is ever increasing indentaion necessary? Its ovbious to whom a post is addressed.

My method (like so many things) is only confusing if you dont understand it. Its generally based upon respondents keeping thier own number of indents throughout the part of the thread under the current hdg.. If you want to promote yourself, you start a new sub hdg. Its far far easier to see one persons whole response stream at one go. THe main criticism of this is that if there are 3 or more respondents all keeping their own indent level, it is said that no one knows to whom one is replying. Generally one replies to a thread, only sometimes to an individual. If its not obvious to whom one is replying, what are user names for Carcharoth? If one was writing this on paper, one would certainly not indent at all but refer to the addressee by name.

Also some people tend to put their posts directly under the post to which they are replying regardless of other replies already there. THis in addition to the other problems (above) causes IMO talk page to quickly become a complete mess and very difficult to follow. Or is it just me? 8-( --Light current 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you saying there is another commonly used way?--Light current 03:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a situation like this:

COMMENT A
  COMMENT B (REPLY TO COMMENT A)
    COMMENT C (REPLY TO COMMENT B)
      COMMENT D (REPLY TO COMMENT C)
        COMMENT E (REPLY TO COMMENT D)

And I want to add replies to every comment, I do so like this, so my comments are as close to what I'm responding to as possible:

COMMENT A
    my reply to COMMENT A
  COMMENT B (REPLY TO COMMENT A)
      my reply to COMMENT B
    COMMENT C (REPLY TO COMMENT B)
        my reply to COMMENT C
      COMMENT D (REPLY TO COMMENT C)
          my reply to COMMENT D
        COMMENT E (REPLY TO COMMENT D)
          my reply to COMMENT E

I believe this method leaves the old replies reasonably close to what they are responded to, and makes it obvious those aren't replies to me. To put my comments all at the end would require the reader to flip back maybe several pages to see what I was talking about. StuRat 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I uderstand that as well! But in the following case,

COMMENT A (time=0)
  (incorrect place for your reply to comment A) (for time =>1)
  COMMENT B (REPLY TO COMMENT A) (time =1)
  (incorrect place for your reply to comment A) (for time =>2)
  COMMENT C (ANOTHER REPLY TO COMMENT A)(time =2)
  (correct place for your reply to comment A) (for  3>time>2)
    COMMENT D (REPLY TO COMMENT C) (time =3)
       COMMENT E (REPLY TO COMMENT D) (time =4)

THen your reply to comment A should naturally be below comment C and indented identically. Sometimes people put their replies where I have labelled them incorrect. THis causes confusion--Light current 16:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, Thanks for your message. Actually, I've been busy developing and organizing the Bengali Wikipedia. Starting from scratch (400-500 empty or one liner stubs in March 2006), we have gone up to 12,000 articles in early November, 2006. :) Here is a media report. In en-wiki, I stick to only Bangladesh-related topics. --Ragib 03:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:StuRat

Did my comment really offend you are were you just poking fun? Cbrown1023 00:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you think I asked you to remove it if I thought it was acceptable?--Light current 00:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were just poking fun... why does if offend you? It is true; you should work on making your body not make skid marks so you don't have to remove them. Probably just sstop eating some foods are something... why don't you post it on the ref desk? Cbrown1023 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop digging! --Light current 00:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

k... not sure what u mean by that but okay. Cbrown1023 01:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC) If that really did upset you then sorry cause it wasn't my intention. Cbrown1023 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main seal

Follow the link I put as my second answer to the question. The question did not need a weak link to the seal dab page. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I would imagine there are many oil seals on an engine. I was asking which the main one was. Main seal doesnt give the answer.--Light current 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some guidance

Ok, I read your comments below, and it sounds like the biggest thing you want is a clear understanding of what is and is not appropriate for the Reference Desk. I will do my best to provide this, but you need to understand that for Wikipedia to be a functioning website its rules have to be somewhat subjective; it's simply impossible to write rules for every situation. Where there aren't rules, we use common sense and take the purpose of the encyclopedia as a whole and of the particular page into account. Things that tend to hurt those purposes will generally be regarded as bad, while those that help will be regarded as good.

There will often not be clear lines between the two. Humor at the reference desk is good, because it fosters a sense of community and keeps people entertained as they ask and answer questions. However, comments that it is reasonable to believe might put off or insult the new user are bad: we need as many users as we can get, and we want to be as encouraging to them as we can. Also, comments that don't contribute to answering questions can (in excess) be bad because they make it harder for everyone to figure out if the question has been answered or not.

I'd also like to caution you again about "testing the waters" to try to figure out whether a given comment/question will be allowed or not. This has the potential to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Also, arguing that people don't have the right to censor you will not be an effective approach; users here do have the ability to edit pages to insure they serve their purpose, and avoiding newbie-biting is a reasonably good reason to do so.

I know this is not as specific as the guidance that you're hoping for. I hope I've explained why it's hard to be much more specific. There are inevitably gray areas, and you have my assurance that you won't be threatened or punished for wandering into those gray areas from time to time. I'm happy to answer questions or discuss hypotheticals, as much as it would help, or to help you understand specific things that people have objected to. -- SCZenz 03:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK lets see what reaction you have to my future RD answers. Please comment on them here rather than on the RD pages themselves. 8-|--Light current 18:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds good; I will give you comments as we go along. -- SCZenz 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, one quick comment (albeit a bit outside the scope of RD): writing that "there certainly are a lot of shitty assholes around WP" is not civil at all. Since people know who you've been frustrated with recently, and what you're talking about at the time, the fact that you don't specifically name names hardly keeps it from being rude. I know that venting helps sometimes, but when writing stuff on Wikipedia you really need to consider how the things you write will be read and whether they move the discussion forward or make things worse. It's not easy; I screw it up sometimes too. -- SCZenz 21:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK but you have to read that in context. A private post sent to someones talk page responding jokingly to the post above it. ie not on a public page and not viewable by those who arent particularly looking for it.--Light current 21:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and it does matter, but only to a point. The post is on the internet, and therefore public, and more to the point it's hosted by Wikipedia. The general consensus, from what I've seen here in general, is that anything posted anywhere Wikipedia is "fair game" for people to express concern about. For example, just yesterday you asked me to clarify something I wrote on another person's talk page. -- SCZenz 22:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defn

Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our rule of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Recent attack diffs

[2]

[3]

Re: Warning

LC, on further review, I realize that a warning was not necessary. I sincerely apologize for this error.-- danntm ^T _C 18:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 8-)--Light current 18:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding, I feel so bad about this.-- danntm ^T _C 19:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to feel bad. We all make mistakes sometimes. I made a fair few. You realised it and apologised so theres absolutely no need to feel bad any more 8-)--Light current 23:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins causing you frustration?

Hi LC, you seem pretty frustrated about the reference desk situation. If you really think admins are being unfair to you, and in particular threatening unjustified blocks, I'm willing to listen to what's going on. I may be able to help or offer suggestions. Feel free to either leave me a message on my talk page or email me. -- SCZenz 03:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon.--Light current 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this (at a distance) as well, and tend to think that some people are a bit too-tightly-laced about allowing any humour to creep into Wikipedia.

Atlant 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say tight-something, too. :-) StuRat 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean anally retentive perhaps? I suppose that makes sense cos it doesnt lead to skid marks! 8-)--Light current 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What Im trying to do is get a set of guidelines going that will tend to protect people from offence without disallowing ALL humor and without resorting to censorship. You may see the work I and others have already done on the RD talk pages. And of course you dont need permission to comment! 8-)--Light current 13:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actions of Admin pschemp

I do think though that you should stop making the situation worse at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Whether you agree or not with pschemp, she is doing her job as she sees it. Let it go. There may be other ways you can move it forward, but I don't think continuing that conversation will help. Best wishes, --Guinnog 13:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont mind her disagreeing with me. Its the fact she keeps removing my posts and has threatened to block me if [4] I commit some unspecified action or actions. She is exceeding her authority and harrassing me to boot. Where do I go to complain about her actions?--Light current 13:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also she has apparently altered the edit history of WP:AN/I somehow so that it appears one of my posts was never placed. Is that legal?--Light current 14:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing edit history is obviously not allowed for purposes of concealing legitimate arguments. However, WP:AN/I has not had any edits deleted since May, that I can see. Very very few editors have the power to delete all records of an edit so that even administrators can't see them—that ability is to be used only in cases of libel, and pschemp is not one of the people who has the technical ability to do it. I believe you should consider the possibility that your post wasn't put up because of some kind of technical glitch. -- SCZenz 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm THats weird then. Because it was there, then the next time I looked it wasnt and no evidence of it in the history. I then replaced it with a differently worded post. THanks for explaining that.--Light current 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When this happens to me, it is generally because I pressed "preview" and then forgot to press save later. Carcharoth 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next level?

Since User pschemp refuses to discuss these threats and bullying behaviour sensibly with me, I fear we must now take this to the next level.--Light current 17:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make a suggestion, that would be a bad idea. I think time needs to be allowed for everyone to cool down here. I think everyone involved is focusing too much on the fact that the other side has no right to do X, and that the content of the discussion has been lost entirely. When you act out of frustration, you encourage things to spiral out of control, and it is my honest estimate that the end-result of that spiral will not be satisfactory for you. Can you instead leave all this alone for a bit, and let me try to help? -- SCZenz 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing has happened before and has resulted in me being unfairly blocke. I wish to get the present threat lifted or at least defined properly so I cancontinue editing without harassment. I will hold off for a short while to see if you can help in any way! Thanks.--Light current 18:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit without fear of harassment as long as you take care that your RD comments contribute to answering the questions. What you should back off from is "testing" whether people have the "right" to enforce their requests that you modify your behavior; instead, you should do your best to take their comments into account. I will continue working on resolving this to everyone's satisfaction, but results are unlikely to be instantaneous. Would you be willing to accept a mentoship from me on these issues, as was suggested on WP:AN...? That might be a compromise everyone can accept. -- SCZenz 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. I dont think theres anything to lose? Is there? Oh and what I wanted to know (something that no one can define) is : In exactly what way should I modify my behaviour?--Light current 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you serious or not in wanting to help?:

Your comment is noted, and you're probably right. The ambiguity was a calculated decision on my part; my intention was to give him the impression that I might take his side if he talked to me, in an effort to get him to discuss things rather than continuing to inflame the situation. It appears that was the wrong thing for me to do. -- SCZenz 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

8-((--Light current 18:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm being put between a rock and a hard place by the two sides here, so let me be 100% clear on what I think, and what I propose we do:

I think you've made some comments that were inappropriate.
Others have tried to point this out, and you haven't reacted well.
Threatening to block you has not been a productive way of handling the situation, nor are pile-ons of many people saying the same thing.
The situation has been inflamed, as I said, by both sides focusing on their own "rights" and the other party's excesses.
You are an extraordinarily helpful editor, in general, and I think continuing down the current path is all too likely to result in hardened positions, frustration, and Wikipedia losing your contributions. This would be very bad.
I can convince pschemp, and others, to leave the situation to me, in the mentorship discussed above. They will expect me to keep you from saying inappropriate/unhelpful things at the reference desk, and I will do this. However, I will do it as far as possible by discussing issues and helping you understand what the complaints are, rather than by removing your comments or making threats.
As long as I am able to work with you and roughly meet these expectations, other admins will leave you alone and none of them will block you.

I have tried to take a concilliatory tone with both sides in order to sort this out, but this is my honest proposal. I'll copy it to the other pages where this is being discussed. Can you accept it? -- SCZenz 18:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK Im going to take your points one by one:

You and others say some of my comments are inaprropriate. Any one care to say which ones and why?
I havent reacted well because they cant/wont show me whats wrong with my comments but continue to threaten. THis is what is known as a self defence mechanism
Agreed.
Agreed. A point to note is that I did not start all this lot. In addition to contrary comments there have been many favorable comments about my input to the ref desks.
Agreed. But I want a resolution that is satisfactory to me as well as my adversaries and those who are completely dissmissive of my prolific offerings here.
All Ive been asking for (in vain) is for some guidance from the critical admins as to what is and what is not acceptable and why. No one has given me a reply that I can translate into self censorship yet. To my mind its all subjective. THere are many things on the RDs that I find objectionable disgusting, just not funny, silly etc. But I dont go around removing them without agreement or posting nasty warnings on their talk pages.

The original accusation against me were of being offensive to the questioner. I think it was User:Rick Block who levelled that one and threatened to block me with a warning on my talk page. The warning was subsequently commute d to amilder one on appeal.
When that accuation failed due to lack of evidence it was changed to 'making jokey comments'. (Although this is allowed in the boiler plate at the RD heads).
Then I was accused of disruption. When I ask how I had been disruptive to WP: No answer.

My faith in Admins actions = 0

So you see SC why my faith in Admins actions is presently at rock bottom? This sort of inept accusations makes me think that Admins dont actually know what the policies and guidelines mean and are using their own interpretions of them. THat cannot be satisfactory. Admins need to enforce the rules as they exist, not make 'em up as they go along. I have not broken any rules or guidelines yet Im having my posts deleted and being threatened with blocking. Put yourself in that position and you'll understand my current indignation and disgust with the whole present scenario. You will also understand my wish to see that this sort of bullying by admins is stamped out for good. 8-(((--Light current 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Fair enough, if its a problem I'll try to make them more relvant, I just thought since the question title is in the edit summary, and you have to sign what you wrote, it was pretty self explanatory. In articles and that I try to be relevant, but in the project pages I never really bothered. But ok, I'll try, but I feel I may have made a habit out of it. Philc _T^E_C^I 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically its sufficient I think if you just copy relevant a bit out out of the text you wrote and just paste that. Thats all thats needed. Gives people an idea what the post is about 1 8-)--Light current 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your pictures

What does “8-(--” mean? [5] Is it a flower? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See bottom of this page or User page for guide to slimeys--Light current 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move that debate to Talk:Saddam Hussein?

I reverted it...from a quick glance, it seemed to be a heated debate about whether Saddam got an appropriate sentence. Did I miss something that actually belongs on that page? Talk:Saddam Hussein is for discussions about the Saddam Hussein article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the RD rules. Discuusion should be moved to the approprate page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) .

Hey, what's with the "post to the top of the page" thing? :-)

Sorry, I don't know what rules you're referring to. But from a quick glance at that debate, it has nothing to do with writing a better Saddam Hussein article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions dont belong on RD. Read the rules--Light current 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, once more. What's "RD"? Seriously, I have no idea what rules you're talking about. I yanked that text because a heated debate about whether Saddam Hussein got the right sentence has nothing to do with writing the article, which is what the talk page is there for. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Reference desk wher this discussion originated. THe article mentions his current sentence therfore the discussion is pertinent to the article.--Light current 23:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Well, in any event, it doesn't belong on Talk:Saddam Hussein either. Anyone who wants to debate Saddam Hussein's sentence can take it elsewhere. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry THats the page where it belongs. Please do not delete valid talk--Light current 23:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

(Followup to the note you just posted to my talk page). Actually, talk page comments can be and are reverted all the time. Trolling is removed; I removed some from Talk:Saddam Hussein earlier today and other editors also did, along with a ton of vandalism. We definitely have a lot more latitude on talk pages than on article pages, but it's not a free-for-all, and text that's added for trolling purposes (e.g.: "Saddam's gonna die! Yay!") or is otherwise completely unrelated to the job at hand -- writing a WP:NPOV article about Saddam Hussein -- can be deleted, and should be. In fact, there's a lot of cruft on that page now that shouldn't be there; nobody has taken the time to weed it out yet. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK you refactor as you see fit. But really I cant see what problem this extra pertinent material is causing you!.--Light current 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through! :-) From what I can see, Light current was right to remove the discussion from the Reference Desk (WP:RD), and Jim Douglas was right to remove it from the Saddam Hussein talk page. The discussion doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a messageboard or other forum to discuss things like this. Carcharoth 23:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edcon)

Are you suggesting all this stuff is deleted (including the valid comments)? Im happy for that but Im not going to take responsibility for deleting other peoples posts without some sort of consensus on the matter 8-|--Light current 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't see any valid comments there. Am I wrong, or was that a debate about whether Saddam got a fair trial/sentence?

There was a recent discussion about it here: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Deleting contributions which are inconsistent with the purpose of Talk Pages. As far as I can tell, the consensus was that talk page postings that are utterly unrelated to writing the article are fair game to be yanked. FWIW, I only revert talk page postings in extreme and obvious cases. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me. See this comment someone added a few hours ago: Talk:Saddam Hussein#Shouldn't this Discussion page be edited??!!!???

Also see this comment that appears at the top of most talk pages:

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

And another editor just reverted it again, for the same reason. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I followed the RD rules. What you do on Saddam page is up to you. Im not interseted in it!/ .--Light current 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as I said, I just dont care about Saddam, his page or his talk page. So do what you want with it. Just be prepared to justify deletion of posts if challenged! 8-((--Light current 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just saw your followup here :-) I only added that comment as an afterthought, so that people wouldn't go to Talk:Saddam Hussein, then get confused by not finding the discussion thread. I hope you didn't take any offense. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its good to have added the comment. 8-)--Light current 07:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]