User talk:Light current/archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] MY Comments on RD Guidelines

Even tho' blocked, Im going to try to continue contributing to the RD guidelines discussion from here. I wont be able to cover all points, but I will be scanning the appropriate pages, and posting responses here when I can.

[edit] Go google!

How does saying go google or googling yourself actually help WikiPedia. I thought the RDs were intended to help WP. I state that referrring people to Google helps WP to ZERO extent. If you disagree, please expalin.--Light current 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

How does Googling for 'it' on RD help the encyclopedia exactly?

[edit] The 'guideline'

If people look at the note on that page, they will see the term 'Proposed guideline/policy/etc' Therfore it is both a guidleine and a proposal at the same time. I propose calling it a 'Proposed Guideline' Everyone happy with that?--Light current 21:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

If the reply does not quote refs, then it is obviously opinion or OR. I see no probelm here.

Anyway the RD replies should normally be directed toward our own pages with Wikilinks where the text should not contain any OR according to the NOR policy.


[edit] Current blocking and recent page protection

, Unfortunately due to my current blocking and recent page protection, I have been unable to comment on the progress of the RD guidelines. I feel that I am so far out of touch now with all the changes that I dont think I should contribute at present to the discussion. I know some of you will find this exteemely disappointing and disturbing, but you will have to do without my opinion for some time yet 8-( However, if someone wishes to ask my opinion on anything, I shall be only too glad to try and reply.--Light current 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release date

Currently 15 Dec.

Just a friendly warning. Some people might consider that this countdown to the end of a block shows the wrong attitude. I would advise you just take a break for a few days. A break always does anyone a lot of good. Carcharoth 00:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
How so? Also there is important work to be done. 8-)--Light current 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a real break and see how things look and feel different when you come back. Trust me on this one. Carcharoth 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Blocking

Well, where do I start? It does seem strange that after I responded to all the current criticism regarding recent postings that I should than be blocked for my compliance in altering/removing them. Isnt this the wrong way round? I know some people have been wanting me blocked becuase they think I provide too many light hearted answers on the RDs. These people have to ask them selves about their true motives here.

A Samir correctly says: there is a very murky line between good and bad taste. I think this is the way to define the 'problem': many people seem to find my comments are in poor taste. Before proceeding, I would like some comments on whether this is how the 'problem' can be defined.--Light current 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC) (in progress)

Light current, there was a bit in the NY Times Magazine today about a reverse-graffiti artist who writes by cleaning dirty surfaces of accumulated grime. What are they going to do, charge him with cleaning off dirt? He believes that how people react to this will show whether they are truly against vandalism or actually against the free expression of speech. -THB 13:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm Interesting. THey could charge him with selective cleaning and dock his pay maybe! Also, if he's using his tongue to do the cleaning off, it might be said he had very poor taste! 8-)--Light current 19:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The point is you might find legal means of expressing the same ideas, so you don't get blocked. -THB 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but we dont know whats legal till we get guidelines.(So get to it!) ATM Admins can delete anything they want and/or block you for posting it to boot.--Light current 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
--Sigh-- Yes. -THB 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Comments on my Reference Desk behaviour

Please put all your adverse comments about me here, so they can be dealt with easily when my block is over.

[edit] Good faith comments

We don't need to debate about whether these edits were done out of mischief or misunderstanding. People have probably already formed their own opinions on this matter, and of course there's nothing to be done to prove either opinion. What matters to the project is that effect is disruptive either way. By asking us to believe it was done out of misunderstanding, what you're saying is that you lack reasonable adult judgment. If that's the case, it also explains why you're unable to understand various editors' patient explanations of why your behavior is disruptive. It's not particularly important to the project that you understand- we can live without that. It is important to the project that your disruptive editing does not continue. If this can't be accomplished through understanding, it gets accomplished through blocks. Ultimately the choice is yours, and your block log suggests you've made some unfortunate choices so far. For the sake of the project, I hope to see you make different choices in the future. Friday (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you enjoy adding insult to injury. It seems like you do. What I did was in no way disruptive. If you think it was, you have a distorted view of the meaning of the word. Blocking productive editors for a week is far more disruptive IMO. Just leave it. 8-((--Light current 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Light Current, for some perspective, you should know that I fully endorse Friday's summary above. Your behavior is disrupted, and the distortion appears to be on your end. If there's anything we can do to help you with this, let us know, but you're going to have to meet us half way and start acting appropriately. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My behaviours disrupted??? Yeah I suppose so since Ive been blocked 8-). I assume you meant 'disruptive' If so, define disruptive please. Also, distortion can occur anywhere in the communication channel
A note: It is not enough to simply respond to criticism, you must actually adjust your behavior. Please stop disrupting the project to make WP:POINTs. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If Im shown to be wrong, I'll adjust. Show me some rules/guidelines. Also please define disruption --Light current 18:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Insults and other abuse here please.(regarding my WP postings only)

Your mama wears cowboy boots --Justanother 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont think so. Shes dead and burned 8-(--Light current 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. --Justanother 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

...well, you did ask for abuse, didn't you ? :-) StuRat 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone but not forgotten (yet!)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Friday"

Hi Friday.

While the advice and explanation you gave to Light current was good, I think you can understand that you're not a person that he's likely to want to hear (or listen to) advice from at the moment.

I am sure that there are enough people following what's going on that you don't need to respond to everything that he posts on his talk page. In the interest of calming things down, I urge you to just stay away from contact with him for the duration of his block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I've commented there only a couple times in the last few days and have no further plans to correspond with him. I seriously considered using an alternate account to leave that last note, so he'd not prejudge, but I figured that would only lead to its own complications. Friday (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Please stop taking cheap shots at other editors, as you did to Friday here: [1]. Please don't insult my intelligence – or your own – by claiming that you weren't referring to him.

In the context of the current debate about the appropriateness of jokes on the Ref Desk and elsewhere, and given your own position on the topic, this edit (with edit summary 'rm jokes', in an article about a famous set of jokes) is very difficult to read as anything other than making a nuisance of yourself for the purpose of making a point.

I stuck my neck out for you, and you blew it. I'm sorry, but I'm restoring your block. I will lengthen it if you continue in the same vein when you get back. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I too am sorry that you have completely misinterpreted my edits on You have two cows. THis appeared to be a completly joke article not writtent in the encyclopedic manner. Also another editor had made an editorial note about the inclusion of jokes in the article. All WP articles should be written in a serious manner. I therefore suggested that it was AfD d. Someoned else has now done this. Its clear you have your own narrow view of what should and should not be allowed on WPs pages.
I am however very surprised and disappointed that you have decided to restore my block for the trifling edits you quote above and it is really not justified. 8-(--Light current 10:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

What was the point of this edit, made after I provided the correct answer? If you were editing your response anyway, why not simply acknowledge your guess was incorrect rather than "improving" it? I'm not sure I care, but you do seem to make a fair number of relatively pointless edits. Are you perhaps afflicted with Wikipedia:Editcountitis? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The point, my friend was to get my previous red link to turn blue. I have no need of editcountitis. I have more than enough edits for any purpose! 8-)--Light current 09:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you really not see the purpose of my self corrective edit?--Light current 20:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes I saw that you changed the comment from an incorrect guess that the "D" stood for denarium to an incorrect guess that the "D" stood for denarius (only one of which is an article). Leaving a blue link in the archives is probably marginally better, but since neither one of these is what it stands for it just struck me as odd. It is actually a mint mark, which I linked to the article for further reading (some US coins have "S" or "P" as well). Changing your comment after the correct answer had been provided seemed almost as if you were disagreeing (oh yeah, it's not "denarium" it's "denarius"!). Maybe this might make more sense if I knew Latin (denarium wouldn't perchance be the plural of denarius? - if so, why not add a redirect?). In any event, this particular edit is not a big deal. You do seem to edit at a frenetic pace, doing things like changing line spacing which has no particular effect other than bumping your edit count by one (and, yes, I have looked at your edit history). I was just curious if you were trying to reach some magic edit count number or something. I'm glad that you're not. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
No certainly not trying to achieve anything except helping WP.
Also its interesting why a cent is called a 'penny' (an English term) in the US. The abbrev for penny here (UK) used to be 'd' (from the Latin). The difference between 'denarius' and 'denarium' is only one of 'case'. They are the same word. Im edified to know that on US coins this is a mint mark. Thanks!
Also spacing of comments is I feel important for easier reading and understanding by everyone. If you look at some of my article edits, you may find they consist of nothing more than spacing of the existing text and headings. However, I believe these edits increase the readability of the encyclopedia.--Light current 00:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dude...

[2]

While I'm glad that you've been keeping the innuendo and crude humour of the Desk, it might be wise not to tweak your adversaries in the discussion about the nature of the Ref Desk. Okey dokey? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk page comment only about getting things out of proprotion. What did you think I meant?--Light current 02:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

(Jeez, I forgot about this format thing) Just curious, have you ever tried Kingdom of Loathing. You might get a BIG kick out of it - free and totally funny. And since I got you on the line; www.woot.com woot-off today. --Justanother 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

HMM Looks a bit mature for me! 8-)--Light current 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goals of the project

This might help. Friday (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well I cant see how RDS fit into that!(except for the subtitle giving the defn of encyclopedia) Can you? Any way that page is about what WP is NOT. Goals are not outlined there.--Light current 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly he means "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD OR BLOG SERVICE"? Just a guess. Skittle 15:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [3] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I shall comment shortly.--Light current 08:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK

It does seem more natural, why this is where my cursor is when i edit the section. Brilliant! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hope you are not losing your sense of humor {p-/ (is that cyclops? thought it would be pirate) --Justanother 03:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No
Would it help if we went upwards on threads too? --Justanother 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you treat others uniformly with respect then you have nothing to fear here and you can defend yourself rather easily if someone targets you unjustly. That is a lesson that took some learning on my part.

PS, you should figure out an easy way to put this at the top if that is what you really want. A simple href might do it. Because otherwise it is a bit of a pain as the system is set up to put it at the bottom just by hitting the + next to edit this page. --Justanother 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks.

[edit] Cologne blue skin

I use the monobook Cologne blue skin and ther is no + at the top. However, if you just 'edit my page' you naturally come to the top,(or edit section for the section you want to edit) dont you?--Light current 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was natural, then you wouldn't have to keep moving comments around, people wouldn't be lost on your page, and everyone else would be top posting too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It may take some time to convince people--Light current 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they need to be convinced, then it does not meet any reasonable definition of 'natural'. The only person who suffers is you... and, well, anyone who is trying to talk to you, so go for it I guess, but, meh. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I dont suffer too much, if its at the bottom, I dont read it. Simple! If people really want me to see it , they comply with my wishes! 8-)

There are many other pages on WP that are added to on a 'latest at the top basis'. I think it is prefereable. Others dont. We agree to disagree 8-)--Light current 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if this comes across as belaboring the point, but is there really not a "+" at the top (like a tab, just to the right of the "edit this page" tab)? I'd be interested in a screenshot if you could provide one. It is supposed to be there for all talk pages (which is why talk pages are generally "add at the bottom"). The pages that are "add at the top", like WP:AFD, are not talk pages and usually have some separate "add an entry" link. How you want to run your talk page is of course up to you, but there is explicit support in the MediaWiki code for adding sections to pages (which adds at the bottom). For example, the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Light_current&action=edit&section=new adds a new section. This goes to the same URL the "+" tab goes to. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct. There is really not a + sign on the skin (monobook) Cologne blue I use. If you tell me how to do a screenshot I will send one 8-)--Light current 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. here's a screenshot of my talk page in Monobook on a Mac using Safari. Your monobook should look remarkably similar. Do you not have any tabs across the top, or are you just lacking the "+"? What OS and browser do you use? How to make a screenshot depends on the OS. In Windows, it's alt-prtscrn (or something) which puts the current window in the copy buffer (suitable for pasting into your favorite raster graphics program). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
V.Sorry Its not monobook, its Cologne Blue skin I use. Using it so long I forgot the name.--Light current 08:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway on monobook like yours, if you:
  • click + it takes you to the page bottom,
  • click 'edit this page' it takes you to the page top
  • use the contents box to get to the appropriate section then click 'edit' (at the right), it takes you to that section ready for editing.
--Light current 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the page top instructions now to make them clearer.

Glad we got that cleared up. In Cologne Blue, the equivalent operation to the "+" is "Post a comment" (on the left, under "This page"). In all skins the three choices you mention are available, but the "+" (or "post a comment" - it's this in classic as well, which is the skin I usually use) doesn't exactly take you to the bottom - it's more like "edit a section" but for creating a new section which when you hit submit is added to the bottom. Many people are accustomed to using this operation, which is likely why so many folks end up putting comments at the bottom of your page. Like I said before, you're free to run this page however you'd like - but realize adding at the top (of a talk page) is very unusual and goes against the "add new section" operation supported in the software (in all skins). -- Rick Block (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are correct in that if you just click 'post a a comment' it gives you a Summary to fill in that gives the para heading and adds it al to the bottom of the page by default. So, to post a new topic at the top of the page, you just clck 'edit this page' and type in the hdg if required. To add to existing topics you navigate using the contets box. Theres no diff in the amount of work. 8-)--Light current 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you take a moment to pause and consider the fact that you're having this discussion. If it really were as easy as you claim, then no behavior modification would be required. When people edit an existing conversation, they click the edit button for that conversation. When they add a new conversation to a page, they just hit the + or Post a Comment button. When they want to add a comment to YOUR page, however, they have to hit 'Edit this page', then then need to interpret your various tables and templates at the top (the ones that contain your inspirational daily quotes, etc) until they get to the point where (hopefully) they won't disrupt the header to your talk page, and then they manually need to add a section. You're fooling yourself if you honestly believe there is no difference in amount of work or difficulty. Your system really depends on the user coming to your page not being a new user. You can do whatever you want here, but reality check please. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Its worked for 18 months quite well. I always forgive newbies 8-)--Light current 16:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So you do notice additions at the bottom and don't just ignore them? I thought you said above that if it's at the bottom you don't read it. This sort of sounds like "I'm out of step, but I'm right and everyone else is wrong". Like I say, run your page however you'd like but please understand it's YOU who is out of step and NOT everyone else. Of course, maybe "weird" is your shtick. Frankly, I don't give a damn. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
In that case its OK isnt it ? Yours, Scarlett (O'Hara). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] WP:AFC

With all the bad blood, if you hold true to your promise to never return to Reference Desk, it'd prob be a shame. But it made me think, you might be out of work to do: perhaps you could look at this one. WP:AFC can get pretty backlogged sometimes. If you could help this page out, it'd be great. Thanks. -Patstuarttalk|edits 19:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I didnt promise! Im back!!!! 8-)--Light current 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lifting your block

I am lifting your block, per my comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Light_current ([4]).

I think you're a good guy, and I think that you've 'gotten it' that some of your remarks weren't appropriate for the forum of the Ref Desk.

I expect a return to the highest standards of civility and courtesy from everyone involved in this mess, and I look forward to you resuming productive and helpful contributions to the Ref Desk.

Call it an olive branch, call it an experiment, call it WP:AGF, whatever. I expect that you won't make me look like an idiot for trusting you and lifting this block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: Don't forget to finish creating the archive of your talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I wish you well in your experiment. For my part, here's what I'll do: If I see Light current being disruptive again, I'll drop you a note rather than doing something about it myself. I'm hoping this may help prevent things from turning into a pointless fight. Friday (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ive only just seen you post and I dont know whether Im unblocked yet so I respond.here

Thank you TenofAllTrades for demonstrating your faith in my good faith. And thank you for acting on what appears to be some sort of concensus that the block was too harsh! I have started a discussion on what people think the problem actually is, so it can be defined and legislated for. As I said, I was not conscious of breaking any rules or guidelines. THanks once more.--Light current 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rules dont matter

One thing you need to understand is that wikipedia doesn't have firm rules. If you're being disruptive, people are not required to show you some paragraph in some rule book that explains why your exact actions are not allowed. Editors must use good judgment. Consistant failure to do so is sometimes disruptive. Friday (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judgement and its correctness

Whose judgement is right?--Light current 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Light Current, we each use our own judgement, and everyone else gives feedback on whether it's good or not. This is a consensus based operation. You can either accept that, or not. To be frank, I don't imagine a huge amount of patience exists for you to drill and drill and drill, so please use your best judgement in this regard. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As long as people do not think that their judgement is superior to anyone elses, Im happy. Im happy to admit that my judgement has been lacking in certain areas, but I'm not alone. This is why its essential in my judgement to get some sort of confirmation before removing posts and blocking people. Its best to be wise before the event, not afterwards. I dont understand your ref to drilling. 8-|--Light current 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Light current, I strongly urge you to take Friday's advice here to heart. I know you might not be feeling particularly receptive to his remarks at the moment, but they are meant to be helpful to you in the future. I've stuck my neck out for you; please try not to test people's patience and tolerance, eh? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I always try to use my best judgement. I think thats the advice being given. Maybe my judgement has nudged a little more towards the consensus judgement in the past 48 hrs 8-?--Light current 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep your chin up

Keep your chin up! Please notify me at my user page as soon as the block against you has been lifted so I can start contributing to the Ref Desk again, too. -THB 15:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do Thanks for our support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Welcome back. (Did you know the block's been lifted?) -THB 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes Ive just seen it 8-)). THanks--Light current 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship on RDs

We just lost one regular editor (DirkVdM) because of his disagreement with current censorship at the RDs. Will this be the last retreat? Sadly I dont think so--Light current 15:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who will go next?--Light current 01:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Dubious' answers

There have been a number of so called 'dubiuos answers' from RD editors over the past few months. Some of these editors are actually now supporting my block. None of these editors was blocked. Ill try to find the 'offending' diffs. 8-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


[edit] Please put your comments here

Diffs [5] [6]

[edit] Admin Sayings

An action that improves Wikipedia is not disruption, by definition. I suppose doing the right thing in a needlessly dramatic way might be a middle ground, tho. (I would assert in such a case that when the trouble it causes outweighs the good, it's no longer a net improvement for the project.) Friday (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StuRat"C)

I would appreciate it if you didn't cast this debate as some sort of holy war between the good and fun loving gnomes of the Ref Desk and the big evil admins who want to suck all joy out of helping others. For the record, I'm a big evil admin who happens to help out a fair bit on the Ref Desk (and I enjoy doing it), and I think you're doing yourself a disservice, StuRat, by drawing a line between yourself and the 'Admins'. Much obliged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Any notion of "outlawing" a certain kind of response misses the point- we have no ability to enforce such a rule. We're all volunteers, and some people do sometimes answer with things like "try google". If you think this is bad, feel free to explain what a better answer would be, but any desire to "outlaw" a certain answer is completely misguided. Friday (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fun loving gnomes??
See Wikipedia:WikiGnome. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Cant see how that applies to me!. Sounded more like an insult than anything else 8-(--Light current 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I guessed you thought it was insulting, but I'm nearly positive it was not meant as an insult. Per the link I provided, gnomes are good creatures, roughly the opposite of trolls. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but are we naughtly little gnomes? 8-) Maybe we're goblins ?--Light current 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)