User talk:Light current/archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Relevant links

This page plus:

[1] [2]

[3] [4] [5] [6]

[edit] C'mon now

Light current, you're working yourself into a frenzy here, and you're not doing yourself any favors. An admin judged (correctly, btw, in my opinion) that you were increasingly disrupting the project because of the way you were talking down to, condescending, and otherwise insulting folks whom you were involved in a dispute with. Just walk away from your computer (or at least, from this website) until the block expires. You've made a couple of unblock appeals, and plenty of folks have you watchlisted so it's not that nobody is seeing them. Heck, there's a thread on AN/I about this stuff. The community is concerned about both your well-being and that of the folks you're attacking. If you don't believe the former, note that the block isn't indefinite (historically, lots of people have been indef'd for less). Take a break. Take a deep breath, and take another look at what people are trying to tell you. Just because you keep saying 'I'm not trying to insult you when I use a diminutive' doesn't mean that people believe it. When I was a kid, my sister and I would hit each other and say 'I'm not hitting you! I'm not hitting you!'. Personally, I didn't like it when you called me 'Chairy' because I don't think we have that type of relationship where that's appropriate, but I shrugged it off because I figured you'd eventually drop the issue and go back to being productive. Instead, this morning I find you calling Friday 'schizo' and see your banners on the top of this page and your frantic editing... it's just not healthy. Look, you can overrev, totally flip out and explode, or you can just walk away and come back and either take the advice you've been given by people who are genuinely trying to help or go ask for oversight on WP:AN/I. Either of the latter are better than what you're doing now, which seems to be the former. We may not be best buds, but I hope you'll receive this message in the spirit with which it was sent and find peace. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Im afraid we are not on the same wavelength and to be honest I dont think you appreciate fully what is happening. Im not working my self into a frenzy, but I do see that there really is something rotten in the state of Wikipedia regarding controlling the masses.
If people have been permanebtly (or indef) blocked for one wrong word, I think the whole disciplinary procedure should be investigated with utmost urgency.
I was in no way disrupting the project because I was not talking down to, condescending, or otherwise insulting folks with whom I was involved in discussion/argument. Disruption is preventing people from contributing. I was by no stretch of the imagingation doing that. I think youll find the answers in WP:DIS
I am extermly concerned ATM about these cursory blocks (not just against me) being handed out LR&C in direct violation of the actual policy. There doesnt seem to be any consitency. When I am under attack from a user, and nothing is done I eventually broadcast the fact so that something can be done. But when I do, I am reprimanded! (and nearly blocked for my trouble)
THis really does need looking at. I appreciate blocks are neccesary in some cases, but I feel Admins are far to casual about handing them out AGAINST POLICY (WP:BLOCK)>
I propose a full investigation into the practice of over enthusiastic use of the block weapon for trifling misdemeanors.
What do you mean by: go ask for oversight on WP:AN/I.  ?
Anyway now you have told me you dont like my nicknmae for you, I shall cease using it as I promised.--Light current 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another appeal

I appeal for this excessive block to be shortened to 18 hrs fron the original 24. I think 24 was excessive for the minor (accidental) infringment of civility. It was an error and I have apolgised for it. Do I have to grovel again?--Light current 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi LC, i think the problem here is your history. Specifically:
"05:10, 9 December 2006 TenOfAllTrades (Talk | contribs) blocked "Light current (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 days (Taking jabs at Friday, WP:POINT, wasting my good-faith unblocking)"
Despite your apologies the neutral admins are looking at that and thing 24hrs is not so long. Please don't undo all your good work over the last four weeks. You were making great progress in writing the quidelines as well as arguing your case. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
OK so Im still being punished for my last so called misdemeanors. Is that what you think? --Light current 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It is hard to say how others think but i suspect any apologies will be taken with a grain of salt by an outsider due to the entry in your block log above. Given the recent block is only 24 hrs most will probably just think let the clock run out. If it had been longer (a week), i suspect other admins would be more receptive to your apology. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I feel you are right about that. It is however disturbing that one (me) could get multiple shortish blocks from unfriendly admins and no one would give a toss! Do you see what Im getting at here? Abuse of Admin power. Esp. when it excerised against the stated policy. Do you agree that my block was against stated policy as stated in WP:BLOCK? Have a read of it.--Light current 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think nobody gives a toss, you seem to have had a few people dropping in. Here is my sense, if you were not a valuable editor, which you are, you would be on an indefinite block by now. You are underestimating the effect of cumulative blocks. On top of that you have apparently lost the benefit of doubt extended to users with a clean block log. This gives the effect of abuse of admin power. I have not read the guidelines in detail, but I'm not sure that would help since literal interpretations do not account for the fact that each situation is unique. David D. (Talk) 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes but it seems the more erroneous blocks I get, the more erroneous blocks I get because the threshold is being lowered every time. I ve only got to fart in the wrong place now and if Ten sniffs it Im goosed again. Is this fair? 8-(( --Light current 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that sums up your situation pretty well. As i said before, you're an Icarus wannabe and sometimes your wax melts. It comes with the territory. Just make sure you always fly with a parachute. Best scenario in this case is hit the sack, count them sheep and run out the clock. That should ensure a soft landing. David D. (Talk) 21:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve McQueen

And remember when Steve McQueen was in action he had a whistle and a smile. Plus, you get to ride the motorbike at the end! David D. (Talk) 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in the cooler he didnt 8-(--Light current 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure? I guess its been a long time since I saw the film. David D. (Talk) 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean he used to whistle with his mouth or he had a whistle? See the confusion over a simple word like whistle? He didnt smile in the cooler, he just practiced his catches and looked very thoughtful.--Light current 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mouth, it does not help that i worded it poorly. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And how would my good work be undone?--Light current 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Alienating those whom you are trying to convince (in this case Friday) is a way for you to undo your good work. David D. (Talk) 21:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Well no I think Friday (along with some others) is a lost cause--Light current 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
TWT--Light current 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think Ummit (talk · contribs) should be our role model here. Patient and clear discussion, I'm learning for sure. David D. (Talk) 21:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Block reduction

I appeal for my block length to be reduced to 12 hrs. I thikn 24 was excessive for the minor (accidental) infringment of civility. It was an error and I have apolgised for it.--Light current 15:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Like Boat! of course. You see, I hadnt seen that! 8-) --Light current 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To whom it may concern

I am seriously disappointed in the Wiki procedure that makes it so easy for me to be blocked for what amounts to a tiny error in my use of terminology.(Schitzoid was not the right word to use and I have apologised for this.) Also I was not namecalling, but just using abbreviations or nicknames that non of the users had objected to personally. Could an other Admin pleas look at this case to see if they think my block is justified? Thanks 8-)--Light current 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OKAY I apologise

OKAY I apologise for using the term schitzoid. I did not mean to imply mental illnes, but an apparently self contradictory stance. If given the opportunity, I will strike out this word and replace it with self contradictory, (which I dont believe is an insulting term.)

[edit] Does it not occur to you...

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

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

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

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

Reply to Ten (and others if the cap fits)
  1. I've explained 'Hippo' as my diminuitve name fot Hypocritical. Friday is displaying a self contradictory persona. No need to get worked up about it;.
  2. I dont need a working relationship with Friday or HIPPO
  3. No I dont see why that should be necessary.
  4. I seem to remeber you restored my block for no good reason
  5. How do you know I was editing anonymously. Do you have any proof?
  6. Im not trying to pisspeople off
  7. I am cool
  8. Ive had a few beers
  9. I shall not be withdrawing my remarks becuase they are true.
  10. Im not trying to 'win an argument'-- Im stating what I feel to be the truth
  11. Why dont you get off my back?
Hava nice day! Light current 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW Ten, you say

I even turned a blind eye when you were editing anonymously on the Ref Desk back when you were blocked, because you were posting useful responses.

I didnt actually do any editing whilst blocked but Id really be interested to know whow posts you ascribe to me. THen I can get a feel for what it is youve got against me so I can correct it. 8-)--Light current 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From Rocky

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

This is an example of Fridays duplicity--Light current 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I criticise him for having 2 opposite stances simultaneously. We I cannot now trust what he says.--Light current 11:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. If any movement towards your position is is proclaimed duplicitous, then there can be be no resolution or compromise with you. Its almost as if you are trying to continue a conflict with Friday for the sake of it, as I can think of no other explanation for such reasoning. I'll ask again, could you explain to me how you aim to reach some positive conclusion from this debate? Rockpocket 05:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Its not a movement towards my position. Its merely Friday saying that he thinks his own judgement is always right and he can write his own rules. I dont think it is always right.--Light current 11:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


From Friday

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

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

From David D.

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

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

From Chairboy

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

Why dont you look it up before attributing bad meanings?> Also I seriously question your knowledge of the English language.Ive already replied to you on this. Why dont you give it a rest Chairy?--Light current 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whats wrong with nicky names or abbreviations

extract from AN/I

As Picaroony says, the shortening of names is probably not deliberately offensive, but if the users in question have indicated that they do not like these shortended appelations, then continuing to use them is rude. Accusing Fridayy of being schizophrenic is enough to push Lighty into needing a block to calm down and prevent any further incivility. Proto::► 10:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Esp when those I nick named have not complained about my pet names for them.?--Light current 12:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If any of the recipients of my nick names complains about my usage of them, I will immediately stop using them. No one complained (except TenOfAllTrades who complained about my usage for other people.) and Im not trying to be nasty in my usage of them. I didny know there was a rule against using shortened versions.--Light current 13:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing etiquette

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

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

WTF are you on about?--Light current 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh, sorry- what's unclear? Friday (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ref desk guidelines

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

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

[edit] Things are going better...

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

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

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

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

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

THere is no need to threaten me. Sorry that is a true staement. He has repeatedly called me a troll or implied I am a troll. And Im not aware that you warned him. Where?--Light current 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
OK I just seen it. I now know you are aware of Hipos attitude and Ill leave it to you. I did not consider it worthwhile to have his talk page on my watchlist--Light current 23:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you feel it was appropriate to call him Hippo? If you're in a dispute with someone, it's easy for something like that to be read as a slight instead of a jocular whatchamacallit. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Short version. Why?--Light current 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
How? What? Where? I think I'll need the slightly longer version to understand your question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
JC. Hippo is a diminutive of Hipocrite. If he was to prefer Hipo, or Hip, I dont mind--Light current 22:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering the context, this definition of diminutive is closer to how it appeared, namely "Serving to diminish". Context is important, remember that it's very difficult to interpret connotation via text without various cues that are present in face to face conversation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Did you look up diminutive by any chance Chairy? 8-)--Light current 00:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't chat at the ref desk

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

PS. I'm aware of your "no ref desk comments" statement above. But, this is an unreasonable request. If you're editing, you should expect, and welcome, feedback on your editing from other editors. This is how things go here. If you are not planning to be responsive to feedback on your ref desk behavior, please stop editing at the ref desks. Friday (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Im not editing the RD pages (aprt from Qs). Im discussing pertinent matters on the RD talk page. Is that what you refer to as chat?
See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Women_and_risque__jokes. for one thing. What kind of encyclopedic answer were you hoping for? Friday (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As I have expalined before, (sigh) that was a Q to which I wished to know some answers. Do you see that as chatting? Do all answers have to be encyclopedic. If so, you should edit the guidelines to indicate that.
All my posts on that topic were questions. You can tell that by the ? at the end.--Light current 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFAR, tubenutdave, talk pages

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

As I explained lower down this page, the talk page was in a complete mess. In order to try to prevent it getting any worse, I achived the page so that new posts to talk would not futher confus e the issue. THere was no intention of deliberately hiding anything. I also archived the page sothat I could refactor it into an understadable form. I mentioned on the live talk page to tubenut that if theer was antything he wanted to bring up, he could just copy the relevant bits from the archive to the talk page. I dont believe I was doing anything wrong - I was just trying to stop the talk from becomeing completely undeciperable with the multiple interlevaings. However, I admit it does look suspicious and I suppose now it would have been wiser for me not to have done it. But hind sight is a wonderful thing! 8-)--Light current 17:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Right. Hindsight is the thing that gives you the ability to say, "Oops, I was wrong, that was a mistake, sorry about that." Which I strongly suggest you do. This is a stupid case, and I'd rather have no reason at all to accept it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didnt realise that the above was not sufficient. I was wrong to archive, it was a regrettable mistake, and Im sorry for doing it.--Light current 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing to arbitrate over. If we both follow the editing procedures, there will be no problem--Light current 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If you wish the pages to be 'wiped' as you put it, you can put them up as 'Artices for Deletion' WP:AFD candidates. Although I doubt youll have much luck. 8-|--Light current 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Light current, I saw that there was a rather bitter dispute going on between you and Tubenutdave, and I have given him the advice not to pursue an arbitration case (which would not be accepted at this stage), but to look into either mediation or asking an administrator to look into the matter and advise how best to proceed. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subject-matter of this page to figure out whether this is a pure conduct dispute or whether it's a user conduct issue, and if so, who (if anyone) is at fault. Therefore, I've posted to ANI asking an administrator with some science/tech background to look at the page and give you both a recommendation as to how to proceed. I hope you will understand that this has nothing to do with the other page you and I were in disagreement on last month. I hope this situation can work out for both of you. Newyorkbrad 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that this was a bitter 'dispute'. I was trying to guide Tubenut in the Wiki way. He has misinterpreted all of my actions as hostile, which they were not in any way. You may wish to know that a similar sutuation occured about 6 months ago. In the middle of mediation, Tubenut disappeared.
BTW I have forgotten all about our other disagreement. I hope you have too ! 8-)--Light current 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad of that; you told me at the time you had a long memory. :) With regard to the current issue, you will want to post a short summary of your position on the requests for arbitration page, WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at many of the differences and LC's edits seemed to improve the article. I'm not quite sure what specific differences tubenut sees as being the crux of the dispute? David D. (Talk) 01:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Well neither do I really! 8-?--Light current 01:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
From what I read, I can believe that. David D. (Talk) 01:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page refactoring

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

Thanks. I dont usually do this (refactor) but the talk page was getting so twisted and interweaved even with only 2 posters that something had to be done as it was getting bigger and bigger.
It also badly needed archiving in order that we could start afresh- so to speak on talk. One of the problems was that Tubenut did not sign/date many of his posts and none of his interjections despite my pleading with him. This makes it difficult to refactor the archives and keep logical sequence. --Light current 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I expect you did your best under the circumstances. Fred Bauder 14:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to guidelines

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

WP:STALK Please dont continue to stalk me everwhere I go or ill have to report it. You have already pushed me off the RD answer pages by criticising every single posting I made there. Please leave me alone to edit in peace. 8-(--Light current 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I'm stalking you; rather, I'm trying to edit a set of pages that you are also active in, and unfortunately what each of us is trying to do is in conflict. However, if you disagree, please feel free to report me for anything you believe I am doing in violation of policy... perhaps filing a request for comment would be an appropriate venue to get community input on your grievances...? I will certainly listen to what comes out of that. -- SCZenz 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year Light current

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