User talk:Light current/archive12

On offense
Hey, Light current. I've been thinking about your comments on your post at the science desk's question on suicidal animals. I guess it all comes down to this: If you ever feel offended by any of my posts, I encourage you to point them out to me. Similarly, I think you should point it out to other users as well, when their edits offend you. This has nothing to do with whining and whinging, nor with being hypersensitive or hypercoarse, but sometimes, when we inadvertedly step on each other's toes, we need to be told (and given the chance to apologize or explain our actions). A lot of disagreements escalate because of misunderstandings and false assumptions of this kind. I don't know whether this makes any sense to you, but I wish you a Happy New Year! ---Sluzzelin 06:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * People will always step on your toes (inadvertently). People always step on mine (probably inadvertently). The solution is to get some emotional steel toecap boots! 8-)--Light current 22:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Joke bit (sensitive people please avoid)
I usually get my toes stepped on "verdently", leaving my toes so bruised they are now green. :-) StuRat 22:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Its when they turn black you should start worrying!. Thats either frostbite or gangrene 8-(

Back to Serious bit
I wouldn't say that people always step on either of our toes - in fact, some people never do. Do you think users needs to shield themselves (with toecaps, that is by ignoring offensive posts or by staying away entirely) and expect and swallow everything at the reference desk? Anything goes at the desks, and pointing out any perceived offense is equal to whining? ---Sluzzelin 23:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignore offensive posts. Its the Wiki way yes. I know it can be very hard somtimes to do it but we must try. My offense after all may be your right to say something you believe.--Light current 23:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree with your last sentence in a societal or national context, where we do need laws protecting our freedom of speech (and also need laws protecting us from libel, slander, and other possible abuse of this freedom). I see Wikipedia as a voluntary community with a purpose or with several mutually inclusive purposes. I'm going out on a limb here, I realize that, but say you met with the same group of people every Monday for darts (or for social work, whatever fits). Now, suppose one of your mates has the habit of putting on a hysterically loud falsetto voice and this is driving you nuts. Are you going you tell him that it's annoying you and if so, do you expect him to drop it? It's his right after all, and he's not breaking any laws. ---Sluzzelin 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends how many pints Id had and whether he had any sort of hold over me! 8-)--Light current 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, I should have known better than giving you a lame analogy. :) ---Sluzzelin 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

user:hipocrite
user:hipocrite has agreed to stay out of the Friday ruckus and not engage in conversation with you (but he is still interested in editing at the ref desk). Please respect his wishes. I'll ask him to stay away from your edits as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK Its just that I saw a post from him on a pertinent pagte just now. 8-)--Light current 03:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, best not to say "Friday ruckus" 10 times fast. :-) StuRat 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then again, maybe it only comes out as "fracas", which is an apt term for it, as well. StuRat 01:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * HMMM! I can say it very fast 20 times and it still sounds clean! You want to try this one:


 * I not a pheasant plucker,
 * Im a pheasant pluckers son,
 * And I'm only plucking pheasants
 * Till the pheasant plucker comes.

Wathch your ph s and pl s! --Light current 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you hear that from a pleasant peasant ? StuRat 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No! an unpleasant fucker (I wont say which one)--Light current 02:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh shit Oh dear me!--Light current 02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry
Light Current, I'm sorry to hear about your friend. Given how closely it touches on the current reference desk debate, do you think it might be appropriate to take a break from the argument? -- SCZenz 00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not so fast! I know you dont care about my friend or my feelings. THat is quite evident by your previos attempts to trick me.


 * If anything Im more fired up than ever to fight this war against unjust censorship and uncontrolled wanton Admin power that corrupts most of you people to the core. I shall not rest until Admin actions are open to full scrutiny and severe punishment (including desysopping) (if necessary).


 * LC, please calm down and think about what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't a game.  If you're hurting, don't channel your hurt into fights on the internet; work things through with your friends and family instead.  -- SCZenz 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any way Im not talking to you ever again. Please do not address me in future either here or anywhere else. I dont communicate with people who try to decieve me, as you have done a number of times. It is in my eyes a complete waste of my time talking to you. Signing off for ever. 8-((--Light current 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you're leaving Wikipedia, or you're simply not talking to SCZenz? Skittle 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes--Light current 01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment
Do you think this comment is in any way helpful? Would you please consider deleting it? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I deleted it for you. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * that was a big mistake Rick 8-((--Light current 00:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's been some discussion about this at the RD talk page. I assumed you wouldn't have a problem with this, but since you clearly do we should talk about it.  Is the existing thread at WT:RD sufficient, or should we talk here as well?  BTW, please accept my condolences for your loss.  -- Rick Block (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is NOT an insincere post, please recategorize (unless you're talking about your response). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More food for thought
If you were really trying to do what was best for Wikipedia, rather than trying to get back at someone who disagreed with you and who (you apparently believe) has personally wronged you, wouldn't you be sad about having to call for the recall of a generally-helpful administrator? Instead, you're smiling about it. Think about what you're doing here, LC. This is not a site to invent friends and enemies and play emotional games with them. -- SCZenz 06:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Friendly posts
LC, are you aware of this: ? If something has happened to someone you care about I'm very sorry. Chin up. -THB 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm looks like an obvious case of stalking to me 8-)--Light current 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A comment to Lc
Lc, two users (myself included) have now characterized your responses as obtuse. Somehow, I don't feel that that word characterizes your real-world persona but somehow it is becoming more obvious that it characterizes your WP persona. Your sometimes combative and divisive stance on matters that are overwhelmingly opposed by other users is an enigma to me and perhaps to others.
 * Abrupt in address; plain; unceremonious; wanting the forms of civility; rough in manners or speech.
 * Hmmm! Yes that sounds like me! Although I think I prefer the word 'blunt' 8-)--Light current 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I and perhaps others here don't feel that this project (and by extension, the RD volunteers) are largely populated by an "us" & "them" or even worse a "my side" & "your side" or "my team" & "your team" mentality. It is that very stance that causes one to try and find some obscure corner of legitimacy with which to bolster one's argument as though finding that corner would somehow be meaningful when it's not at all.


 * I do not try to create sides except when under attack.--Light current 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of us here have no personal stake with a particular response which, having been made turns out to be incorrect. But, that isn't true of some who seem to try and find some legitimate aspect of their response and use it to legitimize their entire response. Just because most of us are willing to move on (there are lots of other things to do after all) doesn't mean that the holder of that unreasonable position is held to be a "winner" or to have "proved" their position, sometimes it is just better for us to move on after remarking. I and others aren't here to change your stated position as it seems obvious to most that argument under these conditions is futile.
 * Yes of course it would be very easy for me to lie back, and let everything go the censors way. Is that what you think I should do? Delete anything that could possibly offend any one?--Light current 03:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So, why this long-winded comment - well, every once-in-a-while it may not be futile to be blatantly honest in in an assessment of a situation, which I do reluctantly, but which may provide clarity to the benefit of another user. --hydnjo talk 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I shall study it.--Light current 23:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes of course it would be very easy for me to lie back, and let everything go the censors way. Believe me its not easy trying to defend truth and freedom of speech here when im faced with such a load of small minded people and dletionist Admins drunk on power..... more later

Political correctness PC
Do you think that I'm "drunk on power"? Let me assure you that I'm not and have no wish to be. If your objective at the RDs is to define the edges of the envelope (whatever the hell that means) then you're probably on the right track. Let me state for the record that that's not why I'm here. If through my contributions I find a rough edge or an impediment to my contribution then, of course I'll try to change something to ease my own way and ease the way for those that follow. I just don't get what you're trying to accomplish, I really don't.

My judgments at places like the RD are mightily influenced by positioning myself as the OP (and I think that you may do the same). The genuine OP (not a contrived or trollish OP) just wants some help. Many a times the inquiry for help is misplaced: (Geesh, I have a test tomorrow and I have no clue so...) or "Lets see if I can get an answer for exicornt, (he-he, I bet they have no clue what they're gettin' into!). Aside from the obvious crap, there are the more clever trolls (sometimes a cloaked regular) who are just trying to stir things up. Be that the case or not, we have no obligation to respond to a trollish question. The more we leave behind without response the fewer there will be in the future; the corollary of course is that the more responses to trolls then the inevitable internal friction that is produced will result in more of us being shat upon.

We're the team! Not the jerks who will always find clever devices to cause dissent. In an open and public forum such as the RD, hell as a teenager I'd try my damnedest to screw around "their (read yours and my) heads". I'll bet that if you and I were to jump out (as Douglas Hofstadter put it, "JOOTS") and come in surreptitiously, we could cleverly raise a lot of conflict around these parts now couldn't we. ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not include you in the 'drunk on power' bracket, no. You seem to be very sensible and fair! I was referring to the deletionist Admins of course. Its illuminating to note this social trait being exhibited on WP.; The masters and the slaves, The warders and the prisoners etc. Studies have been done that show that people in uncontrolled power situations start behaving corruptly and have a severe mind narrowing experience. 8-(--Light current 17:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to ask you to remove
Can you please remove this addition to the Reference desk/Science section? When a user asks a question implying they're contemplating a criminal act, it's either trolling or something far worse&mdash;in these cases, giving a factual answer to the question may be appropriate, but I think making a joke of it reflects poorly on the entire reference desk. -- SCZenz 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * did you not recognise the 'OK in a mask' troll?. THe posting is a joke.--Light current 02:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Feeding trolls isn't really a good idea... but the important point here is that neither the post being a joke nor your reply being a joke makes rape funny. Rape is as unfunny as it gets.  And consider that most of our readers can't recognize specific trolls, and will understand even less why you'd joke about it.  My request for removal of the content stands. -- SCZenz 02:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I really think you are reading too much into the OP post by inflating the thing to rape. A factual Q was asked. I replied to it factually quoting our page. I also replied to the OP indirectly asking if he was the Masked troll. You take things too seriously, seriously 8-)--Light current 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with you across the board here. Drugging someone to make them sexually compliant is rape, and jokes about rape can reasonably be expected to offend people.  They sure as hell offend me.  Telling us about how often you fart is small potatoes compared to this; this is an example of the sort of joke that really hurts the reference desk by making it a disturbing and unwelcoming place.  Please will you take it out? -- SCZenz 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk--Light current 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember where, but you have boasted about your number of edits somewhere. The implication being that your contributions to the encyclopedia are somehow indispensible. However, anyone that sees such an unfunny and divisive joke on the science ref desk, as your latest effort is, can only conclude that you are not only dispensible but the sooner the better. Why can't you control this urge? You're pretty well educated too? This reminds me of the white collar thugs that populate the football terraces. (insert instead of struck material: I have the same incredulity at reading your jokes on the ref desk, given your level of education and maturity, as I have when seeing the white collar thugs on the football terraces). This is not the place for such humour. David D. (Talk) 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Meaning?--Light current 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW I would ask you to withdraw this part: This reminds me of the white collar thugs that populate the football terraces. Calling me a thug is offensive and a personal attack. --Light current 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a thug. I am comparing the incredulity of white collar thugs on the football terraces to your jokes on the ref desk. They are of the same magnitude, given  your apparent level of education and maturity. David D. (Talk) 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You wont mind removing that sentence then?--Light current 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to reword it. (insert instead of struck material: I have the same incredulity at reading your jokes on the ref desk, given your level of education and maturity, as I have when seeing the white collar thugs on the football terraces). David D. (Talk) 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, look the word thug has particular connotations and original meaning:


 * 1) A member of the now-extinct Indian cult Thuggee. This is the origin of the word.
 * 2) A ruffian, a miscreant, a person who behaves in an aggressive manner towards others.

Presumably your usage is the second one. I dont agree that my comments are of a magnitude that disrupts the game as thugs would in a football match, no. In fact using your terminology I could equally well call you a thug. But Im too polite for that! Good day! 8-)--Light current 03:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But now you're splitting hairs. This isn't a game, LC.  You've got to temper your comments on the ref desk, and you've got to try to respond constructively when others point out that you've gone overboard. -- SCZenz 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK you and Ned is it think its OB. THat is your prerogative to think so. I dont happen to think so. I will be bound by the consensus now building on the Talk page. If I'm out of line with general opinion, Ill remove the remark. I cant say fairer than that GoodDay 9-)--Light current 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't have a group discussion every time you say something blatantly inappropriate, at least not forever. I hope you'll improve your judgement; if you can't, or won't, then the time allotted for discussion will eventually have to decrease. -- SCZenz 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about when other people say inappropriate things? For instance: Comparing my actions to those of a thug (to quote the most recent- thankfully private- comment). Then you let that offensive sock go on for ages denying he was cuasing any trouble. Sometimes SCZ, I severely doubt your judgement and your seemingly less than even handed approach. If I didnt know you better I might think you were picking on me and StuRat. But Im sure thats not the case!


 * Following the procedures requires patience. Patience, my friend, is a virtue! Patience is something not many Admins have much of. But I know you are different-- you have patience - treasure it!! I wish you a Happy New Year 8-)


 * But, when my patience is abused, it eventually goes away. And, by the way, I learned from my mistake with the abusive IP and I did ask David D not to make comments like the one in which he (sort of) compared you to a thug. -- SCZenz 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew you were an understanding sort of person deep down! 8-)--Light current 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete and utterly despicable duplicity SCZ. Put it back please to avoid rather large edit wars.--Light current 04:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I strive for consistency, but there are some things I do that you agree with and some you do not, so me being consistent will not always make you happy. Doing something you disagree with, right after saying something you agree with, hardly makes me "duplicitous"; rather, it gives you mixed feelings about me.  You just expressed concern about being compared to a thug... don't you think accusing me of "despicable duplicity" is uncivil also?  I'm not asking for an apology or a reversal or anything&mdash;just giving you food for thought.  -- SCZenz 05:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No what made the action duplicitous was, that whilst talking peace (or at least cease fire) on this page, you deleted the disputed contents from the RD page behind my back. I know I can never trust your words again, so please dont try to explain these actions. I wont be believing anything you say in the future. 8-((--Light current 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes I forgot. GOODBYE!--Light current 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking about being civil, and how everyone deserves it, and about how waiting for consensus is good when possible. Meanwhile, on another page, the question went out of control and I did what I thought was best.  I knew you'd see what I had done, and I took the time to explain my actions, so I don't see how I "went behind [your] back."  Please don't accuse me of breaking promises that I didn't actually make. -- SCZenz 06:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)