User talk:Light current/archive5

My record as at 18/08/06

 * Total edits	20725
 * Main:	10636
 * Talk:	6466
 * User:	304
 * User talk:	1591
 * Wikipedia:	800
 * Wikipedia talk:	873
 * Image:	47

Is this party over? Is it time to call it a day?

 * The party's over
 * It's time to call it a day
 * They've burst your pretty balloon
 * And taken the moon away
 * It's time to wind up .... the masquerade
 * Just make your mind up ... the piper must be paid''


 * The party's over
 * The candles flicker and dim
 * You danced and dreamed through the night
 * It seemed to be right just being with him


 * Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
 * Take off your makeup, the party's over
 * It's all over, my friend''

  
 * The party's over
 * It's time to call it a day


 * Now you must wake up, all dreams must end
 * Take off your makeup, the party's over
 * It's all over, my friend

Lyrics by Betty Comden and Adolph Green --Light current 02:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all over, my friend''


 * Is this party over? NO! I'd lift your block right now, this very second, regardless of what Drini thought (and then go explain it to Drini and make sure Drini was OK with it) if I sincerely believed that:
 * you understood what you had done was wrong, (haven't seen that yet, although I've seen some partial acknowledgements) and
 * you felt sincere remorse about it as evidenced by an apology to the right persons for the right things, (4 apologies that miss the mark are not as good as one that is spot on) and
 * you undertook not to cause similar problems in future. (that's the big worry that the other two items give evidence in support of)


 * Really,all we want from people when we block them is a reason to believe there won't be problems going forward. We don't block as a punishment, we block as a preventative measure and to reform behaviours that are anti community.
 * You're clearly a knowledgable contributor who can add valuable information to our project, if you will only do so within the community norms we all adhere to. But you may not be able to bring yourself to do that in order to get it lifted early, acknowledgeing things is never easy... So, it's your choice. In that case, wait the block out, and please do come back at the end of it. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am undecided ATM as what to do. Perhaps comments from other editors may help me make up my mind. After all, I am undeserving of the latest block of 1 months duration and have apologised a number of times for editing the page that caused it. I wish I had never seen that page. Im very sorry indeed that I edited it! It was certainly not another dig at User:pschemp. I apologise to everyone who thought it was. It was truly a bad mistake on my part.

It seems that Lar wants me to grovel and apologise yet again for a previous (unrelated) incident for which I have already paid the price. OK!

'''I have learned my lesson. I behaved in an unacceptable way. I am sorry I did those things. I apologise to anyone and everyone who has been offended, especially User:pschemp (please forgive 8-))''' Oh and BTW that hockey stick hurts-- did you know that?. I wont be entering into arguments like that again!

Do I deserve to have insult added to injury? --Light current 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

drini:Redux
I think I know what happened, I tried to unblock User:Light_current (since that's what the Lupin's popups link to): here's the link it gives and so I thought somebody had cleared it up. After all, I do preffer assume people having common sense, since I had already apologized, I thought it meant even you could unblock yourself. It's until now that somebody (Lar hehehe) pointed me on IRC what was going on -- Drini 23:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

And by that mean, it was me apologizing not you, I don't know if there was some other reasons or some other issues being discussed, I wasn't aware of them. I thought I had lifted the block, I apologized for what I admitted it was a mistake. I don't know why this has been going on for so long. -- Drini 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if it's still not quite clear: I'm profundly embarassed about all this, I'm sorry -- Drini 23:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats OK Drini. I thought it was a mistake. Anyway no offence taken. THanks!--Light current 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Light Current, I owe you an apology too. Drini and I clearly miscommunicated and I was just going by what I saw in the block log, I should have tried to get to the bottom of this harder. You've been very patient considering and I am also very sorry for this mixup and any stress caused you, and hope you'll forgive me. I still have things to learn too, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 01:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted! 8-)

I don't want you to grovel. I also don't want to add insult to injury. I still think you haven't apologised to pschemp satisfactorily, but so be it. You've now given me a lot better indication that you're not as likely to cause trouble going forward. So, although I have not been able to consense with Drini. I've reduced your block to end 3 hours from now. (or about 3 days total elapsed) Please do not act in a way that makes me regret doing that (I will be watching your contribs), and once your block expires ... happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much Lar!! I knew deep down you were a fair (but strict!) person all along! Best wishes and thanks once more!! Ill try to behave myself properly from now on! 8-)) I hope the mod to my previous post satisfies your requirement for an apology to User:pschemp--Light current 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Light current. Glad the misunderstandings are over and you are back among us - grab the opportunity in front to you and show 'em all what a model Wikipedian you can be ;)  Rockpock e  t  23:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I will! And thanks so much for yor support in all this!--Light current 23:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

shortwave transmitter
What's the cheapest method you can think of to build a shortwave transmitter?--205.188.116.74 22:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah thats easy. Its a one transistor self oscillating mixer/audio amp circuit connected to a whip (aerial). Look at radio

how to check qulaity of cyanoacrylate or super glue
i would like to know how do you check the quality of cyanoacrylate used as glue. i want to know the chemical tests possible and the common man's test, if any. what are the basic things to make sure that we get a good qulaity glue. i am looking for a super glue which sets in 1 to 2 seconds. thank you.


 * I just saw an ad on the TV that showed a man being stuck by his shoes upside down to the ceiling with only a couple of drops of super glue. Why dont you try that? 8-)

EMP
Supposing for a second that you wanted to generate an EM pulse, and were on a tight budget, how would you do it?--205.188.116.74 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would use a transmission line charged up to a highish voltage, and then discharge this into a matched aerial system with a high speed switch. This would give a pulse length dependent on the line length--Light current 01:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for silence
To all my associates, friends, enemies etc at WP> You may be wondering why you have not been hearing from me lately. This is beacuse I am currently on a one month (?) block accidentally imposed by Drini. (I think). Ive tried contacting him via this page but with no avail as yet. If any of you would like to see me back in action before the month is up, then you could ask User:Drini if he would be willing to unblock me. To be honest, if it takes a month, I think other things could take over my life and I may not have the time to spend on WP> So Id really like to know now how long Im blocked for.--Light current 22:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ball in Drinis court
Drini it seems the other admins are saying that sicve you were the one who put the latest block on me, you should be the one to unblock. Can you please say if you really do intend to keep me blocked, and if so for what resaon? If you decided you had made a mistake in blocking me, could you tell me when I will be unblocked? THanks!--Light current 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks & apology #1
Just a word of thanks to everyone who has tried to help me in these recent troubled times and of course apologies to anyone who has been inconveninced by this unfortunate affair. Im also sorry that so many admins have had to divert their efforts and waste their time to deal with this problem. --Light current 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay
I've had a look at things. Your behaviour has been disrespectful, particularly to Pschemp, but I don't believe it deserves a month's block. I've stated the same on ANI. Drini and Lar have been notified, and I am certain that they will act appropriately when they log on. -- Samir  धर्म 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

May I also add that when you are unblocked, Pschemp deserves an apology. Seriously. -- Samir  धर्म 05:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Samir!


 * LC, an apology now for that, (you were massively out of order and being a prat to her) and for being a bit of a badly behaved user in general strikes me as needful.


 * I've commented on the AN/I thread. LC, your characterization of Drini as having lifted and I having reimposed is flatly incorrect, you are reading the block log wrong. That said, since it's really Drini's block, I'm fine with whatever Drini decides although I'm not at all impressed with your tendentiousness through all this. Think carefully how you respond to this comment... it would be a shame to start more trouble and get blocked again. ++Lar: t/c 12:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology #2
I apologise to User:pschemp for editing the user page in question (the one created by someone else). It certainly was not my intention to be offensive that time - I was merely trying to ask why that user had chosen such an offensive name. Perhaps it should be made clearer somewhere that actions like that are considered undesirable, although I cant find anything in the policy that says so.--Light current 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation
In the previous case, pschemp and I had a small disagreement over my uncivil comments to another user which were prompted by what I saw as a very small minded attitude to the science desk comments. I 'saw red' and included a couple of offensive edit comments before I knew it was an admin warning me. I regret this action.8-( I saw this action by pschemp as overly harsh and complained about it on my talk page. Then I was completely blocked (inc protection of my user page) and served 3 days in the cooler 8-((.--Light current 14:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I take your word that I misunderstood the block log. What I couldn't understand is that Drini appeared to say that he had made a mistake in blocking me. I thought this meant he was going to reverse the block and indeed that is what seemed to happen for a short time.--Light current 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I cant find a definition of tendentiousness, so I cant comment on that.--Light current 14:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh just found one: tendentious (adj)

1.Characterized by a particular bias, tendency or underlying purpose.

I cant see how that particular word applies to me. I was purely trying to defend myself.--Light current 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Derivative: tendentiously (adverb)
 * Derivative: tendentiousness (noun)


 * Please do not intersperse yoru comments unless you have good reason and NEVER edit the comments of others to change words, even to highlight them, please. You need to get on board with the norms of discourse here. Your commenting behaviours make things very confusing for others who are used to those norms. Your talk page does not belong to you, it belongs to the community.


 * More importantly, you seem to be using the defense that you "didn't know pschemp was an admin" when you were being incivil to her, after she gave you a warning after you admittedly "saw red". Irrelevant. Sorry, you don't get to be a prat to anyone, whether they are an admin or not, in response to warnings. WP:CIVIL applies to everyone, everywhere. If you are incivil on your own talk page while blocked, the typical response is to protect that page as well. That it was blocked shows that pschemp adjuged you to be insufficiently civil. Reviewing your contributions then, I tend to agree.


 * You owe an explcit apology (and editing some random attack user page is not an apology no matter how you spin it) to pschemp for your repeated and unjustified incivility, and you owe an apology to everyone else for wasting our time monitoring your behaviour when we have other things to do.


 * Also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tendentious should help you out with definitions. I see you found it. as to how it applies, you've some time to think about it, I guess, but in my judgement, it does. I see no acknowledgement that you've actually erred in any way, and that's classic tendentiousness. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Other peoples posts
Never alter other peoples posts.

Ah but even some Admins do it, dont they? . - if they dont like whats been written.

BTW User:pschemp, thanks for rebolding that phrase of mine before you archive. I did mean it to be bolded. And I think Lar is strictly correct -no body likes their posts mangled. But its a good idea when using what maybe unfamiliar or rare words to link them so the recipient is in no doubt!--Light current 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear User:pschemp my post seems somehow to have got 'corrupted' again on its way to your archive. I wonder if you could fix that?--Light current 00:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll re-bold it when you reorganize your talk page and put new posts on the bottom. Until then, no. pschemp | talk 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have good reasons for organising my page in this way. You have no right to alter my posts. So I ask you politely to reinstate the bolding--Light current 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a good reason too. And you altered my posts by moving them around. But I didn't complain, unlike you. pschemp | talk 00:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for altering your posts. I was not aware of doing that. Show me--Light current 00:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who told you not to alter posts. Go whine to lar about that. pschemp | talk 00:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But is this policy or is it not TITQ?--Light current 00:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology #3
I did wrong I regret it. I served my sentence. OK? I dont know what you mean by calling me a prat. Maybe you want to think about that one!--Light current 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Pschemp deserves an apology. Seriously" - Samir. I agree. I haven't seen one yet that's specific. I see instead some vague "did wrong and regret it". Regretting isn't the same as actually being sorry, you know. Also, to be clear, I said you were acting like a prat, not that you were a prat, and I indeed thought carefully about my choice of words when I used it, and used the term deliberately and with full understanding of the meaning. You need to internalise that you need to change your behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology #4
OK I apologise to everyone for calling them ******s. What I should have said was that they were acting like ******s. I will be more careful of my choice of words in future! I also agree that if you mean acting like a prat means not using my brains, then I was acting like a prat (ie someone with no brains)--Light current 15:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still not an apology, way too snarky. We can't FORCE you to apologise sincerely and admit fault. But I tend to watch users who sincerely apologise a lot less closely than ones who persist in being snarky, tendentious, or contentious, or who persist in acting like prats. So as of now, when you come off block, you've made my "watch closely" list, because I see no sign that you've actually internalised that you acted inappropriately, or that you're actually sorry/remorseful that you caused upset to others... all you're saying, the way I read it, is that you're going to work harder not to get caught. OK then, I'm done here. ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Every Breath You Take by The Police. Very appropriate!

There are three (or is it four- Ive lost count) apologies on this page. Im not sure what snarky means so I will have to look it up. To repeat them would serve no purpose that I can see. THe way I wrote it means that Im going to start playing by the rules (just like all the admins do) --Light current 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Time
Tick follows tock follows tick. Why isnt somebody looking at this?
 * FYI I just posted an inquiry on AN/I in case the admins haven't seen your questions. Anchoress 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much Anchoress! And apologies for any harsh words I said previously to you--Light current 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can Drini explain his position please?
Drini, can you please tell me if you still intended to block me for 1 month after I explained my actons were a mistake and you apparently realised this and apologised?--Light current 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I had unblocked already. The unblock dialog gave me a error on unvalid id probably meaning you were already unblocked and so I only removed the remaining autoblock:

# 23:10, 15 August 2006 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked #228991 # 23:08, 15 August 2006 Drini (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Light current (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (attacks: User talk:Pschemp You Worthless Piece Of Shit) -- Drini 23:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

can you take a look at ...
... Talk:Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem and comment on this content dispute i am having with a fairly recent editor to the article. i think, from your earlier comments on the talk page, that i have nearly precisely the same concerns as you. r b-j 20:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I cant do much ATM as Im blocked! The only advice I would give you is : make sure the person you are arguing with is not an admin. If (s)he is, I would back off now to avoid yourself being blocked.--Light current 22:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh its User:Dicklyon youre arguing with! He's not such a bad guy really! When he realises what youre talking about, hell be OK!--Light current 00:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion between admins
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion here and misunderstanding between Drini and Lar. After I explained to Drini what happened on the talk page in question, he apparently unblocked me but, Lar thought I was still to be blocked and 'corrected' Drini's reversal of the block. Could Drini and Lar please liaise with each other to remove this inappropriate block? Thanks--Light current 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i left a note at User_talk:Lar on your behalf, LC. i hope he sees it. r b-j 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

THank you. I think s/he has--Light current 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Time for review
About 18 hrs have now passed since my erroneous blocking by User:Lar. I would ask any other administrators to review this case with a view to removing this mistaken block. I can answer any questions here.--Light current 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's review. You were blocked for 72 hours for various issues by pschemp. During that time you were quite abusive to her and others.

How could I be abusive to anyone during the 72 hours? I was completely blocked

If thats the case why did Drini apologise to me about his blocking me and admit he had misunderstood??--Light current 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC) ''== Sorry == I got mixed up, thought you created that on purpose. Please don't create such pages, even if you're curious. If you can, tag them for deletion. -- Drini 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)''' I did not get blocked by Drini for 'additional issues' as you put it. He thought I had created a page offenisve to pschemp. I had not. He realised this then unblocked me. You then thought he had made a mistake and reblocked me.
 * You then came off your block and within just a few hours got blocked by Drini for one month for additional issues. I looked at the block log and thought that Drini was trying to extend your block rather than imposing a new one, so I unblocked and reblocked. But in fact he Drini had blocked correctly (mechanically) so there was no need for my un/re... you already were under a one month from Drini. The log shows no evidence that he tried to lift it. So... some confusion there but not the way you think, because as far as I can tell both Drini and I think a month is about right at this point. No substantive misunderstanding or confusion evident.

Also there is no need to bring up past issues for which I have served my (3 day)sentence. You must judge on the present issues.


 * I further see that your unblock request has been reviewed. I also see a LOT of incivility and general nastiness on this talk page as well as evidence of your manipulating an attack userid. I see no reason to lift this block at this time. Hope that clears things up. I hope that after your block expires you'll return and that you'll contribute productively to the encyclopedia.

Could you point out the instances of 'incivility and general nastiness' on this page? I cant seem to locate them! I deny manipulating any ID. I was enquiring of that user why he was attacking pschemp by making up such an offensive username. If you look at the page history you will see that is the case.--Light current 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you now, I wont be waiting a month for this to be sorted! More like a few days!--Light current 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also that asking that folk put new discussion at the top is really quite unconventional and confusing... you may want to consider conforming to norms of how people organise talk pages to make things easier for everyone.

The layout of my user page has nothing to do with the present block on my editing whidch you mistakenly applied so lets not get side tracked by that one! --Light current 22:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

++Lar: t/c 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * it's LC's talk page. it's not an unreasonable request. when we go to your talk page, we'll abide by your requirements. r b-j 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always felt that if you want something from me, don't make it confusing for me to figure out what it is you want, or to determine whether it's a legitimate request or not. This user wants something from me, apparently and I find this page highly confusing. It is very rare for a talk page to be organized this way and I see no benefit whatever to it being organised that way either... so I suggest conformance to the norms. It's just a suggestion but I wasted a good five minutes looking through the history to determine what actually was said by whom and in what order instead of just being able to read the talk page in a normal manner.  Hope that helps explain the issue I have with the ordering. I find it interesting that you focus on this particular issue in your reply here, after turning up on my talk page asking me to do something. ++Lar: t/c 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Its actually the way I prefer it Lar. Its like a CPU register - filled from the top. THe latest additions are immediately visible when the page is accessed. I dont complain about your pages do I?--Light current 00:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Im innocent of the latest charges!
I did not create a personal atttack or create the user page in question oin purpose. It got created when I posted a message asking why the user had created an offensive user name that attacked another user. If you look at the page history you'll see that Im telling the truth. Could someone please look at this and sort it out? Please see post below!

'== Sorry == I got mixed up, thought you created that on purpose. Please don't create such pages, even if you're curious. If you can, tag them for deletion. -- Drini 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)'

--Light current 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hello, Light current. If you'll excuse me for imposing, i have been following your extended exchange with pschemp. I have sympathy for your situation, because this all resulted from another editor being uncivil to you. They never received a block but your less-than-polite response, and continued protests, did. However unfair it seems, that is why in the face of incivility it is best to be extra polite in response. This gives you the moral highground; trading insults than claiming you only did so in response does not.

If you felt the original uncivil comment was offensive, you could have left a warning for that user yourself, or contacted an admin and asked them to intervene on your behalf. What you shouldn't have, but did do, is respond in like. The problem is that, when you are repeatedly uncivil to an admin, it is perfectly within their juristiction to block you, as pschemp did. I have no affiliation with her, nor am i an admin, but an an independent observer i would strongly encourage you to let this one go and get back to the good work you do in editing. Best.  Rockpock e  t  00:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you. And what a nice way you have of putting things! I will respond further later.

Still blocked from editing
I appear still to be blocked from editing,. I dont know why this is. So can some admin please try to sort this out. im not in violation of any rules as far as I know!--Light current 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Latest block by Drini
Could you tell me why you have blocked me for editing the talk page of a user with an offensive username? Thanks--Light current 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I got mixed up, thought you created that on purpose. Please don't create such pages, even if you're curious. If you can, tag them for deletion. -- Drini 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Drini if you are sorry, can you please unblock me? Other admins still think you intended a full 1 month block for my mistake in editing a user talk page so they wont unblock me.--Light current 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million!
Thanks for answering my question in the reference desk!

Himanyo 18:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know what it was - but you are welcome!

OKAAAAAAY
Just testing

Unjustified hypocritical blocking
Dont you think you are being a little harsh here ADMIN esp since the remark was removed after a few seconds?--Light current 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Policy is not to remove warnings. You couldn't control your temper, now you get time out. pschemp | talk 05:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My talk page is under my control. Read the policy--Light current 05:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's lovely. For your wonderful unjustified personal attack on me (calling me a hypocrite), your block has now been lengthened.pschemp | talk 06:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually pschemp I feel you are lacking in control yourself in blocking me for such a minor thing. You must be a new admin with no experience! ahh well --- enjoy it while you can--Light current 06:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a lovely implied threat too. pschemp | talk 06:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Good god the power you have must be ORGASMIC!!!


 * No but calling me a wanker doesn't help your case. Block extended. Also, since you can't control your civility, I've protected your page for the duration of the block since you are using it for repeat personal attacks. pschemp | talk 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments lately
Especially on the Science reference desk are bordering on being uncivil. Please read WP:CIVIL and consider this a warning about your behaviour. pschemp | talk 05:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not remove warnings. Also, since you told me to "get stuffed" after being warned, you are now blocked for 24 hours. Please use this time to cool down and think about your actions. pschemp | talk 05:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know it was a warning from an ADMIN and not just any old user being agressive?--Light current 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Warnings count equally no matter what the status of the person. pschemp | talk 19:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I could warn you about inappropriate actions then. That answer is totally unacceptable and fatally flawed. I think you acted unfairly and snaekily masquerading as an ordinary user and thaen hit me with the blocking stick without giving me a chance. Is that your idea of adminship?--Light current 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I was not warned properly that you were an ADMIN inteding to block me, the first blocking should have been illegal. If the first blocking had not happened, neither would the other two. It therefore seems to me you are using an inappropriaite aggressive escalatory style in dealing with small problems that has the unfortunate effect of rubbing people up the wrong way (BTW this is an obsevation not an attack). I would ask you to think about that!
 * If you click my username it is very clear I am an admin. But, warnings are the same, no matter who makes them. Your reaction was inapproriate. Your reaction is what got you blocked. You can keep ranting here, but again, it doesn't change your actions. pschemp | talk 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should I click every user who sends messages to me? Do you?--Light current 23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Guitar dist
moved to talk:distortion

Comments on the Science ref desk
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Thank you.  Rockpock e  t  05:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What is a personal attack?
 * Read about personal attacks here  Rockpock e  t  18:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe you would make a good Admin. If you need support please ask me--Light current 00:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)