User talk:Light current/archive7

Miscelaneous Section

I have removed a discussion on the reference desk. My edit summary adequately summarizes my logic. Please do not continue. JoshuaZ 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I separated it from the serious discussion on the end of WP--Light current 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Again

Hey, haven't talked talked to you in a while! How's it going? Temp 01:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been quite tough lately. look at Wikipedia talk: Reference desk --Light current 01:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, that sucks. I don't think there's anything wrong with joking around and all of that. Whoever started the whole argument should just leave Wikipedia to te way it was, it was doing fine. And, of course, all of this happens right when I decide to start working on the misc. desk. Anyway don't lose your sense of humor, it'd be horrible to see you become a zombie like the rest of them. :) Temp 16:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hello Katie

Hi there - to answer your first question, yes I am. An anonymity problem made me decide to change. As to the second question, after the crash we had in September I asked MedCab to reassign your mediation, and I guess they haven't done that. I know they have a backlog for new cases. If you guys still think you need mediation, Kylu is the coordinator, or was in September.

My husband is still in PT and has another 10 days to go, so I'm not spending as much time here as I used to. When I do get back on a more regular basis, I'm going to concentrate on writing for a while. Be nice and try not to kill each other. ;-) KrakatoaKatie 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im so sorry to hear that your family is still suffering from effects of the accident. #

THe page is still mainly as it was apart from a few edits by others. Both User:Cedars and I have been very restrained actually and in fact no provocative edits have taken place as far as Im aware. However, I think I will try to chase up MedCab to continue the process because I found it to be so helpful and painless! Thanks for your previous efforts and I hope you All get well soon.--Light current 23:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick bass

I think this should redirect to EUB, as it has always in the past. Do you agree? -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ye s I thikn so. I dont know of a stick thats not an EUB--Light current 21:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to a redirect, but it has just been changed back to a disambig. Feel free to weigh in on the talk page. -- ßott e siηi ^(talk) 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will but Im a bit busy right now with some trouble on the ref desks.--Light current 21:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment at RD/science

I gather a number of folks have asked you not to make such comments. I'm asking as well. Please cut it out. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you have as many edits as I have, esp on Rd, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, I advise you to keep your counsel. 8-)--Light current 03:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your serious answers at the RD/* pages. However, repeating something I said at one of the talk pages where this has come up - people at the RD and HD and VP/* are generally not looking for humor. If you feel compelled to add humorous comments please go elsewhere, like perhaps Uncyclopedia. And, FYI, I've been a regular responder at HD and VP/T longer than you've been a contributor here. Among a large number of other things, I look for lost folks and try to help them figure out WTF goes on around here (see, for example, this exchange at a new user's talk page). One of the main reasons I spend time at HD and VP/T is because in the past these pages have devolved into snarky, in-joke, newbie-biting disasters. Some, but certainly by no means all, of your comments at the RDs are in this same vein and lead to a perception of hostility among new users. I advise you to keep up the constructive comments and stop the other ones. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. When you have as many edits as I and as much experince on RD you can come and tell me off. Until then I would appreciate your silence. thanks. Oh BTW if you are an Admin who is going to block me, please come out of your hidey hole now so we all know whats going on from the start! Thanks.--Light current 03:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm an admin. No, I'm not going to block you. I help people (really, no kidding). I'm trying to help you (really, no kidding). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THanks for comimg clean! However I do object to you deleting my valid posts. How d'ya like it if I deleted yours?--Light current 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The jokes are getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

Like I say, I won't block you. But, I strongly suggest you cut it out. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Im offending you! I havent seen that warning before is it your own design? Also why dont you warn the other perpetrators?

It's a standard warning template, ~~template:seriously~~ template:Funnybut. I'll get to the others if they're as persistent as you. And, no, you haven't offended me. I'm unoffendable (and, no, that's not a challenge). Rolling back a bit, I really do try to help people. I really am trying to help you. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe you could help the other RD editors as well 8-)--Light current 04:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for deleting the comment. I suspect it doesn't feel like it, but I don't mean to be picking on you. You're clearly a smart guy. I do appreciate your serious responses, and occasional witticisms. On the other hand, you must not violate WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL. Especially on RD (or HD or VP) since these are among the most public faces of wikipedia. Call me the incarnation of goatse on my talk page, I don't care. But do not make fun of new users. This is serious, you could be blocked (and, yet again, I'm not threatening to block you and I assure you that I will not). So, are we OK, or am I just pissing you off? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont recall being incivil on RD. I always assume good faith except in apparently obvious cases, What is HD or VP? I do not generally make fun of new users unless they are plainly trawling. My previous edits testify to that. I am however disturbed at the implicit threat of censorship on RD which could have far reaching effects. And finally, why dont you have a go at those whose answers are mostly jokes rather than victimising me?--Light current 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD is WP:HD, VP is WP:VP. Commenting that a poster may not deserve an answer because they can't spell is a WP:CIVIL violation (and, ironically, you mean "trolling" not "trawling"). No one has said anything about censoring RD. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK HD and VP are not applicable in my case. So its the one question about a questioner not being able to spell that you are complaining about. Ok I admit a mistake. ONE mistake. Am I to be hanged for one lousy mistake in over 1000 edits?--Light current 04:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed my question about the questioners spelling as a gesture of good faith.--Light current 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick you have stirred up a hornets nest by posting that warning above. I ask you to remove it.--Light current 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've replaced it with a less severe one. And, no it's not just the one question about the questioner not being able to spell. It's about creating a hostile environment, particularly for new users. You can't know with certainty whether someone asking a question is trolling or not. Someone asking a question any 10-year old would know might be a 7-year old. Someone who can't spell might be a non-native English speaker (how's your French? or Japanese?). It's all about WP:AGF. I suspect you know the difference between your helpful responses (of which there've been plenty) and your not-so-helpful ones. Keep doing the helpful ones. Stop the unhelpful ones. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point about being careful NOT to summarily delete peoples' questions. THats why I suggested a consensus before doing it. Also, my ratio of serious answers to jokey ones exceeds anyone elses on the RDs. There are plenty of answers I think are stupid, but I dont take it upon my self to delete them or even to call for their deletion. Its all matter of POV isnt it?. Live and let live.--Light current 21:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "my ratio of serious answers to jokey ones exceeds anyone elses on the RDs" is clearly false. There are many users on RD that have contributed only 100% serious answers. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK There are some boring assholes who have only responded once.(seriouisly)--Light current 03:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing in my two pence here, in the hope that it will get through to Light current. I agree entirely with Rick that some of your jokey responses have been unhelpful and show a lack of sensitivity on your part. Some humour is fine, but when others start to say that you are going too far, that is generally the time to tone it down a bit, rather than trying (and failing) to defend your actions. Sometimes saying sorry is the best form of attack. :-) Carcharoth 12:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? There I ve said it again. I have down turned down the treble as low as it will go. I think you may have missed some of the latest discussions and the general improvment in seriousness on RDs

--Light current 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! :-) That was good of you. I'll drop by the RD sometime. It's an interesting place to hang out. Carcharoth 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an article

Hello. There's an article, Ben Chatham, that probably need deleting, but for flesh-world reasons I can't be seen to have initiated that process. Could you help? Thanks. Skittle 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, some else has now. Thanks for your time anyway. Skittle 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shock wave

Got an example of shock waves in a vacuum? I noticed your edits to the article have changed it to account for them, but you have not added any examples (and I don't know of any). I think if you can't come up with any examples, then you need to revert your edits. Regards AKAF 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No cos they dont exist. THats what the new edit implies. 8-)--Light current 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response

Hi, Light current. I am Meno25. Thank you for your response on my question here.

--84.36.143.135 17:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! 8-)--Light current 22:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my question?

Yes, I know it seems inappropriate, but Wikipedia isn't censored for minors. Please repost. Posted in wrong spot, sorry. Now, please repost. 71.250.22.208 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk is not for answering stupid hypothetical questions. If you want to be taken seriously, frame your questions appropriately and sign and date your comments. Otherwise, the are likely to be deleted 8-)--Light current 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Didn't realize I forgot to sign it. Also, congrats; your the first person to ever respon to a "Why did you delete that?" post....a lot of jerks who don't answer you. Thanks. Also, can you answer my question? 71.250.22.208 01:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above--Light current 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer it? I'm trying very hard not to explode here. Thanks. 71.250.22.208 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See trolling--Light current 01:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not nice Light Current. I'm not a troll, I'm trying to get a question answered without getting mad. Please answer it, say I don't know, or direct me to an article that will answer the question. 71.250.22.208 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm NOT trying to be a troll. Geez, it really sucks when you tell the flippin' truth and noone believes you.71.250.22.208 01:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious, rephrase and repost your question on the Misc desk. We get a lot of trolling here on RD --Light current 01:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll try my best to rephrase it, but post it here first to see if it lives up to the standards. 71.250.22.208 01:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment in high school

Now, sexual harassment is a crime in all of the US. But, my question is how serious is this offense at the given age? A high school male student groping, if you will, a female peer's breasts. Just curious, no implications here. 71.250.22.208 01:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^How was that?

I've taken the liberty of adding a hdg. This is ok now. Please post on Misc Desk. Thanks!--Light current 01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Posted. Hopefully it doesn't get deleted again. 71.250.22.208 01:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it wont. Ive even given a reply 8-)--Light current 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Transistor Biasing

Had a question,if you could help out - transistor biasing, using base bias, emitter bias,voltage divider bias,etc Should they be put on seperate pages or all together on one large page? Also, CC CE CB bias, should these three and the above biasing circuits be referenced together on one page? I've seen you're name everywhere on all the pages I saw related to EE, so thought I'd ask you. Just put up this- Biasing (electronics). Please have a look and tell me what you'd suggest. Xcentaur 12:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think initially they should all be put on one page. Also you could include the special methods for biasing of RF transistors. Just thought: biasing of diodes for use as detectors could also be on this page. What else needs biasing? Magnetic record heads? 8-)--Light current 13:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Substation buswork

Hi, I was looking over some Science Ref desk Q&A from a few days ago, saw your comment on electrical fields from substations,and added another. Are we talking about different things? I mean the HV buses, 138kv or whatever, that are 20 feet high or so above the circuit breakers in outdoor substation. There is nothing around them but fresh air and sunshine on a good day. On a bad day dirty icicles extend down from the support structures, or rubbish blows onto them, or lightning hits them and they short to ground. My reply follows, from Ref Desk: "I have spent many years working in substations near (but not too near)open air high voltage buswork which was not surrounded by grounded metal as you claim it all is.See the image, from Electrical substation. the conductors are up in the air, widely separated. Many substations, those without gas insulated buswork and switchgear, have high voltage buswork at 69kv, 138kv, 345kv or 765 kv which is tubular aluminum or which is stranded cable and which is in the air above the high voltage circuit breakers and disconnects. It is insulated from the metal or wooden support structure by porcelein insulators, but is otherwise air insulated. Because the conductors are necessarily many feet apart to prevent flashover, the electromagnetic fields do not cancel with respect to some point near the substation fence. Therefore there willl be an electromagnetic field. Overhead transmission lines and many distribution lines are also not surrounded by grounded metal.Edison 04:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)" Regards. Edison 04:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course open air subs have this problem and GIS is needed to solve it. I was talking lower voltage 11kV (maybe 33 kV) subs with all metal clad switchgear where of course the em fileds are minimal. In UK not many people are situated close to these open air switch yards.8-)

My RfA

You had mentioned some interest in my RfA. If you want to ~~take revenge on me~~ comment on my RfA, now's the time!

Atlant 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'll be glad to support. Us oldies have to stick together. But do you know what you are letting yourself in for? 8-)--Light current 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed your opportunity -- thanks!

Do I know what I'm letting myself in for? Well, not specifically in the Wiki context, although I have read most of the Wiki admin training materials. But I have been a moderator (aka sysop, admin, what-have-you) in a number of electronic discussion groups spanning back more than 20 years, so I sort of generally know the good and the bad of what can happen. Luckliy, I burnt out most of my "internet rage" years and years ago which is why I sound like such a nice guy these days ;-).

And thanks again!

Atlant 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations for Relativistic electromagnetism

I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#I'm taking image requests and decides to draw some illustrations for Relativistic electromagnetism. I hope I managed to reproduce all the relevant features correctly, but just to make sure I'd like you to take a look at the images before putting them in the article:

fig. 1
fig. 2a
fig. 2b
fig. 3
fig. 4
fig. 5
fig. 6

If you have any corrections or suggestions for improvement, please let me know. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fig1: ~~Direction of 'E' arrows needs reversing please. Hang on - let me check that!~~ No its OK arrow point from + to - as you have shown 8-) Also text needed saying Gaussian pill box at rest over dotted box.--Light current 02:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be included in the caption? I generally try to avoid having text in images, so that they can be used on other Wikipedias besides the English one. Still, if it's really needed then it's not hard to add. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think it could. It will be obvious what it refers to and may be neater. OK 8-)--Light current 08:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fig 2a and 2b are OK!--Light current 02:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move my contributions

You moved my post without moving the replies, making it quite unreadable. If you want to move your post, and change the indentation so mine doesn't look like a reply to yours, that's fine. I didn't want to put my comment after yours because it looks like a reply to you (unless I indent your comments further, and that falls into the category of changing another user's posts, which is very bad, in my opinion). If you find some Wikipedia policy saying it's wrong for me to insert a post, please let me know. StuRat 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution usurped mine making my replies seem illogical and irrelevant. The whole problem of talk page protocol does need addressing IMO. The present convention is to indent one more than the person to whom you are replying I believe. But I do believe queue jumping is indefensible! I dont want to fall out with you over this but I believe logical structure on the talk pages is most important.8-)--Light current 01:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you place your comment after someone else's, and indent one further, this means you are replying to them, not the original post. You seem to be the only person on the whole Ref Desk who objects to having a reply placed in front of theirs, and this is why there's no policy against it. I just don't understand your behavior on this, you otherwise seem to be a decent guy. Also, this is not queue jumping, as that means I would get somewhere before you, and cause it to take longer for you to get there. StuRat 08:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also just because something is allowed, it doesnt mean its a good idea! WP:Beans--Light current 01:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent example of someone doing as you suggested, placing their comment for the original poster (you, in this case) after another responder, indented. As you can see, it caused a misunderstanding:

OK Ive just been told by a doctor that my heart palpitations (missing beats) are nothing to worry about. But i am worried. How many people get heart palpitations and whats the typical ratio of missed beats?--Light current 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you should see a doctor, have an EKG, and probably undergo a Holter monitor. They may have you undergo an echocardiogram to make sure that you have a structurally normal heart. And then, depending on the results, they'll be able to tell you if everything truly is okay because obviously some sources of palpitations can be deadly. As far as arrhythmias go, I've been in and out of ventricular bigeminy for the last 48 hours. Maybe an increased risk for sudden cardiac death, but even with such a high number of premature ventricular beats the data is not clear that there is any increased risk for mortality. InvictaHOG 04:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How much coffee do you drink? JackofOz 06:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't drink any coffee or have exposures to any stimulants. Haven't had caffeine in years. InvictaHOG 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My question was actually directed at Light current. JackofOz 08:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well according to present convention, JackOfOz should Have indented once only. Then it would have been obvious he was addressing me! The way he indented made it look as if he was questioning InvictaHOG.

THere is absolutely no need to usurp others posts. It makes the whole page almost impossible to read logically and chronologically--Light current 00:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

I didn't remove your message. Go away. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Black is black not white

Hi (SALAM),

I saw your debates in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/truth. I agree with you. I have similiar problem with WT:V policy and I wrote it in my tlak page in Pesian wikipedia. It's against my religious thought and I think it's a defect in wikipedia. But because this site works as a system, only in special circumstances it takes place. For example:Reling on fault sources. When there are too many wrong information and few sources which right the truth, it may happen. In this circumstances no wikipedian doubt about the content and if somebody doubt, he can't find good and reliable source. Imagine we were in 15 century I we want to write "Earth movement around the sun." How could we do it? I think this site is a good example of a system which works on the basis of "Science in a Free Society " , Paul Feyerabend.--Sa.vakilian 13:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I've just fixed some of the redlinks to link to the appropriate Wiktionary page (such as Stubborn and Tactless). Feel free to revert it. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

. Ill buy you a drink next time I see you in town! (Hang on I dont know what you look like!)--Light current 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk - deleting text

I went through my edits during the past few days and couldn't find this. Occasionally, I have messed up the title of the section (because for some reason hitting the double brackets on this computer sometimes produces an edit at the top of the edit box, which I don't always notice the first time around). And I have, on occasion, overseen that other entries had been made in the mean time, and misplaced my edit, thus upsetting the chronological order. I immediately corrected both types of mis-editing as soon as I noticed them. Could you point out specific incidents showing text deletion? This is, of course, the opposite of what I want, and, except for one e-mail address, I have never intentionally removed text from the reference desk. Thank you for pointing this out though, I will certainly be as careful as possible in the future.---Sluzzelin 11:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD modification

If you haven't been reading the RD talk page, I would appreciate some input on a proposed re-arrangement of the reference desks. I have set up a demo here, and I am coming close to finishing the base code for the entire RD suite. It should be noted that there is no plan to use these pages without the aid of an archiving bot, and by that I mean to imply that they are being to be used with a bit that will be made for them. Once a few more things have been set in stone, I will re-issue the bot request. Thanks. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 12:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll have a look 8-)--Light current 14:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy (emotion)

Thanks for structuring the article Ecstasy (emotion). Welcome again. Hele 7 16:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! 8-)--Light current 20:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

I noticed you reverted my changes to electrical engineering again. Despite still not having explained what problems you have with my changes. I know you are new to Wikipedia, but I would like to remind you that you do not own the article and do not have the right to "veto" any edits to an article.

Please do not do this again without first explaining what problems you have with my changes. I have restored my changes to the article, so you don't have to worry about doing that.

Cedars 00:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be restored to its original version pending mediation out come.

Also please post messages the the top of the page as it says . Thanks

Your edit to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 02:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical engineering

Hi Light current,

You appear to have reverted my changes to the electrical engineering article again.

To help increase your awareness of how the project works and some relevant principles in this situation, I would invite you to read WP:BOLD and WP:OWN pages.

I have already invited you to talk about the problems you have with any of my changes here and you have refused to do so.

In my changes I have left in some things such as the extra lead picture and italic text simply in the hope that there would not be any further disputes between me and you.

Cedars 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you seem to have it the wrong way round. YOU want to make major changes. I think it should stay. You must convince me that your changes are beneficial to the page. Why do you want to change it now, after we had reached consensus on the FA version. I just doesnt make any sense to me unless you are trying to be inflammatory. 8-|

I have responded to this on Talk:Electrical engineering, please let us try to resolve this dispute civilly. Cedars 00:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will. But that doesnt mean Im going to let you have all your own way without proper discussion.--Light current 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Erased to protect the innocent!

Guess what? Right as I was starting to actually do better, we got new assigned seats. Figures. Still trying though (and doing better). Homecoming in a week, too.

Reverting changes?

Hi Light current,

Would you please explain why you reverted my changes to electrical engineering?

Cedars 10:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega changes to agreed concensus on featured article page after all this time. Why?--Light current 10:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]