User talk:SCZenz/Archive9

Nil desperandum

You are appreciated. Please do not give up the fight. Clio the Muse 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back and thanks for your message. I've read over your proposals and it all looks good to me. Unfortunately, there are some users who manage to combine immaturity with a mighty high opinion of themselves, which, I think, is where the chief problem lies. I wish I could mention names here, but I realize that would not be politic. I feel sure, though, you could make a good guess at whom I have in mind. It amuses me when people threaten to retire, in the style of Achilles, into their tents. I personally would be happy for them to sail all the way back to Greece! The reference desk demands three simple things: knowledge of the subject, good sense and good faith. As long as some people keep a grasp of this it will continue to work in a reasonable and efficient fashion. My very best wishes. Clio the Muse 02:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders

Cool. I have no problem helping out with reminders when I see the need. Just be aware that I do not read all the questions/posts - just the ones I take an interest in so I may miss very blatant excesses. --Justanother 04:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

As an illustration of another way to approach things, see User talk:DirkvdM#Please remove Ref Desk Comment. DirkvdM 10:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Handball redirects

I think that those redirections gives to the users a false idea that the article exists.. if the red link is shown someone will like to write the article, but if it is blue the guy will think it already exists. But ok, it is just my opinion.. why have 20 pages redirecting to 1? if there is nothing there..just show it in red —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calapez (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC). [reply]

"Strict Ref Desk"

SCZ, I have a proposal out for a new test "Strict Ref Desk", where your efforts will actually be appreciated, unlike at the current Ref Desk, where your efforts are seen as disruptive. Would you be willing to patrol the Strict Ref Desk, instead ? StuRat 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the fork Stu! Your desk, you patrol it. --hydnjo talk 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "my Desk", it's a test desk for everyone to try out all their new suggestions. StuRat 07:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this 'strict desk' for the meretricious nonsense it so clearly is. Do not be diverted! Clio the Muse 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, believe me, I am ignoring it, and I'm not diverted. -- SCZenz 01:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem strange that a genuine attempt to address criicisms of the RDs has been ridiculed or ignored. (Just like my attempt a some guidelines for the existing RDs.) Why is that?--Light current 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These points are addressed in my comments at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Where we stand. -- SCZenz 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't, you just say "it's a joke" and say nothing more about it. StuRat 13:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "strict reference desk" is a joke, an effort to create a false dichotomy and to shove concern about the status quo into into a box. The idea is, rightly, being ignored by almost everyone. -- SCZenz 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those hardly count as "comments", they are just insults. Real comments would list what the advantages and disadvantages would be of performing the tests, followed by your conclusion. You've obviously not given any actual thought to the matter, but just rejected it out of hand. That would be like me looking over your proposed rules and just saying "those are stupid" without addressing each one. StuRat 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCZ Please answer the question properly. Why is it wrong for an alternative desk to be set up to answer your criticisms and to test out your opinions?--Light current 21:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal amounts to enshrining violations of Wikipedia policy as the "real" reference desk, by marginalizing those with objections to the status quo. There's nothing to test. You're trying to create a page to get me off your back, not because you want that page to exist. What possible other comments can I make? -- SCZenz 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are wrong 8-(--Light current 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate Disruption?

Hi, SCZenz. I should know my way around Wikipedia protocol by now, but as a relative newcomer I still find some things puzzling. I have one major question: when is a troll not a troll? What I mean by this is can a seemingly 'legitimate' contribution be regarded as trolling? Do people have the 'right' to be offensive; and, if not, when can action be taken against them for causing offense? For obvious reasons I cannot name names; but there is one user in particular who, I feel, sets out to be both offensive and disruptive, while still falling short of outright sabotage. I am sorry if this sounds tortured; but euphemism around here seems, on occasion, to be the only proper mode of discourse. The assumption of 'good faith' is, sad to say, quickly exhausted. Clio the Muse 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll give it some thought. Clio the Muse 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sniff sniff! Do I smell my ears burning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Light current (talk • contribs) 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

RE:Repost speedies

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I tagged it as a repost because of the previous AFD (which seemed to indicate that there was content there, and not just a redirect). Guess not, heh. Gzkn 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. Gzkn 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

I'm very reluctant to answer your question, because I'm ready to pack up and leave for a long while from that page. If you read in between the lines of some of my posts, there's quite a few good nuggets there. My hands are very tied up now. The Wiki does not work if people stop listening and argue on ideals and principles. Few compromises have been made to date - nor has anyone given ground to let this happen. These opportunites have been silenced long ago and the rhetoric has become very political. An exceptional amount of passive aggressiveness has built up, and there is no more I can do to diffuse it. It does look as if things are improving though, so I'll reserve the position that this opinion is of the ephemeral sort.

One thing I did not count on, were the unfortunate few incidences which were escalated to the AN - I have been surprised by this twice now. When this happens, it invites a diversity of opinion which dilutes the core issues - if you read carefully, some contributors are not there for improving the reference desk - they are there in the name of principles, while forgetting that none of this works if the other party is not being actively engaged. Definitive judgement and characterization is not what many are here for.

I do not like to point fingers, but I will say that a number of things could have and should have been done better, and unfortunately, I am guilty of not doing either soon enough. The reason is that the problem that is perceived now is fundamentally different from what it was before when it surfaced. I regret not jumping in to say there was something not quite right when that happened. I saw it coming even before it happened, but I failed to act. This new problem is simply not for the reference desk talk page to fix on its own. I am also very disappointed at that sockpuppet incident. There is nothing that eats more at a Wikipedian soul, than an incident which tests and illustrates the administrative abilities, sensitivities, and limitations of Wikipedia. This view about administrators against non-administrators which surfaced a little is exceptionally negative - even if it were vacuous. It does not serve to lend confidence to the institutions that have served this project since Day 1.

There's still a trump card left, but I do not want to play it because it will stir the pot quite rigorously, it is unfair, and privately it is not a solution that is for the benefit of this project in the short term, hence I've kept it to myself. The Wikipedians that want codification do not really want that - what they are after is a sense of security and a sense of respect, and to date, they have received very little of it. On the other hand, this has not been said explicitly, because its entangled with other issues. Identifying and isolating these would help quite a bit, because nobody creates rules to become subordinate to. The solution needs to empower both sides - now it should be obvious why this is cryptic, because it would not do this project any good if it were given away. Work simply has to be done, but unfortunately, this is one Wikipedian that is spent and needs a rest. I'm confident though, that in about a month or so someone will pick up the torch. All the best, --HappyCamper 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Personal Attack

Hi again, SCZenz. Could you please read over, assuming you have not already done so, my recent addition to the RD discussion page under the heading 'My remarks etc'. I would ask for some admin. intervention in this pathetic business. If, because of our past contacts, you may not feel it proper for you to deal with the matter in person, I would ask you to pass it on. I do, however, ask for some urgent action. I am under attack for no good reason, and in a highly offensive fashion. Thanks. Clio the Muse 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SCZenz. I left a brief response to your note on my talk page. The problem will not arise in future, for the simple reason that I will never again enter into any form of discussion with him. Clio the Muse 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I've posted a final statement from me on this matter on the RD talk page under the relevant section. You do a good job, and I at least thank you for it. Clio the Muse 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thing are getting needlessly personal, I think

Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat#Evidence_of_continuing_disputed_behavior_since_the_start_of_this_RFC if you want. Since you've been dealing with this situation previously and just replied on the relevant thread, I thought I'd let you know. Friday (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there's anything I can add to that page that would be constructive at this time. Everyone can guess what my opinions are, but I think arguing about behavior on that page will just make arguments about issues worse. -- SCZenz 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorta afraid of that, yeah. Thanks for the response. I'll be very conservative on that page and make sure I don't participate in debate there. Friday (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABD Insurance & Financial Services

Be sure to go vote keep on this so that everybody else can see how I'm deleting things in bad faith. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to show you what a Recent pages patroller puts up with. I am trying to show you what would happen if I have to list everything I delete to AfD. Everything would bog down. You have said that I can't be trusted to use my judgement. So I have to list everything that I would normally have deleted on AfD. If you are not going to take responsibility for your actions and go vote "Keep" on all of those AfD nominations, then let me do my job and get off my back. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I am trying to show you that there are hundreds of things which get deleted daily because they fail WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, etc., which are speedied. Just check the deletion logs. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been anybody else than badlydrawnjeff, I would have just let it go, but he is making it his personal goal to stalk me and question every action I take. He and his ED friends have gotten MONGO desysopped, now it looks like my turn. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good now... like a completely different article, in fact. ;-) I've changed my !vote appropriately. Thanks for your hard work on that! -- SCZenz 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

db

I've followed your suggestion regarding Template:regular so please go ahead and do the honors. :-) --hydnjo talk 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I think that I made my "point". BTW, I noticed that the vfd notice at Template:strict had a font size (xx small) that made it nearly invisible so I enlarged it. Please take a look to see the before and after. Your original notice was properly sized so I don't know what happened. --hydnjo talk 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SNO+

Hi SCZenz. Love your work! Would you mind checking out the SNO+ stub sometime and seeing if there are any changes you'd make?

Thanks! --Zegoma beach 18:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RD Guidelines

If you read your version carefully, you will see the the para is ambiguous. I was trying to remove that ambiguity.--Light current 02:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its not ambiguous, just hard to read. Needs simplifying by splitting into two sentences.--Light current 02:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Didn't realize I was addressing you ...

But since you have taken it on yourself to stalk me, I am basing my comments on Wikipedia:Discussion, where it says, in bold, Do not edit other users' comments. . User:Zoe|(talk) 02:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the specific rules for the RD are still under discussion, then removal of other people's comments is vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing another person's comments from a discussion page without a valid cause is vandalism. These removals were not valid. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Ten would rather get into an edit war than discuss it first. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The Mask

I dont want to get into a personal argument about this at this time of merriment and goodwill and all that. So Im going to ask you to refer this one to the Talk page for comments. Thanks--Light current 02:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our comments crossed each other. I'll take this one to the talk page for comments, as you suggest, although I'm going to consider removing it first. -- SCZenz 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that would be wise 8-(--Light current 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus on Talk RD is that it is unacceptable, I will remove the comment.--Light current 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current, I think it would be wise for you to change your approach. You've been approached quite nicely and yet you stand behind your off-topic, offensive edit? You are not acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia when you do this. Ned Wilbury 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let others decide; I stand back.--Light current 02:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

I took your comments on board - thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've been in discussions where people have assumed that I am an admin and will either protect or block them. Unless a block is really egregious or is enacted by a participant (which is against Wiki rules anyway AFAIK), I see no point in opposing it as it's a difficult balance to come to and 90% of the time it usually proves to be the correct choice (the other 10% are a case of genius-in-hindsight, which is unavoidable when dealing with people that one knows only by their actions in a particular space). Orderinchaos78 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Anytime

You can correct my mistakes anytime, I really appreciate it. Sometimes I wish there was a project dedicated to watching my edits and politely pointing out my mistakes. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologize for my revert. I did not realize such a debate was going on. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EC at Refdesk

Ok, that's fine. I figured leaving the question for a while but leaving some stern words would do more to alleviate the disruption in the long-term. ---J.S ^(T/C) 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:strict

You seem to have been involved with the deletion of strict.. please speedy delete Template:Strict2 as it's related. --⁪froth^{T C} 08:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't get me wrong, I wasn't requesting deletion in the capacity of the sole editor, I was just bringing its existence to an admin's attention, an admin who I know would know what I'm talking about. I like.. housekeeping. --⁪froth^{T C} 08:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Western Heights High School

I was going through the list of uncategorised articles and this one was flagged up even though it had categories. The "new" tag asks that it might need to be wickified, cleaned up and categorized. It did not seem to need any of these so I removed the tag. Ok, I put the wrong comment in the edit field as it did not have an "uncat" tag but a "new" one. Malcolma 15:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Template talk:New

Please see reply. Template talk:New Cheers. frummer 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Have a wonderful 2007 SCZenz! I hope you've enjoyed the past year. The sad thing is, though, that now we've got to wait a long time for another holiday. --Bowlhover 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! Unfortunately, I'm in Canada, and President Day is not celebrated. Oh well, better wait until Easter. --Bowlhover 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration

Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikibreak

Have a good break, see ya in a couple of weeks. Anchoress 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

From userpage

The following comment was added to the "Articles I intend to make changes to" section of your userpage.

Evidently, Entropia Universe - please consider adding the links and fan sites back. After all, without the fan base there is no MMO. It's not like a scientific article where there must be one authority.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.80.244.204 (talk • contribs).

Best wishes and have a good wikibreak. --TeaDrinker 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re: sturat's RFC

See my response to Guy's inappropriately-placed question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/StuRat_2#View_by_User:Froth --⁪froth^T 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

black rights

thank you. i guess i didnt do this right the first time because i never got an answer. either that or i just didnt know where to look. anyway thanx again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oahulani (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Hmmm. Friday (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THB Block

Hello SCZenz! I recently visited THB's User page and noticed that you blocked him for 24 hours. I would like to thank you for doing that. It is people like that that make Wikipedia look like a bad place. Thank you for excellant works here on Wikipedia! Eric 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a fan of schadenfreude; I would prefer to have people modify their behavior and contribute more positively than to block them. Sometimes, sadly, the only possible first step to helping a user to improve is to show them that there are limits, and that they are enforceable. I appreciate your thanks of course, but I must admit I'd rather be getting accolades for writing articles than dealing with such unpleasantness. -- SCZenz 02:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive

No, you should be making more jokes!!! >Radiant< 13:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, my effort to set a good example on the reference desk over the past few months has made this inadvisable. I suppose, if I wanted to set a really good example, I would make jokes in appropriate places and appropriate ways—l'll work on that. -- SCZenz 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Light current

Hey; I blocked Light current for 24 hours because he was stirring the pot on User talk:THB, was warned by Rockpocket and by me and then played dumb about it, following the usual pattern.

I hope it doesn't make THB more difficult for you to deal with, but Light current has got to get it through his head that stirring the pot like this to try to provoke further friction just isn't acceptable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It might be best to just flatly ignore Light current's baiting while he's blocked. At best – and this would by no means be a good outcome – it will end up with him worked up into doing something that will end up with his block extended. At worst, it will give him the idea that the sort of lawyering and taunting he's doing is an acceptable way to try to engage the community in discussion (even while blocked), and you do yourself a disservice to interact with him on those terms.

Explaining the problems with his conduct to him – in very basic terms – has been tried before by a number of editors and with limited success; I'm not sure that further efforts along the same lines are likely to be fruitful. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my comment there came out quite right either; I was trying to get him to think about the absurdity of the allegations he was making, because honestly I am not so sure he understands fully the implications of what he says sometimes. I have more to say about my interpretation of Light current's behavior, but I think it is best for the remainder to be sent via private email. -- SCZenz 17:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject, I'm beginning to think ToaT is correct in that engaging LC on his talk page during his blocks is simply adding fuel to his fire. Like SCZenz, my natural inclination is to reason with him when he makes such absurd statements. However, appeals to logic clearly don't work when one is absolutely and unwaveringly convinced that one's position is correct. I also strongly concur with SCZenz's recent comment on my talkpage. The perception of an "us-vs-them" situation is regretable, but no-one should excuse the blantant disregard for policy in an effort to avoid it. Rockpocket 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that LC is once again seeking attention; I'm walking away from discussion and I recommend that you do the same. He's not listening to what we're saying, and I don't think further comments from us will be helpful—we've seen the Light current suicide spiral before. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I was a bit hasty typing the above remark, since I wanted to try to nip a potential forest fire in the bud). To clarify, I think your response was perfectly reasonable, but I also know that engaging LC by letting him 'play dumb' is not apt to be productive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand this. So what the hell do we do now? Ignore him entirely? I did that today on my talk page, by simply deleting a bunch of the same "playing dumb," but it's not clear how to apply that solution to his attention-seeking on the reference desk and its talk page. Maybe just remove what's innapropriate without discussion, and see if he gets the picture eventually? -- SCZenz 23:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. To be honest, I haven't reviewed his contributions today anywhere but on his talk page, and I was responding solely to that (mis)behaviour. I'm hesitant to endorse a remove-without-comment strategy solely because it's likely to provoke a storm of other problems, but I can see how mentioning a removal anywhere is apt to give LC a place to soapbox, as well as start him digging himself into deeper trouble. Hmmm...do have any diffs from today that might represent the edits you would be inclined to remove? (I know that looking through Light current's contributions is a pain, since he doesn't seem to preview or use the minor edit check box.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do is make your point to LC about your concerns, but then to resist elaborating when the inevitable questioning arises. Its becoming clear that his requests for clarification are a diversionary tactic, so simply don't be diverted. His past behavioural patterns are now well established, so a warning can be issued and if he doesn't heed that warning then action should be taken. Further discussion serves no purpose. Rockpocket 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but are we really going to block him for constant silly attention-seeking and jabs at other editors? If we start down that road again, it's pretty clear that things will escalate and in the near future we'll end with an indefinite block. Is there some way to deal with these issues that lets us avoid chatter and keep his good contributions? -- SCZenz 08:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is justifiable to block for attention seeking, no matter how irritating and distracting it is. By "action" I didn't necessarily mean a block. I just try to ignore his obvious attention seeking posts, like the one about the RD being better with or without him, but I suppose one could justify removal of it from RD and article talk pages as being off topic and disruptive. Though moving it to his talk page might be better than just deleting it. A clear explanation of why it was removed - and perhaps a link to it on his talk page - would suffice. Any further debate need not be entered into. Thats said, I fully expect this would agitate him - and those that take umbrage over deletion in general - into another round of insults, but I think that the inevitable outcome of anything that attenuates attention-seeking behaviour. So, I guess the bottom line is either his behaviour is tolerated or we accept that an indef block might be the only solution left open if he doesn't stop it. I'd hate to have to do that, especially to one with such a great record of article-space edits, but after three of four shorter blocks and no change, I can see no other way. Moreover, it would certainly be controversial, as in isolation his edits are barely blocking offenses, never mind deserving of an indef block. Its only the persistence that makes it actionable in my eyes.

I guess if anyone was genuinely willing to indef block him, it could be used in a last ditch attempt to make him realise that he has to change his ways if he wants to have a future here, which ironically enough, is what we all seem to want. One would hope that faced with an indef block he might see reason, but somehow I doubt it. And of course, such a warning would be pointless unless it had teeth. Even if there was support for this course of action next time LC loses his temper, I would certainly want to float it at the noticeboard before acting. Rockpocket 09:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Ten: You could start with all the edits he's made to my page recently, plus the attention-seeking "is the reference desk better with or without me?" discussion and vote he created on the ref desk talk page. -- SCZenz 08:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To address your apparent concerns that I am seeking attenytion on the RD talk page, I have removed the opinion request material to my talk page whils just leaving the hdg. I hope that is satisfactory. 8-|--Light current 10:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Light current

You are effectively gagging me for removing my replies to allegations hereIf you continue to remove my comments from your talk, . I shall feel free to remove your comments wherever thay occur! And please stop conspiring against me. It is not healthy. Remeber Admins are bound by rules. You seem to forget that when it suits you. 8-((--Light current 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)--Light current 08:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are either incapable, or feign to be uncapable, of understanding aspects of your behavior that are inappropriate. In the above we're not "conspiring against you," we're doing our job by conferring transparently about how to deal with your unique and rather difficult behavior. Explaining seems to make things worse, as do ultimatums, so I am at a loss for what else to do but ignore you and keep you from distracting others. Please do not remove my comments, unless they are off-topic and unhelpful, in some kind of imagined "reciprocity." You're not being gagged, but your arguments are not helpful at this point—either file an RfC regarding our actions, or stop taking jabs at us until you do. I'm doing what I think is best under Wikipedia policy, and your speeches won't change that because obviously you interpret that policy rather differently than I do. For the above reasons, this is the only reply you'll get here on this topic. -- SCZenz 09:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which particular aspects are you talking about? Do you expect me to take a load of shit from you lot and say nothing or be gagged from saying anything in my defence?

Lets just see what it is you want me to do:

Say nothing in reply to any and all attacks on me?
Apologise and grovel profusely for something I say that only about 3 people object to?
Stop posting and editing altogether?

BTW my Q on the RD about whether its better without me is a genuine one prompted by attacks from a few admins (mostly). Te fact that you cant see that reflects more on your minds than on mine.

The purpose of the experiment was to test feeling of whether I should recuse myself altogether from the Rds. So in one respect it is attention seeking, but only to guage editors opinions of my contributions to RDs. I said I was goung to undertake the experiment and even asked to be selectively blocked from the RDs. The experiment has concluded. Im awaiting comments on the results. So far they are inconclusive. If the majority of editors feel the Rds would be better without me, Im prepared to give up editing there. I cant say fairer thasn that can I?--Light current 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So does the above allay any fears or am i just wasting my breath as usual/ Does it matter at all to you what I thikn or say/ or am i just wasting my time posting here?--Light current 13:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cards on table

Look SCZ if the majority of people on WP want me to stop editing any particular portion of the encyclopedia, or stop editing completely, Im willing to listen to that. ATM however I just have a few Admins who dont like me telling me their views. Is that small number (all Admins) representative of the whole community? --Light current 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Well my sincere apologies for assuming bad faith. I hope you will forgive me 8-)--Light current 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I hope you recognize that your question was an assumption of bad faith, regardless of what my answer was or whether I answered or not at all, and do your best not to repeat the mistake. -- SCZenz 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just said above that I assumed bad faith and apologised for it! (just seemed a bit of a coincidence thats all). I do apologise when Im shown to be wrong. In this case I was dead wrong and Im very sorry for doubting your good intentions. etc 8-(--Light current 14:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make sure you understand that questioning people because something "seemed a bit of a coincidence" will be an assumption of bad faith next time, too. -- SCZenz 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always have to have the last word after I have made a sincere and grovelling apology? Thats what really rubs me the wrong way !--Light current 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have the last word? Light current's apologised and explained why he made the mistake. SCZenz has accepted the apology. Can all parties now drop this incident, please? I think it's run its course. --Dweller 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can! Thanks!!--Light current 14:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

Are you starting to stalk me?--Light current 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- SCZenz 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! So how come you noticed my edit on the disruptiion page?--Light current 13:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Watchlist. -- SCZenz 13:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are honestly telling me that you had that page on your watch list long before I stated editng it? if that is truly the case I apologise. Did you have it there?--Light current 13:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it on my watch list since December 7 2006, when StuRat brought the page to my attention. Please do not make a habit of questioning people in this confrontational manner; neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to explain to you how we came upon a certain page, unless there is a pattern of disruption. -- SCZenz 14:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touchy!!So how was my Q confrontational? I just wanted to make sure you were not decieving me agian (like the other times)--Light current 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please provide evidence (i.e. diffs) of me deceiving you, preferably in the context of a formal dispute resolution process. If you do not have any such thing, then please assume good faith about me (and all other users) in the future. -- SCZenz 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We both know about that. Theres no point dragging it up again now. Maybe later if you really insist.--Light current 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate hosting unsubstantiated accusations on my talk page. I'd like you to either illustrate your claims or withdraw them, please. -- SCZenz 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will take some time for me to find the diffs. In the meantime feel free to strike oout or delete my offending acusations.--Light current 14:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found one: To User:Pschemp I think:

Your comment is noted, and you're probably right. The ambiguity was a calculated decision on my part; my intention was to give him the impression that I might take his side if he talked to me, in an effort to get him to discuss things rather than continuing to inflame the situation. It appears that was the wrong thing for me to do. -- SCZenz 18:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ring any bells? Do you need any more?--Light current 15:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I cant get the diffs out of pschems archive but heres the transcript:

/Transcript

I think thats the lot. Although I could be wrong 8-)--Light current 15:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comment. I might have taken your side if you had had a legitimate grievance, and I was trying to offer a sympathetic ear in order to start a discussion. Then when pschemp took offense, I was trying to clarfy that I had not prejudged the situation against her. Unfortunately, walking that kind of tightrope requires delicate wording, and I freely admit that I did not succeed in either my comments to you or to pschemp. However, I don't believe this constitutes evidence that I was trying to deceive you or anyone else. I think it's best to drop this subject, don't you? -- SCZenz 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LLIm prepared to forgive and forget if you are! 8--)--Light current 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Light current

Yeah, I see your point, and apologise if my comments came across wrongly; I shouldn't have characterised the motives behind people supporting an indefinite ban. Given the user has made many useful edits to the encyclopaedia, however, I felt that a lengthy ban would be better than an indefinite one. But I haven't had much experience of this user, so will defer to consensus. Thanks. Trebor 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC Block

Please see my post at ANI. It would be a big step if you could support this. I think if LC seems some BGF (beyond good faith - I just made that up, like it?) toward him from the admins he perceives as persecuting him, it would be enormously helpful. -Dweller 11:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My RfA

Hey SCZenz,

I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.

Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hipocrite's actions

Does Hipocrite ever back down? Being wrong in the first place, he then justifies his use of Likudnik with a diff that defeats himself. I see no reason why this ([1]) diff was deleted. --Dweller 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the only clear reason to delete it is that the entire conversation had gone to hell. I have a few suggestions for improving it though, namely less reliance on personal experience and less reliance on your assumptions about the points the questioner is trying to make. In regard to Hipocrite, I think he is one of several users who (in this incident) could have benefited from slowing down and considering more carefully what we're trying to accomplish, and what ought to be said to accomplish it. -- SCZenz 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowing down? He's not fast enough. His slur on Likud voters has remained on the page for some time now, despite him posting a source that correctly defines "Likudnik" in a way that defeats his own position. He was wrong to delete the diff I cited. --Dweller 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Light Current (request from Hipocrite)

Why is blocked user light current allowed to evade his block without sanction? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, maybe because nobody but you has noticed yet? The way you put this question assumes negligence or deliberate dereliction of duty, and I'd like to ask you to put it another way. How about you point out that you think Light current is evading his block, and inform me (or whoever) which edits show this? -- SCZenz 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

87.* stirring up shit on the RD talk page are transparently LC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will look. -- SCZenz 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent comments by 87.* use different language and have considerably more nuance than we're used to seeing from Light current. If there are some diffs that really strike you as him, though, I'd still like to see them. -- SCZenz 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Account shows up, from the same ISP as the LC block evasions, has no edits aside from reference desks, editds during the same time frame, finds and participates disruptively on the talk page, and you don't think it's him? I have a bridge. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a user who has been dynamically allocated an address by a large ISP for the last few hours. Most of the edits are helpful rather than disruptive—and the disruptive one was apologized for—and the language an editing style are significantly different. Look over the bulk of Special:Contributions/87.102.4.6 and tell me if that really looks like Light current to you... -- SCZenz 17:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bridge, I say. You can find other user's opinions here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Special:Contributions/87.102.8.103 looks like Lc. That decision was made on the basis of editing style. The IP today, namely 87.102.4.6, doesn't look like that at all. -- SCZenz 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait I've screwed up. Today's editor is Special:Contributions/87.102.13.26, who looks a lot like 87.102.4.6 from February 2. Meanwhile, 87.102.8.103 (from yesterday) looks a lot like Lc. -- SCZenz 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that 87.102.4.6 edited while Lc was unblocked. It looks more like we've got two different editors from the same ISP to me. -- SCZenz 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave him a polite but strongly worded register now note. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Anonymous users can edit, WP:BITE prohibits us from harassing them if there's no evidence of problems. -- SCZenz 17:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review my attachment on top of welcomeip at User talk:87.102.13.26. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I disagree with your advice, but advice is advice. Just don't take this any further unless you have more substantive evidence that the edits look like Light current. -- SCZenz 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Yes, I should have just written Dweller. He, of course, could have... let's see:

Not assumed that I was "prejudiced" [2]
Not assumed my POV [3]
Not transparently and obviously engaged in pedantic arguing for the sake thereof [4]

Oh wait, let me give you a big 4:

4. [5]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are right, others are debatable, but I'm not going to debate. Instead I'm going to leave you both the same message and then go home and eat dinner. Good evening! -- SCZenz 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I can understand why you might take umbrage with numbers 1-3 and I apologise for any incivility or offense caused. (I will post to Hipocrite's talk page too). But what on earth was wrong with my edit number 4? I tried and failed to informally mediate between two parties and was sad to have failed and even more sad that one then decided to quit the project (though it seems he's back). And finally, can the erroneous and offensive reference to Likudnik please be removed now. How many times do I have to ask? Even if you think you're right, it adds nothing to the gist of the main issue, which is that the OP is not defining what a Zionist is. --Dweller 09:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LC redux

Sorry for the delay, but I haven't had access to the web lately. I didn't mean to imply that I intended to unblock him after two weeks; I just do not know what can be accomplished with a month-long block that cannot be accomplished with a 15-day block. It is a long time, both on-wiki and off-wiki, and since the basis of the block is solid, I don't see how he can argue that he was unfairly blocked if his block is shortened. I don't intend to even unblock him, I just expressed my opinion.

Also, I do think that this is best for ArbCom. Why? Because it seems that every weekend we're having RD drama on AN, AN/I, and a few of the Village Pumps. The reason this entire mess blew over was that it has become polarized to "You're wrong; No, you're the one who is wrong; No, you are...," at least in Light Current's eyes. At this point, I am fairly sure that he believes that it is all part of a grand conspiracy to modify the format of the Reference Desks by admins; as a result, admin-based restrictions will be seen as inherently tainted with unfairness. I think that the only way to make him realize that what he is doing is not nice is to set some inherently strong restrictions. Community bans et alia don't pass that muster, as you only need one out of 1,106 admins to disagree with everyone to overturn it de facto and de jure. If ArbCom intervenes, it will be ugly in the short term, but it will save headaches to everyone in the longer run, IMHO, as we won't have to deal with this situation and a "what do we do?" conundrum every fifth day or so. We just enforce the restrictions, and eso es todo, amigos.Titoxd^(?!?) 02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should base the appropriate course of action on Light current's perception of the situation. If he thinks he's treated unfairly by admins, let him file an RfArb or even an RfC (he's threatened to but never followed through). Otherwise, I think we have a consensus to indef block him if his behavior doesn't improve.

The exact length of the block per se isn't so important, but I honestly think that a bit longer than 15 days will give him more time to think and get used to not being on the wiki, which will give him perspective on what to do next. Furthermore, there's the problem of how Light current will perceive the block being shortened; he'll see it as a reprimand of the initial group that blocked him, and proof that he has "allies." This will embolden him and therefore hurt his chances of becoming a good contributor. -- SCZenz 09:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My last RfA/me

Hi SCZenz! You opposed my last RfA in late November 2006. There were opposes citing civility and inexperience with policy. It's about 3 months after that, and I think I've gained more experiance in policy and more emotional stability on-wiki. Recently I've been doing a bit of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam stuff, though this last week I haven't had a great deal of time. Anyway, I was considering an RfA in a month or two, and I wanted to ask a few people if they had any recommendations as to what I should to or criticisms over the last few months. Thanks for reading! ST47Talk 01:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not User:light current

Hello. I would like to bring to your attention my block by User:Pschemp based on the assumption that I am a sockpuppet of User:Lightcurrent - see here WP:ANI#Blocked_by_User_Pschemp

I see that you have been discussing this above "..Why is blocked user light current allowed to evade his block without sanction? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC.." in one of the sections titled light current.

I can confirm that I made the linked edits [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] you were discussing and not 'light current'.

Also you may remember that I have been accused of sock-puppetry on the reference desk talk pages by user:StuRat a while a go. An accusation I complained about on that page. I have always denied any accusations of sockpuppetry since they are untrue.

I can also say that I do not live with/share a computer etc with 'light current'.

The majority of my edits are questions and anwers on the science and mathematics reference desk pages - I also look the other reference desk pages. I do not indulge in long winded discussions on the reference desk talk pages as a rule, nor do I usually get involved debates on other peoples talk pages. I have little interest in 'analogue electronics' - a topic favorite of light current.

I feel the blocks and accusations are unfair. I have expressed a desire to complain about the actions of User:Pschemp at WP:ANI#Blocked_by_User_Pschemp.

Thank you for your time.87.102.6.170 13:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may be able to see from my comments to Hipcrite above, I believe you. You appear to simply use the same ISP as Light current, which I believe is a rather large one. I have asked users to be more careful about blocks, and made them aware that you're a separate editor, in my comments on WP:ANI, so hopefully there won't be further problems. Are any of the blocks still affecting your access, or is there anything else I can do to help? -- SCZenz 15:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will carry on as normal then. If you do not here from me again you can assume that you have solved all my problems. Thank you.87.102.6.170 16:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speed of light

how to post a reiable source ? what u have deleted was a reiable source

thx--ÁŜŜèṂ Ķ 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you posted looked to me like an original analysis of the Qur'an; it didn't have any source other than your arguments and the Qur'an itself. If it was in fact an original analysis, then we can't include it because it violates the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. However, if you were quoting an analysis that appears in a reliable source such as a peer-reviewed journal or the writings of a notable religious thinker, then you could include the analysis and cite the source. (I'm not sure if the speed of light article would be the right place to include the information, but that's another matter.) See Wikipedia:Reliable sources andWikipedia:Verifiability for more information. -- SCZenz 18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATLAS experiment featured article review

ATLAS experiment has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Atomic1609 13:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your Admin Coaching assignments

Your name is still listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Volunteers. The department is heavily backlogged with student's requests for coaches, and we need your help!

Note that the instructions may have changed since the last time you checked, and the department now follows a self-help process...

If you don't currently have a student, or if you believe you can handle another one, please select a student from the request list at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests and contact them. See the instructions on Wikipedia:Admin coaching. Good luck.

If you are no longer available to coach, , please remove yourself from the volunteers list.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 03:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ATLAS experiment

I always enjoyed the article and was pretty disappointed, too, with how suddenly FA status was removed. Sorry I didn't do more with the references, but as an optics person it can be very time consuming (and, let's admit it, not that fun) to work through particle physics jargon. I do find myself with increasingly less time to edit lately, but I'll still help out where I can. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Peer review of Equipartition?

Hi SCZenz,

I'm hoping to improve the equipartition theorem to Featured Article status and I would appreciate your help with it. The article is under scientific peer review right now; would you have some time to look it over? It's pretty physics-heavy, but I'm hoping that it might be OK. Thanks muchly! :) Willow 12:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Semi-protected request

I was wondering if the page List of metropolitan areas by population is eligible for semi-protected status. As the term "largest city" redirects to there, it is subject to frequent edits by individuals seeking to move their city to the "top", not considering citations or NPOV. Based on the comments and edit histories, many of these users are firing from the hip and not bothering to actually read the article. Not sure if there is really enough to justify a semi-protect here, but I'd appreciate if you could take a look. DirectorStratton 03:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Re:Admin coaching

Hi, I noticed that you're taking new coachees. Can you be my coach? Thanks. Cheers!!! -Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About matter

Uhm, Im new to this site so i apologise if I don't make sense.

I am 19 years old student and I find the article on matter very interesting but could you explain what matter and anti-matter is in a "easy to understand" term and how is big bang form.it also puzzle me how water is made and where do they come from? I understand that water is the low-density atoms of all particles..

I would appreciated if you could shed light on it..