Lumière wrote in response to Kelly Martin's outside view and others' comments responding to KM:
I changed my user name from Lumiere to Etincelle after I lost my password, and for no other reason. Also, it was clearly indicated right from the start on the top of my talk page as Etincelle that Etincelle was formerly Lumiere. My user page as Etincelle was redirected to my user talk page as Etincelle. Also, right from the start, my nickname as Etincelle was "Etincelle (formerly Lumiere)". However, editors that do not like me were joking about my change of user name. After a while, I realized that I could get back to something very close to Lumiere, which is "-Lumìère". I tought that it should make people happy because it is almost a returm to my original user name. Also, I checked and I believe that it is not against policy to have more than one user names. -Lumière 13:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but that doesn't explain why you began editing Wiki under the name "Amrit" (for documentation, see [1] ) and then changed it to Lumiere before changing it to Etincelle and then to Lumière . Did you think that no one remembered your first name switch? Every time you switch names, you make it difficult for people to see your track record, and read the ever mounting complaints editors and administrators have been posting against you. You have participated in Wiki under four different user names though you've been here barely 4 months. I doubt we've seen the last of your name changes. Frankly, I believe these name changes are another of your many disruptive tactics. Askolnick 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I want to remain anonymous, and I do not trust use of email. Also, I did not want to bother anyone with that when there was another simple solution. I really did not know that it would be a big deal. In fact, I am still amazed by that. I think that you are just picking anything you can to discredit me. -Lumière 19:38, 12 April 2006
That developer can find out is already too much. -Lumière 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that. I don't know how someone can trace me with my IP address without the participation of my internet provider. -Lumière 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What difference it will do that I use Lumiere instead of -Lumière? If someone wants to move my previous history all under -Lumière I'll accept, but only if you tell me that it will make a big difference in the way you and others will judge me. The point is that I am afraid of this kind of change -- I do not know the side effects. So, I would prefer that we just leave things as they are, and that nobody plays with my history. -Lumière 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of at three other names/IP's Lumiere et al. has used... I have suspicions of others, but no proof.... In Lumiere's favor, I point out that none of these accounts have huge edit histories and she went back and re-signed them all as Lumier it is the # of accounts that I feel frustration over.
69.156.34.80, Senajit, 216.99.36.103
69.156 stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ATranscendental_meditation&diff=32257789&oldid=32244454 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.156.34.80
Senajit, 216.99.36 stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ATranscendental_meditation&diff=33838606&oldid=33762105
Sethie
15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be away for few days. -Lumière 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Iantresman ( talk · contribs) has taken up the torch, continuing with the same pattern of WP:POINT disruption with the same incessant droning on about Undue Weight at Talk:NPOV: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Per prior requests at that page to drop the issue and comments here, I've moved the discussion to his user talk page. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-Lumière: Your response so far has been, I am going to respond when I will have more time. Right now, I am very busy with other things in my life, and this response will require some careful thinking. -Lumière 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC). Perhaps you would have time to respond if you spend less time pursuing your vision on Wikipedia talk:No original research (seven posts yesterday). -- Donald Albury( Talk) 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This is part of what I should do to help this Rfc. Rfc = request for comments. Also, the official reply here is more important and therefore require more time. There is nothing wrong about the fact that I take my time, see what others have to say, etc. before I give my answer. You just show here that you take anything you can to attack me. Those who complaint above have obviously no intention to really work toward a solution. They have a fixed agenda. -Lumière 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more explicit about the kind of reply you expect from me? I could perhaps take some time to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in some articles, even if they are not of fundamental importance to me, may be learn about technical aspects of the policies and guidelines that I do not know about. I am positive, but suspicious at the same time because of the so many attacks against me. I am afraid that maybe you mean something else here. Is it a disguised way to tell me that I shouldn't express any opinion in the policy talk pages anymore? -Lumière 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was to you that I replied. My feeling is that I could enjoy doing that. If I have time to work on the policy talk pages, I could take some of this time to enjoy working on neutral articles. Perhaps, if the community see that I can enjoy something else than the policy talk pages, they will perceive me differently. Editing neutral articles will make me learn the policy aspects that are important in this kind of articles. I have already all the experience that I need with controversial articles, and at this level I could continue to contribute in the policy talk pages. Some say that usually my posts are cogent and help their thinking process. Isn't this harmless? I have no power in Wikipedia, except through the expression of my opinions, which I cannot impose in any way. -Lumière 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I did a little sampling from your User Contributions list, and my comments are subject to caveat because this is just a quick impression. I suspect there are some issues of idiom and tone, as well as an overly-formal approach to policy on your part. For example, your attempt to draw a parallel between the Skeptical Inquirer and the self-published research of a particular claimant is misguided: CSICOP is known to impose peer-review techniques on its articles and invites comment from the claimants on experimental designs specifically in an attempt to minimize bias. Obviously, if the CSICOP research were published in Lancet that would be better, but there is less a priori reason to suspect CSICOP of crocking the data. This is the sort of practical judgment about relative reliability of sources that can't be legislated. Robert A.West ( Talk) 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Lord knows, I would do far worse if I ever tried contributing to the German Wikipedia, but there does seem to be a string of misunderstandings on both sides. Obviously, you have an interest primarily in the paranormal, and those tend to be controversial articles, so you have a handicap there. Still, a lighter touch, and a more obvious committment to making your own edits as NPOV as possible would probably help. There are editors interested in this RfC who have more edits in a month than I have total -- perhaps they can provide some more and better guidance. Robert A.West ( Talk) 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Outdent because of intervening comments: Let me ask you a question. If you wanted to dissuade a man from hiring a hitman to kill his wife, would you parse the details of whether the statute is justified under the Felony murder rule or as a form of Vicarious liability (criminal) or some other theory of law? Or would you try to convince him on other, more visceral grounds? (Murder is evil. His wife doesn't deserve it. He will get caught.) I suspect that you would use the latter. The precise legal rules are a means to the end (reducing the murder rate) not the end.
By the same token, Wikipedia articles don't exist to serve policy, nor will policy create good articles. Only hard work and good judgment can do that. Policy is a backstop to keep us from creating some kinds of bad articles and from putting some types of bad edit into good articles. It is simply better tactics to argue, "This will improve the article," than to argue, "This violates such-and-such a technicality in thus-and-thus policy." If you can't win the quality argument, you are unlikely to win the technical argument, unless the violation is blatant enough to take to RfC or Arbitration, because the technical argument is easier to crock.
I commend to you the writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The law teaches us only what we will not tolerate from bad men, it does not teach us how to be good men, who do what they do for other reasons. If you feel that you are surrounded by nothing but bad editors, then yes, you must continually appeal to policy, but that is a depressing position. Robert A.West ( Talk) 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Should my addition have been under the view heading or the comment hdg wher I put it. I dint understand the difference. Help-- Light current 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Lumière wrote in response to Kelly Martin's outside view and others' comments responding to KM:
I changed my user name from Lumiere to Etincelle after I lost my password, and for no other reason. Also, it was clearly indicated right from the start on the top of my talk page as Etincelle that Etincelle was formerly Lumiere. My user page as Etincelle was redirected to my user talk page as Etincelle. Also, right from the start, my nickname as Etincelle was "Etincelle (formerly Lumiere)". However, editors that do not like me were joking about my change of user name. After a while, I realized that I could get back to something very close to Lumiere, which is "-Lumìère". I tought that it should make people happy because it is almost a returm to my original user name. Also, I checked and I believe that it is not against policy to have more than one user names. -Lumière 13:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but that doesn't explain why you began editing Wiki under the name "Amrit" (for documentation, see [1] ) and then changed it to Lumiere before changing it to Etincelle and then to Lumière . Did you think that no one remembered your first name switch? Every time you switch names, you make it difficult for people to see your track record, and read the ever mounting complaints editors and administrators have been posting against you. You have participated in Wiki under four different user names though you've been here barely 4 months. I doubt we've seen the last of your name changes. Frankly, I believe these name changes are another of your many disruptive tactics. Askolnick 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I want to remain anonymous, and I do not trust use of email. Also, I did not want to bother anyone with that when there was another simple solution. I really did not know that it would be a big deal. In fact, I am still amazed by that. I think that you are just picking anything you can to discredit me. -Lumière 19:38, 12 April 2006
That developer can find out is already too much. -Lumière 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know that. I don't know how someone can trace me with my IP address without the participation of my internet provider. -Lumière 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What difference it will do that I use Lumiere instead of -Lumière? If someone wants to move my previous history all under -Lumière I'll accept, but only if you tell me that it will make a big difference in the way you and others will judge me. The point is that I am afraid of this kind of change -- I do not know the side effects. So, I would prefer that we just leave things as they are, and that nobody plays with my history. -Lumière 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of at three other names/IP's Lumiere et al. has used... I have suspicions of others, but no proof.... In Lumiere's favor, I point out that none of these accounts have huge edit histories and she went back and re-signed them all as Lumier it is the # of accounts that I feel frustration over.
69.156.34.80, Senajit, 216.99.36.103
69.156 stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ATranscendental_meditation&diff=32257789&oldid=32244454 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.156.34.80
Senajit, 216.99.36 stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ATranscendental_meditation&diff=33838606&oldid=33762105
Sethie
15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll be away for few days. -Lumière 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Iantresman ( talk · contribs) has taken up the torch, continuing with the same pattern of WP:POINT disruption with the same incessant droning on about Undue Weight at Talk:NPOV: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Per prior requests at that page to drop the issue and comments here, I've moved the discussion to his user talk page. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
-Lumière: Your response so far has been, I am going to respond when I will have more time. Right now, I am very busy with other things in my life, and this response will require some careful thinking. -Lumière 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC). Perhaps you would have time to respond if you spend less time pursuing your vision on Wikipedia talk:No original research (seven posts yesterday). -- Donald Albury( Talk) 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This is part of what I should do to help this Rfc. Rfc = request for comments. Also, the official reply here is more important and therefore require more time. There is nothing wrong about the fact that I take my time, see what others have to say, etc. before I give my answer. You just show here that you take anything you can to attack me. Those who complaint above have obviously no intention to really work toward a solution. They have a fixed agenda. -Lumière 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you be more explicit about the kind of reply you expect from me? I could perhaps take some time to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in some articles, even if they are not of fundamental importance to me, may be learn about technical aspects of the policies and guidelines that I do not know about. I am positive, but suspicious at the same time because of the so many attacks against me. I am afraid that maybe you mean something else here. Is it a disguised way to tell me that I shouldn't express any opinion in the policy talk pages anymore? -Lumière 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was to you that I replied. My feeling is that I could enjoy doing that. If I have time to work on the policy talk pages, I could take some of this time to enjoy working on neutral articles. Perhaps, if the community see that I can enjoy something else than the policy talk pages, they will perceive me differently. Editing neutral articles will make me learn the policy aspects that are important in this kind of articles. I have already all the experience that I need with controversial articles, and at this level I could continue to contribute in the policy talk pages. Some say that usually my posts are cogent and help their thinking process. Isn't this harmless? I have no power in Wikipedia, except through the expression of my opinions, which I cannot impose in any way. -Lumière 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I did a little sampling from your User Contributions list, and my comments are subject to caveat because this is just a quick impression. I suspect there are some issues of idiom and tone, as well as an overly-formal approach to policy on your part. For example, your attempt to draw a parallel between the Skeptical Inquirer and the self-published research of a particular claimant is misguided: CSICOP is known to impose peer-review techniques on its articles and invites comment from the claimants on experimental designs specifically in an attempt to minimize bias. Obviously, if the CSICOP research were published in Lancet that would be better, but there is less a priori reason to suspect CSICOP of crocking the data. This is the sort of practical judgment about relative reliability of sources that can't be legislated. Robert A.West ( Talk) 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Lord knows, I would do far worse if I ever tried contributing to the German Wikipedia, but there does seem to be a string of misunderstandings on both sides. Obviously, you have an interest primarily in the paranormal, and those tend to be controversial articles, so you have a handicap there. Still, a lighter touch, and a more obvious committment to making your own edits as NPOV as possible would probably help. There are editors interested in this RfC who have more edits in a month than I have total -- perhaps they can provide some more and better guidance. Robert A.West ( Talk) 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Outdent because of intervening comments: Let me ask you a question. If you wanted to dissuade a man from hiring a hitman to kill his wife, would you parse the details of whether the statute is justified under the Felony murder rule or as a form of Vicarious liability (criminal) or some other theory of law? Or would you try to convince him on other, more visceral grounds? (Murder is evil. His wife doesn't deserve it. He will get caught.) I suspect that you would use the latter. The precise legal rules are a means to the end (reducing the murder rate) not the end.
By the same token, Wikipedia articles don't exist to serve policy, nor will policy create good articles. Only hard work and good judgment can do that. Policy is a backstop to keep us from creating some kinds of bad articles and from putting some types of bad edit into good articles. It is simply better tactics to argue, "This will improve the article," than to argue, "This violates such-and-such a technicality in thus-and-thus policy." If you can't win the quality argument, you are unlikely to win the technical argument, unless the violation is blatant enough to take to RfC or Arbitration, because the technical argument is easier to crock.
I commend to you the writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The law teaches us only what we will not tolerate from bad men, it does not teach us how to be good men, who do what they do for other reasons. If you feel that you are surrounded by nothing but bad editors, then yes, you must continually appeal to policy, but that is a depressing position. Robert A.West ( Talk) 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Should my addition have been under the view heading or the comment hdg wher I put it. I dint understand the difference. Help-- Light current 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)