User talk:Lumiere

I goofed... I did not see that you had placed it back in! Sethie 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation NPOV and general style issues

I just came across this article. The first thing that struck me was that someone had inserted a large wodge of propoganda into the introductory paragraph (where, correct or not, it did not belong). You used the bold face incorrectly; this is generally used when highlighting the subject of the article. It is not for hammering home points.

I also notice you removed the NPOV tag. Given that you added some very POV material in a prominent position, I am reverting your edit and reinstating the NPOV tag.

Fourohfour 17:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The content of this Intro is not mine at all. I did not write anything of it. Actually, I suggested in the talk page that we improve this Intro (as well as other sections), and proposed an alternative (please do read it). So, it is not that I liked this Intro (with use of bold face, etc.) My goal was only to encourage discussion in the talk page.

Really? I'm not impressed by this. That's what the talk page is for. I consider deliberately adding poor-quality material (for your own reasons) to be vandalism. Fourohfour 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not add any material in the Intro, so why do you say that I added poor-quality material. This is a terrible accusation. I only reverted the last modifications which I condider were not better, even if there was no bold face, etc. I would never have reverted to something less good. I agree that the bold face, etc. does not look good, but there other aspects in it that are very good. Amrit 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Then you should have made this clearer in the edit summary. And I don't consider that version (your work or not) to be better. It was blatantly POV and placed in an overly prominent position; the previous version at least did not do this.

Those who made the last modifications ignored my suggestions to improve this introduction. So, I reverted there modifications. It seems to me that when an editor invests time to suggest improvements, the other editors should at the least read, comment, discuss, etc, these suggestions before making there unilateral modifications. However, I do agree with you that the Intro as it was did not look good, but it had some interesting points in it that are not in the current version of the revert.

You know something? I didn't read the intro in-depth. It was clearly non-POV, out-of-place and poorly-formatted. That alone was good enough reason to revert it. You want to make a point? Make it on the talk page. Fourohfour 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What this article really needs is people that invest time to make sure that the Wikipedia policies are respected. This cannot be done superficially. One has to look at the references to make sure that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is respected, etc. The only I try to do is to remove contributions that do not respect the Wikipedia policies, especially the Verifiablility and No orginal research policies, so that we are neutral and respectful toward TM. Again the Intro was not mine.

Aso, this version (obtained after the revert) contains a controverial statement about the scientific methods in TM research, which does not have its place in the Intro, and without a reputable source to support it, and therefore does not even qualify in Wikipedia. Amrit 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim that the article as it stands is neutral. I will *not* get into a petty point-by-point discussion on the article contents, however. You clearly state that the contribution was not good. Even without this admission, it was obvious that your edit was not made in good faith. It does not deserve the attention.

No, no. It was done in good faith. The revert returned a more adequate version.

I disagree. The revert returned a version that was more interested in promoting its POV at the expense of the article structure and style. Fourohfour 17:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if you look superficially as you did, it appears less good. Of course, the best would have been to provide a completely new version. Nevertheless, I do think the revert, if you look beyond the bold face in the Intro, was an improvement. Amrit 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The bolding was a minor point, but consistent appearance helps people navigate Wikipedia. I do not consider this merely "superficial".

My main qualm was with the material which was (a) POV, and (b) In a position it shouldn't have been, no doubt to increase its prominence. By reverting to this version over the other one, you support this version, regardless of whether or not you wrote it. Fourohfour 17:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have a point to make, make it in a proper manner. Your removal of the tag was also wrong. It was obvious that the dispute had not been resolved. Fourohfour 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You must be joking! You really did not look at the situation carefuly. This is what I did. I explained every thing I do in the talk page. I used it a lot. Moreover, I insist, the revert was not vandalism at all. You just looked at the situation superficially. Amrit 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of superficiality. We all have limited time here on Wikipedia, and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

If you ran into a scientific conference, and instead of waiting for your turn, you attempted to interrupt another speaker (getting attention), screamed your points at the audience, and gave no indication that you had tried to carry out balanced research, would you consider the audience "superficial" if they dismissed you as a zealot and biased?

This is my reasoning, and I believe that it is fair. Fourohfour 17:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You can disagree with me about the value of my revert and you can revert this revert. I do not critic you because you reverted my revert. I did a revert. You can certainly do a revert too. The problem is the intention that you attributed to me. It is at this point that I began to be less appreciative. Did you expect a reply like "Ok thanks, my revert was a rant, I was doing vandalism. I am glad that you are telling me that"?. If you are reasonable, you cannot expect that. I was not doing vandalism. This is the bottom line on my side. If you maintain your position, don't expect that I will compliment you for your approach. Just take responsibility for your action.

Also, you might have missed the point that there was a special non contested tag in the talk page that requires that any subtantial modifications should be first discussed in the talk page. So, really in good faith I felt that the modifications that I reverted where inadequate. They introduced controversial and non supported material. Irrespectively of this bold face issue, they also taken out useful information (instead of moving it at the right place or presenting it in a more neutral way if necessary). They should have discussed in the talk page first. However, the details here do not matter. The key point is that it was not vandalism. It was done in good faith. This is the bottom line.

By the way, since you seem to have some free time to discuss issues that are not so important (i.e. do not make Wikipedia progress), perhaps you can use some of this free time to read the article and the talk page. Lumiere 02:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I will delete the above discussion in a few days. I do not want this kind of discussion on my talk page. Lumiere 05:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Whilst comment removal on user-talk pages is a grey area, it means that the user-talk page is no longer neutral ground. This is because the "owner" has the power to selectively censor discussion (which may or may not be illegal, but who has the time to argue the point?). Since I do not wish my comments to be subject to this, I will conduct future discussion with you via Talk:Transcendental meditation talk page (or wherever appropriate). Fourohfour 14:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Izehar 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is all right. I did not know the rule and the proposed alternatives. I am new on Wikipedia. The purpose of this rule is to stop a war, and there was one. However, it was not completely counter productive since the editors kind of followed the rule that they had to discuss in the talk page before doing their next revert. Until after we reached a point where the discussion stalled, I felt that it was good and useful to the progress of the article. So, perhaps this rule should be apply with some discretion and the administator should check first that there is a complaint. If there had been a complain from the other parties involved in these reverts, that complain would have been like a cheap shot in an otherwise fair game. Lumiere 20:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I want to play fair, I decided to not do any edits until you are unblocked. Sethie 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your Rfc. Just go ahead. I don't believe I am going to succeed to make my point now. Now, it is not the time for a discussion on Wikipedia policies in the context of the TM article. These policies, especially the Wikipedia:verifiability policy, are not established well enough in the Wikipedia community. Later perhaps, it will be more productive. Lumiere 21:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I support you trying to change these policies if that is what you wish to do. I also thank you for the acknowledgement that some of your positions are not in line with current Wikipedia verfiability policies. Sethie 21:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are playing the same game. I never said that I want to change these policies. To the contrary, they are very good. They are still working on them, but they are already very good. What I said is that they are not well establish (i.e. understood) in the Wikipedia community. I never said that my position was not in line with Wikipedia:verifiability policy. I said that it was not the time now to discuss the issues in the TM article because these policies are not yet well understood. I hope people will come and look at our many discussions so that they can judge by themselve how you always misinterpret my words. Lumiere 22:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. I misunderstood. When you said "well established" I thought you meant not develolped and that you were plannning to work on them.

I think that we say that a body of knowledge is "establsihed in a community" when it has gained acceptance in that community, irrespectively of how much it is developed. For example the standard model in physics was fully developed for years, but only became well established after succesful experiments corroborated its validity. Lumiere 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of taking down the RfC, I thought you were conceeding that your position was erronious. I guess I will leave it up for now. Sethie 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What I have in mind is that it is important that these policies get to be well understood without an emphasis on any specific article. The goal is that there is no bias in their interpretation. There is also the fact that they could get modified because of lobbying from TM-ex groups, etc. For example, I wish that you could come to understand these policies without trying to have them modified in view of the article on TM, about which you have a strong biased opinion. Hopefully, these policies will then get to remain in favor of my case as they are now and then be applied uniformly without bias to all articles, including TM.

I cannot lie to you and say that I conceed that my position was erroneous. It was not erroneous, but I can give to you that I will not argue anymore when you will include contribution that I believe do not respect the verifiability policy, but only until the time these policies get to be more established. In this way, you get what you want for a while. Me, I am happy to wait and see how the understanding of these Wikipedia policies unfold in the Wikipedia community. Lumiere 22:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I get you.... to understand these policies in the abstract, as opposed to just on TM.

Again, you interpret what I am saying. I never said that it should be understood in the abstract. It should be understood in terms of concrete examples, but without making adjustments because of a specific article, on which one might have a strong bias.

When I read this: "What I have in mind is that it is important that these policies get to be well understood without an emphasis on any specific article." I thought you meant to come to understand what Wiki's verifiable policy means without refferencing a specific example. It appears I misunderstood you.

I share your hope as well, that Wiki policies get evenly applied to all articles.

A long ranged approach. I admire your capacity to step back and wait. Sethie 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but these are like flowers that you throw to me and I am expecting that you will soon throw the pot as well. Lumiere 23:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

lol- I have never heard that expression! Good one.

In the hear and now, not talking about specifics, it is easy to feel some camraderie and connection with you. We have been argueing for almost a month now, and so I understand why you expect my next set of words to be biting. Sethie 00:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I am confused: "I don't believe I am going to succeed to make my point now. Now, it is not the time for a discussion on Wikipedia policies in the context of the TM article. These policies, especially the Wikipedia:verifiability policy, are not established well enough in the Wikipedia community. Later perhaps, it will be more productive."

Now you have filed a RfC. I guess I figured "later" meant months or maybe years. It appears it meant "hours?" Sethie 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Rfc was still there, so the discussion was there whether I wanted it or not. I still think that a discussion will be more productive later, but since it is going on now, I do my best now. Lumiere 21:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Modification of talk pages

Please do not retroactively edit talk pages, as you have done here and at other times. To do so can be misleading to people. If you have comments you later wish to withdraw or edit, the correct Wikiquette is to strike them out and add the changes you wish to make. Thank you. --BillC 07:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

On a more minor note, please don't add titles back into the talk discussion either. This edit looks like I wrote that heading, and made that request, whereas I did not. Thank you. BillC 09:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should grow up

It seems like the editors on this site collectively refuse to admit that they are making concious (yes, subjective, yes biased - oh no, I said the taboo word!) choices when writing articles. I find this amusing that the verifiability policy goes on and on about preaching good sources, but does not even hint of who ultimately decides what constitutes a "reputable source"!. The NPOV policy completely ignores the group mechanisms and choices that make wikipedia articles develop. Here's a very radical criticism, but does have a point (from [1]):

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): This is the linchpin of Wikipedia ideology, equivalent to the old maoist 'correct party line'. But what is meant by it is not an accurate description of anything (idea, fact, event, opinion, etc), but the bias of the Wikipedia church, a bias that often resorts to falsifying ideas, facts, events, opinions, in the name of 'balancing viewpoints'. Most frequently, however, no balancing whatsoever takes place, as all that remains is the biased Wikipedia viewpoint masquerading as NPOV. Hence, NPOV in the hands of Wikipedia cabals is Absolute, not the result of constructive discussion or consensus. Admins and their roving cabals have all the cybertools needed to make that Absolute stick.

Wikipedians often preach about "good sources", "consensus", "neutrality", "fairness" but show absolutely no understanding of what are the responsibilities and risks that come with these concepts.

Wikipedians need to grow up, fast. This site is awfully amateurish and mediocre in it's current form.

--84.228.107.148 11:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be more discussions about what is a good source for a given contribution and its context. Why did you stop trying to improve the situation? --Lumière 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I decided to move over to a saner wiki, see the NPOV entry at Uncyclopedia. See also Wikipedia and Wikipedian --Anon84.x 11:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view policy page

I think it's best to come to some arrangement with Ben that would (1) free up the project page again so that agreed amendments can be made to it; (2) would see him return to his normal account (or, if that fails, block the IP address for 48 hours for block evasion and then unprotect the project page). I don't want to ignore your comments, just defer commenting on them myself for a short while. (PS A bit of blue sky thinking - what about renaming the page Wikipedia:Neutral viewpoint (whilst keeping the underlying meaning of the policy unchanged, of course)? It might rid us of this plague of references to "POV" where people in real life would use the word "opinion", jguk 13:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize now that it is indeed important to consider Bensaccount situation. I think that people confused my proposal with other proposals which includes a lot of delete, etc., and did not go further than that. They just dismissed it as another attempt for a complete reform. --Lumière 23:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

Would you be willing to sign in for your edits? For example, you recently did some edits on the Maharishi Page as an IP and then replied as Lumiere. Sethie 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I never used an IP to edit this page or any other page (except at the very beginning few months ago when I started on Wikipedia). That you were mistaken can be explained. This is not a problem. What is really annoying is that you suggest that I do that often in saying that the case you mention is only an "example". What is even more disgusting is that you also suggest in the expression "Would you be willing" that it my willingness that is the issue, in opposition to just some inattention. Again, it was not even a one case due to inattention. I did not use an IP on this page. Period. I am a little bit annoyed that you keep insinuating things like that about me. You and your colleagues from the skeptic organizations are expert in this kind of insinuations. You are doing this kind of insinuations to discredit respectable people and organizations even in Wikipedia articles. I am working very hard to stop that. --Lumière 01:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I was in error. My appologies. Sethie

This is not a problem. Lumière

Talk page comments

Please do not split other's comments on Talk pages with your replies as you've done here: [2] It makes it very difficult for others to follow a thread and prevents the original editor you're responding to from developing a line of reasoning and goes against convention. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 22:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to make this kind of critic at a time where we are in a dispute over different views. Also, note that what you point out is a guideline, not policy. Thanks. --Lumière 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing practices

Lumiere, may I make a request of you? Looking through Talk:Neutral point of view, I see that you make a habit of often revising your remarks over and over, saving each time, before arriving at a final version. May I ask that instead you use the "preview" button first to make sure that your edit is the way you want it, before pressing save? Otherwise, it fills the page history with tens of edits when there really only needs to be one, making it very difficult to follow the editing history between editors. Everybody makes mistakes and needs to revise comments from time to time, but having 10 saves for one comment is very distracting. If you'd consider this, I would really appreciate it. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 04:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can see your point. --Lumière 04:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure about this

But now I'm almost certainly confident (this is written by an expert on the subject)

(I have been involved and following this project and its mailing lists since March 2003, almost three years. I was addicted myself in 2003, and even responsible to the initiation of one of the non-english wikipedias)

Yes, it took me a month to realize it. Is there really a need for support for ex-members? I guess not. It was a caricature, but still not too far from the reality. --Lumière 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Andries' article was half-joke. Here is Jimbo's raged response to it --Anon84.x 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is an extensive insider account by multiply banned ex-user/so-called troll User:Lir. --Anon84.x 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' edits of his own article - check out the diffs, you'll be amazed. --Anon84.x 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon84, I still believe that it is worth it to try to improve Wikipedia policy, at the least to clarify it. I know it seems impossible. Perhaps, I will invest less time into it, but I will not totally abandon it. The tought that comes to my mind is that perhaps over the years many well intentioned people tried and get discouraged. If instead they just tried a little only, say once a week, but in a stable way, they would still be working today, and together. Just a tought. --Lumière 02:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, is that the majority of wikipedians simply don't think. I know this sounds absurd and exaggerated, but what I mean by this is that they seem to be much more intrested in understanding your motives, listening to how you say things, rather what you say. Debate, for them, is a sort of political war in which the participants' ego is brought to the trial, rather than some contextual understanding of the subject. This is a sign of extreme conformity and fanaticism I have never seen elsewhere, this was not that bad in 2003, for example, it seems to have gotten worse with time.

There is a scary aspect to all this. If the wikipedia remains closed and hostile as it is today, there is a risk of it becoming a new fascist of knowledge (if it isn't already so). I'm not kidding. There is already evidence that some history articles are already distorting history. Biography articles being hostile to the person. etc. (e.g. Should the article about Micheal Jackson be a platform for a personality assasination? on a respectable encyclopedia? I find this extremely unethical. Wikipedians do this thoughtlessly in the name of "balancing views". And this is only one of the places in which NPOV totaly misses the part of "being a respectable encyclopedia" rather than "being nice to everyone" - yes, including the fanatics that are so abundant here)

I also think the whole approach of having "one text" is totaly misguided in some cases. For example, in philosophy articles, which I find being collectively horrible and biased. Is rationalism and essentialism the only way to approach philosophy? and in general, is positivism the only way to approach knowledge? is there only one way to approach a history or a biography? I think not. And NPOV cannot address this, because it is a foundational disagreement over the whole approach to the subject, not some view of it. In that sense, simply put, NPOV is dangerously anti-intellectual.

There is another thing that bothers me. Why isn't the so-called "encycloepedia" focused on its "encyclopedia" part? Look at the recent changes, how many of the articles listed are intellectual subjects? (i.e science and humanities) What does pop-culture, small towns, video games, websites, uninteresting individuals etc. contribute to documenting real knowledge? (that cannot be found on a simple google search) Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia" per se. it is a "web inside the web".

There are other projects that IMO more effective at creating free material. For example, Project Gutenberg (Distributed Proofreaders does collaborative proofreading of noncopyrighted literature). Another, much more effective goal will be being able to access electronic editions of existing books (real literature, not the wikipedia's cheesy prose) that are currently restricted under copyright. I.e a project to create an international electronic library that will be available for a low subscription price.

Improving the policies might help a bit. But it isn't going to alter the mentality of Wikipedia. --Anon84.x 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with every thing you said, including the fact that, by itself, a modification to the policy will not change the situation. Besides, to change the policy one must first change the situation. I guess that I meant to say that it still worth it to try to change the situation. --Lumière 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a rule that is said to be against the spirit of Wikipedia policy

• "If something is not true as far as the editors have ascertained to the best of their endeavours, then they should not include it, even if it complies with all other requirements of WP policy."

Note that in the case of doubt or dispute it is implicit that a consensus must be obtained before the rule is applied. Nevertheless, experts behind the Wikipedia policy consider this rule is innaceptable because "truth" is subjective. See talk page of WP:Verifiability for more details --Lumière 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a rule that is said to be not negotiable

• Non significant viewpoints should not be included in an article, even if they respect all other requirements of WP policy.

Note that it is implicit here that the editors will assert the significance of the viewpoints to the best of their endeavours, and that a consensus will be seeked in case of doubt or dispute. Experts behind the Wikipedia policy explain that the meaning of "non significant" is self-evident and need not be precised. See talk page of WP:Neutral point of view for more details. --Lumière 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you personally and immediately I became unblocked for defending me in the case of my recent blocking for editing the WP:Vereifyability page.

I shall be contributing some of my recent thoughts on this subject to that talk page soon. But if youre interseted, I have put tham on my talk in readiness.

I think we will have a large battle in fighting all these admins who seem to do as they please on that page and seem to have no respect for ordinary users opinions. They are too busy fighting amongst themselves to take our comments seriously I feel.

However, what they have got now is just plain WRONG. I look forward to discussing how we we might change the page back without getting blocked. Once again thank you!! --Light current 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

Lumiere, looking at your contribs, I see you've made 455 edits to the encyclopedia, yet 1,287 to talk pages, including 585 to project talk, all or mostly in an effort to change our content policies. This imbalance could explain the difficulty you have understanding the policies. If you could gain some more experience of editing, you'd be better placed to understand how the policies work in practice. With the best will in the world, no one has the time to keep explaining what individual sentences mean. I hope you'll continue to make constructive contributions to articles and perhaps return to editing the policy pages in a few months' time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You exactly point out to the problem that I see. Some have their own understanding of the policy, which is not necessarily the written policy. Sorry, but I cannot contribute to WP in this context. Others can perhaps. Good for them! I cannot. --Lumière 06:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then by all means stop contributing. What you may not do is act disruptively on policy pages because you personally don't have enough editing experience to understand what is being said. I see you've been doing the same at Talk:NPOV. Please stop it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot seriously refer to policy, stop annoying me here. I am not interested in your view of the world. I contributed to improve the understanding of NPOV, but sure some were disrupted perhaps, but I did not intend to. I certainly did not disrupt any policy page. I only worked on their talk page! --Lumière 08:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Check this out

A recent addition by User:Francis Schonken to the NPOV talk page (and a resulting modification to the policy itself). Now, let's see who the "sympathetic" participants were:

• User:gilbertggoose - A practicaly unknown user who made a tiny amount of edits. The signature was given by an IP, not the user himself.
• Nauraran - Unknown "pyromaniac" who made very little edits.
• Ann Heneghan - A "Musical linguist".
• Fool - Unknown user, made little edits.

Here are wikipedia's "legislators". This is what Lir meant when he said wikipedia has a "Sockpuppet democracy" --Anon84.x 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good example that illustrates that Wikipedia is not enough based on competency. This can be seen also, but in a much more abstract way, in the two sections above, respectively about a non negotiable rule and a rule that is against the spirit of Wikipedia. These are two almost identical rules. The only difference is that in one case the criteria is "significance" and the other case the criteria is "accuracy" or "truth". The first rule is not negotiable in the Neutral Point of View policy. The second rule is rejected in the Verifiability policy: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Why is it that the rule that requires significance is a non negociable part of WP policy, whereas the rule that requires accuracy or truth is considered innaceptable? I thought about it for a while and I could only think of one explanation. The spirit behind the significance criteria is to suppress so called "bullshit" theory, etc. After my discussion in the talk page of the NPOV policy, I realized that it is implicit that anyone can evaluate the "significance" of an article. The situation is different in the case of the "truth" or "accuracy" criteria. This criteria is considered difficult to evaluate. WP would depend too much on the contribution of experts! The lack of appreciation for the role that should have experts in Wikipedia is also clear in the no original research policy, especially in the section The role of expert editors. This section basically says that experts have no special role whatsoever in Wikipedia. --Lumière 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A newcomer's guide to the wikipedia mentality

Jimbo Wales gives a "gentle request" on his talk page:

I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.

Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian.

Jimbo shows wikipedia's culture at its best:

My hope for a solution is one of gentle kindness and a request of people who are overusing them. Rather than force our culture down the throats of newbies, we must educate them. Listen, we must say, here we are Wikipedians and while we acknowledge that we all bring biases, we do everything we can to minimize them here.

Jimbo loves the individuality of users: (did I mention wikipedia has nothing to do with communism?)

I am a Jain. Do you think I will treat a user differently if I see that he is a Muslim? You notice that what you are doing is removing individuality, right? This is too alike to a communist nation for me. You are persecuting individuality and I can not support any such site, foundation or person that does this. Also, since when is a userpage an article in an encyclopedia? --Shell 16:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm "persecuting individuality" by making a kind request.--Jimbo Wales 16:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Admins are responsible people who act over strict policies (And Jimbo is not a vigilant dictator)

What happened to the good old days? (wheel war = the admins have an edit war between themselves, or better, a block war - in which one admin blocks a user and then another admin deblocks the user)

An example of Jimbo's benevolent kindness (by the way, this is a threat, not a request)

Jimbo endorses an administrator's love bombing style - Excellent advice, Jimbo, exposing your cult's indoctrination mechanism.

There is no cabal, really! - Self descriptive, read also my comments at the talk page. (this is is the sort of "hidden" pages on wikipedia regular users can't easily find)

The cabal loves and respects the "ordinary" users and their individuality

.. It seems to me that considerable evidence suggests that you will be disappointed in the outcome this affair and in any similar affairs to come. Both the Board and the Arbitration Committee have endorsed the fact that Jimbo has the powers of a GodKing and occasionally will use them. And the consensus of the community seems to me to be a vehement "whatever."

You have the privilege of trying to change that consensus, of course. You'll probably find the community, herd of cats that it is, easier to steer than the Board or the ArbComm.

And also:

.. I don't claim to speak on behalf of the commuity; I'm just pointing out that his powers derive in essence from the consent of the community, and are not somehow separate from that. He'll continue to be able to herd Wikipedia so long as the vast majority of its users agree that he's doing a good job; that's quite separate from his titular position as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. ..

The encyclopedia fascists even have their own boot camp! Join now!

The Wikipedia Boot Camp is designed to help new contributors get a hang of the ropes! Experienced Wikipedians help out our newest members who may be unfamiliar with how to edit pages, by discussing the basics and getting you through those early days. By the end of our boot camp course, you'll be as familiar with Wikipedia as you'll ever be.

As part of your course of training, you will learn that competency doesn't really matter in wikipedia! really, you don't have to be an expert to write an encyclopedia! Just follow the rules and agree with everybody when you don't understand a subject (as they probably won't understand it either). If something looks suspicious, or doesn't make sense to you and your friends, use the policies! WP:NOR and WP:V means you can easily eliminate the obvious crackpot theories. If the crackpot is published, use WP:NPOV! form a consensus on the group that the view is a "minority" and not "significant", that will solve most of the obvious problems.

If the crackpot is persistent, ask the admins to ban him! there are 800 admins and the whole ArbCom who are just waiting to bring him into trial. When engaging in ArbCom, say the crackpot violated wikipedia's social norms, show how he was trolling and disrupting wikipedia by posting on the article's talk page 3 times a day. After the crackpot is banned, revert all of his changes and archive all the talk page discussions. That would be an excellent example of how to keep the loving and peaceful atmosphere of wikipedia! And don't forget to revert the vandals!

The Arbitration Committee is a fair judiciary body that makes its rulings only on the basis on established standards of justice (may I also add that it is perfectly sane?!)

--Anon84.x 10:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dismissed report of violation of the 3RR on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

You had been reported for violating WP:3RR on this article, but given your last edit, I declined to impose a block as you seem willing to compromise on this statement. I suggest that next time you see yourself reverting several times in a row to immediately stop and engage in discussion on the talk page of the either the article or the other party. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh please! The first sentence above was enough. The other sentences were definitively not necessary and even unpleasant. I did not need to be taught anything about the importance of discussion on the talk page. I always discuss on the talk page immediately before or after every edit.

On the other hand, the other editors did a revert without any discussion in the talk page when it is clear that the issue was disputed. I consider that this kind of edits is vandalism and irrespectful of the other editors that participate in the dispute. A revert of vandalism should not count as a revert. This interpretation might not be shared by others, but lucky for me, I spontaneously self reverted anyway. --Lumière 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The trouble here is defining vandalism. It seems that if admins do any changes to policy pages, its editing. If anyone else does any changes, its vandalism. This has been demonstrated quite well over the past few days. Ahh there we are then, thats the definition!--Light current 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you and I have wandered into an ongoing wheel war on Verifyability. In these cases, the admins fighting it are liable to be in a very bad mood and to have lost some of their judgement and are liable to make hasty judgements in dealing with perfectly reasonable users. It is therfore wise I think for ordinary users to step back until the situation calms down. I have just learned this valuable lesson!--Light current 00:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation

Several of us spent a lot of time working on this article today, and it is starting to look like we may be moving toward an agreeable solution. I would ask that you please not antagonize other editors; we all know that reputable sources are needed, as has been discussed on the talk page, so there is no need to reiterate in the article itself. It has been agreed by all parties involved - you, me, Paul, and Hipocrite - that the site that was used before is not appropriate. You're beating a dead horse.

So far I have tried to see this issue your way and have made changes to the article to defend your points. But when you do things like this it makes it difficult. The arguments about what is or is not a valid source can be over if you will let them be. I'm hoping everyone can take a step back and take some time to cool off, and then we can continue to cooperate and really improve the article. Kafziel 00:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that people agreed that both references were not appropriate. I also don't understand what you mean by the arguments can be over. We need to make sure that policy is respected. The best thing you can do is to discuss the policy so that we all understand it and go with it. I don't want to be rude, but your personal view about what is going to be a great article on the subject can only be a criteria if it works within the policy. --Lumière 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Transcendental meditation. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Kafziel 21:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You must be joking? You are the one that should refrain from doing personal attack. Read WP:AGF Lumière 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Your response did not add to the discussion so I will respond here

You basically conceded that the issue is one of degree.

So if an article has lower degree of original research it is ok, but a high degree it is not?

I want to respond here so you think a little bit about your answers before muddling the discussion page. You have done an excellent job of making a mess out of the discussion page of this article.

I would like to see a cleaner discussion page since this particular rule is basically absurd the way it stands and needs to be restated. LegalEagle1798 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest that you write your responses and then save them somewhere. DO NOT POST THEM FOR AT LEAST A WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!

You are posting way too much to be giving the proper thought to each post. LegalEagle1798 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? Moreover, I personally consider the above as an innapropriate conduct on your side, even if you don't realize it. I could also politely reply to your personal talk page as well. I consider that my postings are thoughtful and, if you try to understand them, you would benefit from them. My main concern here is that you might just misunderstand the issue, and it would actually be much more useful to continue the discussion in the article talk page. -Lumière 21:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not the only one that feels that you are not giving your posts enough thought. I have read several such suggestions in regards to your posts without even going out of my way to look for them. And it certainly is not useful to have this discussion with you on the article talk page as you are muddling up the article talk page, again I am obviously not the only one that feels that way.

I have made a substantive reply to your post in the talk page here, if you wish reply to it here. LegalEagle1798 22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I replied in the article talk page. (see Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Is the purpose of this rule to promote propaganda?) Thanks. -Lumière

You have successfully cluttered up the article talk page still further. You have conceded that a strict interpretation of the rule here will makes all of Wikipedia in violation of the rule.

(see Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Is the purpose of this rule to promote propaganda?)

"My understanding is that you take a very strong interpretation of the No original research policy to conclude that most of WP is original research, including all mathematical articles."

And then you further concede that it is a matter of degree.

"The solution is to take a reasonable interpretation"

So your response to mine does not make all that much sense.

(see Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Is the purpose of this rule to promote propaganda?)

Lastly, I strongly request that you dont cut and paste this here to the article talk page. I have not given my thoughts here the usual time I give them to settle in my own mind. And it is not fair to everyone else to place a half baked argument on the article talk page as you have done.

(see Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Is the purpose of this rule to promote propaganda?)

I do not post without giving my words a great deal of thought and I suggest you do the same. LegalEagle1798 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you write as thoughtful comments here as you do anywhere else. In any case, never mind, because I really think that it is more useful to discuss an article in its talk page. Your critic will just be an occasion for me to clarify (again) my point, which might be useful for a few others like you. -Lumière 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Is the purpose of this rule to promote propaganda?)

Hipocrite's comment

Hey Lumière, of course, I knew the nature of Hipocrite's comments on my talk page. My reply to him was purely rhetorical. deeptrivia (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Your harassing comments on my talk page

Stop harassming me with threats and false warnings of policy violations when it's clear that you not only do not understand policies but are only making these posts to try to harass me. DO NOT POST TO MY TALK PAGE AGAIN. I will remove any future edits you make on sight as pure troll behavior and harassment. Before you try to "warn" people about policies it would help if you actually tooko some time to educate yourself on what they actually were. An admin already pointed out that your accusation was false, and you ignored that to post more harassing and clueless messages, while you are not only not an admin but a particularly bothersome POV-pushing problem editor, so obviously your "warnings" hold no weight and can be ignored as worthless revenge tactics. Have a nice day. DreamGuy 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RPA

WP:RPA is, at best, a controversial guideline, and you are misapplying it: [3]. Do not use it to sanitize what others have said to/about you in a discussion. If you must use RPA, you should refactor comments you find inflammatory so that the original meaning is kept. android79 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the original meaning of anything about the article was kept. Of course, the original meaning of the personal attacks were removed. Moreover, I was not even aware of WP:RPA, but directly read WP:NPA. I did not read it again before acting -- I just vaguely remembered that it was a suggestion. Moreover, I was supported by another editor to do what I did. I sincerely do my best to respect the policy and its spirit, and to maintain a good feeling as much as I can in Wikipedia, and I am sure you are just doing the same. Lumière 15:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You outright deleted many legitimate criticisms of your edits and behavior that could not possibly be construed as personal attacks. Do not do so again. android79 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)