Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:04, 22 April 2006

Multiple accounts

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 ) 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)

Amrit was just a Nickname that I used at the beginning when I was Lumiere, but many was calling me Lumiere because it was my User name. To avoid confusion I simply removed my Nickname. I was just a newcomer. I was just trying to do my best so that people can identify me easily. This accusation is ridiculous. -Lumière 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have blanked criticism and then redirected User talk:Lumiere then. Such actions are the opposite of "doing best so that people can identify easily." A blanking-redirect of an old talk page is one of the best way of making it hard for people to find the history of constant complaints about your behaviour. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am allowed to remove anything I want from my talk page (except perhaps some special administrative posts). I have seen experienced editors, perhaps admins, do that. However, the ratio of the posts that I removed is small, even amongst the criticisms. -Lumière 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are allowed to remove things of course. An editor's actions, including what they choose to remove from their talk page, are a testament to their character though. What you choose to remove from your talk page are comments that a significant portion of the editors who you interact with consider to be valid criticisms. That you garner so much criticism and choose to dismiss and hide it does not reflect well on you. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I am doing fine at that level. As I said I only removed a small percentage of the posts, even small amongst the criticism. This is the main point that I explain here. I did not try to hide anything with the help of my multiple accounts. -Lumière 21:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This kind of disagreement about whether you are "doing fine" as an editor is exactly the kind of ignoring of the community that is getting you in trouble. Misplaced Pages has thousands and thousands of editors, and you are one of the vast minority who can't seem to get along with others. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

And, you do realise that you can have the password for an account reset and mailed to you easily? Making a new username is entirely unnecessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:15, 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

Well, if you didn't register an email account then, no, there was nothing you could do because it's an automatic process (that involves bothering no-one). Consider registering and email with your current account so that you can avoid this in the future—Misplaced Pages keeps them confidential so much so that there is a special system in place that allows editors to choose to be contacted by email by others without revealing their address. Nobody by a developer can access it. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That developer can find out is already too much. -Lumière 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled. Register a pseudonymous email account (with Hotmail, for example) and use that. This has no meaningful impact on your privacy. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have considered this, and I might do it. Again, I did not foresee the impact that opening a new accunt would have. I still do not get it. Obsiously, I did not try to hide my previous accounts. -Lumière 22:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your IP address, which is visible to Developers, is far, far more traceable than your email address. Developers have much better things to do with their time. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:14, 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)

More is the operative word. An email address is less useful for tracing someone than an IP address. An IP address can identify you more than an email address can. Most of the time the ISP's help is useful, but it's not always necessary. The point is that you needn't worry about your email address being in the hands of Misplaced Pages because it would not make you less anonymous than you already are, especially if you don't use an email address that has your name in it, like a free one. Knowing this, you don't have an excuse for changing accounts anymore. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:30, 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)

By all means, leave things as they are now. But just don't go getting yet another account. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Away for few days

I'll be away for few days. -Lumière 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, walking in -Lumière's footsteps

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: . 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's response, or lack thereof

-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 Misplaced Pages talk:No original research (seven posts yesterday). -- Donald Albury 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he has been responding -- only not here where he's supposed to. He's been responding to these charges on the talk pages of sympathetic editors he hopes will jump in and defend him. For example, and

"There is a Rfc on me. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. I will really appreciate your neutral comment on this Rfc. Their main argument is that the ratio of the number of my edits on the main space over the number of my edits on the policy talk pages is low. My answer is that it is low because I cannot work on the mainspace with the way the policy is currently applied. So, I should either give up Misplaced Pages or try to contribute to the understanding and the clarity of the policy. I do not disturb the policy talk pages. I just make thoughtful comments. I am respectuous of other people, etc. There is no policy that say that the ratio of ... edits on the main space over the ... edits on the policy should be large. So, I am not doing abything wrong. -Lumière 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)" Askolnick 03:29, 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)

He also asked for my help. His comment on my premature suggestion concerning WP:V was friendly, helpful and cogent, but that's my only contact with him, and I don't think that an outside view on such a small basis would be very credible. I made some suggestions instead. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! This corroborates the fact that I do not disrupt the policy talk pages. Therefore, why should I be excluded from the policy talk pages because my ratio (# of edits on main space/# of edits on policy pages) is low? The spirit of Misplaced Pages is that new editors should very quickly be accepted as full member of the community. This is just a paraphrase of a statement of Jimbo Wales, but if needed I can provide the exact quote. -Lumière 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not corroborate anything. He said he's had little contact with you. And you're not being excluded because of your ratio. You are being asked to stop posting to those pages because you post there too much, and know very little about our policies. Your very high policies/encyclopedia ratio is simply part of the evidence for this. You've been asked elsewhere to show some respect for your fellow editors, so please do that and stop posting your personal views to policy talk pages. Then the complaints will stop, this RfC will be redundant, and you can get on with editing the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin 04:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It might not completely prove my point, but it does corroborate it. It may be a little experience, but it still corroborates my point. I think I have well chosen the word "corroborate" here. These individual comments that corroborate my points are useful, and the more there are of them, the better it is for me. On the other hand, Robert A West's useful comment certainly does not corroborate your claim that I have nothing useful to say about the policy. -Lumière 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is how you behave on the policy talk pages. It doesn't matter how much evidence exists to show you're wrong or have misunderstood something, you just keep ploughing on with the same point regardless. When I last checked, 24 experienced editors had certified or endorsed a statement saying your edits are disruptive. But then one editor posts that you were once helpful, although he admits he's had hardly any experience of you. Yet his is the comment you leap on, saying it "corroborates" your position. SlimVirgin 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me, -Lumière, is that you see this as a win/lose thing, and I for one am tired of combative Wikipedians at the moment. Why the urgent drive to modify policy? Where's the fire? Where are the dozens of pages with severe problems that can only be fixed if your suggestions are adopted? My suggestion still stands: modify, rather than justify, your behavior. Do more editing and less debating, and come back later with a clearer head, and fewer people irritated at you. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that a combative attitude, a constant opposition, etc. is a bad idea. It will bring me nowhere, and it does not help. I want to follow your advice. So please help me. I believe that you succeed to do something useful in the articles that are of interest to you in the main space. However, I tried to do the same, but it does not work with the articles that are of interest to me. These articles are completely jammed and nothing work. It is simply a lost of time to work on these articles. So, the simple natural attitude in my case is to help in the policy talk pages, where I think I can help to improve the way the policy are understood, interpreted and applied. Are you saying that I should start to edit articles that are not of interest to me? Are you saying that I should pretend that I think it is useful to try edit these articles that are completely jammed, if not protected against edits? Should I just leave Misplaced Pages alone? What is your suggestion? -Lumière 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages exists to create and publish articles. Our policies exist only to expedite that process. Policies are not an end in themselves. Unless users have experience with the way polices apply to real-word editing situations, it is impossible for them to know how they work. Your unwillingness to participate in this good-faith RFC indicates an unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages norms. That doesn't portend good policy-writing. -Will Beback 06:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)