User talk:Étincelle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Formerly Lumiere

Hi Étincelle. Just wondering if you put in a request for mediation about the continued personal attacks against you by certain posters. I'm new to Wikipedia and have been subject to some of the same attacks from one of those posters. Since I'm new, I don't know if what they're doing is against policy/guideline or not. It's uncomfortable to be subjected to such attacks when trying to honestly edit Wikipedia and work out differences of opinion. Since you seem to be a focal point for some of those attackers, I just wanted to get your opinion and find out if we should take action. Dreadlocke 21:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my horrible and clumsy attempt to offer you support. Just know that, as Dreadlocke says above, that you you are no alone in being attacked. I encourage you to keep on reverting and perhaps you will find a more satisfying solution.  - C. dentata 00:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that I think you have a very nice writing style, and present your opinions and arguments in a very clear and well written manner. You wrote a much better version than I did of the information I was trying to convey about Brian's website, I really enjoyed reading it! It actually brought a smile to my face. All your posts make a lot of sense, and you seem to be very polite and kind. I am appalled at the way Skolnick treats you. Dreadlocke 07:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I said, is that you Lawson? Askolnick 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. No, Andrew, THIS is me... Sparaig 03:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Out, Out Damn Hypocricy 2 Please Withdraw Your False Statments about JAMA 3 NOR and V 4 ND RFM

[edit] Out, Out Damn Hypocricy

I hope other Wiki editors can see that Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit next Who Knows What is not here to contribute to Wikipedia. He came here to work on only two articles -- Transcendental Meditation and Natahsa Demkina. The common feature is that both articles cite research that I published. He has only two agendas, defend his cult and attack CSICOP, Skeptical Inquirer, my fellow researchers and me. He'll do it with any argument he can cook up, no matter how false or absurd. He keeps complaining that my personal attacks are unfair. However, his entire effort on Wikipedia has been to discredit my colleagues and me. Virtually NOTHING he writes in the Natasha Demkina discussion page has anything to do with Natasha Demkina. It's all about attacking me and defending fellow attackers like Dreadlocke. I hope other editors see through this hypocricy. Askolnick 14:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Withdraw Your False Statments about JAMA

Etincelle, formerly Lumiere, formerly Amrit, you keep changing your name in an apparent attempt to hide the many complaints other editors have made against you for posting so much false and misleading material. For example, you made false statements about the article I wrote on Transcendental Meditation's fraudulent activities in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Then you were going under the name Lumiere. Before that you went under the name Amrit. Every time you change your name, you keep burying the record of what other editors have said about you.

Previously, you tried to wipe that record clean by simply deleting other editors' criticisms. When you were told you're not allowed to do that, you began changing your name, which conveniently hides all past complaints and challenges to your veracity and credibility. However, the record is still there -- although harder for people to read. So I am going to help others keep track of you deceptions and falsehoods that you refuse to defend.

For example, you have not defended your lies about the Journal of the American Medical Association and its report on the Transcendental Meditation movement's campaign to deceive scientists, science publications, and the general public. You falsely claimed that:

"JAMA has published at the least two other papers on the benefits of TM after this 1991 article! So, JAMA is not as strongly convinced as you that TM is cult organization that falsified data, etc." [1]

Speaking as an associate editor for JAMA from 1989 until the end of 1998, I can say that's a lie. I challenged you to retract that falsehood or else cite those publications. You ignored my objection and challenge, changed your name to Etincelle, and buried the record. So let me revive it:

"I know of no studies on TM that were published in JAMA since my 1991 article. Lumiere [formerly Amrit, now Eticelle] claims that JAMA published at least two research reports on the benefits of TM. I just did a search on Pubmed and found no such articles. I challenge her[him] to provide the citations of any such article or else to withdraw that claim."[2]

But instead of retracting or defending that lie, you turned your efforts to vandalizing the Wikipedia Natasha Demkina article in an attempt to discredit me.

Fortunately, Wikipedia keeps good records. Askolnick

I thought that JAMA had subsequently published papers about the benefits of TM, but this was innacurate. Yes, this was innacurate, but you are not only innacurate but also against policy when you assume that I had bad faith. In fact, you do not only assume that I had bad faith, but you also incorrectly assume that I was stupid (since it was certain that this innacuracy would be noticed.) FYI, I do not act in bad faith, and I am not stupid. I will not defend myself in any way on one point where I was innacurate. I know that you hope for that. You just failed. Instead, I will focus on the points that are accurate. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this illustrates very well the general situation. You keep spending your time looking for innacuracies, mistakes and other things of this kind to discredit people that do not think like you do. Sometimes, you point out verifiable facts (and this can be useful), but most of the times, they are not verifiable facts and often they are just your misinterpretation of the facts. In the above case, the innacuracy is a verifiable fact, but the bad faith is just your misinterpretation. If you continue, I will send your case to arbitration. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 17:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What exposes this defense as bogus is that, if you had errored in "good faith," you would have admitted your mistake. Instead, I had to come to your user page and hit you over the head with it to get you to admit your statement was utterly untrue. In fact, you still won't admit that it was false. You use the weasel word "inaccurate" repeatedly (eight times!) to imply there was some truth to your statement. "Inaccurate" doesn't mean "false." It means "not free of error." There was absolutely no truth to your statement. It was entirely false. If you dissected it and examined the pieces under a scanning electron microscope, you wouldn't find an atom of truth in it. I had to pursue you to your personal page here to demand a retraction and yet you still won't admit that it was false. In no way is this "good faith" behavior.

In addition, that falsehood was accompanied by other lies, such as your claim that you reread the JAMA article and that it confirmed your memory that the article was about the possible conflict of interests of only one person, who was hardly involved in the TM movement, and that it really should have been taken care of with a letter to the editor. Those outrageous falsehoods cannot be brushed under the rug as "good faith inaccuracies." They were not inaccurate, they were false. And since you remarked that you just reread the article, you cannot hide behind the pretense of a "faulty memory." If you continue to attack me with false and misleading statements, I will continue to publicly confront you with them. I will not let you hide from them by simply changing your name.

You're now doing the same thing to another article I wrote in your campaign to discredit my work. You're using the same deceitful tactics to smear me by posting falsehoods about my article on Natasha Demkina. If you want arbitration, bring it on. Just remember: Wiki records of your misconduct remain intact, despite your efforts to erase them.Askolnick 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been doing this all your life. You really don't get it. False is fine. I did not realize the nuance, and I still don't really get it in our context. What does it means innacurate in the above context? I sincerely felt that it meant false. You keep attacking my good faith. I am not discussing with you anymore on this kind of issues. Please focus on the article and the sources used in the article. This is my User talk page. I could easily remove all the above this section, but I won't. I think it this section (including your paragraph below) documents well who you are. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 19:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to correct one of my statements above. I just learned that it is not against Wiki guidelines to delete comments from one's User-Talk page. I misread an administrator's directive to you telling you not to delete material from talk pages. I was wrong to think that he meant all talk pages, including User-Talk pages. Sorry for my mistake. Askolnick 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOR and V

Lumiere/Etincelle, practically no useful discussion has been possible for weeks on these talk pages because of your input. These are important policy pages and editors have to be free to discuss them without having you (deliberately, it seems to me) obfuscating every issue. If you're not doing it deliberately, then I apologize most sincerely for writing to you in this way, but I'm not sure what else to do. As Lumiere and as Étincelle, you have contributed more to policy talk pages than to the encyclopedia, and yet you must realize you have little chance of understanding our policies, or of making useful contributions to them, until you have experience of actually editing the encyclopedia, and preferably substantial experience. I'm therefore writing to request that you stop editing the talk pages of WP:NOR and WP:V for a few weeks (and other policy talk pages if you're doing the same elsewhere) until you've gained more editing experience. Once again, I am truly very sorry if your intention is, in fact, to contribute constructively to those pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ND RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Natasha Demkina, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.