User talk:-Lumière

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My previous login name was Lumiere (archived talk page). Recently, I also used the login name User:Étincelle, but not anymore.

Contents

[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) 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, in order to comply with the rules of the dispute-resolution process, I'm once again making an effort to resolve the issue of your posts to the talk pages of NOR and V (and possibly other policy pages too). Regardless of the rights or wrongs of your arguments, several editors have said your posts are causing a problem on the talk pages, with the result that we're all finding it hard to discuss the policies. I have to tell you that, if you continue, you're likely either to be blocked for disruption by an admin, or we'll pursue the dispute-resolution process further, if necessary to the Arbitration Committee, which I'm fairly sure will consider favorably a request that you be banned from those pages. As this could be a drawn-out process for everyone, I'm asking you again whether we can reach some amicable compromise: that, for example, you voluntarily withdraw from these pages until you have more editing experience, or that you restrict yourself to a certain number of posts there per month, or that you at least take a break for a couple of weeks in the first instance. Do any of these options seem acceptable to you? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to collect some information about this situation. I will get back to you. -Lumière 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: NOR comments

I must say I do have trouble following your attempts to clarify what you mean. I think you should hold off further discussion/ clarifications on such policy questions, until consensus is reached as to whether you will retain the privilege to edit policy pages. In this specific case, you may be up against the language disconnection again: I had no problem with your use of the word "sourced"; I was explaining that the nutshell does not deal with the specifics of sourcing. The requirement to have a published source is already there: it says, "Articles may not contain any unpublished..." and then a list of what things may not be included. "Unpublished", in this instance, refers to each item in the list. —LeflymanTalk 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I did understand that. So, I think that you were lost because you missed my point. My point is simply that "novel syntheses" should not be in the list (of unpublished material to exclude). The policy, as stated by Jimbo Wells, says that unpublished syntheses that amount to a novel narration or interpretation should be excluded. So, not all unpublished syntheses should be excluded. SlimVirgin suggested that we exclude unpublished novel synthesis that advance a position. Someone else, perhaps you, suggested that we directly state that "article should not promote a novel synthesis". None of these two options even approximate the notion that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. You know that a synthesis is just an integration of different components into a whole. In our case, the components are the individual items that each have a source. I think the important is that a synthesis is not original research unless in the process of intergrating these components we add some new interpretations, analysis or evaluations of these components. Isn't it obvious that if we just integrate these compoments (without adding any new interpretation, etc.), we are just doing what we should normally do when we write a WP article. Do you agree with this? If yes, this is a key point that should be communicated: a synthesis per se is not original research. I cannot believe that I am being asked to stop posting in the policy page because of a problem of communication. I think Harald88 understood me well. So, if one understood me, it means that it was not so bad. -Lumière 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lumiere, it's the length of your posts and the frequency, plus the fact that they are hard to understand. I think if you got more editing experience, some of the policy issues that confuse you would become clearer. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't understand that this can be so disruptive that others cannot work. This makes no sense. I don't post that much. I will certainly accept to make sure that I keep the total length of my posts clearly below the average (total lenght of the page / number of editors with significant contributions). As far as being hard to understand is concerned, I don't mind that those who don't understand do not reply. Some do understand me. Otherwise, I would stop to post by myself. Also, it does not take a Ph.D. to understand the policy. Also, I do have enough practice to understand the essence of the problem. -Lumière 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at your contribs, you'll see the problem.
This means that, over the three accounts in four months, you've made just 536 edits to only 16 articles, but 1,050 to policy talk pages — 530 to talk NPOV, 286 to talk V, 182 to talk NOR, and 24 to talk RS.
In other words, you're editing the policy talk pages more than any other user, but editing the encyclopedia less than any of the other editors on those pages.
That ratio has to change dramatically, because we're here to build an encyclopedia and for no other reason, so everyone who becomes part of the community has to pull their weight in that regard; and everyone who wants to edit and discuss content policies must have a working knowledge of how the encyclopedia actually works. A theoretical knowledge is no use, because the situation on the ground is often very different from the one you might imagine, and how a policy sounds as though it might work in theory is often not how it works at all in practice. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree that I do not have enough practice to understand the main purpose of the policy and to know how it can be useful (or can fail to be useful). I hope that I have still the right to disagree and express my opinion. I think that, exactly because I have a different perspective, I can contribute to an healthy situation in Wikipedia where divergent opinions are integrated into a better whole. -Lumière 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but please accept that no one else (that I'm aware of) agrees with you on that point. I hope you'll consider my suggestion above, because with these editing figures, I'm fairly certain the arbitration committee will ban you from those talk pages for a period, and then you won't be able to contribute to them at all. (This is just my opinion, of course, because I can't speak for the committee.) But if you voluntarily withdraw, you'll at least be able to post sometimes. Please have a think about it. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as changing the ratio is concerned, here is the situation. I think it is useless to work on the controversial topics that interest me because the system does not work for these topics. It is a complete lost of time. I understand that I am not alone in this situation. Some of the editors in this situation are new editors but some are also old editors. We are considered POV pushers that attempt to change the policy to push their view. This is the perspective of those who are happy with the system because of the nature of their views. I know that you do not say that I will be blocked from editing the V and NOR policy talk pages because of that, but I just wanted to explain the context. Therefore, I would like to work with you on the policy so that I can explain the problem that I see and perhaps we can improve the situation together. Please, do not take the hard perspective that I am just a POV pusher that try to break the law or something like that. Instead, take the nicer and more open attitude that I am an editor that has its own perspective on a problem and would like to work with others to improve the situation. I do not want to break any policy. I do not use any form of violence. I just want the opportunity to discuss my view with others that are interested in the policy talk pages. This is very healthy. Please do not suppress my opinions as if you were a totalitarian organisation, which must suppress opinions to protect its existence. -Lumière 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, but we see this a lot. New editors become frustrated that they can't put their own opinions and knowledge into articles, and so they come to the policy pages to argue that the policies should be changed. They're not POV pushers or ill-intentioned. They're just inexperienced, and they don't understand that the only things that stand between Wikipedia and an absolute deluge of utter nonsense are the content policies, and particularly NOR and V. The fact is that if I see something happen with my own two eyes, I can't include it in Wikipedia until somebody has published it in a reputable publication, and they might not even publish what I think it was I saw. So in my view, that article will always have an untruth in it. But for good or for ill, that's the way we work. We're not a newspaper, not a primary source, not a weblog, not somebody's private diary. We publish what reliable sources publish. That is an absolutely fundamental principle of Wikipedia, established by the founder himself, so you're not going to change it. Of course, we can tweak around at the edges, tidy the wording, discuss what counts as a good source, and so on. But the basic principle will remain.
Comment inserted between two paragraphs of SlimVirgin: Deep in my hart, I totally agree with this principle. Exactly, as you say, I only think that we can tweak around at the edges, tidy the wording, discuss what counts as a good source. Since you say "and so on", I would add "discuss how to evaluate what is a fair representation of each view.", but all within a respect of the basic principle of the policy. I do agree with you. -Lumière 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you edit the encyclopedia some more, and then perhaps return to the policy pages in three months time. Often, what looks like unworkable nonsense on a policy page only begins to make sense when you've been in a few content disputes with POV pushers and original-researchers. One day, a light bulb goes off and you suddenly see how the three policies interact with one another, and how they make sense. If you're a good editor, the policies will support you by protecting your good edits, and by threatening other people's bad edits, and over time, you'll come to appreciate them. Then, when you have that experience, if it's awkward wording on the policy pages that caused your earlier confusion, you'll be better placed to help improve it without unintentionally opening any loopholes. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you on the first paragraph, but I cannot say that I totally agree with you on this other paragraph. I had the experience that you mention. In the few intensive months that I have been in Wikipedia, always keeping an eye on very controversial articles, while thinking carefully about the policy, exactly as you say, I came to appreciate a lot the policies. As you say, they are all very well thought and are complementary. Therefore, I doubt a light bulb going on or off will suddenly make a difference in my experience. Your statement that the policies support good editors is also true. I honestly don't see anything in the policy that is not supportive of good editors. However, I do think that these policies are not sufficient to address the problems that we have with some controversial topics. Please note: I only say not sufficient. I do not say incorrect. Moreover, a lot of the improvements that are needed are only needed in our common understanding of these policies, more than they are needed in the policies themselve. To improve this common understanding, discussion in the policy talk pages is very useful, and naturally some tidying of the wording will naturally come. Let me recall that I totally agree with your first paragraph. This is important because you might fear that when I say that we need some improvements in our common understanding of the policy, I mean that we have very opposite views of the policy. This is not the case. Every one, if he is working alone, could unintentionnaly open loopholes. This is why we work together. If someone unintentionally is opening a loophole, which may happen, the others will catch it and prevent it to happen. -Lumière 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is an important point. If my understanding and appreciation of the policy is as I say, and that I really think that just a few phrases need to be clarified, etc. you might wonder why I am not using it more in WP articles right now. The answer is that I believe that we must have a good understanding of the policy before we can use it adequately in controversial topics. Remember that I am interested in controversial articles where every edit must be considered in the light of the policies. Moreover, each single phrase of these policies is important because any phrase can be a basis for a confusion when we apply it in controversial topics. Any small confusion about the policies gets amplified a lot when we apply it in controversial topics. Therefore, I need to see that I have a very good understanding of the policies, which means an understanding that is shared with other experienced editors, before I can hope to improve these controversial articles. I am not looking for special advantages. On the contrary, I will be very happy that every editor that works on these controversial topics do the same. I believe that, even if two editors have completely opposed views about a topic, if they forget about this topic for a while, they can obtain an agreement about the policy. This agreement about the policy could then be the foundation that will allow them to work together efficiently despite their opposite views. So, it is totally logical that my focus is on the policy and that I want very much to discuss it in the policy talk pages. Recently, I felt that some people attempted to suppress my opinions in these talk pages. I don't understand why they do that. I need to express my opinions about these "tweak around at the edges", etc. and receive feedbacks that confirm my understanding. Also, of course, I care about the wording of the policy just to improve the wording, not only to check my understanding. However, these two aspects go together. They cannot be separated. -Lumière 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
And what we're trying to tell you is your method isn't working. You're alienating all the other users, and to be frank many people see you as a pure troll. I'm assuming you're not trying to be, but that is the effect of your actions. SlimVirgin is framing it as a polite request, but lets be clear, if you don't change your methods, they will probably be changed for you. There is already a consensus against your actions. You need to listen to that. We'd rather you contribute productively. - Taxman Talk 14:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability and Verifiability

Thank you for your comments. You have given me a lot to think about, as have Slim Virgin and others. Your initial comment that WP:V is the wrong place for this is probably correct. The issue I am trying to raise is not whether the source is verifiable (in the Wikipedia sense), but what are the limits of reliability.

To take the extreme case, I believe that most obituaries are not fact-checked, but are printed as submitted by the family as a courtesy. Thus, an obit printed in the Times without a byline should not be considered a reliable source. Similarly, most medium-sized papers have a specific part of the business section in which press releases are printed pretty much as received. One can prove this to a reasonable certainty simply by comparing other papers -- if they have the same text, either they are plagarizing or they have a single unacknowledged source. Since wire services and syndicated columnists are acknowledged, that pretty much leaves a press release. I believe that conclusion to be reliable and based on verifiable evidence.

On the other hand, making too much of this sort of thing could lead to abuses that may be worse than the simple stupidities that got me thinking about this. I have no idea of your politics, having not edited with you, and it might well be that in a practical case, we could find ourselves on opposite sides of this. That would be ironic. I want to give this some more thought. Thanks again. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other people's talk pages

Please don't take conversations with a third party to other people's talk pages, particularly not as means of disparaging the talk page owner. The best place for conversations with a person is on that person's talk page. Thank you. --BillC 18:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You are really a friend of Mr. Skolnick. However, my objective was not to disparage anyone. I just spontaneously welcomed back Julio, and wanted to give him an advice with regard to personal attacks that he may receive. It was so spontaneous that I just followed the link from my watchlist without considering what was the target page. Anyway, the situation is similar as when you visit a friend and meet another old friend there. You will chat with him even if it is in the house of another friend. I don't see Mr. Skolnick as my enemy, but it is obvious for every one that he does personal attacks. -Lumière 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the situation was in no way similar. You were not visiting "a friend." I consider you a very dishonest person who is no friend of mine. Lumiere formerly Etincelle formerly Lumiere formerly Amrit, you came to Wikipedia in part to attack and discredit my work. It is the height of hypocrisy for you to call me your "friend."
Here's yet another example of your lies: Bill C is not a friend. All I know about him is that he is a Wiki user who also posts on the JREF forum. I also know that he's a rational, pro-science person, which is probably why you would like to discredit him.
BTW, isn't it time for you to switch names again, so that all the criticisms you've collected on your talk page will get buried? Askolnick 22:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
About the friend issue, I just felt it was nice. I am sorry, but that is the way it is. There is nothing you can do about it. -Lumière 01:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yes there is something I can do about it: Anytime you claim to be "a friend," I will point out what a hypocritical liar you are. Askolnick 03:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it will not work. It was just an analogy, but I felt good about it. This is the part about which there is nothing you can do. -Lumière 03:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Lumière, don't be a dick. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, can you help me here and tell me what is the answer you expect? About Andrew, maybe you suggest that I should admit that I would feel better if he was not saying all the times that I am an hypocritical liar, etc. Yes, if it is your point, I thank you. It is a good point! -Lumière 04:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Go read the page. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I had read it already. I was looking for which point I should stop to argue about. On some issues here at Wikipedia, I do not agree about how things go. For these points, it is hard not to be a dick, but I can always try to get along as much as I can. -Lumière 04:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying stop arguing. I'm saying have some respect for your fellow editors. You're treatment of the above editor, telling them they can't do anything about your disrespect and ironic abuse, is the epitome of being a dick. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not following you at all. I was just saying to Mr. Skolnick that I felt good when I presented this analogy in which he was a friend. You missed the point I think. Perhaps you could not imagine the possibility that I was just sincerely telling him that I had good feelings when I presented this analogy and that even if he attacks me or whatever, I would still have these good feelings. There was no game here. It was just a plain sincere expression of my feelings. You don't have to believe it, but that was it. Nothing complicated. -Lumière 04:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synthesis

Synthesis also means "deduction from the general to the particular", which is its use in his case. I am not using it in the sense you quote, which is a specialized technical sense. I meant exactly what I wrote. The term refers back to its use in the WP:NOR policy prohibiting " new analysis or synthesis of published data" -- Gnetwerker 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of synthesis that you use is only used in logic. It is synonymous to deductive reasoning. I challenge you to give me one usage of synthesis in a reputable source where it has this meaning outside of a mathematical context. Also, the meaning of "synthesis" that I use is not technical at all: it is its most common meaning. It is your meaning that is highly specialised, not mine. The technical expression "movie synthesis" is perfectly in accord with the common meaning of synthesis. Moreover, the usual meaning of "synthesis of data" is of course the usual scientific process that integrates disparate data into one or few laws, which is not a deductive reasoning at all. We can logically explain the data from the laws, but not the other way around. Synthesis of data can also means any form of integration of this data into a whole. -Lumière 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

From the WP:NOR Talk page: Webster's New World Dictionary: synthesis ... deductive reasoning, from the simple elements of thought into the complex whole, from cause to effect, from a principle to its application, etc. There is no mention of movies in any dictionary definition I can find (in English, at least). -- Gnetwerker 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnetwerker, it may help to understand that Lumiere has learned to "speak the sweet truth," from his guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. [7] Maharishi's followers use this expression to describe the need for deception to promote the higher truths they believe Maharishi has brought to the world. One of the most common means of "speaking the sweet truth" among TMers, is to substitute their own definitions for words, as Lumiere is doing here. For more information about "speaking the sweet truth" and other deceptive practices of the TM movement, see JAMA. Oct 2 1991, v266(13):1741-1747 [8]
We're using synthesis in its ordinary sense to mean combination. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! -Lumière 15:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

You are correct, that Jimbo Wales' quote regarding importance, gives an indication of absolute significance, and not relative (or comparative) significance. --Iantresman 10:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I largely agree with you

Hi Lumiere, I had not given the NOR discussions much attention lately, and I now see that there were discussions in which others pushed their opinion without listening to yours, so that now there is a policy page that reflects the opinion of a few people, without real consensus. Not good. Do you know how to bring this to the attention of a wider audience? Harald88 19:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy talk pages

Lumiere, I see your policy talk-page comments are creeping up in number again. [9] I appreciate very much that you cut down on the NOR and V contributions, but it's still happening on the NPOV talk page. Could I ask you again please to take a complete break from all the policy talk pages for a few weeks? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about the Undue weight section of Neutral point of view

The following analysis is an attempt to interpret the three points below under the assumption that they are from Jimbo Wales. It was written before a useful clarification from Iantresman about the fact that these three points are actually not from Jimbo Wales, but they constitute only a paraphrase of a post of Jimbo Wales. Therefore, this analysis is somehow obsolete because it was made under the wrong assumption. If these three points are not from Jimbo Wales, then their purpose could be anything. I should not even try to figure out what was the intention of the editors who "paraphrased" Jimbo with these three points. -Lumière 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

We will only consider the three categories that are defined in the last part of each of the three sentences. The first category contains the view that are "subtanciated with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". The second category contains the view with "easy to name prominent adherents". In my proposal, we would say that a view is "significant" if it belongs to the first or the second category. I propose such a definition of significance as an inclusion criteria in a given article. The third category contains what remains, the insignificant views. Even a view that is "insignificant" is acceptable in its own separate article, if it is verifiable.

The expression "significant" can be replaced by something else, though its use here is consistent with the introductory sentence: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each". Its use is also consistent with some discussions in the NPOV talk page. An alternative to "significant" is "sufficiently prominent", which is also consistent with this introductory sentence, but then "significant" remains undefined.

What I would like to emphasis is that the expression "in the majority" should never be interpreted to exclude a view that is "substanciated with a reference to to commonly accepted reference texts" such as a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Obviously, the expression "in the majority" does not mean that the view must be held by the majority. The majority of what? In practice, it means that the view is substanciated in reference texts that are "commonly accepted". -Lumière 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. What does "prominent" mean here?
  2. What is the criteria for determining "prominence"?
  3. Does an "adherent" have to be a person or persons?

--MonkeeSage ☺ 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, once we have the big picture from Jimbo's quote, which I try to provide above, this is exactly the next questions to ask. Very good. I would also add the question:
4. What "commonly accepted reference texts" means in the definition of the first category?

We should also consider how the following quote fits in the big picture:

"Consider an obscure scientific concept, 'Qubit Field Theory' -- 24 hits on google. I'd say that not more than a few thousand people in the world have heard of it, and not more than a few dozen understand it. (I certainly don't.) It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion. (Jimbo Wales, Jan 2004) [10]"

I would say that it is about the fact that views in the first category might be not so important and only held by a few thousand people, but yet they are significant, which means sufficiently prominent for inclusion in an article. It intuitively belongs to the first category because of the "no one would serious question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia". I think that it is a mistake to consider that all views in the first category are neccessarily important. However, they might be more "prominent" than those in the second category. After all, if a view did not get published in "commonly accepted" reference texts, it must be that it is really not important. -Lumière 22:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user conduct RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière FeloniousMonk 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for my input. My small experience with you has been positive, but it is small, and others have said they began similarly. It seems obvious to me that you have created quite a splash, and not a positive one, in a short time. Policies are the experience of time distilled into rules that everyone can live with. Has it occurred to you that your concerns would have more credibility if you had a larger number of edits, if controversial ones did not dominate and if your stance was a bit less combative?
I hope you will consider that whatever your policy concerns, there is no great emergency. Yes, I feel that WP:NOR is sometimes thrown around frivolously, but I also think there is a need for a strong NOR policy, for the reasons stated. You are the subject of an RfC, this is not an Arbitration. I suggest that you consider modifying, rather than justifying, your behavior. Say (and mean) something like, "I have the following concerns, which I think are legitimate. I am sorry for bringing them up in a manner that caused disruption -- that was not my intent. Can you give me some advice on how to improve without giving up what I feel is important?" You might learn something to your advantage, and there will be no reason for anyone to proceed against you further. But, as I said, don't say it if you don't mean it: I advocate a sincere humility that helps one to get along with people who have other goals and ideas. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish I could help you, but I really don't have the time to get involved in both battles. Still, I recommend contacting the AMA and see if anyone else can help you. Other than that, I can't guarantee my involvement. Yes, I agree that being told you can't oppose policy too much is a crock of shit. There's lots of crappy and abused policies and guidelines creeping around lately. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Away for few days

I'll be away for few days. -Lumière 02:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive comments on policy talk page

I haven't really read your comments on the policy talk pages. I'm just basing my comments on the case presented on WP:RfC. I suggest, without meaning to be snarky, that you post your view of the dispute in the Response Section.Ragout 05:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfC

I have added my defence of you to the page. I hope it does some good.--Light current 20:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Come to the policy village pump

I've been contributing to discussions recently at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I would encourage you to come along as well and discuss topics people bring up, as well as present your ideas about policy changes. It is a wide-ranging forum and I think you would fit in well enough there. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone is trolling me in your name — a head's up

I don't know why, but someone is trolling me in your name. They are a strange little bunny, but they're at least amusing me. I thought you should know, because someone trolling me in my name could get you in trouble if someone were to jump to conclusions. I just want to say for the record that I don't think it's you—they write very differently—and let you know that the comedy is unfolding on my talk page at User talk:Saxifrage#A troll in Étincelle's name if you want to watch. Cheers! — Saxifrage ✎ 21:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)