User talk:Askolnick

I just wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, and thank you for your excellent work on the Natasha Demkina article. I'm the guy who created the original two-sentence stub in February, and seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best. I also want to commend you for presenting alternative perspectives in your article, and including links that present those other points of view. If you've got any questions about how things work here, just let me know. --Arcadian 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Natasha Demkina

In reply to your comments: "So I'm confused: a Wiki administrator said that 'seeing one of the primary sources flesh out the article represents Wikipedia at its best.' Now I'm being told that this is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Who's right about this? And by the way, shouldn't the validity and accuracy of the information added to Wikipedia be more important than the authorship of that information?"

First of all, writing about subjects in which you are closely involved is not currently a violation of Wikipedia policy, but Wikipedia:Autobiography is a guideline that discourages it. My own opinion, which probably differs from that of Arcadian, is that if someone stumbles across a Wikipedia article for which he or she is a primary source of information, it is usually appropriate that he or she should post suggestions for additions, removals, or changes in the Talk page and draw them to the attention of others.

Secondly, of course the validity and accuracy of information is more important that the authorship of that information, but you seem to suggest that it is self-evident that the information you have contributed to the article is valid and accurate. I reject this premise, and it is apparent that JS does, too. Clearly there is a degree of subjectivity involved when someone edits an article in which they are closely involved or are a primary source of information. Edwardian 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment was actually aimed at the problem of letting someone who repeatedly posts falsehoods -- to advance his stated "activist" agenda aimed at discrediting skeptics -- as appears to be happening. Julio Sequeira will not quit. If you give him a forum he will post one falsehood after another and when someone tries to correct them, he comes up with twelve more. His latest game with the number of test cards and his accusation that I lied when I told you that the appendix and esophagus can be viewed with the right x-ray procedures are perfect examples. I've played his game too much and too long and I'm sick of it. It's like debating with Creationists. They lie and cheat and, when doing it in front of people who don't know better, they often win the debate.

Tell you what, Edwardian, if you can find a single falsehood I ever added to the Wikipedia entry as Siqueria has repeatedly, I will shut up and go away.

On a more positive note, I think the changes you've already made are excellent -- with the exception of one. I think it is inappropriate for the entry to be singling out one side to be labeled as "highly respected." Brian Josephson may be highly respected by people who like him believe Uri Geller is a real psychic, not a charlatan, but he is widely lambasted by many scientists and others who know what he does. What's more, I would argue that I am highly respected. I may not have a Nobel prize but I have numerous other tokens of honor including a Pulitzer prize nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a Rosalyn Carter Fellowship in Mental Health Journalism, an Amnesty International "Spotlight on Media" Award, and other honors. However, I prefer that you just leave out such unnecessary and biased irrelevancies. Having won a Nobel prize 33 years ago for his discoveries in quantum tunneling phenomenon. When it comes to understanding and communicating medical science, I have many more awards then Josephson. So, I really think you should remove such references or else add a whole bunch for me and Prof. Hyman.

Likewise, I think you should remove the "Nobel Prize winner" from the reference section. That really is inappropriate. So too is that little biography added after Siqueria's name in the external links.

Thanks for your obviously high tolerance of pain and suffering...

Andrew Askolnick 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a few premises in your introductory sentence that need to be checked. The first is that it is self-evident to others that someone is repeatedly posting falsehoods. The second is that Wikipedians, of which you are now one, are "letting" that happen. I really don’t think it is reasonable for you to insist upon your own objectivity, call someone else a liar, then expect an administrator or another editor to simply take your word for it and revert his edits. If you dispute the accuracy of a particular statement or section, you do have a few other options at your disposal:

1. Do nothing.
2. Briefly explain on the Talk page why you think it is inaccurate and bring it, and suggested changes, to the attention of impartial editors.
3. As you did before, change it to what you think is accurate.

Regarding your request to “find a single falsehood”, it is not your honesty I dispute but your objectivity in contributing to this particular encyclopedia article. For example, you inserted “Demkina also made some diagnoses of one of the researchers, Andrew Skolnick, which were both incorrect and likely based on normal, non-supernatural observations” without explicitly mentioning the citation for this information... you.

Regarding your concern over my changes, please note that it was not I who added the credentials for Josephson or anyone else for that matter. Frankly, this article is supposed to be about Natasha Demkina and not the credentials of the researchers or the researchers’ skeptics. Whatever inaccuracies remain in the article are not my doing nor or they my responsibility to fix. We all have to pick and choose our battles and this is one from which I am withdrawing.

I know, and I did not mean to imply that you did. I meant my comment only as a protest that you did not take that nonsense out when you made the editing changes. We certainly agree. The article should not be about the bios and credentials of anyone but the subject of the entry.

When I found myself in an editing war with Siqueira, I ceased deleting his changes and appealed to Wiki administrators to intervene, because I saw no good that could come from an unmoderated battle and I'd prefer the decisions to remove material be made by independant parties. But, seeing that that's not going to happen in a more timely fashion, I'm going to take your advice and make the changes myself, adding a brief explanation to explain each. I just hope it's not going to bring an even bigger flame war here. Thanks very much for your help and for your advice. Wish me luck. Askolnick 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but protesting about the resolution process wasting your time was the straw that broke my back. I don’t have the time to wade through paragraph after paragraph of two people attempting to convince me that the other is a liar while they avoid discussing the article. If you are convinced of your own objectivity, I would suggest that you stand by your guns and keep changing the article to what you think is accurate. Edwardian 06:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Edwardian's theoretical principles (except perhaps his steadfastness to the WP:AUTO guideline), but not how he puts them into practice. I'd been hoping that WP:RFC would attract someone knowledgeable in the subject area. Frankly, even someone who'd seen the TGWXRE program would have been more qualified than myself.

I don't think that poring over the frustrated and sometimes caustic arguing between you and JS is fruitful. I don't know why anyone would think that. Certainly the unbridled discussion between you two was going to be heated. That should go without saying. I made it a point to avoid milling over all that, and focus on the article and the ways to resolve the dispute within WP. I've had enough experience with open communities to have learned that most people not familiar with such communities tend to be dissatisfied with the speed and/or efficacy of their methods. (This is why in the US there is such a conflict between those who want a fair, flexible process and those who want a fast, terminal process in government.)

In the end, though, I found it a lot more effective to go over both of your contributions to date and compile them with WP:NPOV as the goal (as well as maximization of noteworthy information) and generate the consensus myself. This is not what I wanted to do, as I'd only intended to be involved to aid the dispute resolution process, not become part of it.

Anyway, please review the current version of Natasha Demkina and my comments on the talk page. Note that the article is currently protected, forcing any amendments to be proposed elsewhere. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

About an IP 64.65.247.81

IP User:64.65.247.81 made a large number of stylistic edits to your comment on the village pump [1] None of these changed the meaning of what you said, but they did fix some grammatical errors. Is that you when you weren't signed in? I have not reverted the edit. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ambush, that's the IP from my office computer. I forgot to log back in. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. (Nice to have someone watching your back :-)

Askolnick 23:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Are you still willing to take mediation? Dan100 (Talk) 10:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

Let me think about this and give you an answer later this day. I'm not optimistic about the effectiveness of the Wiki way of settling disputes between those who say 2+2=4 and those that insist the sum must equal 5 because they say so. Splitting the difference and calling it 4.5 is not my idea of good scholarship.

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief over the persistance of one Wiki "statistician" who is still insisting that scientists cannot use a lower P value than 0.05 for the level of statistical significance -- despite my pointing out to him that the Wiki entry for statistical significance -- which he cited in support of his opinion -- says that researchers can.

My experience here has certainly been enlightening. Not pleasant, but enlightening.

Let me consider. Andrew Askolnick 12:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Demkina

Our edits clashed: I was editing the article while you placed your new notice. Perhaps you would like to review the article now. Best regards, --BillC 22:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

TM edits

Thank for your edits on the Transcendental Meditation page. Please feel free to hang around and participate more. Sethie 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sethie. However, I'm afraid if I do, a very unpleasant flame war may erupt. I fear "Lumiere" and I have a rather bitter history. She's an apologist and I'm a science journalist. Oil and water, you know -- or more like oil and an open flame...

But I will make a few little improvements re my own contributions to knowledge base of TM. Also, I may like to add something about how the TM movement claimed credit for steering Hurricane Gilbert away from Texas (sending it smashing into those poor Mexicans) by having a bunch of Yogic Flyers hop on their bums. (No kidding, the movement put out a press release making that claim.) Too bad they didn't "rise off their bums" and save New Orleans from Katrina...  :-)

Me and you, I think it is more like water and open flame :-) -Lumiere.

Troll

If you think that a party isn't arguing in good faith, or is basically making up things to support their argument, there is a point at which it no longer is valuable to respond to them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,

For this edit Lumière

I see you mentioned that Lumiere, etc. has used many usernames. How many, and which ones? android79 06:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Check over at the Transcendental Meditation article. She went by another name and suddenly changed it to Lumiere (confused the hell out of me). It is hardly a coincidence that she came to Wikipedia relatively recently to spend what appears to be a nearly full-time effort trying to rewrite the TM article and the Natasha Demkina article, with major attacks on my article on TM published in JAMA and my Demkina article in SI. She claims it's just a coincidence! But I think not. It is possible that she's an old TM apologist who I battled fiercely a decade ago on alt.meditation.transdendental and she's trying to pay me back (especially for the Judy Stein "Junkyard Dog" web site I set up on my web site to document the many viscious and crazy things she said :-) I'm not certain, but I think it may be her.

I don't think she's using multiple aliases here in Wiki. She just changes them every month or two. It is possible that she does this after she suffers a lot of abusive criticism. By changing her alias, a new or casual reader won't realize how badly she has been torn apart by others. I know it took me a while to figure that out when I first visited the TM article talk page. Earlier today/yesterday, she had the audacity to play censor and delete all of my criticisms from the talk page. You were kind enough to restore them (thank you again). Perhaps having failed that, she thought she the next best thing was a new alias. It is amazing that she started off by reposting the same crap under the new alias as if it had never been answered. Whether or not she is Judy Stein, Lumiere aka etc. is a dishonest scoundrel.

P.S. She originally went by the alias Amrit. It appears she has now used three aliases.

Demkina mediation

Please be aware that no one can be "assigned" to mediate without your acceptance. This is the very essence of mediation. Also, the mediator has no any extra power. So don't panic, just read a bit more wikipedia rules: wikipedia:Mediation.

Also, don't get mad when you have to repeat the same arguments to new people jumping into discussion, since rarely ythey browse thru huge talk pages (which are becoming useless indeed after some time). I would suggest you to summarize major objections on a separate page in a terse wording and refer new people to them. This would save you agood deal of typing. mikka (t) 07:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

More correctly: The Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal does indeed assign mediators without agreement by both parties. Nobody does have to listen to them, however, as they do not have authority. --Fasten 10:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning unreadable talk pages: You can refactor talk pages. --Fasten 10:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation by Rohirok

If you complain to me you are missing the point. The Mediation Cabal does not have policies and it does not have any authority. If you don't like what a Cabal mediator says tell vim to send another mediator or ignore vim if ve is unreasonable. You can also submit a complain at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Complaints. Since Rohirok is not a regular mediator for the Mediation Cabal that seems pointless in this case. You could complain to the coordinator directly if you think that's necessary. If Rohirok violates official Wikipedia policies please consider the usual steps concerning user conduct. I contacted Rohirok and asked vim to read Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators but that's something you could do as well, I don't have any more authority in this matter than you. --Fasten 10:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Askolnick. I will not step down as mediator. Even if I did, it would not matter. Mediators of the Cabal are just regular editors asked by others to help resolve disputes. I would still watch the page, and would make suggestions or edits that I thought would improve the article. If you are looking for a more neutral, moderate treatment of the article, perhaps you could recuse yourself as an editor. You are clearly not a disinterested party, having a vested interest in portraying your research in the best possible light. Rohirok 16:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rohirok, you watch the page as long as you want. This is what all wikipedians do. You may call yourself mediator, but you are not. You probably even don't know how mediators must act, judging from your aggressive tone. mikka (t) 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Rohirok, I am not a partisan like you. I have a vested interest in portraying my research in the most truthful light; that's all. That's why I don't agree with your view that it is "fine" to quote "disreputable" sources. You clearly have an agenda that is inconsistent with making the Natasha Demkina article as credible and as accurate as possible. You can't do that by using "disreputable" sources for information to provide "balance."

And you clearly have an agenda that makes you ineligible to be a mediator. You put on the mantel of mediator and immediately joined sides, communicating with one party while keeping the other completely in the dark. Well, at least your consistent: You utterly disregard Wiki's guidelines about serving as a mediator the way you disregard the encyclopedia's guidelines about not using disreputable sources. Askolnick

Askolnick: Users have final control over their user talk pages. They may delete any comments on their own talk pages that they like. If readers wish to muse over the debacle, they may examine the Demkina talk page, the mediation page, or if their really ambitious, look up my talk page history. Rohirok 21:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked and I see that I was wrong. I appologize for my mistake, which was based on Fourohfour's objection to Lumiere's deleting criticism from Lumiere's talk page, which was followed further down by a message from BillC, a Wiki administrator, directing him not to delete material from talk pages. It turns out, he wasn't talking about User-Talk pages. Sorry.Askolnick 21:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I must confess that most of your criticisms of my "mediation" were on the mark. I went into it with an editors attitude, which is exactly wrong for mediation. I foolishly dove right in without understanding the guidelines given to mediators. Rohirok 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In light of your sincere confession, I believe I may have assumed the worst about your motives. If so, I apologize for being overly abrasive towards you. You stumbled into a dog fight that has been going on for some time. One of these curs has been attacking me all over the Internet. With help from a TMer, he turned the Museum of Hoaxes Natasha Demkina thread into a cesspool forcing it to shut down. He then came after me on the James Randi Educational Foundation forum, where he alienated the forum administrators so much, he was permanently banned. And he came here and immediately vandalized the Natasha Demkina article, libeled me, and touted himself as a great scientist and slayer of skeptic dragons. But he's not a scientist. He's a grade school English teacher. And his "research" is nothing but self-published rants on his own web site. Unfortunately, he's supported by a TMer and a few other friends of Woo-Woo. And you stepped right into the thick of it. That will teach you to leap before you look.

I've endured 15 years of abuse from TMers. It started when some of them sued me for $194 million. The harassment suit was quickly dismissed. Even so, TMers have been claiming that I settled the suit for an "undislosed amount of money." Their campaign of disinformation and libel continues. A little over a year ago, I threatened to sue a TM group in Germany that published libeous material on their web site. They had the audacity to include a crudely forged letter from Ohio State University that supposedly discredited my JAMA article. I had to get a statement from a high ranking official of OSU denouncing the letter as a forgery before they would take it down. And now one or more TMers are using Wikipedia to attack and discredit my work. I hope you can understand why I'm ready to take a swing at anyone who appears to be doing their bidding.Askolnick 03:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool down

Let me suggest you not to waste time on general-purpose discussions with miracle lovers and deal only with article content on case-by-case basis. At times you may start beleiving in "energy vampires" :-) mikka (t) 22:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mikkalai. Actually, I get very energized trying to drive wooden stakes through the hearts of these vampires. :-)

I guess that I'm just following my lifelong policy of not turning a cheek a second time to attackers. I grew up on the streets of New York City and I guess it shows. I'm determined to make attackers pay at least something for their attacks. I found that taking it silently often makes them think you're an easy mark.

For example, Ettinsilly aka all those other names, did not come here to contribute to Wikipedia. He came here to defend his TM cult and try to discredit its critics, mainly CSICOP, Skeptical Inquirer, and me. It's no coincidence that he started off trying to rewrite two Wiki articles by attacking two pubications of which I authored! I don't know Dreadlocke's situation, but it's clear that he too has an anti-skeptic agenda for which he is willing to offer the most transparent deceptions (like his current claim that "professional researchers" don't have to do and publish any research).

I don't have much confidence in the way Wiki works. Hatchetmen are allowed to work with apparent impunity. And mediation seems to be a joke -- sending in a mediator who immediately starts communicating with one side, hides the fact that he's the mediator from the other side, and begins editing the article! Hardly reassuring.

Any way, your advice is very sound. Although, I'm not likely to adhere to it closely. You know that joke about the scorpion and the frog? It's just my nature to sting back. :-o Askolnick 14:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is another issue: I guess you and "Ettinsilly aka all those other names" have a long history of fencing and stinging each other, so you don't notice each other's abrasive style. Please keep in mind that in wikipedia it is not customary to attack messengers; messages are fair game. Please take a look around WP:CIVILITYand the sidebar "Working with others" on this policy page. mikka (t) 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Confidence in the way Wiki works": (please don't cofuse "wiki" and "wikipedia") Wikipedia is an amazing social experiment. Despite all scepticism expressed, in my 2.5 year of experience I happen to notice that people of good will and decent intelligence tend to prevail here eventually, although sometimes it takes some time. mikka (t) 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"unusual"

Actually, I saw the "unusual phenomena" term usage in one of Wiseman's pages and agreed it is a good, neutral word. The words like "paranormal", etc. is the language of kooks, so I put the "para" term in the secondary position in the sentence. In addition, Wiseman studies not only "para" His study of "luck " is exactly "unusual". mikka (t) 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Only in my life. Askolnick 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Calm Down

I'm mainly inclined to agree with you on the Demkina page, but please calm down. Insulting people(especially potential mediators) is generally unproductive and makes one lose credibility with bystanders. JoshuaZ 14:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua. I understand your points, especially about bystanders. But about potential mediators? Not so much. After this second mediation debacle, I no longer trust the mediation process. Considering Wade's record of sowing angry discord among Wiki administrators and editors, appointing him to mediate is as stupid as it would be to appoint me! There is something seriously wrong with the mediation process for this to happen right after the rejection of the first mediator, who thought his job was to pick sides and edit the article himself!

I appreciate your contributions.Askolnick 14:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

The Mediation Cabal

You are a disputant in a case listed under Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases. We invite you to be a mediator in a different case. Please read How do I get a mediator assigned to my case? for more information.
~~~~

--Fasten 15:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Primary sources

Here is the main point -Lumière 21:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Only a hopeless dolt would persist arguing a claim that is shown to be utterly false by countless examples of common usage. For example, from a news report about a web journalism program: [2]

"Rick Rockwell, associate professor of journalism at American University, teaches students how to identify whether the sources they find on the Web and elsewhere are primary or secondary sources. A primary source can be a person with firsthand knowledge of a fact, or a document or survey. A secondary source has information two or three generations removed from the primary source or that is an interpretation of the original material, he says."

From an article in the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review, we have these examples of usage: [3]

"My biography was based on researching collections in libraries in Sydney, Dublin, London and Massachusetts and on many primary sources including her son, Camillus Travers, who gave me exclusive access to his mother’s personal papers in London, after her death in London in 1996. ...This was part of my obligation to the filmmaker, and does not constitute Lisa having a primary source or being a primary source.

And this one from from Wikinews: [4]

"Do these references point to reports from credible primary sources? (eg. in-the-field correspondents).

So please stop bothering me further with this nonsense. It is clear that you are incapable of ever letting go of your false positions. You will continue arguing them no matter how utterly pointless and stupid it makes you look. Askolnick 23:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Skolnick, please calm down. Wade's proposed compromise does not seem too unreasonable to me. JoshuaZ 00:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick Rockwell, associate professor of journalism at American University, did not have much influence in his own university: http://www.library.american.edu/Help/research/primary_resources.htm -Lumière 02:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning: please do not make any more personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisthammerw (talk • contribs)

Thanks Mangojuice for letting us know who posted this warning. I'm not surprised that it came from someone who doesn't want his disruptive actions criticized. Askolnick 11:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tisthammerw/Wade whatever lacks both administrative and moral authority when issuing such warnings, particularly considering his extensive history of disrupting the project with POV campaigning. FeloniousMonk 19:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

(1) I do have the authority to issue such warnings (one does not need to be an admin to do so) and (2) please stop your groundless accusations. You constantly refuse to provide any evidence that I have disrupted any project with "POV campaigning." You on the other hand have proven willing to disregard Wikipedia polices and guidelines when they become inconvenient for your own POV (e.g. ignoring WP:CITE here)--Wade A. Tisthammer 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, Wade, he and other editors and administrators have provided evidence of your disruptive and antagonistic behavior. But you simply deny that anything you ever do is improper. Your mixture of arrogance and being deliberately dense is extremely frustrating to Wiki editors and administrators who are forced to clean up after you. Askolnick 04:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? And what might this evidence be? So far you've made accusations against me and fellow Wiki editors but have seemed rather reluctant to back them up. If you're going to violate Wikipedia policy on civility at least be willing to back up your accusations. True, I have encountered heated emotions when trying to enforce Wikipedia policy. But in what way was I disruptive? Is it true, for instance, that enforcing WP:CITE is "disruptive" [5]? Or is it instead violating that policy a disruptive act? Again, if you're going to be bitter and violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA again, at least back up your accusations. If you cannot do so, if all you have is hearsay, conjecture and bitterness; don't bring them up at all. Please try to contribute to Wikipedia in a more constructive (and civil) manner. --Wade A. Tisthammer 21:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Protest of Mediator's Lack of Impartiality

Concerning Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-23_Natasha_Demkina_Article#Protest_of_Mediator.27s_Lack_of_Impartiality.

The Mediation Cabal allows anybody to become a mediator. It is the responsibility of the disputants to understand what to expect from a mediator and to know what cannot be accepted. I have not verified (yet) if your criticism in this case is adequate so I have no opinion in this matter.

You might also want to read Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal#Kantian_guilt.3F on this. --Fasten 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied to your posting Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Complaints#Mediator_Should_Not_Join_Sides.21 --Fasten 12:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Hey Andrew, I noticed that you had described me as an admin. Lest anyone get the wrong impression, let me say I'm not an admin on Wikipedia, nor have I been. Any more libellous accusations of this nature and I shall be forced to take legal action. ;-) Best regards, --BillC 19:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicely pointed out, BillC. Not an administrator, just a good friend of Skolnick ;-) Julio Siqueira 17:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Siqueira, that's another lie. You don't waste time, you start right off with a whopper. I don't even know BillC's full name. Askolnick 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

BillC, I apologize for the insult. I hope you will forgive me because it was an unintentional mistake -- unlike Siqueira's falsehood, which you would be justified to view as an ever bigger insult. ;-)

Hi Julio! Where have you been? Were you scared away by Mr. Skolnick? Do not play his game! Don't accept that the discussions turn around you or any other editors. Quickly deny his attacks as a whole, and focus on the article and the published sources that it uses or should use. -Lumière 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, try to change the rules [6][7][8]eh? FeloniousMonk 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SlimV. I already came across it and added my endorsement. Glad to see some action is finally being taken. It takes so much less time and effort to throw rocks through people's windows than to repair them. I think this is one of the reasons Wikipedia -- as it currently exists -- is headed for failure. The Lumiere's of the world outnumber people with honest convictions. Without adequate means to stop their vandalism and dishonest propaganda, Wiki will become a encyclofarce. Askolnick 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

NOR

Before you jump to conclusion about myself based upon an editor who has a history of disruption and disharmony among Wikipedians, I think you should consider all the facts. Goto my talk page and my user page and read the accounts of what has occured. I am NOT a Larouche supporter and never will be. That said, I am very distraught by your comments. You pretend to make the issue at NOR some sort of 'cult' attempt to reverse NOR. In fact, that is not true. My edits to Slimvirgins work were two fold: One to bring balance. Two to bring discussion. Whether you agree with her policy changing additions, they were made without consensus and THAT is the whole issue. Read my positions on my talk page. I am not responding there at the moment because I gave my word to hold back for awhile and let others discuss this matter. Why you would support a user that continues to name call and has an elitist view of Wikipedia editing is beyond me, but that is your right. What we need is discussion and not accusation. Considering there is NO CONSENSUS for Slimvirgins change, the original is sufficient and should stay and is the ONLY POLICY that is in effect, until a consensus is reached regardless of page protection or what is there now from unilateral and non-consensus change. Consensus is formed by working out differences and discussing in a civil manner why changes even need to be made. Her clarity is change because changes of words change policy as it would in law. Consider the difference between "Consitution of" and "Constitution for" the United States. A persons organization should NEVER be a judgement against them, that is discriminatory; rather it is their contribution and whether it passes muster for Verifiability, NPOV expression, and NOR in its original meaning and context. --Northmeister 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if SlimVirgin's opinion of you is well-based or totally off-base. I didn't comment on her opinion of you. I commented only on her statement in general -- with which I strongly agreed. I've seen the very same thing she described; promoters of occult and pseudoscientific beliefs (including a TM cult member) joining Wikipedia to promote their irrational beliefs and to attack critics. To better accomplish their goal, they started right off trying to rewrite Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, to allow them to cite bogus "studies" and disreputable sources.

I don't know if this "shoe fits" you. But if it does, you're just going to have to wear it -- hopefully all the way out Wikipedia's door.

And by the way, David Duke, the Republican politician who belonged to the Klan and American Nazi Party agrees with you -- that "a person's organization should NEVER be a judgement against them." However, I don't. I believe instead that old chestnut that says you can tell a man by the friends he keeps. And when a person chooses to support or defend those who deceive, take advantage of, and subjugate others, I believe he damn well should be judged. Askolnick 22:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is un-American. No one should be judged by his creed, national origin, race, religion, sexual identity, sex or any indentifier except his character and merits. Duke was a member of the Klan, which I despise for their terrorist acts against good citizens of color, of catholic faith, and of jewish faith. His character in this group and his subsequent statements of bigotry determines his character in my opinion and his merits. But, on the other hand, Senator Byrd was a member of the Klan, and has vindicated himself since then. A man can change, and may belong to a group for a variety of reasons based on historical trends - such as that it was a way to advance as the Klan was for a long time in the South unfortunately, since the Southern USA has a very genteel culture that I respect and honor even though I am through and through a Northeasterner. - Onto the real discussion. I am not one of those you speak of. That said, those individuals have every right to edit here at Wikipedia where everyone is free to edit. But, on the same token they have the duty to be responsible and follow the rules. If they break NOR, even based on the definition prior to the unilateral change by Slimvirgin, then their edits do not stand..period. What is your disappointment then? My point all along with NOR is that Slimvirgins changes improperly define synthesis which will lead to excessive abuse and endless edit wars; it did not clarify (as can be seen by the debate going on) the issue; but rather made it more fuzzy in especially new editors minds. That said, the original version is clear. So why change it? --Northmeister 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC) -Update: I just re-read your statement on Duke, and it is really my statement on Duke - so we agree. I think there is a matter of agreement here without knowing it. You judge Duke not so much by the fact he was a Klansman, but by his actions now and the friends he associates with I think anyway. That is perfectly legitimate. It speaks of his character and his merits. Although the friends ones keep are almost always odd in politics...it makes strange bed-fellows...like the coaltion between segregationist Southern Democrats and New Deal northern Democrats until the Kennedy administration started to put an end to that...interestingly many of these persons or their modern successors (not saying they support segregation however) moved to the Republican Party and the old Republcans of the Northeast shifted to the Democratic Party..so now the Democatic Party is really the party of Lincoln, while the GOP today is the party of Wilson more and more especially neo-con's and free-trader's. It's the great flip of history, gone unnoticed but that will emerge more and more in the coming years. --Northmeister 23:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request to Mediation Committee

Template:RFM-Filed <unsigned>

Unlike the loose-knit Mediation Cabal, the Mediation Committee is a formal step I would recomment to consider. `'mikka (t) 21:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Heya Andrew

Well, the TM article and the Maharishi article just survived a few onslaughts.... guess that is part of wikipedia, things can always be changed!

Overall I am really happy with the results though, both articles are getting more balanced content wise- including all the controversies- AND descriptions of the TM line without being sales-pitches.

I am writing to ask if you would re-insert the piece you wrote about the NIH for the TM article- it is gone and I can't find it.

peace,

Sethie 14:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The TM article is getting ripped apart... and I don't know that I have the juice to defend it on my own, any help would be appreciated. The last edit I reverted removed ALL the criticisms and controversies! Sethie 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Demkina

I read the Demkina articles in SI a few days ago. When she said that she couldn't see through a cloth partition, I think that was a dead giveaway that she was picking up on clues from the people. After all, if her X-ray eyes can see through clothes and flesh, then they should be able to see through a cloth partition. Did you think of having a darkened room with a little backlighting so she could see the outline of the people but not their faces? The SI article was recently discussed on the talk page of CSICOP, by the way. Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bubba. My guess is that she would have also objected to working in a darkened room. You are of course dead right about that being a dead giveaway. (Just like her inability to "see" a large metal plate just beneath the scalp of the subject which everyone there, after the test was over, could easily feel and even see by looking closely! Not only couldn't she see the clearly observable, she said she saw such a plate (and missing skull) in a man whose head was perfectly normal.

I'll take a look at the SI talk page. Thanks.

BTW, I could use you vote on the ND Talkpage. Several woo-woo editors keep trying to declare sleazy tabloids like Pravda RU and the British Sun and crackpot Brian Jospehson's personal web page as "reputable sources" for the ND article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natasha_Demkina&action=edit&section=17

Cheers, Andrew

Are you aware of these projects:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience Unfortunately they aren't very active. Bubba73 (talk), 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No I wasn't. Thanks. I'll take a look at them when I can. Best, AndrewAskolnick 03:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned that you would look at the SI article. Now SI has a seperate article from CSICOP. There is a lot of discussion about the criticism section, with an invitation to comment on a recent edit, so now would be a good time. Bubba73 (talk), 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The haunting

Hi Skolnick. You wrote: "Rohirok's thoughtless words are going to haunt him for a long time, I suspect." I'm curious. What exactly do you mean by that? Rohirok 14:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply that I (and I hope other editors) may bring your words up again whenever other people need some help in evaluating the value of your editing judgement. I think your own words, rationalizing why we can trust information reported in one of the sleaziest tabloids in the world, say a lot more than anything I could ever say. Askolnick 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Posting here the comments censored from Rohirok's talk page

Unfortunately, Rohirok has no tolerance for criticism. He removed all the comments I added to his talk page yesterday. I don't care for such censorship. Therefor, I am placing a copy below:

---

He says one of the world's sleaziest tabloids is credible enough

Because I believe everyone should be accountable for their words and actions, I am copying here some of the debate from the Talk:Natasha_Demkina page. Rohirok is backing the efforts of pro-paranormal editors to use one of the world's sleaziest tabloids as a source of information for the article on Natasha Demkina a Russian teenager who claims to diagnose people's illnesses with her X-ray-like vision. The young woman's "career" was launched with sensationalistic stories in Pravda RU -- Russia's equivalent of the Weekly World News on steroids and acid. Here for example are some of today's "science" news headlines[9]:

"Humans to decipher the DNA of God and clone another Christ"

"Men with biggest reproductive organs all live in England"

"KGB ran secret laboratories to study extraterrestrial civilizations"

"US forces to attack heterosexual soldiers with homosexual bombs"

"Aliens probably build their bases on Earth’s seabed disturbing submarines"

"U.S. scientist says scores of UFOs fly around the Sun"

"Dragons came down to Earth from Sirius to share their wisdom with humans"

"Mankind descended from civilization of Atlanteans in the Arctic"

"Blind Russian mystic discerns colors by touch"

Other editors and I and are objecting to use of this sleazy tabloid as a Wikipedia source. Rohirok is arguing for its use along with three pro-paranormal editors:

"We have no reason to suppose that Pravda.RU is misrepresenting the claims that Demkina and her mother are making." Rohirok 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No reason? Above are nine very good reasons not to believe anything printed in Pravda RU, which pays its writers by the lie, not by the word. Rohirok's thoughtless words are going to haunt him for a long time, I suspect.Askolnick 04:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the haunting! I've called up the intellectual poltergeist exterminators for help. Strangely, they have not found a trace of mind-ghosts in my vicinity, but they did find a trail leading in your general direction. Hmmmm... Well, have a nice day, and try to relax. Don't let yourself get too uptight with the Demkina article. Take a break if you want to. A long break. Rohirok 14:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to continue correcting you Rohirok, but the howling you hear is not coming from me or any ghosts. It's the howling of laughter from people who read your explanation why Pravda RU is a reputable source of information for the Natasha Demkina article. The especially hilarious part was your claim of being able to decide when a Pravda RU writer gets an actual fact into a story. Now for that sound of chains dragging? I'm not sure. But if it's coming from a couple of men in white suits, I'd suggest you go along quietly. Askolnick 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the Pravda link. Hours of quality entertainment, that is. --quadpus 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

---

TM

Hi, unfortunately I have too little time for WP at the moment - sorry :( best regards from Munich -- mkrohn 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter

He did do a 4th 3RR vio but I warned him, assuming he didn't know the policy. If he reverts again, he will be blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just be careful not to violate the rule yourself. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Meatpuppet solicitation, personal attacks

Regarding this: soliciting meatpuppets to edit to a specific version(s) of an article is unacceptable, and further attempts to do so may result in the temporary loss of your editing privilages. Attempt to build consensus and comprimise CIVILY with other editors of the page, and seek further (neutral) comment WITHIN the site should you feel that discussion on the article talk page. In addition, harrassment of other editors is also not tolerated. Wikipedians are expected to be courtious to all other users and to discuss content, not contributors. --InShaneee 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Please stop. Or else you will be blocked. --Woohookitty^(meow) 21:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spamming messages in an attempt to discredit another user as you did here is also incivil. As I said above, you must discuss content, NOT contributors. Whether someone is blocked or not may have little or no bearing on the validity of the point they were making. Again, this is against policy, so please try to be more respectful in the future. --InShaneee 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

InShanee, I must respectfully disagree with you. Many of the blocked vandal's comments were personal attacks against me. I darn well have a right to point out that he has been permanently blocked for these attacks and his other disruptive conduct. Need I remind you that this person is CONTINUING to attack my work here at Wikipedia? Just today, using yet another IP address, he twice removed most of my contributions to the MMY and TM articles. Two administrators had to spend their time reverting his repeated vandalism. I do not believe pointing this out to readers is being "incivil." I think you are also wrong to say that the fact he has been blocked for his ungoing personal attacks on Wiki editors and administrators "may have little or no bearing on the validity of the point they were making." It most certainly does have bearing on the validity of his disruptive comments and actions. And I find your claim, that I am being disrespectful for pointing this out to readers, curious -- especially since you never uttered a word about his many tirades on the same talk page, in which he falsely accuses me of being a controlled substance abuser, of being part of a "fanatic fundamentalist Christian-Jewish conspiracy, of being a paid government agent, and other slurs. Askolnick 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Need I remind you that you don't 'darn well' have any 'rights' whatsoever on wikipedia. No, I didn't warn him about his comments, because I didn't see them. I was alerted to your spamming, and since the other user was already blocked, you were the only one that needed attention. Bringing up someone's block IS incivil, like it or not. Even if he is saying unplesant things, that doesn't mean he can't make valid points. As I said, comment on content, not contributors. I'm going to remove all your 'notes to newbies', and if you do anything like that again, you will be blocked. --InShaneee 17:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you are not just pushing me around in defense of this vandal, you also appear to be going against administrator Bishonen's efforts to alert the Wiki community about this vandal's ongoing efforts to disrupt the articles on TM and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I have to remind you that we're NOT talking about someone's block. We're talking about on ongoing campaign of disruption. As a Wiki administrator, you should be assisting fellow administrators in their efforts to stop the vandal - not trying to cover up his vandalism.Askolnick 18:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'vandal' has been stopped; just because he's blocked doesn't mean you get to harrass him now. If Bishonen has a problem with this, I'm sure she'll let me know. For the meantime, take my word: this is spamming and disruption in and of itself, and if you do anything like it again, you will be blocked. --InShaneee 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Again you are wrong. He has not been stopped. Have you paid no attention to what I said above? He's continuing to vandalize these articles. And please stop beating your chest like a gorilla who swallowed a testosterone-soaked banana. I heard your warning the first time. Why do you keep repeating this threat? Three times you've done it now. One warning was sufficient. Such threatening chest beating is hardly an example of civility.

Furthermore, you're confusing the issues. I am not debating whether my multiple copies of the statement about Klutz being blocked was spamming. I have not disputed that. I didn't think of it as spamming until you pointed it out. Did I defend my having repeated my note below most of his comments? No, because I saw your point. What I have objected to is your uncivil order that I must tolerate Peterklutz' attacks and not comment that he has been blocked for his ongoing campaign of vandalism. Furthermore, I find your use of single quotation marks around the word "vandal" almost mocking - not just uncivil. If you think repeated and ongoing deletion of large sections of an article by a blocked person, who is using multiple, anonymous IP addresses is not vandalism, please tell me what is.

Lastly, "incivility" is a word, "incivil" is NOT. "Incivility is defined as "the quality or condition of being uncivil." The word you want is "uncivil."Askolnick 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Launch another persona attack my way and I'll be more than happy to demonstrate what all those 'threats' are there for. --InShaneee 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Inshaneee, I can understand that Askolnick dislikes seeing Peterklutz's insults to him plastered all over Talk:Transcendental Meditation. The obvious solution is to archive the page, which I have now done. Askolnick, with hindsight, I should probably have indefinitely-blocked Peterklutz earlier than I did, and rescued other editors from the very bad climate he created on the page. I'm sorry about that. I tend to believe in too many rather than too few chances, and sometimes it pans out like that. Anyway, I understand your impulse to comment, even now, on his old posts, but it's still inappropriate. You're supposed to be polite even to rude people in this place, it's an important principle. I see you agree above. Any block-evading posts on the talkpage from him after he was blocked are another matter, nobody has to put up with those. I've already invited all editors to remove them. He's blocked, he doesn't get to post, it's simple.

Please chill a little, Andrew. It's a little rhetorical to speak of my efforts to alert the community about Peterklutz's present disruption. I'm not really going for that, he's not that big of a threat. I'm sorry you feel attacked by P's messing with work you've put in, I can sympathise with the reaction, but from a strictly practical point of view reverting him is easy and so is temporary semiprotection (since he's only interested in the one issue). And with the new software that makes IP blocks less harmful, I can even use the big gun, range blocking, if it seems called for. I've been blocking all his usual ranges for a week today, though of course he may find some other open proxy--shrug. Please let me know if he turns up and is causing stress. Simply reverting him should be your first port of call, though. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

O.K. Bish, thanks.Askolnick 05:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Bish, I finally figured out how to use pop-ups to quickly and easily revert to an earlier edit. So it won't be so painfully time consuming to restore what may get vandalized in the future. And I'll be a lot less grumpy. Askolnick 19:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage autoblocks now cleared, I hope

Hi, Andrew. I've cleared all the autoblocks I could find based on the two block messages you sent me. I hope that's all there is. Please try to edit now and make a note here about how it goes, I'll be watching this page. Please consider adding {{unblock}} + the block message info to your page if the problem should reoccur, as I may not be online. Any one admin may be on holiday or whatever, but trust the community! :-) Bishonen | talk 12:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks very much Bish. You rock. Askolnick 14:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Investigations

I think that the Association for Skeptical Investigation deserves an article, because:

• their name is misleading: it is rather, as a webdirectory put it, "Criticism of skepticism, including information about fraud in mainstream science and questioning of the methods and motives of skeptics."
• A number of well-known names are involved, including our favorite nobel prize winner. `'mikka (t) 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It is a typical of the conduct of these woo-woo promoters. They call themselves "scientists," but their lives are devoted to undermining the foundations of science, through constant dissembling and deception. I've thought of writing the Wiki article, but I think it would be better for someone else to write at least start it. BTW, I think you mean our favorite "future" Ig Nobel prize winner (I'm lobbying for him!)

It's amazing how the Wiki woo-woos still don't get it: What would win any scientist a Nobel Prize - if published and confirmed -- can only be found published in Pravda RU, the Sun, and other sleazy tabloids. They just don't get it - or else they are superb at pretending to be denser than osmium.Askolnick 18:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The topic already has some article covering it. See CSICOP. -Will Beback 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. -Will Beback 21:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Natasha

There is mediation going on at the CSICOP article and the mediator assumes that Natasha criticized CSICOP the way Josephson did. I said that he shouldn't assume that. Has she criticized CSICOP? Bubba73 (talk), 00:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't debate other editors on my user talk page

Your recent rebuttal to Dreadlocke does not belong on my user talk page. If you wish to debate another editor, please do it on the talk page of the article in question, or contact that editor directly on his or her user talk page. Thank you. Rohirok 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

This is taunting of editors, a form of personal attack. Rohirok 19:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider this your last warning. Harrassment such as [10] will not be tolerated, and any more comments with this level of disrespect will be met with an immediate block. --InShaneee 22:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back this entirely disruptive edit. If you want to say something, find a way to do it without copy/pasting reams of text and accusing other editors of bad faith. --InShaneee 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Re-add that harrassing text and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)