User talk:Lir

how much wiki can the wiki wiki before the ignorant masses realize what a wikiwiki is ?

Archives...

• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle1
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle2
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle3
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle4
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle5
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle6
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle7
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle8
• User talk:Lir/1
• User talk:Lir/2
• User talk:Lir/3
• User talk:Lir/4

If I revert any changes on New Imperialism, I'll justify them. But remember, this is a collaborate effort. So expect criticism from anyone. It can be an arena for unfettered, zero-sum struggles (which sometimes produces good articles!). But it's far easier to collaborate. BTW, you've been doing very good work since your comeback. Please forgive me for my roles in the bannings of Vera Cruz, Dietary Fiber, Susan Mason, etc. 172 08:12, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Should I assume from your comments at Talk:Osama bin Laden that you believe the names of the 9/11 hijackers are the names of actual pilots still flying in the US, and that the attacks were in fact sponsored somehow by the American government? Jwrosenzweig 21:15, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ask him if he works for the Department of Homeland Security before answering ;-) —Eloquence

Hi Lir, I'm not trying to pick on you, but please don't rename citric acid cycle to Krebs cycle, the citric vs. Krebs cycle has already been hashed out (see Talk:Citric acid cycle) and citric acid cycle is the currently used term in almost all modern cell and biochemistry texts (see Talk also for stats justifiying this). The article also clearly mentions Krebs cycle in the first sentence, so nobody will miss this as a synonym. (i.e. if you are looking for "Krebs cycle", you will be redirected to Citric acid cycle and you will be able to see quickly that it's talking about the same thing). --Lexor 10:08, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In negative feedback, this sentence occurs: "When a change of variable occurs in a system, it reacts to regain its equilibrium." I think this is only true for a stable system. Kyk 12:22, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lir, what's the point of moving Terms for anatomical location around? I think the former title was much better - while "zootomical" may be more correct in a technical sense, that term is certainly largely unknown to the public, but "anatomical" is something many people would understand. I don't see why we should insist on pushing academic peculiarities when there is a widely known and almost equally correct title. Kosebamse 15:04, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please stop adding your "contact me... " notice to the header to vfd.

1. It is up to you, if you want to, to vote on vfd. It is not someone else's job to come running to you to request your vote.
2. It takes up space on a page that already has a problem with being too long.
3. Vfd is about what is best for everyone, not what is best or easiest for Lir.

Also don't mark non-minor edits as minor. Maximus Rex 06:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And while you are at it, please use the 'preview' function more often. --mav

I put the quote back to its original wording before removing the square brackets, Lir. -- Sam

Oh, and you still haven't answered my questions re:anarchists who don't oppose government. Can we have some references please?--Sam

Just because DNA was unprotected doesn't mean that you should feel entitled to resume your edit war. You had a chance to exercise good judgment by trying to make progress towards consensus on the talk page. Instead, we're back where we started.

I invite you to discuss your differences with the other interested contributors on the talk page. I advise you that forward progress will likely only come if you make some compromises.

I've noted that some of your comments on the talk page of the article have focused on others' behavior, rather than the content itself. There is an appropriate place for such comments, and it's the talk page of the individuals concerned. I ask that you restrict the topic of your comments on the talk page of the article to the content of that article.

I ask you in a totally non-rhetorical fashion: what are your goals with respect to DNA? Please reply on this page or my talk page.

-- Cyan 19:49, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was watching, but I was somewhat at a loss when 168 decided to try to have you banned. If you can bracket (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/bracketing.html) that the way you bracketed Peak's acerbic comments, there may be a chance for forward progress to be made. -- Cyan 06:01, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Did you notice my suggested change before snoyes reverted it, Lir?

MrJones 21:22, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was refering to the change to your user page. MrJones 22:29, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That was a very nice re-phrase of the paragraph in the Socialism article that cross-references to the Socialism and Nazism page! Sunray 07:23, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

note on PM of UK

Lir, I've used some of the 'pedias recent down time to research an answer to your questions about British PMs on the Request for Peer Review Page, and I've placed a response on Talk: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom page. Thanks, Lou I 18:32, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because I feel that the fact I voted on whether to include the temp link may be perceived by some as an expression of bias with regards to the article. Angela. 22:02, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

Lir, please stop with the edit wars. Please try to understand why other people are taking other views, examine your own. Put the text in the talk article for others to evaluate if you think it's being taken out unfairly. -- Infrogmation 00:17, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

fuss

Do you really think its bad me having my talk page so long? I was gonna wait till it got to 101... The fuss.... I have issues w atheists, basically. Because of my position, normally rationally editors refuse to accept documentation. I love documentation, references, citations. Thats why I love encyclopedias, the supposed love of facts. Its kinda weird we havn't spoken before, I hear about you alot. I've actually argued against both you and wik being banned. Of course I don't know much about the particulars. But honestly, neither of you seem like trolls to me. The people I'm mad at do alot more flamming, and rejection of the truth. Anyways, nice to meet ya. I believe your on my AIM ;) Jack 07:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

MarderIII is it? I've never know it to work, always sez yer not available. Jack 07:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you make their point here Adam. Consider this:My comment was in defense of you. and yet you make an argument of it. Think about it. -戴&#30505sv 22:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that you haven't been able to work out your differences with the other users on the New Imperialism talk page. From what I've observed, my impression is that all parties have failed to reach an accord given that no one has been able to convince you as to why the list of nineteenth century historical figures and events fails to serve a function in introducing the article series. As I said a while ago when we were working on the privatization page, you cooperate with users when they try to convince you to change your mind rather than force you.

With this in mind, I'll try explain my objections to the list here without arguing from authority or attacking your motivations. To start, here is the list that I find the most troublesome:

Leopold II of Belgium, Mutsuhito of Japan, Napoleon III of France, and Wilhelm II of Germany; as well as Bernstein, Chamberlain, Cleveland, Crispi, Disraeli, Ferry, Kipling, McKinley, Milner, Rhodes, Roosevelt, and Von Bismarck.

First, what are the criteria for determining who is going to be included in the list and who's not? It seems to be a random list. What do they all share in common, other than being rough contemporaries of each other? The list includes heads of state, heads of government, colonial administrators, a literary figure, and a social democratic theoretician from seven different imperialist powers. A reader unfamiliar with the era will be puzzled as to what they all share in common. For example, the list includes reluctant imperialists, ardent imperialists, anti-imperialists, and opportunistic imperialists.

Grover Cleveland hardly even falls into any of these categories. His successor, William McKinley, was the one who ushered the US into the great power game. While other factors were laying the groundwork for the Spanish-American War later in the 1890s, Cleveland's diplomatic and trade policies drew the ire of proponents of an aggressive foreign policy like Henry Cabot Lodge, McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt.

This leads to the observation that although they are contemporaries, the historical actors whom you are listing are operating in different strategic, institutional, and chronological contexts. For example, some are longtime promoters of formal overseas colonialism, while others changed their stances in the wake of the new continental balance of power after the Franco-Prussian War.

IMHO, it would be best if the intro merely mentioned Disraeli and why historians often cite his Crystal Palace Speech as the beginning of the race to grab the remaining stretches of the globe not integrated into world markets or a colonial sphere.

Second, why are some figures listed before others and vice versa? It is obviously not an alphabetical list. It doesn't seem to be in chronological order either. Just as the selection of who is listed is random, so is the organization. The randomness heightens the confusion of readers with an elementary knowledge base on the subject.

I know that you are trying to be helpful. You are trying to make the article as accessible to general readers as possible. As I've said before, your deep skepticism of arguments from authority and groups of users always ready to revert your changes on the spot is a sign of a keen mind. But given the concerns that I've just laid out, IMHO, the list just makes understanding the broad trajectories of imperialism in this era more confusing to general readers. Rather than the lists, a single note on how Disraeli's speech is seen as a watershed mark would be more succinct and constructive in the introduction.

Now, here are my concerns with the general overview. This may be bombarding the lay reader with too much information right away:

Scholars continue to debate the causes and ramifications of the "New Imperialism"; most notably, the relationship this period has with the Great War, the Long Depression, and the Second Industrial Revolution. This period coincides with the rise of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States; and, during this periodwere beginning to industrialize. The [[Russo-Japa, China and Latin America nese War|Russo-Japanese]] (1905), Filipino-American (1899-1913), Spanish-American (1898), and Boer Wars (1880-81 -- 1899-1902) were all fought during this period.

We do not need an overview on the origins and consequences of the race for formal colonies so early in the intro. Moreover, the first section of the content body of the article New Imperialism is itself an executive summary of a daughter on the origins of New imperialism. Giving an overview of the origins is far too ambitious for the intro. Instead, the introduction should give an idea of the broad trajectories of the era, namely that were are seeing a new intensity in the great power competition to extend control and power over other parts of the globe. In a sense, we need to make it clear that there is an observable pattern of change in this era, and that we're not just dealing with flux.

In short, I'm hoping that these comments better explain why objections have been made to your recent revisions on the New Imperialism page. I hope to see you resolve your differences with the other users so that the protection notice can be lifted from the article. In addition, it would be far better for you to expend your talents and energies on more productive and rewarding endeavors than a long-running edit war going nowhere. 172 10:21, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you had mailed ISM and asked for their permission to use their images and I think that is really great because that site has enough photos to decorate a 100 articles. Would you like to also include the e-mail address and such things so that it is more verifiable that they gave their blessing? Just in case someone complains. BL 03:22, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. I've been quite distracted by other articles.

Your idea for a list of major historical figures is excellent. It would make a great daughter article with a link in the series box. Right now, no list consolidates (or contains each link to) existing lists of significant office holders (e.g., Viceroy of India, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom).

If we get around to such a list, holders of an official title can be listed chronologically, while we'd have to use some discretion with the lists of significant explorers, financers, writers, missionaries, anti-imperialist resistance leaders, and imperial critics from the U.S. and Europe.

To be more ambitious, a Timeline of New Imperialism, chronicling the political, diplomatic, military, and economic history of the era would illustrate some interesting patterns, giving readers a sense of the relationship between the politics and economics. I can work with you on this and send you some external links if you're interested.

Anyway, going back to the introduction, I'm not sure if we need to jump right into capitalist industrialization, amalgamation of industry, the rise of finance capitalism, the Long Depression, the breakdown of the Congress of Vienna, the rise of pre-WWI alliance system, etc. in the intro. These matters tell us more about the origins and consequences of the era rather than what was going on.

In other words, the intro should brief the general reader on the characteristics characteristics that distinguish this stage of imperialism, seeing the rise of the great power scramble for formal colonies, from the economic imperialism of the previous stage (the era of undisputed Pax Britannica).

In that note, I agree with you that a list on wars, annexations, diplomacy, and formal colony-building in the era might be helpful (e.g., the Congress of Berlin, the Fashoda Incident, the Anglo-Boer War, and the Tangier Crises). You have my support if you want to restore the part of your list in the intro dealing with wars and treaties.

Once this is established, we can then explain why. We deal with the "why" part after the intro all; the first section of the article itself is a summary of the daughter article on the origins of New Imperialism. 172 19:41, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's conventional to define the topic first, and then proceed to describe the causes. Since you're a vocal defender of making articles as accessible to general readers as possible, this should be relatable to you.

Say, e.g., that someone doesn't know anything about the topic. When tying to figure out what this is all about, he/she would start reading about the "causes and consequences" and wonder what these things are the origins of in the first place. It's best to start them off with what happened first, and then why. Given the reactions the I got when I started the article last December, the first question on readers' mind seemed to be was what distinguished "New Imperialism" from other forms of imperialism throughout history.

The same goes for the American Civil War, WWI, and WWII. Below are the intros from these three articles. Notice that they start saying that a war was fought. Later, they proceed to explain why.

The American Civil War was fought in the United States from 1861 until 1865 between the northern states, popularly referred to as the the USA, the Union, the North, or the Yankees; and the seceding southern states, commonly referred to as the Confederate States of America, the CSA, the Confederacy, the South, the Rebels, or Dixie.

World War I or the First World War, 1914 - 1918, was the first war that involved nations spanning more than half the globe, hence world war.

It was commonly called The Great War or sometimes "the war to end wars" until World War II started, although the name "First World War" was coined as early as 1920 by Lt-Col à Court Repington in The First World War 1914-18.

BTW, are you still interested in a list of historical actors or a New Imperialism timeline? 172 01:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Replying at my talk page Dysprosia 07:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert my removal of the redundant biochemistry link on nucleic acid? Stewart Adcock 07:58, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I assumed as much. Cheers Stewart Adcock 19:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for bureaucrat...for what it's worth. ;-) If I win, let me know if you need any "special favors" like a deferred health inspection or an IRS audit for one of your friends. :-) --cprompt 02:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey Lir,

I used your China being divided image in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_Dynasty#The_19th_century WhisperToMe 05:07, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course. I'll remember that for the future. I hope that the current version is acceptable? And in exchange, please use the edit summary. Good luck and good work! Meelar 14:43, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lir, I've read 5 out of 11 of your User:Lir#Fiction list. And I appreciate your efforts to help users understand NPOV. Would you like to work with Martin and me at the Wikipedia:NPOV classroom? --Uncle Ed 16:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Computer / Video games

Hi Lir - in the past you've worked on the Computer game and Video game pages - if you're still interested, I'm looking at drafting a reorganisation at Talk:Computer game/Computer and video games. Take a look, and edit or comment! Mark Richards 18:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

DNA

Do you have a problem with the DNA page? Bensaccount 20:19, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ban of Plautus Satire

If Plautus satire is able to convince Jimbo that he wants to be a productive member of the community, Jimbo will simply overturn the ban instituted by the Arbitration Committee. So:

• your ban was until you convinced Jimbo that you wanted to be a productive member of the community, a time period potentially much longer than a year;

• Plautus satire's ban is until he convinces Jimbo that he wants to be a productive member of the community, or a year, whichever comes first.

-- Cyan 07:21, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Hi. I appreciate your support, I just resist mediation but I don’t object to your asking for it. These are my points concerning DNA: 1) I object to the language "because they propagate their traits by doing so." It is inaccurate in part because DNA doesn't exactly "do" things, and because the contribution of DNA to the propogation of traits, however significant, is not total; the propogation of traits involves other things. 2) I object to the language "It encodes the structure and functions of an organism." Technically, it does not encode the structure and functions of a cell; it encodes the structure of proteins for enzymes that are vital to the structure and function of cells and organs. I think this is a very important and too often misunderstood/oversimplified distinction that gives people a misleading view of how inherited traits work. Slrubenstein

I am glad we agree on DNA, thanks. And you may be right about mediation, what you say makes sense. But I haven't really been active on that page and think it is more appropriate for those who have, to call for mediation when needed. By the way, I am verycurious to know who Gil Armanizm was/is, and what "ITZAK MORGA RIN" means, if you don't mind sharing. Slrubenstein

Mediation

Hello Lir -- I'm sorry about the delay in responding -- I've been away from my computer most of the weekend. I'd be happy to do what I can to help, and I think we should start with a conversation as soon as we both can "get together." I'm on IRC right now, and we could start talking there if you'd like it to be in private -- and if now or at any point you would like it to be in public, we can start a thread on the message board. Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 21:13, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Lir, I'm confused. Who is it that you are requesting mediation with? If the other parties refuse mediation then there is nothing the mediation committee can do. If mediation is impossible, the arbitration committee is the next step, a totally separate group of people. You need to ask THEM to arbitrate. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assert that the mediators en masse are refusing to mediate any of your issues. I, for one, certainly haven't been directly asked ... at least to my knowledge. Furthermore, I believe you misunderstand the mediation process, you must initiate it by requesting mediation with a specific individual or group of individuals. They then either agree or decline to participate in mediation. Until that point, there is NOTHING that the mediators can or should do. Also, I don't even see a request for mediation from you on the Requests for Mediation page.. all I see is a somewhat nebulous request for assitance from Brian. If you would clarify your issues and follow the appropriate procedure, I'm sure things will be able to move along more quickly. I would certainly be willing to mediate any issue you may think proper, but only if the other parties acquiesce, as that is a limitation of the process. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:15, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

With due respect to Dante and others who may have questions or comments, I want to ask that for the time being -- since Lir has asked me for my help and I have agreed to give it -- that people give the two of us the space to figure it out, and trust that we can find ways of moving this forward. Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 21:35, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please see, and if needed correct, User:Ed_Poor/Mediation. Ruhrjung 23:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Checking in...

Hi Lir -- I haven't heard back from you about my response to this post (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation&diff=2856462&oldid=2856137) of yours. Perhaps the mediation with Ed is enough? Please let me know if you'd still like my help -- my offer still stands, and I'm more than happy to do what I can. Thanks again, BCorr¤Брайен 16:25, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to start by having a "conversation" so we're both clear about what I'm doing as a starting point. I'm about to go into a series of meetings that will start in 30 minutes and will go until about 9 p.m. (it's 12:30 now). However, the first meeting is a conference call, and I can be on IRC starting then -- would that work for you? If not, we could pick another time, and in either case, I'd like to use the Mediation board if you want our discussions to be public, or we start an obscure page to use communicate with each other. I'm open to proceding either way, or if you want to propose another way, that's fine too.

Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 17:36, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Lir, if you are around at some point on IRC, I would like to talk to you. FirmLittleFluffyThing 17:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

Please give your opinion here Talk:DNA/vote.

FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let's start talking

Hi Lir. I've started a thread here (http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewtopic.php?t=60) -- so that we we can keep talking even if we're on totally different schedules. I'm looking forward to our "conversation!" Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 14:15, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Mastaba

Hi there - it looks like you started this article - could you look over the talk page and settle an issue over decomposition rates if you have some time? Thanks, Mark Richards 20:33, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks - most interesting! Mark Richards 19:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mastaba (too)

Thanks too... You really convinced me... Manuel Anastácio 20:41, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Lir

And in order NOT to less tha cabal opress me, I now retire in peace from Wiki. QED :O) Yours, - irismeister 08:25, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

Iridology

Hi, i was wondering why you added irismeisters supposed "research" group back into iridology ? theresa knott 06:40, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please respect the three revert rule. We have these rules for a reason you know. theresa knott 18:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello Lir. I know that relations between you and the mediation committee are not good at the moment, but (as far as I am aware) you and I have never had any personal or editing disagreements. So I'd like to offer my help as a mediator. I think it would be helpful to start a private discussion so that I can find out how and where it would be most useful to work with you and who else should be involved. Are you willing to accept me as a mediator? If so, please could you e-mail me at sannse (at) delphiforums.com Thanks -- sannse (talk) 19:02, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

I like your rewording (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Nazism&diff=0&oldid=3029093) of Nazism and its relation to fascism and socialism. Have a nice weekend. --Uncle Ed 22:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

League of Trollz!

Yes! In my user pages I have correctly defined troll. And, I have even started a documented list. Due to her recent activities, I will have add a certain person to yet another documented list.

Having been officially identified as a notorious Internet Troll by the Wikipedian Thought police, I should unite with other editors, so classified, and explicitly point out with documentation exactly who the trolls and thought police actually are!!!

I have already started a nice collection. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 18:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lir, and John, it's good for you to organize! I'm having my own network of friends off-wiki who monitor the Wiki thought police quite closely, using trusted third parties. Since everything is put into writing, we know who is who and who does what to whom. Chomsky once wrote about denial of reality, denial of justice and the inevitable decay and bitter downfall of the American sense of truth and honor. Let us prove Chomsky wrong! Sincerely, irismeister 22:33, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

"I'm having my own network of friends off-wiki who monitor the Wiki thought police quite closely"...in other words, you've created your own thought police. Have you become what you fight against? Kingturtle 23:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Negative :O) Watching the police is not policing the police ! Police should only know that every single gesture of brutality they commit is monitored, filmed, documented and deposited in trusted archives for late times. If they care to think this monitoring activity is thought poolice, they either can't read or they can't understand the word watch. Anyway, how they choose to solve the quies custodiet ipsos custodes apparent pseudo-fallacy is their own problem now. But Kingturtle, I much appreciate your subtle, ponderate, free attitude. This proves what I see here that institutions that are lousy as a group can have extremely wonderful and valuable individuals working for them. Without you, and a few other true believers, the Wiki ship would sink the very next day. I am banned (perhaps by mercy, as not to see it happen :O). So now, it's up to you now to maintain, issue, reinforce or only contemplate a "Do not ressuscitate" order from the Wiki Hospital's select committee on ethics :O) - irismeister 16:40, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Defarge's knitting is never done. - Tweak 23:28, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Waniek's BOBE

Lir, forgive my intruson, but do you have any idea what BOBE stands for before including the huge Waniek's list of self-published essays? If not, I recommend you try to find a university library and do a computer search for his publications. I recommend SciFinder Scholar from CAS. You'll find only 2 papers dating back in 1986-1987. He has a more recent paper published in Medical Hypotheses which is a pay-to-publish journal -- not sure how much peer review it involves. You could also try the US National Library of Medicine [1] (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/) which is indexing published medical papers from all over the world. More than that, the BOBE is an indexing code Waniek is using on his own site. That's how he codes his essays. Please. Those are not scientific papers.--192.94.73.5 21:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did I ever say they were? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Then that's a vanity page and should be deleted. He is not a well known personality and has no major contributions to whatever fiels of knowledge. Isn't this how Wikipedia works?--192.94.73.5 22:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Its not a vanity page, hundreds of websites already mention Waniek and his work. There is no reason not to mention him here, except that you have some kind of personal vendetta against him. Lirath Q. Pynnor

C'mon! Vendetta? Let's take a look at those hundred websites: they're all open directories where anyone can get their site listed. Except for the Get Cited site wher he's got his resume listed. Do you by any chance get a different result with google and "dan waniek" iridology?--192.94.73.5 22:26, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You seem to think I might care that Waniek's work is not necessarily "high-quality". I don't care. There are websites which talk about how Waniek is a "quack" -- do I care whether Waniek is a quack? No, I do not; quackery is not grounds for not having an article about him. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I sense you imply that any essay writer on the internet could (should?) have an article dedicated for them in Wikipedia. Why don't you have your own article? I like your art better than I like Waniek's ramblings. Please take a look at Santilli's "magnecule" site at http://www.usmagnegas.com/ . An article on him was just deleted from Wikipedia on claims of vanity. Why don't you also write an article on that guy? And there are thousands more, I'm sure.--192.94.73.5 22:45, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Waniek is more than an essay writer. I suppose I am of the opinion that everyone with a PhD automatically deserves an article. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I disagree but this is not because of any personal vendetta. But then, as you say, why do I care? There's still a Britannica out there to trust. But just to prevent that "publication list" from being misleading, I still think you should add a note explaining what BOBE really is. It could be taken for an actual, "official" reference code of some sort...--192.94.73.4 06:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't do everything. But I won't revert it if you add such an explanation. I don't see what is meant by "Brittanica is still out there to trust" -- what is untrustworthy about my additions, is anyone still claiming they are false? I thought the argument had been downgraded to a simple case of "he isn't famous enough". Lirath Q. Pynnor

It is not just that. Publication these days means more than merely writing made public. If I want to learn more about -say- iridology and bumb into your article on Waniek, I might be mislead into thinking "gee, iridology is science, with peer-reviewed published studies and full-size scientists and so." That is, if I didn't know BOBE was a fake indexing code and Waniek was only popular on link-to-me and free directory websites. It looks "official" and it is misleading the unsuspecting reader. Waniek might have a wider vocabulary than the average layperson, he might have been the first in his high-school class, but he is misleading people into buying unverified science, and he's been using Wikipedia for that purpose. And, by the way, I think he only has an MD degree, not a PhD, but might be wrong.

Well, the CNRI says he has a PhD. Whether or not iridiology is an actual science, thats something for NPOV to deal with. Deleting the Waniek article is not going to make the debate over iridology go away. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Debate is aways good. However, appearances are not a good argument in the debate. The article on Waniek only adds to the appearances of an established science in a misleading fashion. It's not your fault. He's a master of appearances. I wish science was as simple as putting up a website and coming up with a BOBE numbering. CNRI doesn't list him at [2] (http://www.cnri.edu/Courses_In_Iridology/CNRI_Faculty.htm). The old and unlinked page at [3] (http://cnri.edu/Courses_In_Iridology/CNRI_Professors.htm) says he's only got an MD.--192.94.73.5 17:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But he is mentioned listed here: http://www.cnri.edu/Courses_In_Iridology/CNRI_Professors.htm

Agree, but that page is no longer linked in the main site, it only shows up in Google. And, just checking, do you happen to know who at Hawkeye Community College in Iowa voted as Irismeister on the VfD page? the IP is 209.56.187.195 and it just showed up.

thats me, im having computer problems -- its right here dude: http://www.cnri.edu/Courses_In_Iridology/CNRI_Professors.htm Lirath Q. Pynnor

Yes Lir, I can see that. My point was that the page in question is not directly accessible by browsing http://cnri.edu/ . It is still available via google, but that's because of the lag time between web publishing and google indexing. I somehow suspect Marcia recently removed Waniek from the profs list. Sorry for exposing the IP above, you can delete my remark -- I thought Waniek himself was actually somehow trying to bypass the ban.

All that means is that he might no longer be at CNRI. He certainly used to be part of the staff, and they still consider him a "pioneer". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thanks Lir

Thanks for the barnstar Lir, I know I fought hard for freedom on Wikipedia, so i am glad to have earned it! and remember, "On tyrants only we'll make war!"--64.12.116.145 07:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wikivacation

take a break, but don't leave. You may be a difficult and annoying rascal, but your also usually right. I for one would count your permanant abscense as a gaping hole in the social fabric of the wiki. Cheers mate, Sam Spade 21:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A wikivacation is a good idea Lir. I strongly suggest that you stop what you are doing and take a break - even a few hours would be a good idea. Suggesting others vandalise pages - even in jest is not going to help anything. Regards -- sannse (talk) 21:40, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people work hard to show respect to other users, I like to think I am one of them, I have certainly tried to show my respect for you. I have seen you show respect and politeness towards others, so I know this is something you feel important too. Why not have a break for a while and keep things calm. -- sannse (talk) 21:45, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad you are taking a break. I hope to continue our mediation discussion shortly. I'll reply to your latest e-mail tomorrow. -- sannse (talk) 21:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we continue to discuss that via e-mail -- sannse (talk) 21:58, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, if you're going to write a respect speech, spell "absence" correctly :). Nonetheless, I agree with Sam's comments: you are a valued member of the community (no matter how much others try to show otherwise), and you shouldn't leave because of the ubergheyness. For one thing, I don't consider myself uberghey, although many people may think I'm uberghey :). ugen64 21:48, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you. ugen64 21:53, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

You disappoint us, Adam. You promised you would go away. RickK | Talk 03:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adam isn't going away, that was just a bit of foot stomping/door slamming because she didn't get her own way. Anyway she does actually make some good contibutions to wikipedia, so I'd hate to be the one to drive her out. Besides, she has given me such a laugh, her argument of "shut up" was a classic. theresa knott 08:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nice comment on the mailing list, Pookie. Now tell us what you really think. --Uncle Ed 17:55, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

hallo :-) was sollten wir mit den dummen verwaltern tun? (do you read german? I dont want others to read this) I am sexy 00:16, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Requests for comments on RK

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments.

At least two users must document and certify my efforts in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be removed. Please certify your concerns over vandalism done by RK. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 06:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

THANK YOU !

Lir, what you did during my ban for the cause of freedom is fantastic! You made a lot of friends off Wiki and especially in Wiki, for passion in the service of a real cause is so rarely seen in writing these days! Freedom of speech, of information, and even the feeling of freedom, such a refreshing, good and clear sentiment, are attacked every second. I never assumed my freedoms were gained, but your disinterested, genuine help was so encouraging that again I started to breathe that incredibly pure air! Thanks to you, Lir ! But you did even more - you defended an idea of truth which seemed impossible to defend. With time, no doubt, like in good wine, a sense of patience in passion will add up to the fine taste of sunshine turned into sweet aromas. The cause you defend is so subtle and profound especially because of the apparently never ending lists of adversities. They make us all better and never bitter.  :O)irismeister 18:37, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Indeed Lir you were brave in standing up to threasa check this out, if you agree be a "member" say "yes" on my talk page Comrade Nick

Emergency, Mayday, Wiki Wiki
Mayday! Dear Lir, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr-Natural-Health#User:Theresa_knott) wiki wiki. Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Theresa Knott

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against Theresa Knott for her consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against Theresa Knott. Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievances of your own. -- John Gohde 04:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Does this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Lir) mean you're back? :) Dysprosia 09:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back, Lir! Even though I differ with you on a lot of strategy and tactics, I still remember your kind gesture when I was new, and appreciate where you're coming from -- politically and wikipolitically. If you are back to stay, this is going to be a lightning rod, and I'd bet you'd rather have lightning strike someplace else....

Peace & WikiLove, BCorr|Брайен 12:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi again. Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User%3APlato%2Fred_faction&diff=3919204&oldid=3877338) you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.230.159.235) -- BCorr|Брайен 03:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back! 172 22:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Family name in Arabic

Based on the comments in Talk:Saddam Hussein you made, I can tell you do not know how an Arabic name works. See Arabic name for information on that. WhisperToMe 00:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lir, Arabic names are a bit different from "Western" names and can get very complicated. You told me you knew how names work, but you didn't tell me that you know how Arabic names work.

Now, as for Osama bin Laden, he "doesn't count", because while conventional Arabic would say "Osama" is the best short-hand for his name, his family uses "bin Laden" as a surname, Western-style. WhisperToMe 07:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is not possible - he is passing down the family name as well as the father's name. "Al-Tikriti" is still in Uday's name - but "Uday Hussein" is a popularly used shortform simply because of how "Hussein" is thought to be Saddam's surname when it actually isn't. In Iraq, the shortform "Uday Saddam Hussein" was used.

If you are wondering where the "al-'s" went, Iraqis don't have those.

Likewise with OBL, he doesn't have any "family name" though he has the name of the father's and the father's father's and such right down to Laden. And OBL's equivalent of Hussein would be "Muhammad" - his father's name. WhisperToMe 07:35, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please stop adding that disclaimer. And please stop with the sockpuppets. WhisperToMe 05:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFROAA

Hello Lir

I moved your statement regarding User:Guanaco to WP:RFC in accordance with the new policy on such matters. You may wish to fill out the template there more completely, since without the additional required information, the dispute may be removed.

Best regards

UninvitedCompany

Hi, let me know why my edits in Saddam Hussein were reverted. Jay 19:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because my edits were reverted, and your edits were made on top of the revert. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I still don't understand why you have to overwrite other's changes to put yours back. Please respect other people's edits. Jay 09:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saddam

What is the reason for your continued campaigning on Saddam Hussein? No one but you seems to regard the disclaimer as appropriate, much less necessary, for reasons I think well explained. Furthermore, you must know your edits will just be reverted, especially if you are erasing others' work. All you are doing is creating ill will against yourself. VV 08:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please

Lir, you need to find within yourself some humility. You also need to shake off whatever is bothering you, and move forward. This project relies heavily on cooperation, communication, forgiveness, sharing, empathy and goodness. Please review Wikiquette, and please start acting in a way you want others to act. Sincerely, Kingturtle 15:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Little Tin God Sysop

I've removed your edit to User:Little Tin God Sysop's userpage, and put it on the talk page instead, since it seemed more appropriate to that. Snowspinner 20:04, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. In the future I will move your edits around as needed without telling you. Snowspinner 20:08, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Question

Hello Lir, in case you missed it I have asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lir. -- sannse (talk) 15:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'll continue following the page. 172 05:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I know that we can never know who is a sockpuppeteer and who isn't. What I'm upset about is your nomination of IndigoGenius. You know that a nomination for administrator is not taken seriously for a user with less than 500 contributions. I seriously don't think you're Plato, but with Indigo I'm more suspicious. --Merovingian✍Talk 15:49, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Attachments 

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

*Image:Genholbrook.jpg
*Image:Genwainwright.jpg
*Image:Genwainwright2.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could           
you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you   
release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish 
to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim 
fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know  
at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks  
so much.  [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk,   
automation script)]] 22:38, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S.  You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images.  Thanks again.