User talk:Lir - Wikipedia

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

Archives...

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.

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.
It takes up space on a page that already has a problem with being too long.
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 Re x 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 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:

Léopold 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 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 -- 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 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] 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]. The old and unlinked page at [3] 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 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)[reply]

Does this 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 you? -- 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. V V 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)

QUOTE: "Ermf, I don't want to believe that Lir is evil (read: troublesome), (s)he has contributed decently."

You make an unfortunate generalization. I am in no position to judge a person by their views rather than their edits, and I have never tried to. I only hope that you do not let your views leak into your contributions. And I understand that if Indigo Genius edited under a different username, perhaps (s)he would like edits transferred to the IG account from his/her previous one? --Merovingian✍Talk 11:47, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

TINC

There Is No Cabal.

You and Indigo Genius can get your edits transferred, but it takes a while for the developers to get to it. I requested transfers a while ago; I don't think my request has been finished and I'm a sysop! Good luck. _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 14:09, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that "This site is hierarchical; there are haves and have-nots -- people with power, and those without." There is no doubting that. However, it is completely untrue that every sysop and bureaucrat is out to crush the have-nots. Unfortunately, the only admin I can speak for is myself. --Merovingian✍Talk 15:20, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Do you read the mailing list? You should. Then you'll see that no admin is out to get and crush any regular user. _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 23:50, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

You're right, there are admins that have abused power. That's why we have WP:RFROAA. Wouldn't, however, you say that more admins than not would rather help than silence users? --Merovingian✍Talk 00:47, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Let's have some proof. Name names. Give links. Bring it on. :) --Merovingian✍Talk 00:58, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Lir!

I thank you for your support, and I am really greatful for what you did on wiki for the cause of truth, freedom of information, especially medical, and for me and Dr Waniek personally. Here is my last contribution before my next ban (I'm now banned for every word I add :O) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irismeister_2/Proposed_decision#Enforcement. Sincerely yours - irismeister 16:30, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

I wrote email to all lists, being banned for saying the truth, and writing to this page, and I quickly add this before my next impending ban (had hundreds lately :O) - irismeister 10:51, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

There is no such evidence, Theresa, so the fact that your brain must be tired, by your own admission, should perhaps read as bottomline, or baseline - you choose :O) No deadlines, please - get a well deserved vacation and leave Lir alone for once, will you ? We all know you are the troll and so do you, no matter how quickly you care to wipe this from this page and to ban me for saying it :O)- irismeister 17:18, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

From: Dr Jipa <jipa@freemail.iris-ward.com>

Reply-To: jipa@freemail.iris-ward.com,English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>

To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org

Subject: [WikiEN-l] Cacocracy

Date: Sat 2004-07-24 10:43 AM

Attachments

Name Type Save View Message text/plain Save

This has been deleted from Wiki:

Listen, everybody, you are like a pack of wolves on Lir !

Can't you all behave yourselves ? You are in this smearing campaing and stuff! Leave Lir alone! Leave every real contributor alone! If you have time to lose, attack the Wikipolice doing nothing good but destroying Wikipedia! Leave Lir alone and get some decent work done instead ! - irismeister 10:54, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC) _______________________________________________________ Visit the New Home of Trans-Iridial Studies: http;//www.iris-ward.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Lir, don't be take things so personally about an edit. See Talk:Great_Liberal_Backlash_of_2003 for more. Fuzheado | Talk 03:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Can you explain this edit? —Stormie 05:59, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened.. you must have clicked on the edit link for your nomination (which was the section above mine), and then, before you saved it, some other editors did some section juggling.. and because of the dodgy way Mediawiki identifies section edits, when you hit "save", it saved it over the top of the wrong section. Fair enough, apologies for the suspicious tone of my above post. —Stormie 08:35, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration

If you believe that I have done anything that deserves banning, blocking, or action by the arbitration committee, I invite you to submit a request for arbitration, a request for comment, or to otherwise take action on the matter. Snowspinner 19:25, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sysop_Accountability_Policy

Maybe your proposal can include concrete instances where sysops can be perceived as "above the law"? For example, your accountability policy could include sysops making blocks that violate the blocking policy. Currently, it looks like User:Guanaco had to unblock some names because the blocks violated the Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, which can be seen in Wikipedia:Block_log. Including something like that would outline how sysops are acting "above the law". Shard 17:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To my opponent

I wish you the best of luck in this month's Arbitration Committee election. May the best Wikipedian win! _{Peace Profound!} --Merovingian✍Talk 10:41, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

172

FYI, 172 is not claiming to be the most senior editor, but rather the most senior sysop. --Merovingian✍Talk 01:46, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

172 is not a petty tyrant, s/he is just petty. They dont frighten me with all their seniority. Muriel G 10:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbcom questions

A quick - OK, actually, probably a long question regarding your candidacy for the arbcom. How do you think you would have ruled/would rule in the following cases?

Thanks very much. Snowspinner 17:43, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Lirath, this is not what i meant and you know it. I dislike manipulation of my words. Do not dare to use what i said to you as *evidence* for your agenda. This was my last conversation with you. Muriel G 18:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Empire_of_Atlantium

Lir, you may wish to contribute to Wiki's NPOV standard by voting to eliminate the separate page on the Atlantium micronation, a nation which has not proved to be a power like a Sealand or a Hutt River Province, and thus not deserving a separate article, at least IMHO.

You can vote for (or against) deletion here: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Empire_of_Atlantium. And please don't forget to include yourself in the tally at the top of the page. --IndigoGenius 21:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the ArbCom elections. Danny 00:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration defense

Lir - as you might know, I'm a new member of the arbitration committee. I'm looking into your case - I read the evidence list and your defense in full before posting here. I have a few questions - on that page, you have a long series of denials - (I do not...here*). Do you have any evidence to back these denials up, or (in lieu of that) can you present a reasonable alternate theory to explain them (such as how all those accounts got the same password as you)? I'd also like to know how you respond to the allegations that you have been abusive ("Hey, fuck you Theresa" et al). →Raul654 07:05, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You said that others have made personal attacks on you. Would you please present evidence to support this? - both Martin and I would be interested in seeing it. →Raul654 19:24, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Lir, please provide a link to each edit which you feel consitutes a personal attack along with the name of each person you feel has made an attack and include that in the counterclaims you include on the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir. Please notify each person you include by leaving a note on their talk page with a link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir so they can respond. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision you will see that we sanctioned Adam Carr as well as Herschelkrustofsky. Fred Bauder 00:16, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case

The case against you, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir, has just closed, and it has been decided that, amongst other things, you are to be banned for a total of 15 days: 1 week for personal attacks, 1 day for violating the 3 revert policy, and 1 week for sockpuppet reverting.
I would suggest that you to ponder the events and actions which have led to this, and ask you to try to avoid them in the future. I hope that your actions will not have further need of our scrutiny.
Yours sincerely,
James F. (talk) 05:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Enforcement

The most difficult part of our decision was the following:

Parole

Due to the longstanding nature of Lir's violations, a Standing order will be issued, putting Lir on parole: If Lir should make a provocative edit or series of edits (that is, edit wars or other edits which are "disruptive" or in violation of Wikipedia policy, as interpreted by an administrator) those edits may be reverted by an adminstrator who shall post the url of Lir's edits on page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Parole violations together with a brief explanation. Lir may be banned for 24 hours should he revert such a reversion. If Lir should attempt to evade this parole through the use of sockpuppets, a ban of up to one week may be imposed. Any bans made under the terms of this parole should also be listed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lir/Parole violations The Arbitration Committee shall monitor this matter and may reconsider it at anytime upon 4 Arbitrators agreeing to a motion for reconsideration at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. Lir may make such a motion only after 6 months, any other user, including Arbitrators, may at any time.

Please read this carefully and try to avoid any useless bans which might arise from it. Fred Bauder 14:11, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Number of accounts

If you wish to use accounts other than Lir you must disclose their names on your user page. Fred Bauder 16:40, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

arbitration candidacy

Do you intend to post a link on the arbitration committee candidacy page to a location where you can be queried regarding your views on arbitration? If not, can this talk page space serve? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do intend to ask a few. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 06:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I guess you want them to go here. So here we go. You make many bold claims on the arbitration candidacy page, but one thing in particular stood out: As a member of the arbitration committee, I would actively seek the resignations of 172, Tim Starling, mav, Jimbo, and Angela. As I am sure we all know, Jimbo is a member of the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia foundation, which owns the Wikipedia servers and runs the Wikipedia web site, and it is through the approval of the Board of Directors that the Arbitration Committee derives its authority. Therefore, I would like to know what function of the Arbitration Committee you believe would be either necessary or conducive to achieving this goal. Additionally, given that the Arbitration Committee is generally regarded as a judicial, rather than legislative, body, and it has not historically handed down decrees unsolicited calling for users to be banned or to resign or created legislation, and given that the Arbitration Committee currently would not allow its members to participate in deliberations over an arbitration case in which they are engaged, I wonder whether you would attempt to change one of the aforementioned standards or whether you would attempt to evade them using your self-announced "private sockpuppet army". -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lir 4 Arb

Lir, you da man. We support you bigtime. Let us know how to help you. Annanicoler 06:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Elections

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Army of sockpuppets

In your candidate statement for the arbitration committee, you mention your army of sockpuppets. Does such an army exist? Snowspinner 05:29, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Non-logged in edit

For the record Lir: I personally would consider any more votes using your user name while not logged in to be "provocative edits". In fact, until the rules are clarified, that goes for any edits under an IP that are not immediately confirmed as being you with a logged-in edit (if they are confirmed in this way, I would presume you logged out by mistake) -- sannse (talk) 23:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page -- sannse (talk) 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page again (in future I won't notify you here, I almost always reply there so please use you watchlist to check for replies. Thanks) -- sannse (talk) 11:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your honest response. Danny 01:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded patronizing. It was refreshing to me to know that my appointment wasn't unanimous, as I tend to be suspicious of unanimous votes for anything. Danny 03:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Red Faction

--JGal2004 04:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You told me to ask Hilary to join Red Faction. I would like to join while Hilary does not want to go on Wikipedia in fear of the admin stalking her. Can't a girl get some privacy???

You are a hero!--62.132.1.121 06:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, the matter of Snowspinner vs. Lir. If you wish to supply evidence, please do so to the evidence sub-page.
Thank you very much.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 18:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 21:25, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Yes"? -- Ram-Man 17:50, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

If by "Yes" you mean you will multi-license using the licenses listed, then you must explicitly state it by placing a notice (e.g. {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}) somewhere on your user page (e.g. User:Lir or User:Lir/Copyrights). Your statement of "Yes" to a multiple choice question is essentially a "no" in terms of legal validity. Humor me. -- Ram-Man 20:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

A Message to my Fellow Candidate

Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or {{stub}}. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

That's not true! You know I'm not trying to censor you, or anybody else for that matter. --ℛyan! | Talk 20:37, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I have not had a need to stand up for greater sysop accountability in dealing with trouble users. I have not seen the widespread abuses of power that you have described. I simply want to take on more responsibility as a Wikipedian to help others. --ℛyan! | Talk 00:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I am not running from issues. Vandals don't hate the wiki; they are taking advantage of its openness. I'm not making excuses for vandals, but I wanted to let explain that. I know that many Wikipedians criticize the political system, but we all need to work together to change it. Frankly, I don't think there's a lot that can be changed. Precedents have been set. Also, I want to justify my inaction against the so-called cabal: it's not there. People scream "Cabal! Cabal!" when they are too self-centered to realize that a majority of other users have reasonably opposed them. Wikipedia is run by a majority vote. Do you think that can be changed? --ℛyan! | Talk 06:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

In any case, you claim that nobody "hates the Wikipedia" yet you also claim that they are just "taking advantage of our openness" -- why would vandals choose to vandalize, if dislike of wiki-policy is not a motive? Surely you don't have the naive belief that persistent vandals are motivated by sheer lunacy??
- RESPONSE: No, most vandals operate by not lunacy but ignorance. Additionally, there are a small group of former users who feel they have been "wronged" and that they must resort to destruction.
I assure you, there are people who hate the Wikipedia because it is run by a cabal. Numerous decisions here are made without democratic consensus, and many democratic votes are not well advertised or promoted (thus resulting in the domination of these votes by a small clique of hyper-active sysops).
- RESPONSE: What decisions have been made clandestine? Who are these sysops?
Rather than advocating increased totalitarianism and banning of users whom you dislike, have you given any thought to the notion of making the wikipedia a friendlier place by requiring that sysops adhere to a higher standard of conduct?
- RESPONSE: Our standards are high enough, to begin with. Second, I don't ban anybody I dislike. I would much rather ignore them. Instead, I have banned only severe vandals. If you believe otherwise, go ahead and call me out on it. I have nothing to hide. --ℛyan! | Talk 02:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yes I remember who are, I mentioned it on the sub-page that I allowed you to edit my userpage.--198 04:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Update on mailing list

I made some significant progress on the mailing list issue the other day. I think wikien-l is fully cleared now. A google search the other day turned up nothing. I will keep looking from time to time, and fixing anything else I find. If you can send me a specific url with a problem, this will help me. I now know how to rebuild the archives correctly, but it requires taking the mailing lists offline for like an hour, so people will scream at me if I do it too often. Jimbo Wales 14:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You'd do better if you didn't misuse the mailing list jimmy. Other people manage to run and use mailing lists without using them to goad people, why can't you? Why do you regard members of the public who bother to take trouble over using, and helping, your site as a "captive audience" of animals for you to abuse? WikiUser 20:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

I know it's been a few years since you uploaded Image:Agostasideview.jpg but it currently doesn't have a image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Also this image Image:Genwainwrightgrave.jpg uploaded under your old username User:Vera Cruz needs a tag. Someone has also placed on that talk page:

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.

I'd also like to echo the offer of assistance, and thanks. --Aqua 09:00, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I voted for you too

You can count on me to help in any way I can against the nasty cabal here at The Wikipedia. E-mail me if you want. Watch out too for their mischief on The Wikipedia Foundation's mailing list. Also here: "WikiEN-l Fwd: email from Irismeister David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com Mon Nov 29 11:45:26 UTC 2004 ". WikiUser 21:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on the "jimbo" page Lir. It's difficult to have a group of people ganging up on you, especially when they're unreasonable, so I appreciate it. WikiUser 15:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, congratulations on the 8% vote! How does that compare to what you were expecting? I'm disappointed by the results, but at least two that I voted for were elected (Ambi and Theresa Knott).

There's a VfU you might be interested in, by the way; it regards User:IndigoGenius/Micronation. [[User:Eequor|‣ᓛᖁᑐ]] 02:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) l

Criticism

I'm impressed by your [http://www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm critique] of Wikipedia. I admit to being concerned before reading it that you might only have given your opponents more ammunition — sorry — but clearly they don't give you the credit you deserve. This essay is presented quite well.

I'm frequently disappointed and bemused by the statements of your opponents. The clique argues such a tired, uneducated, one-dimensional viewpoint.... I'm not altogether surprised that Raul654 would make the hyprocritical comments you quote, but "don't worry about making common sense policy... just do things" is astounding coming from someone who can't understand ignore all rules. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying everything on http://www.kapitalism.net/ belongs to you? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Morons

Quoth: ...Wikipedia has been overrun by a bunch of morons. I used to care -- now I don't...

Sometimes I have to wonder: If you have such issues with Wikipedia, why do you spend so much time and effort with it? I'm not saying that you should leave, but you must be one sucker for punishment. If I got that annoyed, I'd go on a very long WikiVacation. -- RM 05:02, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I can't understand why people say things like that. It's obvious that some people see people being discriminated against and try to oppose it. WikiUser 17:31, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lirpedia

Are you going to start a Lirpedia article on Wiki? There is a precedent for starting one, as we have an article on Wikinfo, Fred Bauder's encyclopedia. 172 05:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe someone else will start it. Good luck with the project. BTW, I like the "Copycommunism" idea. 172 07:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Zain (author of criticism of wikipedia)

Hi, I added your link as an external link but all this is about finding the problem. I have another article which is dedicated to finding solutions of the problems. It is Wikipedia:User Suggestions currently a stub. But with great potential. In addition I will like to tell you about wikinfo.org another wiki which allows "POV" by allowing different articles on same thing using different opinions.

Zain 15:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration committee decision

The Arbitration committee has reached a verdict in your case. You are to be banned for one year and subject to a standing order. →Raul654 16:18, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

A year in Siberia

Dissent will not be permitted.Dr Zen 04:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about dissent, this is about a long-term and intractable problem user. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:41, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Can Banned user edit his user page or any other page? Zain 21:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. →Raul654 22:18, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Just a question...

Talk about Lir, not to them:
How do we know that these "ban timer reset" edits aren't just someone who hates Lir trying to get him in more trouble? User:Oven Fresh/sig 23:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure these edits are actually Lir? User:Oven Fresh/sig 17:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The IP edits come from a Qwest IP in Iowa, which is the IP Lir usually edits from. Snowspinner 02:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Latest extension

Edit can be shown to be Lir. The IP resolves to University of Northern Iowa. Yes, this does mean that I use the logic "Anonymous troll + Iowa = Lir." Snowspinner 22:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Lir

Who is Lir? Why has he been banned?

He was naughty. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Lir?

Can someone tell me (~~~~ ( ! | ? | * )) who Lir is and quite why being accused of being Lir is such an enormous crime?

P.s. I already know that Lir is from Iowa, and has been banned for winding up Snowspinner.

~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 01:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lir trolled this site for a long, long time. He was guilty of just about every type of bad behavior you can imagine. And by the way, user:Ril was one of his sockpuppets. →Raul654 01:03, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that when Mel Etitis first accused me of being Lir. But I wasn't sure why Lir was so offensive to Mel Etitis. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 01:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read (in chronological order from oldest to newest):

That should give you some idea of why he was kicked. →Raul654 01:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Welcome back Lir, Happy editing :) ! --Plato. —Preceding comment was added at 05:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that a 1 year block can: 1. Make him so impatient that he'll vandalize every page, or 2. Make him so bored that he'll never edit again. —Coastergeekperson 04^{'s talk}@12/16/2007 22:52

Fair use rationale for Image:Mehter-2.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mehter-2.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing user page reverted

I have reverted User:Calton who had removed all content from Lir's user page with the edit summary: Soapboxing. __meco (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that user:Calton insists on enforcing his purge, so what comes of that issue we will just have to see. However, I have restored my entry here on this user talk page which was also removed by Calton. __meco (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the notice you carelessly blanked, Meco. It's up to you to add your message properly, not mine. --Calton | Talk 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

Since you've stated explicitly you're not here to edit:

From WP:USER:

Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage as Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. [emphasis mine] Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working.

Note the word "editor", not "user".

From Wikipedia:NOT#WEBHOST:

Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is not yours. It is a part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion.

From Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site:

Wikipedia is not a social network such as MySpace or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not:

Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. Humourous pages that refer to Wikipedia in some way may be created in an appropriate namespace, however.

Any questions?

P.S.: That word you used, "vandalize"? It does not mean what you think it means. --Calton | Talk 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check 2:
You are not on the arbitration committee.

Nor am I a member of the Girl Scouts or Book of the Month Club -- both facts of which are as equally relevant as your above statement, since the issue is your prime facie violation of the various User Page guidelines and policies listed above and not whatever group I am a member of.

Please pursue this matter with the mediation committee.

Which, as I've pointed out, is what you should be doing instead of trying to hijack Wikipedia to be your billboard. Got a problem? Take it up with them. --Calton | Talk 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, you must be a very strange individual to want to waste so much of your time going around "tagging 1,500 of so-called user pages for oblivion". Wow, just imagine what else you could have done with that time; collecting lint would seem more profitable. In any case, you are clearly over-stepping your authority and delving into blatant censorship. I suggest you find a new hobby.

Quite amusing, coming from someone who apparently wasted his time edit-warring, creating abusive sockpuppets, and now wastes it writing diatribes he expects to be freely hosted by the target. Perhaps you ought to take up a hobby yourself: voavbulary expansion woeld be a start, so I suggest you locate a dictionary and look up "vandalism" and "censorship", as these both appear to be terms which are not well-understood by yourself. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well, I disagree with you

Oh, well, that changes everything, dunnit, as everyone knows that WP:IDISAGREE overrides all other policies and guidelines. --Calton | Talk 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as I'm not the one who wastes their life on Wikipedia doing trivial trite things; uh, I just pity you.

Except that, you know, that's exactly what you're doing -- subtrivially petty things, even. The phrase "psychological projection" comes to mind.

But if want to further your complaints about the Great Evil That is Wikipedia and Other Sour Grapes, you may wish to go here. --Calton | Talk 14:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree, wasting time here is trivial, and wasting time arguing with you about my user page is exceedingly trivial...

And yet you persist; funny, that.

...but yet, I'm wasting my time on one user page, whereas you have wasted your time on 1500. Wow. That's special, let me find you a barnstar.

Yeah, you waited three years just for the chance to waste your time -- and now that it's blanked, "wasted" is a fairly literal statement -- on that one page. I'd say that's pretty special, too. --Calton | Talk 15:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you can say I waste my time all I want... and all I think is "Wow, this guy has done the same thing on 1500 other pages." LOOOOL

Given your demonstrated lack of self-awareness, that's not the insult you seem to think it is. --Calton | Talk 15:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

Don't you think you should make use of the mediation committee before taking unilateral action? Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Mediation is only for controversial actions. That wasn't one. Black Kite 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't persisted in restoring a screed full of personal attacks and incivilities, then it wouldn't have been necessary. I would have thought someone with as much knowledge of Wikipedia as you would have been clear about that. Black Kite 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted Calton's clearing of Lir's user page is not that I condone posting a "screen full of personal attacks and incivilities", on the contrary, I thought Lir's criticism was well within the freedom of expression provisions which Wikipedia aligns itself to. I was wrong, as the WP:ANI resolution of my complaint against Calton shows. __meco (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The petty bureaucrats bit is incivil but doesn't mention anyone in particular; if it was all like that I'd have thought it unexceptionable. Unfortunately, I am also fairly sure that "they are pathetic, immature, immoral, and vindicatively narrow-minded partisan trolls" places both feet well over the NPA line. If you'd like to rewrite it without anything that crosses that line - on a subpage of here, perhaps - I'd be glad to replace it. Black Kite 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the use of invectives is unnecessary. I guess I favour giving individuals greater leeway than what the consensus is ready to tolerate. That said, I should think that using a tempered language also makes the receptive and sympathetic audience a great deal larger. __meco (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "piteous, imperfect, unethical, biased, and rather reactionary whiz-kids"? Or would I have to re-write the entire thing in such a way that it contains no criticism of Wikipedia whatsoever, because you are too "unethical" to handle criticism? Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

While I think it's somewhat pointless, you can write what you wish, as long as it doesn't attack obviously identifiable people or groups of people. Personally I quite welcome criticism, as long as it's constructive. Black Kite 18:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected it. Should you abuse it again though, I will do the same, and I will block you. Your choice. Black Kite 06:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/User:Lir.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Lotsa luck with Calton

Hi--I've already filed a complaint about Calton's nasty, gratuitous stalking here, which has been roundly ignored. Seems there is a somewhat hypocritical double standard with respect to this guy, for reasons I won't even waste a neuron firing to speculate about. I've been blocked twice for protesting abuse, anti-Semitism, racism, and personal attacks, while some seem to have privileged status to crap all over fellow editors with impunity. Go figger. Feel free to file a complaint, but be forewarned that if you even raise your voice, you'll face being blocked. Boodlesthecat (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lulzz--didn't even notice that. Sure, go ahead and restore my no doubt incendiary comments to my user page. Thanks in advance, Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sssssh!! don't say "Booooodles" out loud! I'm actually not sure if Calton is an admin, or if he plays one on TV, but who knows. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which has been roundly ignored - For good reason. And you've been blocked, Boodles, frankly, for behaving obnoxiously and not knowing when to quit when you were warned. As you have clearly not assimilated this fact, I can clearly envision where this slippery slope is leading to. Maybe you can talk another SF Weekly reporter to take up your crusade when that happens. --Calton | Talk 05:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calton

Please feel free to show me where Calton names individual editors on his userpage, and I will certainly consider redacting it. Who knows, perhaps he means me, as I have a WR account myself? Black Kite 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, a bit earlier, remove a WP:BLP problem on Calton's page, where he denigrates a real life person. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I have restored it: running out of people to stalk, Boodly? How much longer do you think your next block will be for? --Calton | Talk 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the "Jimbo, Jtdirl, and Larry" bit might've been the problem. Black Kite 00:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Shall we try again? "by the likes of Jimbo, Jtdirl, and Larry, all of whom have engaged in similar behavior -- I therefore assert ... that subsequently they have waged an incessantly one-sided and unjust campaign to discredit and harass me (both at Wikipedia, other internet sites, and in real-life), because (quite simply) they are pathetic, immature, immoral, and vindicatively narrow-minded partisan trolls". Actually, let's not bother. You know, I know. Don't bother replying. I get bored easily. Black Kite 00:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filing Abuse Complaint against Calton

I understand that Calton has been harassing you, along with a number of other users. I would like to file a joint complaint with the arbitration committee against him, as he is clearly abusing other users and repeatedly violating the rule against personal attacks. Please join me in this important effort to help clean up wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this procedure. Where can this complaint be found? Is it similar to this complaint about his personal attacks? BillyTFried (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule "birds of a feather flock together" seems to be in force. I've never quite understood why axe-grinders and stalkers think that banding together gives them some kind of credibility, as the more applicable rule is, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." --Calton | Talk 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calton please be civil and refrain from insulting me and making anymore accusations that I am an axe-grinder or stalker who lacks credibility and who lies down with dogs and gets up with fleas. This is your second warning. Do not continue this abusive behavior or I will report you to the Wikipedia administration. BillyTFried (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate that. I'm not going to worry about it yet, but if it continues, I may do something about it. I noticed you and some other users are filing a complaint; if you would like, I would have no problem helping you guys. --Pbroks13 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page

Please remove the personal attack "the various trolls, spammers, quacks, greedheads, and crackpots -- and their enablers -- who hang out at ED and WR" from your user page. You should not be soapboxing or making such inflammatory comments

Nope. If you have an actual problem -- as opposed to mere foot-stamping spite -- take it up with a higher authority. Oh, wait, you already did. Didn't work out, did it? --Calton | Talk 05:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lir! wNANA G ON A ADATE WIF Me? omgz lollulz! HUGGLE-cakes! Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

OK sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Battle of Stalingrad rewrite

Hi Lir,

Please note that there are several editors working on various aspects of the Eastern Front (1941-45) coverage, and we try to work together despite differences.

In regards to your points:

I'm going to rewrite this entire article as I quite probably know more about the subject than you do. (assumption)

If you object to a specific edit, I suggest you talk to me about it. (talk to everyone on talk page about it)

I don't mean to be rude, but collaborative writing requires that someone be temporarily given a little freedom to operate without constant interference. (agreed)

I have about 20 books on the subject sitting right here, along with access to JSTOR, and so I expect anyone arguing with me to be able to cite their sources.(great idea)

I removed a citation that 65% of Army Group Centre had not been involved in the winter fighting of 1941-42 from the background, its really not relevant unless you want to start a separate section specifically on the historiographical debate over whether a central offensive should have been launched. I just re-added this as a footnote.

This is a confusion based on the misunderstanding of the roles of various Army Groups as intended by the OKH before Stalingrad became a focus for Hitler. It is also a misunderstanding of what translired over the long period the "Battle of Stalingrad" tries to portray. No doubt you are aware the operation is actually seeking to describe two separate planning entities, the Stalingrad strategic defensive operation and the Stalingrad strategic offensive operation by Soviet sources. This is because it had several operational components to it, namely:

Stalingrad strategic defensive operation

Defensive struggle on far approaches to Stalingrad - operational withdrawals

Defensive struggle on the near approaches to Stalingrad - operational delaying

Defensive battle for Stalingrad - tactical engagements in the city

Stalingrad strategic offensive operation

Encirclement of the Wehrmacht group of forces at Stalingrad (Operation “Uranus”) - currently Operation Uranus

Kotel’nikovo offensive operation

Middle-Don offensive operation (Operation “Little Saturn”) - currently Operation Saturn

Liquidation of the 6th Army (Wehrmacht) (Operation “Kol’tso”)

It is my intention to produce articles for each of the operations. As far as I'm concerned the vast majority of English sources focus on the Battle for, or in Stalingrad, that is the tactical and arguably most intense phase of the operations. The larger context of the place of Stalingrad in the OKH original strategic planning, one to breach the Volga line and the other to reach Baku, are also not made particularly clear as factors that influenced development of planning in and around Stalingrad for both sides, hence the citation that 65% of Army Group Centre had not been involved in the winter fighting of 1941-42.

The beginning does not need to mention Tsaritsyn, how is that important?

Hitler seems to have had a hate not only of all things Soviet, but any mention of the past Imperial glory of Russia. Tsaritsyn of course reminded him of the Russian Tsars even if that was not the origin of the name. When it was explained to Hitler that it is a Tartar name, he decided that it must be destroyed to stop the "Asian hordes". One can say that the name in any permutation bode only something bad from his POV ;o)

There is no 'official' start date for this battle. The one you have been using here, August 21, is significant only in that this is the date that Kalatch was seized. August 23 might be a better date to use as the 'start', although one could easily push this back to the main thrusts of September, or advance it forward to the actual orders to seize Stalingrad which were issued in July, and you could arguably even date the battle's beginings to June, since all of Operation Blue is generally considered part of this engagement. Therefore, 'Summer 1942', seems to be the most accurate date to use.

The Soviet start date for the defensive withdrawals on the far approaches tot he city are dated 17.07.1942.

A quarter-million Axis troops wound up in the Soviet POW camps, I don't know where your figure of 110'000 came, but these figures vary greatly depending on how you count them, and who exactly you are counting.

I think some editors prefer to count only the German troops, and only those in the final surrender in the immediate proximity of Stalingrad and not as a result of all the operations. Moreover I have decided that some sources seemingly only cite POWs belonging to units and formations of the 6th Army only.

I deleted a citation about anyone strong enough to hold a gun being sent out to war, that is obviously a misapplied/exaggerated/somewhat irrelevant quote.

Yes, I must have missed that during my cursory preliminary reading. However a large number of GULag prisoners were sent to the 62nd Army (Soviet Union), and not a few of these were only barely physically capable of serving.

Other editors agree that we need better and more consistent maps for the Eastern Front project. Have a look here http://maps.poehali.org/en/catalogue/ I will propose we use these with edited graphics as required. The advantage is that they are available in different scales, and once modified become non-copyright original works of the editor (I think).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your replies; was just clarifying.

Can you be a bit more specific with your intentions for the article?

Ideally I would suggest to rename it Battle for Stalingrad which is grammatically correct for a battle (i.e. a tactical combat) taking place for procession of the city only, retaining a commonly used English name, and create the other operational articles within the scope of the Battle for Stalingrad category (since few search by category). It seems to me there is enough material for that number of articles, and I think each deserves a greater article size, but your plans in terms of time and commitment may not be able to accommodate such an ambitious undertaking. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front article structure

You probably have your own idea of what an article should look like, but had developed a structure guideline to keep the articles consistent, and as a way to prevent editors being repetitive and help them to focus on specific parts of the article. Please feel free to offer your comments.

‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question
when - date of event
where - location of event (from general to specific, i.e. Europe -> Bavaria -> Munich)
who - event participants
why - why did the event occur
larger context - "The battle for Stalingrad occured because..."
significance - "The significance of the battle of Stalingrad in its location, symbolism, and ..."
outcome - "The battle for Stalingrad resulted in..."

Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.

- Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
- Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
- Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
- Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle

Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.

- Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
- Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
- Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
- Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack

Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts

- Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
  - Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
- Side D
  - Forces involved

Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:

- Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
- Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
- Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
- Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
- Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan
- Statistics - personnel and equipemtn in the engagement, losses, etc.
Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan

- Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
- Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events

Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

PS. If you need help with Russian sources (since you don't seem to need them with English sources) please feel free to ask me.

Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I am reblocking you because you appear to have resumed trolling [4] [5] [6] [7]. I hope you at least feel lousy for having betrayed Doc's trust in your willingness to contribute constructively. — Coren ^(talk) 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is clearly just a blatant abuse of power on behalf of Coren & Friends. Going all the way back to 2001, people have been systematically violating Wikipedia's rules about how and when to block a user, and you guys have really got to start following your own policies. This "ignore all rules" nonsense is fine and all, but it is encouraging rogue admins to become petty little tyrants and persecute all kinds of users for the most trivial reasons. Seriously, you can act all tough and declare a "war on trollerism", but this is the 8th largest website in the world, and I think you guys really need to raise the bar and start acting with a bit more professionalism, a lot less hypocrisy, and stop being so blatantly rude to other users. Face it, if you want to ban me, you have to go through the Arbitration Committee, because that's what the unwritten common-law constitution mandates; so that's the way it is, and you are going to have to deal with the fact that there are people here who know about your cute little cabal, and the fact that you won't go through the proper dispute resolution channels certainly indicates to me (and others) that you know damn well that the last attempt to ban me wasn't unanimous, and that you are afraid the Arbitration Committee might actually agree with me (as they did during a previous failed attempt to ban me) that you are simply being abusive. I haven't broken one single rule since being unbanned (and my last ban was absurdly bogus), and to assert that I've made personal attacks for accusing you of being corrupt is a bit ridiculous, considering all the personal attacks you have made against me. Wikipedia is becoming one of the most important institutions in modern history, and its past time to institute a little law & order around here. I hope you feel at least a little bit lousy for being so spinelessly corrupt as to avoid following even your own rules. Can you people believe this, they are edit-warring over whether to block me (and it isn't the first time) -- how bizarre, how bizarre? Isn't that a great song. Yah, just another brick in the wall all over again. And its an indefinite block too, can you believe that? They don't even have justification for a 12-hour block, but they just want the whole cake all at once; greedy, greedy, power-hungery cabalists. Oh, and I love how Coren cut and pasted four pieces of evidence provided by Haemo, and how the last two pieces of evidence are the exact same link, which shows you how carefully they looked at this before they made their predetermined 'decision'. Ah well, I'd take this to the mailing list, but it's funny how everything I send there seems to get 'lost'. Lol, so much for Jimbo's "loving little community".

Decline reason:

Come back when you have a REAL unblock reason.— Viridae ^Talk 05:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You haven't really presented a reason for an unblock. But I also don't see where good reasons for the block have been given either. Friday (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, um, in normal intelligent law courts, they have this thing called a "burden of proof", and the so-called "onus" is upon the "prosecution" to prove that the person is a "threat to the community", or else the person is considered "innocent until proven guilty". But that's the way things work when you aren't dealing with kangaroo courts and corrupt politicians; so I commend you for making the right decision, but urge you to seriously question whether such an important major website should be run on so lackluster definitions of judicial review. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

This block seems to be too soon. At least let the dust settle if you all want to get Lir back to editing articles. Continually poking is not going to help. David D. (Talk) 06:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know! Tell me about it.... I can't even fathom what goes inside their heads; it's like by posting a non-vulgar statement on another user's talk page, one which that user has no complaint whatsoever about, I am somehow a criminal simply because I disagree with the groupthink reactionary political mentality which has become so prevalent among some of the more zealous career-seeking admins? Seriously, you people need to think about what you are doing on like a serious soul-searching ethical basis. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Did I mention that they wholly fabricate evidence? Wow, that makes it hard to defend yourself when you can't even get tried by a jury of your peers. Funny how this works in real-life, I'd say this is a totalitarian state but that is heresy. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Lol, I just got banned from the mIRC channel for stating that jury trials are an inalienable right -- the tyranny here is shameless. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Wikilawyering will get you absoloutely nowhere. Viridae ^Talk

I think that's exactly my point. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

You have no :rights" on wikipedia, its a private website and can do what it likes. That includes a "right to a fair trial" and right of "free speech" - you can either bitch, moan and continue to be blocked, or you can stop bitching and moaning and realise that participants in wikipedia only continue to be participants in wikipedia as long as the collective consensus (more or less) believes that their presence will give the project a net improvement. Viridae ^Talk 07:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more your website than it is mine, so I think I have just as much right here as you, and probably even more right than you because I am actually interested in creating an encyclopedia, whereas you are clearly far more interested in carving out a little fiefdom for yourself. Nearly 10% of Wikipedians tried to vote me into the arbcom, so frankly I suspect that I have more genuine 'authority' than you, even if my authority is non-violent. You can ban people all day long, but this is a major educational website, and we aren't going to go away simply because you start threatening us. Oh, and you clearly lack consensus. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Hint: Groupthink, read about it Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Ok Lir, if you are REALLY interested in creating this encyclopedia, how about you pledge to stop the behaviour that others are finding disruptive and actually go on and do it without all the associated nonsense. At this point youe behaviour is being viewed as a net loss by most of those of the community who have commented, and you are thus indeffed. That qill do a quick about face when you pledge to stop wikilawyering and soapboxing and do something useful. I would be happy to unblock you if you made such a pledge and I'm sure not too many people would object. (and of course ojections weould soon be stifled by visions of you working away and making a positive contribution) Viridae ^Talk 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 'behavior' you are asking me to quit is to stop discussing with people about my plans to create a constitutional framework for civil rights and due process here at Wikipedia. Well, I'm afraid that this is an inalienable right, and that I do have the freedom of speech; you, however, do not have the freedom to continue pursuing a vendetta against anyone who dares to question the legitimacy of your authority. I demand that you follow your own rules and either accept mediation or submit this to arbitration; those are the rules here, and 'ignore all rules' has no merit whatsoever. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Lir as much as you are completely full of it over the right to free speech and anything else from the bill of rights you care to name, none of which apply to private spaces like wikipedia, if you want to draft an arbcom request, I will make sure a clerk is notified to deal with it. That said, from what I have seen you dont have a chance in hell of it being accepted. Viridae ^Talk 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish to file one against whoever banned me for violating the community guidelines on dispute resolution, and I think if they won't accept it then you are morally obligated to unban me until they are willing to hear what is in fact your case. While you are at it, a separate case should be failed against User:Calton and the complaints are myself, User:Boodlesthecat, User:BillyTFried, and User:Pbroks13 -- we all wish for this case to be filed on the grounds that Calton persistently violates the community guidelines on 'no personal attacks'. Please be sure to unban us once it is filed so that we may actually have the opportunity to present our case. I have a suspicion there are a few other users who would also like to join us in this suit. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Oh, for goodness sake. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and no-one, absolutely no-one, has any "rights" here. The foundation allow the community to edit, and each individual edits on the sufferance of the community, who are called to assume in good faith that the individual is here to support the project's aim of building an encyclopedia. Now, if people are doing that, a certain amount of off-topic posts and "free speech" are tolerated (indeed to quite a large degree). Normally, I'd see nothing particularly wrong with your latest edits, perhaps they are trollish, but they are within the bounds of that toleration for contributing users. However, this community is having difficult believing that your primary purpose here is to be a contributing user, and you needed to convince them to believe that and start assuming good faith. You've really failed to do that. Forget "rights", how were your edits likely to convince this community of your good intentions? They were not. And I believe you are intelligent and experienced enough to see that. Had you spend a few days/weeks demonstrating good intention, I'd have taken the view that your other posts should be permitted as being well within the toleration area, but you've shown little interest in doing so. You've built up no credit to spend. Wikilawyering won't help here, your only hope is to show this community that it is misjudging your good intention, and content contributing desires, and as it stands you are failing to do that.--Doc^g 08:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you don't represent the community, and this predetermined sham campaign against me proves nothing other than your own intolerance and unwillingness to abide by any semblance of morality or due process. You go on and on about how nobody has any rights; but then, what gives you the right to ban me? Of course users have rights here, and the problem is that certain users have abused their authority and monopolized power over the entire community. Thus, it is not I who is inhibiting the Wikipedia, but rather the problem is those people who refuse to recognize that everyone has inalienable rights, both in real-life and on one of the world's largest websites. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

As you said yourself, "Normally, I'd see nothing particularly wrong with your latest edits, perhaps they are trollish, but they are within the bounds of that toleration for contributing users." and as Jimbo Wales explicitly stated, I am a normal user and should be treated like everyone else. Case closed, except you won't let it go before a judge or a jury. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Lir, either put up your arbcom request or stop whining. If it doesnt go up soon, or you keep whining I will be taking your talk page of my wwatchlist and you will have lost a potential unblock. Viridae ^Talk 09:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put it up, I'm banned; and why aren't you putting it up, since you are the one with the complaint against me for violating 'community norms'? Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

For the third time, Put it here and I or an arb clerk will open the request for you. Viridae ^Talk 09:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put what here? How hard is it to go the arbitration page and put my name, and then Coren's name, and then note that banning me was a violation of the community rules for dispute resolution? Is that too complicated, or are you just trying to waste my time with your fake pretense at being so generous and willing to help me? You know, it's pretty spineless how you people can't actually commit yourself to a trial with actual rules, and you have to hide behind your little "no wikilawyering" cliche.Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Why exactly would we want trials? You have nothing at stake except the ability to edit wikipedia, certainly nothing approaching your property or life. Now either provide your statement in the form of a standard request for arbitration statement (you ran for arbcom apparently, you should know how these things work) in which you detail your grievance and what you wish the arbcom to do about it, and list who you want the parties to be, and I will see to it that it gets to the appropriate page. Bitch and moan and wikilawyer any longer and bang goes my patience and along with it this offer. Viridae ^Talk 11:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for you make a standard request to ban me, or you are afraid you'll get denied? I'm really not interested in your phony offer; because if you were going to do anything, you would have done it already -- what I am interested in is how you'll sit here and display your utter unwillingness to make any attempt whatsoever to abide by the dispute resolution process, which requires you to try other alternatives before you ban someone. Your actions clearly do not have community consensus, which makes you in the wrong. Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Apart from the fact that I wasn't the person that blocked you in the first place, other attempts at DR were tried - you were banned for a year by arbcom about 3 years ago. That extended to 3 years because you repeatedly sockpuppeted - what more DR do we need? You come off that ban and your behaviour has been less than stellar, the community can therefore impose whatever intervention it sees fit, in this case an indef block either until you see sense (or don't in which case it remains in place) IF you would like to appeal to arbcom to have this indef removed place your damn statement on this page and I will see to it that it gets to the correct place. Comprende? If that isnt the case then I have no further business with you, unless you weant to take me conditional unblock offer. There is no direct dispute with you apart from you wasting my time patience and good will, so any attempt at initiating DR procedures with me will be ignored. Viridae ^Talk 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that you are not the community. You do not have the authority to block me, nor does Coren have that authority. I am a user in good standing, and just like every other such user, the rules absolutely require that you follow the dispute resolution process. You have all the information you need to fill out an arbcom case, and there is nothing stopping you from doing so except that you actually don't want to. In any case, it is not sufficient for you to pretend that I am "trolling" and make up some lame accusations; you have to actually go through the arbcom and prove it to a jury elected by the users. So either do it, and show us how confident you are that my actions deserve a ban; or else it is patently obvious that you are aware that the arbcom might not agree with you.Lirath Q. Pynnor (talk)

Bye Lir, your block stands and this page is now officially off my watchlist. I see absoloutely no reason why you should be unblocked at this point, you have done nothing but wikilawyer. Any administrator can and will impose an indefinite block on anyone they think is not here for the purpose of working on a collaberatively built encyclopedia. That has happened now, the community consensus is that the block is valid. No further DR procedures need to be undertaken unless you wish to initate them - I have offered numerous times to help you do that. I now give up, you tested my patience for far too long and I suspect as this exchange is read by memers of the community who can be bothered to come and see what the dispute is about, you will lose their support too. Viridae ^Talk 12:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the term

Hey, you guys might want to actually read the article on wikilawyering before you start throwing around the personal attacks; this paragraph was pretty informative:

Occasionally, editors who engage in semantic discussions about the language of a policy or guideline, or propose minor changes in the wording of a policy or guideline, will be accused of wikilawyering. In such cases, it may make sense instead to assume good faith and engage in the discussion productively rather than tar those editors with the wikilawyering brush. And simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer; remember that Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee closely modelled on a court of law, a system of elections of administrators and bureaucrats, Featured Article & Good Article review procedures, and various other formal processes.