User talk:Lir

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

---

Archives...

• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle1
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle2
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle3
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle4
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle5
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle6
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle7
• User_talk:Pizza_Puzzle8
• User talk:Lir/1
• User talk:Lir/2
• User talk:Lir/3
• User talk:Lir/4
• User talk:Lir/5

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blocked again

I am reblocking you because you appear to have resumed trolling [1] [2] [3] [4]. 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)

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)