User talk:Lir/3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for the message. One minor inaccurary however. Until the 18th century a number of titles were used. Prime Minister became the sole title from the late eighteenth century. First Lord of the Treasury, though in theory the senior title, in practice is an empty shell, a largely meaningless title that goes with PM, but from the late 18th century PM was the title, even though it never received formal official status until 1905. FearÉIREANN 21:06, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

re Jesus: where do you get off, deleting my text without any discussion? I am trying to solve a very difficult problem at that page, and this kind of rude and arbitrary behaviour does not help. Adam 07:04, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You deleted the entire section headed The Problem of Jesus. I deleted the reference to ascetics along with all the other historically unsustainable statements in the opening paragraphs, for reasons I explained in the section you deleted! Adam 07:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Now we can try and write an opening paragraph. Adam

The opening para ought to be a statement of what everyone can agree on. That he was an ascetic can only be known if you accept the historicity of the Gospels, which is precisely what is not generally accepted. Adam

Thanks :-) Evil saltine 09:35, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are making no effort to achieve an acceptable text, you are just inserting your religious POV in the text, so I will revert and go on doing so. Adam 13:01, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

re: Jesus page

Lir after discussions with Adam have come to compromise over the first paragraph on Jesus. I hope this is acceptable to you. I've put the following text on the Jesus talk page:

Suggested compromise
The principal reason this page was protected was over disagreements concerning the initial paragraph, between Adam, Lir and myself; though I think I was mostly an accidental participant which confused the issue still further. Two way fights are so much easier to disentangle!

Talking with Adam we have agreed this compromise which is a mix of contributions Adam, Lir and myself:

"Jesus Christ (or Jesus of Nazareth, see alternate names below) (c. 4 BC - c. 30) was, according to Christian belief, the Son of God, who brought salvation to man through his crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus is considered to be a major religious figure by several other religions, for instance, he is regarded as a prophet in Islam. The primary source of historical knowledge, about Jesus, is contained within the Christian Gospels, which Christians view as the divinely inspired writings of God. Most secular historians accept that the Gospels are sufficient evidence that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence.

There is no mention of Jesus as an ascetic, because it seems from discussions on this page that it is not considered a sufficiently important matter to raise in the introductory paragraph.

Also I believe Adam has agree to retitle section 1 from 'The Problem of Jesus' to the more innocent 'Introduction'.
I believe that if this compromise is acceptable, we can get the protection from the page removed, and continue as normal.: ChrisG 12:10, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello Lir, welcome back !
I hope things will turn out more smoothly this time...
--FvdP 17:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Lir, please comment on Talk:Jesus Christ about whether I should now unprotect Jesus Christ. (If you reply here, then I may not see it.) -- Toby Bartels 19:13, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My apologies. I assumed it was unprotected, as the opening paragraph was virtually identical to the opening you proposed (and which, given just a few changes, I like) Slrubenstein

Hi Lir, some advice. I think you should remove your comments on the problem users page about Adam Carr. If he was to say the same thing 10 or 20 it might be different but the occasional hurtful comment is to be expected around here and should not be reacted to. (I know I don't always react that way, but usually regret it afterwards, hence the advice.) Keep up the good edits and take criticism like that with a pinch of salt. When someone reacts to minor though wrongheaded criticism, all too often it damages them more than the person they are reacting to, as they appear overly sensitive, vulnerable or looking for a fight. The best tactic you could follow is simply to ignore the comment unless it is repeated over and over and over again, in which case you should take it up with the person making it, and use the problem users page as a last resort. lol (PS: I've removed a few more of the "A . . ." mentions I've come across!) FearÉIREANN 19:02, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising you, just suggesting that your handling might prove conterproductive. Please don't take offence at well meaning advice. I agree what he said is wrong. I'm just urging subtlety in how you handle it. FearÉIREANN 22:01, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

'Take with a pinch of salt' means 'expect that sort of criticism'. It does not mean it is justified criticism. (In trying to uphold NPOV I am always been lambasted for a pro-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, pro-Australian republicanism, pro-Australian monarchist , pro-Catholic, anti-Catholic, etc. So I am used to that sort of criticism.) Please don't read into my words any support for Adam Carr's comments. I have spent tonight defending you, as have others, on the problem users, criticising Adam Carr's comments. I have making every effort, Lir, to mend bridges with you. I have gone out on a limb defending you. Why do you continue to presume I am anti-you or critical of you when no-one else on wikipedia has made so many efforts to defend you? I wouldn't have gone to defend you on the problem users page if I did not believe you deserved it. Please show me some of the respect I've been showing you since you came back. FearÉIREANN 02:11, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the States they call it "taking things with a grain of salt." ;)

I think we misunderstand each other. There is no question of me banning you or reverting edits because they were done by you. As far as I am concerned the past before you came back is 100% forgotten and always will be. I will only judge you on the basis of your work as Lir and that has been very good indeed. I have appealed to others to forget the past also. So please don't feel the needs to be defensive in your dealings with me. I had rows with Stevertigo when I came on when we clashed with an article. We now have a very good, respectful relationship. I had a row with Oliver tonight (I think he was acting the ass, to be honest). But next week it will be all in the past and I will be more than happy to work with him. I don't hold grudges. What happened between us in the past is now in my view old history. All I know is that in you I am dealing with a very capable, very intelligent contributor who is doing very good work. That is why I was willing to defend you on the problem users page. My advise to you in dealing with Adam Carr was simply that, in view of the fact that there are still people out there holding grudges against you, tactically it might be advisable to avoid getting into rows for the moment. Remember most of the users at the time when there was a problem are not regularly on wikipedia now. Newbies know nothing about those disputes. All they see is a good user doing good edits. The longer you keep a low profile and just stick to article work the more idiotic your attackers will look, because new users will simply see attacks being made against someone whom they only know as a model wikipedian. And if people make idiotic attacks on you, I will be more than happy, as indeed I suspect with 172 (who has become quite a fan of your article-writing abilities), to defend you and say 'leave him alone. He is doing nothing wrong.' One final bit of advice. I'd recommend you set up a new email for use on the wikilist, so that you appear on it as Lir, not AR. (I have an email account devoted only to wikipedia stuff!). But whatever happens, don't worry about isolated attacks from Adam Carr and others. Just keep up the good work. Wikilove, FearÉIREANN 03:39, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Lir, we are having a vote on Talk:Mother Teresa about the nature of the article, which a wide range of people perceive as poorly written and dangerously POV. We are trying to decide what the problems are and how to solve them. Please feel free to participate if you wish. I'd welcome your observations. FearÉIREANN 04:56, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)


It's true that you can't make Wik decide to talk to you, but you can try to make the rest of the community see that his behavior is worthy of disapproval. In order to do that, I believe you need to make your own actions unassailable in every particular — then it becomes clear who is causing the trouble. In this instance, one way to go about things would have been:

  • after the first time Wik reverted you, you revert with the edit summary "I have replaced this link. See talk page for reasons."
  • assuming Wik reverts that edit without discussion, then you can write on the talk page, "Since this edit was reverted without discussion, I will be reverting back in 24 hours."
  • assuming Wik reverts that edit without discussion, then you revert and write on his User talk page "Please explain why my edit is poor before reverting."

If you try to open channels three times, and get no response, then you've got a record of good faith actions on your part.

If Wik does respond, but with insults, this gives you an opportunity to try to separate the substantive part of his objection from the insulting part. The insults are beneath you; they do not deserve a response. A good tactic to use in this situation is to rephrase his objection with the insulting part left out, e.g, "If I understand you correctly, you think that blah blah blah. But I think that yadda yadda yadda." Again, by doing so, you demonstrate good faith in the face of bad behavior.

If you and Wik cannot eventually work out a compromise, then it's time to get others involved. Post the issue to Wikipedia:Peer review or the Pump. When you do so, others will see that your behavior is impeccable while Wik's is not; I believe this to be the most effective way of assuring that a good compromise is worked out without damaging your reputation by engaging in protracted edit wars.

Or you can just chuck my snooty advice and do what you think best. ;-)

Cyan 04:44, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is a good idea! Thanks for creating it. Cheers, Cyan 05:31, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Who's the William Mayo you linked to from Henry Ford ?

Thanks, --Morven 23:23, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bush family conspiracy theory on VfD page[edit]

Bush family conspiracy theory has been placed on the votes for deletion page. I know you put a good deal of work into it. --mav 08:36, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In response to your query at the Village pump, ''''' does seem to produce bold italics to me. Where have you had problems with it? If you find the village pump too large to edit, you can use this edit link, which allows you to post a new section. This means you don't have to load the whole page. In fact, you don't even need to go to the page. Angela 02:09, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Dear Lirath, i'm sorry if i'm interfering or out of line here, but why dont you remove yourself from the hot topics wik is so crazy about? I'm sure if you start contributing in "boring" areas like me (a Roman history fan) you dont have wacos after you. And there is a lot to do in the Classical history section, waiting for the valuable contributions i'm sure you would do. Let him have him is way until s/he (a he i strongly suspect) is bored, otherwise you are just making him happy by playing his game. Cheers and all the best, Muriel 14:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • But if you start to talk about the Alexandria donations, for instance, i doubt he knows the subject enough to make life harder for you... Muriel
    • Now thats an excelent idea! Restart all over, with a "clean" record. Let me know your wherabouts with an encrypted message in my talk page :) Muriel

I sort of assumed that the reason you moved that summary of his works to the first paragraph was so that a reader could get a quick overview of what the guy wrote. As the symphonies and concertos were already singled out, it seemed sensible to me to mention another one of his major works, Ein deutsches Requiem. If you don't want pieces named in the first paragraph, I'm a bit lost as to why you moved them there. We could just move them back to the end of the article, where they were before (personally, I think I'd prefer that). --Camembert

I think if you're trying to show how prolific he is, you're perhaps a bit misguided - he wasn't unusually prolific, nor did he write an unusually small amount of music. I'm not sure there's anything very interesting to say about the volume of his output. But anyway, I'm off to bed now - don't worry about it too much, I'm probably going to expand and restructure it quite a bit at the weekend anyway (if nobody else does, of course). --Camembert

By the way - did you see the Kasparov-Fritz game yesterday? --Camembert

Sure, but as you say, unless one work is notable way above the others, it's better not to mention works in the first paragraph at all. And his symphonies aren't any more notable, really, than the concertos or the German Requiem, or probably a bunch of other stuff. Which is why I think it's better out of the first para. But it's not a big deal. --Camembert

It seems that you're antagonizing a few strong-willed people over trivial issues. Although I personally find some of the alternative spellings pretty useless, I wouldn't find enough meat in the issue to go to the wall over it. If you really want these alternate spellings, be prepared to wait a few days after repeated reversions before reintroducing them. Eclecticology 07:15, 2003 Nov 13 (UTC)

Brahms article[edit]

Lir, I saw your posting on Problem users but I am replying here because I am boycotting that page. On the one hand, I sympathize; Wir has the manners of a Neanderthal. But I don't know of the Brahms article was the best example to use. Personally, I think that an intro should give a very brief summary of what makes the subject important. In the case of Brahms, I don't think that dying of liver cancer counts; that was not exactly a highlight of his career. -- Viajero 18:40, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes Lir, duly noted, thank you. Adam 02:02, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hullo. I redirected user:Ril to user:Lir, under the assumption it was indeed a pseudonym. Revert if I'm wrong. Martin 21:09, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi :) Should we not mention on Squeeze theorem that this is something tied to mathematics to establish context further? Dysprosia 00:48, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jinx! :) Just got your message as you posted yours... Dysprosia 00:49, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. -- Oliver P. 01:03, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In light of your mailing list post, you may be interested in Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version and Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Martin 19:02, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)