User talk:Lir/2

Mantra

Hi Lir. I'm think your characterisation of mantra is incorrect. A mantra is neither a verse, nor a spell - although a mantra can have features in common with both. The thing about pronunciation is disputed in every country except India, and even there it is arguably Brahminical prejudice that maintains this view. The fact is that few people who have not grown up speaking one of the Aryan (ie Sanskrit based) languages can handle things like retroflex consonants, nor make the correct distinctions between n, .n, ~n, "n and .m. I would also point out that if you don't know the meaning of a mantra, or the correct context for it, indeed if you haven't had a formal initiation for it's use, then from the point of view Vajrayana Buddhism (ie Tibetan and Shingon), the mantra is *useless*. Linking it to western concepts of causality is also suspect, but I've haven't had a chance to read that page in detail - I think it unlikely to explain *why* mantra has an effect. On this basis I'd like to remove the sentence you added yesterday. Mahaabaala 08:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As I replied on my page there are still problems with your take on mantra. Some of the issues you raise are valid but are either dealt with in other sections of the page, or ought to be - pronunciation esp see my section on Mantras Generally for instance! I address the issue of "spells" in the very first paragraph after the introduction so I don't see the point in repeating it in the intro. "verses" is irrelevant imo - except in the very specific case of shravakayana Buddhists who used suttas, or sections of them, as "paritta" or protection - but again I've dealt with this in the appropriate section. If you're not happy with my edit, then lets go back to your last post and argue the case on the mantra:talk page until we come to a concensus about what it should be (rather than having an edit war). Cheers Mahaabaala 13:25, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Did you get notified? It seemed to work in the DB. -- Tim Starling 01:28, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing before, on my talk page. It's very strange. Maybe Mahaabaala (if that's who it was) did a user-abort -- say, clicked save and then closed the browser window before waiting for the edit to complete. That's a big problem with the code -- the PHP thread just dies instantly leaving the edit half-done. -- Tim Starling 02:17, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello! Okay, I'm a little out of touch since I haven't read the mailing list for a few weeks, but... have you been unbanned? -- Oliver P. 02:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We don't know each other officially, because you were officially banned before I got here, but I've followed all of the angst involved in your banning and your recurring violations of that ban. And here you are now, only a few days reborn, and reverting to type. RickK 02:24, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey Lir long time no see...

Just a friendly note. I would suggest you clean house at your home page and just put normal stuff for now.

On an aside, if you fall off the bandwaggon, I'll be the first one dragging you by the collar back to AA, all in Wikilove of course.

So please behave and let's work on the W:) Christopher Mahan 09:11, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Kingturtle recently reverted the redirect from User:Pizza Puzzle to User:Lir. If you log is as Pizza Puzzle and make the redirect, there can be no confusion. Cheers, Cyan 19:47, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

User:Pizza Puzzle now redirects to Lir, not User:Lir. -- Cyan 21:23, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please use the "Show preview" function when editing. This way the page histories don't get bogged down with excessive edits. Also, please only use the "Minor edit" feature when making changes to grammar, formatting or spelling. If you add content, do not use the "Minor edit" feature. Thanks! Kingturtle 22:20, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

See the "Minor edits" section of Wikipedia:How to edit a page. :) Kingturtle 05:00, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think 2 edits by you and 1 by 172 constitutes a war. Try talking about it on the talk page. Evercat 22:14, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Have you actually clashed with 172 since your official unbanning? Maybe he'd be more willing to talk now that's happened... Evercat 22:22, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Archiving

Hmm... I'll do you a deal. I'll get my talk page under 32K if you redirect the rest of your pseudonym user pages to user:Lir, as you did for Pizza Puzzle. Deal? Martin 02:02, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

~~Hi, I just noticed that User:Oliver Pereira is... you. ;) Could you publish a list of user pages that now redirect to you? Cheers, Cyan 10:56, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)~~

Hi, Sorry for our clash over Talk:List of heterosexuals/deletion (final archive). I presume you simply didn't understand what the page was. As you know, debates on VfD can drag on for weeks and weeks and go around in circles. The /delete pages were designed to focus debate in terms of (i) location, and (ii) time, in the latter case a specific 7 day period. That way, decisions can be taken rather than drag on for weeks (or in some cases months). The proposal, since its initial use, has worked effectively in focusing debate and taking a decision. Perhaps you didn't realise, given your absence, that such pages are time-specific. In reverting your addition I wasn't targeting you but anyone who tried to ressurrect a completed decision. That does not mean that an issue cannot be revisited, just that these pages once archived are intended merely to be records. There are other places where the issue of undeletion can be revisited. The introduction of the /delete format was simply one of a whole long line of changes introduced to the process of debating deletions, all of which are intended to make the process more efficient and so not distract users from adding to wiki by long drawnout, endless debates where no-one was sure of when the debate began, and were completely confused as to an end, as was often the case where debates were moved to talk pages and got drowned in multiple debates about the article taking place simultaneously.

I was one of the first to say on the wiki list that you should be allowed back, just as I was one of the last to call for PP's banning. You may not believe it but I want you on wiki. We need people as intelligent and as well read as you. But please do not try to provoke people. In doing that you are your own worst enemy. I am willing to forget past disagreements and work with you if you will allow me to. All I ask is that you be as constructive as you can clearly be. So, peace? I don't want endless fighting and I don't want to see you banned again, not least because if you are banned again it will be permanent. I want to avoid that. And I presume you want to too. Lets work together, eh? FearÉIREANN 03:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Rotten Borough is the standard term used, Pocket Borough the less widely used one. And I'm sorry if you think I am being mushy. If you regard trying to avoid disagreements mushy that is your issue, not mine. I am trying to be constructive and helpful. If you don't realise that, I'm sorry but you cannot say I have not tried. Many others who clashed with you haven't and think I am nutty even trying to build bridges with you. The last time I tried you called me 'phoney', even though there was nothing phoney about it; I was simply trying to help you. You don't have many friends around here. Why are you so determined to rebutt efforts to build bridges with you? I have plenty of reasons for not wanting to build bridges with you but have chosen to do so anyway. Please recognise genuine efforts to work with you for what they are. FearÉIREANN 03:57, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lir, you are making too many edits in a short span of time. (Jainism, Mahavira). The history gets difficult to track. Use the "Show preview" feature. Change often, save once. Jay 18:27, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

When I am the only one editing the page -- its quite unreasonable to argue that I am "clogging" the edit history. LirQ

well, I haven't made a lot of contributions to the articles, but I do read them, and am interested to keep track of what edits are made. Clogging the history is not about how many users contribute to an article, but how many edits you make in a short span of time. In future a lot many users may want to contribute to the article and going through the history would be a pain for them. Jay 18:41, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Although I highly doubt that going through the edit histories is that important or useful -- and I highly doubt that my edits will render this task appreciably more difficult -- if, you actually believe this, then you should advocate that a simple feature be coded (as akin to the latest version of Recent Changes) which merges repeat edits (by a single user) into one lone edit. LirQ

I do go through the history of an article to get a feel of what the page has gone through. If knowing the history and finding the diff of articles were not so important, the feature wouldn't have been there at all. Merging consecutive edits by a single users in the history log is a good idea, and i'll put up the request. Until that is implemented (or assuming it won't be implemented) the existing feature of Show preview is a good option. Jay 19:02, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you say you are correcting errors, then its certainly a good job. But then everyone else at Wikipedia is here for the same reason, adding content or correcting erros. Pls understand that the concern was not regarding the quality of your edits but by the repeated saves. Jay 19:26, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Lir, this is a common complaint of your work. Please use the "show preview" option instead of doing 5 edits per minute. Kingturtle 18:51, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you biased against "social science textbooks" in general, or do you have some actual complaint against the data? LirQ
- Textbooks are not books of scholarship and must be scrutinized accordingly. Kingturtle 19:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC) (P.S. Please do not use the "minor edit" feature when adding content.)
  - Please note, I did *not* touch what you wrote in the article. I made my comment in the discussion area. Do you understand the difference? :). Kingturtle 19:19, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, I intend to do so and in detail.

Not at all. But since I came in to this whole article from the outside, perhaps you might have explained on the talkpage, what you thought was wrong with my edits, before doing an extremely speedy edit of them. See the talkpage for more... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 02:41, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

First of all. You are free to edit at will. I hope you will give me that same liberty. The "edit" you made erased pretty much my whole contribution to the page. And I will still maintain that my contribution was not valueless, to the point that it identified points of discrimination between different aspects of the subject, even if the characterizations of those aspects may not have been precisely bullseyes. I still think that going for a view which demarcates different aspects of the policies more sharply would be clearer, but whatever floats your boat. If you want, I'll willingly step back from the article as far as your edits are considered. I have no wish to aggravate you. I thought I was trying to find ways which would accommodate all the conflicting views, only to have you pretty much erase all my carefully crafted phrases in favor of a hugely more blunt and imprecise phrase. Whatever. I only came to the page because of your message asking for help on the village pump. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 03:02, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Great work on privatization! You nixed the b.s. and summed it all up nicely. Please see my praise for you on the privatization talk page.

BTW, I now fully support your unbanning and return. From now on, I will work much harder to address your questions. Before, I thought that you'd often argue for the sake of causing trouble. Now, I realize that you just don't blindly accept appeals of authority. Whenever we disagree, I'll try to offer a lengthy, detailed explanation.

However, responding to the hard questions you raise often requires a lot of work; so try to only engage in controversial attempts to restructure articles little by little, or one effort at a time. Other users, especially myself, can get overwhelmed when too many sweeping changes are happening too fast. Yes, this is asking a lot, since I'm sure that you enjoy freedom of action, but it will help you get the kind of cooperation that someone of your exceptional ability deserves.

In regards to our past disputes, I know that you like points made as concisely as possible. However, sometimes brevity and clarity can come at the expense of precision. I'll be willing to work with you when passages can be abridged and clarified without sacrificing accuracy and precision.

In short, I'll help you keep up the excellent work by being more engaging than in the past. 172 03:57, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Lir

My user page is not "mine" in the sense "personal" one. It is a page about me, particularly me on Wikipedia. Which is different.
In the wiki way, I consider it editable by others (and revertible if I don't like). Feel free to add stuff. Anthère

New Imperialism does require some work, but it's in far better shape now that Graculus and I have abridged it, restructured it, and created a series of daughter articles based on the new structure.

The prose and structure of the article are now in good shape. While admittedly not perfect, flaws in other articles are far more pressing concerns. Yes, the prose isn't going to excite the non-expert; and I know that this is going to trouble you. After all, you're Wikipedia's consummate populist (always demanding that an article be accessible to everyone). However, any changes in the prose cannot be at the expense of factual evidence the quality of what's being explained.

Personally, I'd rather focus on something else right now. But I have a couple of suggestions if you're dying to work on New Imperialism. Rather than restructure and rewrite what's there, you could fill in the gaps. The section on France and New Imperialism hasn't even been started in the daughter article Rise of the New Imperialism; right now, that section has a heading with nothing under it. Another daughter article (Imperial rivalry) isn't even close to being finished. It won't be finished until we're finished tracing the relationship between imperial rivalry and the Great War.

BTW, if you're interested in the academic literature on this subject, take a look at the sites pertaining to New Imperialism that I added to the external links. In particular, there are a number of course outlines available from colleges and universities where this subject is being taught, which might be helpful. 172 06:34, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry if you thought my reversion rude, but you have to understand that your edit did not simply revert my last edit, but wiped out all my contributions to the article, from the first to the last. I should not perhaps have taken it personally, but I am only human. I am glad that you and 172 seem to be patching things between yourself, btw. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 13:44, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm hearing good things about your work. And it is every bit as good as I was told. Well done. FearÉIREANN 18:39, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering why you're signing yourself LirQ. Did I miss something? (no, I'm not claiming trademark on the Q, LOL, just curious). best, Koyaanis Qatsi 23:59, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well hell, I thought soy sauce was the spice of life. Koyaanis Qatsi 00:10, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Upon sober reflection, that thing I said about you being on probation on "Problem users" was utter crap. I withdraw it with apologies. (I still endorse the substance of everything else I said, although I should have avoided a confrontational tone.) Cheers, Cyan 06:09, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pronouns

Hi, Lir, welcome back. (I sent you a welcome email some time ago, but it bounced, and now it's obsolete. So let this be my welcome.)

Just for the record, do you care what pronouns (male, female, Spivak, etc) people use to refer to you? I've heard conflicting reports, and I haven't kept up with everything that you've written. My impression is that you don't have an unambiguous gender identity; but if you do have a preference, then it could be helpful to state it on your user page. That way, people won't insult you by accident!

I'm glad to see that you and some of your old foes are working well together. I wish you the best of luck here on Wikipedia.

-- Toby Bartels 12:00, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution is for people to use "lir". Lir did that. Lir said this. Lir is a lir is a lir. Yay for lir. Lirath Q. Pynnor

lir, lir, lir's, lir's, lirself?

I'll stick to "she"... there's a quota :) Martin 21:16, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So if your proper name is "Lir", then is lowercase "lir" the pronoun? If so, then despite what Martin wrote above, I'd use "lirs" for the genitive instead of "lir's", to be like "its". (It's not a plural -- the plural is "they".) Or do you mean that your proper name is really the lowercase "lir" (except at the beginning of a sentence of course), and we just don't use any pronouns at all? -- Toby Bartels 22:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is regarding contributions at Jainism and also Mahavira. The founding of religions must be stated in the historical sense, and I appreciated that you've recognized this. Further below we should mention the existence of other founders, although these may or may not have much involvement with the most recent edition of the religion. For example, the Buddhism article only mentions the historical Gautama Buddha and the beginning, and not previous Buddhas as founders. Or at the Jesus Christ article, we state he is a historical man, then further below, mention beliefs and claims of his divinity and existence before his birth.
Many of the issues we've faced at the article Buddhism also appear at Jainism. You wrote: "Mahavira is said to have had more than 400,000 followers." I've read similar claims in other faiths when the actual number was quite less. These inconsistencies are also the case with dates, where we have a supposed accurate date of birth for Siddhartha Gautama (we have credible scholars giving the birthdates ranging between the 5th to 3rd century), when in fact, nobody has a clue.
I just noticed you on Wikipedia so I'd like to give you a late warm welcome! Take care. Usedbook 14:32, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood your point re- Nicholas II. Re the regime issue, the word is often used in academia to refer to pre-democratic governmental systems which were autocratic and focused on a singular leader, be they king, pope or tsar. Among historians tsarist regime is a standard term, as is the ancien regime of pre-revolutionary France, the Papal regime when referring to the system of governance in the Papal states. Post revolution, the only French government called a regime was the Vichy Regime. One of the primary texts in studying Tsarist government was Pipes's Russia under the Old Regime. Generally regime is seen as meaning a system of government that does not operate under a democratic and accountable system and was largely focused on the leadership and system of a monarch or dominant force. FearÉIREANN 21:04, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Lir, it has been suggested that Jtdirl be removed from the problem users page. As you listed him there are you now happy to remove him now? It seems like you've made up and that but I didn't want to go removing anyone if there were still issues. Angela 03:14, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Just a question. You said once that your name isn't Adam Rinkleff. I suppose out of force of habit I have been calling you that, rather than Lir, or LirQ or the other longer one which slips my mind right now. Just in case any offence is caused, should I stop calling you Adam? If so, which version of your wiki username would you prefer I use? I don't want to cause any offence by using a version of a name that you aren't comfortable with. Given your good work I don't want inadvertently to cause any problem by seeming to use a name that you might not want me to use, lest you think I am trying to cause offence or anything. Good work on privatization, BTW. lol FearÉIREANN 23:55, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

NP. Will do. (If I accidentially slip up sometime, please don't take offence. I'll try to remember not to use the A-word.) Thanks for replying. :-) FearÉIREANN 00:26, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry about the A name. Wiki has a constant turnover. In a while very few people will remember the A word, as newbies join and simply see Lir/LirQ. I'll do my best not to mention it and if I come across places where I mentioned it I will replace it with Lir. That might help. Just focus on the work. You have made a good start. I've said it before but I'll repeat it. You are a competent contributor. As far as I am concerned all that happened is in the past under other names. Lir left about the time I joined so as far as I am concerned, you are joining under a clean slate. I was a bit embarrassed to see a discussion about you on the wiki-list. As far as I am concerned, we should all let bygones be bygones. I was going to send a letter saying that but I thought that might just prolong the issue on the list. Just keep your head down for a while, keep up the sound work and in the end most people will have forgotten the past. There are plenty of 'oh he/she was trouble' characters on wiki whose problematic starts have long since been completely forgotten. Give it a month or two, avoid rows and you'll soon find that most people on wiki will have put the past into the bin, and newbies will know nothing about it. You'll simply be 'that person who did a good edit on article 'x' ' and nothing more. Maybe you should set up a new email account for the w-list under Lir or a variant so that the A name doesn't re-appear again. That would be a good way of ensuring newbies who join the list don't hear the A name. lol FearÉIREANN 02:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've removed the A word where I find I mentioned it on a couple of user's pages. If you spot it anywhere else, feel free to remove it from my comments. If you feel that might cause problems or people might think you were "doctoring" pages and so cause a reaction, list the locations on my talk page and I'll do the removal. FearÉIREANN 20:02, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From VfD re: List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton

There isn't room on the main articles. Keep. LirQ

As many people pointed out, there is room, and most people favoured moving the information to the article, rather than keeping this article. In the light of this, do you still stand by your vote to delete it? Angela 19:26, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

NI

I just removed some duplicated sections from New Imperialism. Can you check that I haven't removed anything else that wasn't supposed to be removed. I can't tell from the edit history what you actually changed on your last edit but something must have gone wrong as all the sections from 4.1 downwards were repeated at the end. Angela 21:44, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Good point, Lir. One minor error. First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister and technically different offices and both still exist, though both are held by the same person (hence the PM living at No. 10, which is the First Lord's residence; there is no PM's residence). I think that last time they were separate was at the beginning of the 20th century for a couple of years. But the point you made needed to be made. Good addition. FearÉIREANN 22:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)