Hi Lir. Great stuff you're writing. Tarquin
- Right. Great stuff. Like this little gem she added to Iowa State- "Common pasttimes at Iowa State include drinking, smoking, tripping, and complaining." He's a regular Noah Webster. David dePaoli
- While you're at it, don't forget to take a quick look over the Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --Brion 00:42 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)
In reference to the question you posted to Mav (and please use user talk pages for that sort of thing rather than the user page itself), you can find most of what you'd want to know about character sets at Wikipedia:Special characters.
Columbus's wife was the daughter of a navigator who worked for Prince Henry the Navigator. Various sources found by googling have him exploring around Thule, or trading to Madeira, or otherwise exploring or working on a sailing ship. Vicki Rosenzweig
ur a girl whos obviously... um... high spirited.Sv
Nice clean page you have here, Lir. -- Zoe
Lir, you were blocked by a sysop temporarily, but a number of other contributors disagreed with this decision, and you are now "unblocked".--Ed Poor 18:34 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)
- I was the sysop who unblocked you :-) --KQ
Lir, please don't tease Zoe. --Ed Poor
Fluffy was a very confused cat among humans. She was much happier among the Ardturians. Eclecticology
Lir, why are you moving the space probe articles to the incorrect titles? --!mav
- All references I've ever seen refer to them with roman numerals, as she does. Can we stop all this? --Fictional v
Lir, I've found out about your mind-cont^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H overwhelming intelligence and chiseled abs. random fan
Yes, I have too. me
How Standardized Tests Are Written
- A:"George W Bush was the president of the USA in August 2002."
- B:"George H Bush was the president of the USA in August 2002."
- C:"George Washington was the president of the USA in August 2002."
- D:"Cleopatra was the president of the USA in August 2002."
- I sort of have an objection. In theory at least Lir can't edit the page - her account has been blocked and it's been made clear that she is not welcome to edit under any user name. I know she has been editing under other names, but officially at least she is no longer a contributor. And I don't see any reason for anyone else to edit her page. Personally I would think it should be deleted rather than unprotected (along with the user pages of other banned users). But on the principle of only protecting where really necessary, I guess it should be unprotected. -- sannse 15:22 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
- It has been done.
- Regards deleting the pages of banned users... I think that replacing them with a simple notice of the ban is a reasonable approach. That allows the banned user to retrieve hir text from the history, should sie desire to do so. It also makes it easier for a banned user to rejoin the community once their ban has timed out. Martin
Yes, that makes more sense. -- sannse 21:03 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
page unprotected in the interests of soft security.
Archived: old content
Lir hasn't been good for Wikipedia, but that's no reason to insult her (or him if you prefer) gratuitously. Unfortunately, Jimbo's version of this page, which has been dictatorially imposed (which I hasten to point out is quite unusual for him) does just this. It implies that there was an edit war here between two equally wrong sides, so that the only way to end it was to delete all of the text. But whatever abuses Lir has committed on Wikipedia, none of them were here. Instead, the edit war was simply a matter of one bully, Clutch, attempting to be as cruel as possible to her. To blame Lir for the problems on this page is simply to blame the victim, which is of course a gross insult. Whatever problems Lir has caused us -- and she has indeed caused us problems -- this is no excuse to permanently inshrine such an insult in our pages.
Since both the bully and the victim have been banned (both for other reasons), with no sign of a legitimate return from either, there won't be any more edit wars if Jimbo rescinds his order that this page be left as it is now. Instead, the page should either be returned to Lir's last edit; alternatively, the user pages of banned users could simply be left blank on the grounds that they're obsolete, as others have suggested elsewhere. I won't edit this page myself, even though it's been unprotected, because of Jimbo's order. However, that order is wrong (and out of date according to its own terms), so I urge him to remove it.
-- Toby Bartels 16:51 30 May 2003 (UTC)
- I'm bolder than you, Toby :) Martin 00:25, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Isn't it about time this user page was deleted since Lir has been gone for nearly a year G-Man 17:55, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I don't see any need to delete the page. Lir's name is signed on a lot of talk pages, and I think it's more informative to have those links point to the note here than to point into empty space. --Camembert
- User:Lir I dont see any point in keeping this userpage any more, since the user in question has long since been banned, and has not made any contributions since last November. G-Man 23:09, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Has not made any contributions under that username since last November. Nevertheless I concur. - Hephaestos 23:11, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I oppose: There are lots of sigs on talk pages etc that link to user:Lir, and it's useful to have *something* there so that if people see an interesting Lir comment, and wish to respond it, they'll know that Lir has been banned. The current content is non-ideal, though, and should be changed. Martin 00:11, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- I vote for reverting to the last edit by Lir and keeping. For when he is officially unbanned, of course! :) Even if he is never unbanned, the page and its history are useful in understanding the user (useful when considering the merits of his material, of which there is quite a lot in the Wikipedia), and in understanding the circumstances surrounding his banning. In general, I don't really see the purpose of deleting user pages, unless they consist of nothing but obscenities, copyright infringements, or other stuff that we just can't keep. Even if we know that the users in question won't be coming back, the pages often provide insight into their contributions. And if nothing else, they serve as useful jumping-off points for their user contributions pages and other related pages. (Nicer than that big edit box, I think.) And of course there's always the argument that deleting something is more effort than not deleting something, so there's no reason that I can think of to delete anything unless its presence is having an adverse effect, and I can't think of one in this case. -- Oliver P. 02:29, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Should not be deleted. We only delete such records if the user requests it. It's good to have this data for reference purposes.—Eloquence 03:02, Sep 8, 2003 (UTC)
- I suppose my commenting here is going to cause JTDirl to assume that this is "proof" that I am Lir. Anyhow, my question is this. The above justification points out that the user has been banned, and hasn't contributed since November. Is a precedent being set here either that banned users should have their pages deleted, or that defunct users should have their pages deleted, or is it only for banned and defunct users? The only banned user who comes immediately to mind who has had their page deleted is Isis. -BuddhaInside
- Isis left voluntarily, in early February 2003, and made a request to Jimbo for various pages to be deleted when she did so. As far as I know she was never banned. Zog was banned and his user page was deleted at some point, but another user page is now there in its place. (Would undeleting what was there before do any harm, by the way...?) -- Oliver P. 19:07, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
- I also vote that this page remain. The whole controversy concerning Lir played itself out before I was seriously involved in Wikipedia, but I still encounter traces of this controversy -- & I expect others to do so for the foreseeable future. Like ro not, Lir is part of the history of Wikipedia. Either do not delete this page, or expect someone to provide their own POV when newbies ask "Who was Lir, & why do some people consider her a bad person?" -- llywrch 19:48, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)