User talk:Lapsed Pacifist

POV

see your home page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustycrusty (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing templates from pages

Hi Lapsed Pacifist! It is contrary to Wikipedia policy to remove templates like {{unreferenced}} from pages, like to did to Jewish Resistance Movement. Please refrain from such actions again. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoformating dates

Please don't change dates away from their autoformating required format: [[day month]] [[year]] or [[month day]], [[year]] It doesn't enable the autoformating if you change them to day month year</nowiki> and leads to more American/British English disputes. Rmhermen (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi LP, I've reverted most of your edits to José Ramos-Horta. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) before changing any more date formats. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. With all due respect, it's clear you didn't even bother to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) before restoring your edits. The MoS states:

• "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month should not generally be linked; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations."
• "Consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise."

In case you're still unsure how your edits went against this, let's take a quick look at the first few dates in your version of the article:

• You left 17 April 2008 intact.
• You changed 20 May 2007 to 20 May 2007. Linking to May 2007 is of no use to the reader and, as I noted above, the MoS recommends against linking month and year combinations.
• You changed 13 February 2008 to 13 February 2008. Here you've introduced a pointless red link, again violating the MoS.

Three dates, three different formats — two of which are deprecated by the Manual of Style. And that's just the start of the article.

More to the point, if you genuinely couldn't understand why I thought your edits violated the MoS, it would've been helpful if you'd taken the time to clarify what I meant before reverting. Your constant edit-warring is disruptive to the project. And I notice that your edit summary accused me of "blanking" — I'm curious to know what you meant by that. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, your claim that "I can't find your quotes in the MOS" is astonishing: all you have to do is click on this link and read it (or, if you can't be bothered to read the whole policy, just search the page for the text I quoted). It would be extremely helpful if you could take the time to read our policies and guidelines before edit-warring. Polemarchus (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You expect me to believe that someone with 9,000 edits on this project is unable to locate a direct quote within a single webpage? For the record, the quote "Consistency should be maintained within an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise" is from the very first paragraph of the guideline. The other quote is from the Date autoformatting section (third paragraph).

You know damn well that you were edit-warring when you restored your changes to the date formats: even though I'd clearly pointed out that I believed this was a violation of our guideline, you ignored my comment, didn't even bother to read the guideline I linked to (three times), and restored your formats without addressing my concerns. ("I don't understand" or "I don't know how to read a web page" is not an excuse for restoring changes that another editor has expressed concerns about.)

Anyway, if you ever get around to actually reading the guideline, perhaps you could explain why you think your formatting is compatible with it. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought it was obvious that "I don't understand" and "I don't know how to read a web page" were not direct quotes. I certainly didn't mean to imply that they were, and I'm sorry if that's how they appeared.

I genuinely have not been trying to provoke you. I've honestly tried to engage in a productive discussion here, but you've consistently refused to even read the guideline that I quoted in my original edit summary, so I don't know how to proceed. Polemarchus (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Hi, I have noticed that you have restored links to to http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2374198 in National Council of Resistance of Iran and People's Mujahedin of Iran. Why? The article is not used to support any fact in the article nor it is a comprehensive study that goes well beyond our requirements for the FA article as required by WP:EL. It is just an opinion piece, keeping this reference would probably violate WP:UNDUE. Morover, looking to the [contributions] by Peeteeree it appears that this is a single purpose account only spamming links to the Jamestown foundation. Why do we need to support a spammer? If the Jamestown article contains NPOV material that is missing in our articles, we should just add the material there Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Settlements

LP, I am concerned that you are once again edit-warring over the word "colonies" vs. "settlements", this time at Oslo Accords.[1][2][3] As you may recall, this was discussed at the Green Line (Israel) talkpage, and a clear consensus was confirmed for the word "settlements". Yet you are using the word "colonies" at the Oslo article. Of even more concern, is that you added a source which seemed to the word "colonies", but the source has nothing to do with the Oslo Accords.[4] This is a very serious matter, adding an inappropriate source to an article. Please consider this your last warning on the matter. If you again engage in a dispute about this colony/settlement matter, without providing a relevant source, and/or ensuring consensus for your edit, your account access will be blocked. Please, moderate your own behavior so that this is necessary. You make many other good edits, but please try to avoid the controversial ones. Thanks, Elonka 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Stub tags after categories, please

Hi, Please add stub tags after the categories in an article, not before as you did for Protest camp - it makes life just a little easier for people doing stub-sorting. See WP:STUB which says "By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last." They go in front of any interwiki links, but after everything else. Thanks, PamD (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lehi

Your further comments here would be appreciated. Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified "Terrorism"

I'd appreciate your comments here. Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lapsed, I just spotted you on Domer's talkpage - you seen to have annoyed himself and Dunc. Here is a Wiki article you might find interesting. (Yes, apparently it is the same person from up above who doesn't like you calling Israeli colonies...well...colonies! Sarah777 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your expert

Have you managed to get a hold of your categorisation expert? It's been over two months.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. BHG is on a wikibreak until at least September. May I take this opportunity to say that I am fully aware that if an article is in a subcategory it is not normally also in a parent category. This is a guideline not a rule. If you look at my contributions, I am currently trying to add stub articles for all persons who have been members of Dáil Éireann since 1918. Using the Category:Teachtaí Dála category, I can see there is 867 at present, out of approximately 1118. Also having the TD articles in one category allows for easier searching, rather than having to remember which Dáil the person was a member of and so on. For these reasons, I'd like you to refrain from removing TDs from the category for now. I'm sure you have more constructive editing to do on Wikipedia than silly edit warring with me. Snappy56 (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough. Stop double-adding categories, they will just be removed. If you have a problem with how we categorise, take it elsewhere.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Go lecture someone else, you hypocrite!

Wow lets all stay WP:Civil and WP:AGF Gnevin (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Snap, however annoying you may find the rules that govern categorisation, there's no need to take it out on me. If you disagree fundamentally with how it's done, I suggest you try to change it. The beauty of Wikipedia is that nothing is written in stone. But I will ask you to respect our guidelines in the meantime.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What I find annoying is you and your attitude. When I said you were a hypocrite, it wasn't name calling or incivility or abuse, it was simply calling a spade a spade, when I see an object of a certain type, I say look there is an object of a certain type. To explain, you consistently add uncited POV statements to articles like Enda Kennys to name but one. You tried to repeatedly to add extrajudicial punishment into the Gardai article, it took about 4/5 other editors combined to put a stop to it. Most galling of all is that you have admitted that you are actively involved in the Shell to Sea campaign, yet you continously edit that and related articles. This is a clear conflict of interest, wikipedia guidlelines state if your are a notable person, you don't edit your own article, or if you are a member of a campaign/pressure group then you don't edit articles on that subject as this is a clear conflict of interest. Of course, you are blind to this obvious statement and see no conflict of interest and the guidelines don't apply to you. Yet you pontificate and tell others what to do and admonish them for breaching guidleines. You have two choices: Do the decent thing and stop editing articles on groups you are a member of or stop telling others what to do! Snappy56 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Lapsed Pacifist at Template:Terrorist category definition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are blocked for a week in accordance with the ArbCom case. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

George Orwell quote

Hello. You asked if anyone could find a source for a supposed quote from Orwell about revolutionaries. I have found it and have posted a reply at Talk:George Orwell. Cheers. Lexo (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell to Sea conflict of interest

Hello. I've encountered you quite a bit in the last day or so, through my edits to Corrib-gas related stuff. You appear to have a conflict of interest, according to this edit you made. I'd just like to make you aware of the wiki's policy on conflict of interests, according to which, users should avoid editing anything they are related to. Any questions, gimme a shout. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I took the statement you made in good faith - "I remain careful to avoid slanting any additions I make to articles" - but you've just gone an blindly reverted the various articles you're involved in, so I'm going report you to the conflicts of interest noticeboard. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:REF, WP:COI, WP:POV and WP:WEASEL. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I think you've misunderstood the policy on avoiding coi edits, which states "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: Editing articles related to...your organization". That doesn't mean "edit away if you feel the article is biased", it means avoiding editing, regardless of how you feel about the content or other edits/editors. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A fair point. "Great caution" does not mean "edit away if you feel the article is biased", it means you are "...strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page...", not revert edits you disagree with. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rossport Solidarity Camp

I left a message for you at Talk:Rossport_Solidarity_Camp. Thanks Mrchris (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You should be aware of the WP:3RR rule, which prevents users from reverting the same article three times in 24 hours. Thanks! Fin©™ 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Corrib gas project. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Garda Water Unit

Hello

Regarding the Water Unit, I appreciate you adding external links, because that is what the article is in need of. But may I suggest that instead of just adding external links, you use that content to "in-line" reference the content within the factual content. Thanks & regards, [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dáil Courts

Greetings Lapsed Pacifist! How are you? I loved your article on Dáil Courts. Could you please help improving this article? Go raibh maith agat, UafhængighedsMother (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Garda Síochána

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Garda Síochána. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Alison ^❤ 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Garda Public Order Unit

Hello Lapsed Pacifist, just a friendly note, I have noticed that on the above article you are in breach of your three-revert rule, I am not going to template you or anything like that, but I do urge you, as I am the other editor involved, to stop reverting. Because sooner or later the other use will report you, or you'll report the other use, or an Admin will notice. And then you run the risk of being blocked. Thanks & regards. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to that, I have made a section on the discussion page where you can both sort this out. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 14:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garda Public Order Unit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Greenlightgo (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Your choice of topics

Mustycrusty (talk, contributions) edited only Shell to Sea-related articles, but caught a lot of flak for vandalism and disappeared on the 20th of September. Three days later, you arrive, and edit S2S-related articles almost exclusively, but with a little more subtlety. Well, not that much more, in fairness. Anything you'd like to say on the matter?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LP: After reviewing your history on Wikipedia which shows a pattern of unreasonable and sometimes aggressive behaviour and as suggested by guidelines I won't be engaging you in conversation. Might I remind you of WP:ETIQ, WP:AGF, WP:NEWBIE, WP:NVC, WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, I will shortly be removing this post from my talk page Greenlightgo (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)