User talk:Lapsed Pacifist/Archive 4

New MedCab Case
Well! I've put together a new MedCab case. This one should move along much faster! Thanks! Fin©™ 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to harp on about it, but in the case ground rules, you did agree to not any of the articles related to the Corrib gas project, for the duration of the case. While the ground rules are not binding, i'd ask you to honour your agreement. I also need an opening statement from you, on the case talk page. Best, Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've started mediation and brought up some topics if you would like to add your thoughts G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum
The RfC on Fascism has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:


 * Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.


 * Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".


 * Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.


 * Please take a look: here.


 * Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rossport Solidarity Camp
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rossport Solidarity Camp, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 15:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My User and Talk Pages
As mentioned here:-. Nothing has changed since then, I also include my user page in this. Please do not edit either of these. If you wish to engage constructively then please do so on articles talk pages. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 12:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image cleanup
There is a copyvio purge going on, well it is not all about copyvios but a general image cleanup trying to save images. Maybe you can help out because while quickly looking through some of the pages I noticed that several of your images have no descriptions and some have broken information templates. Perhaps you can fix them yourself as you know what you uploaded and I am sure you will describe them far better than I. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that you are actively editing again could you possibly review your image uploads and add description where they are missing. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

SEPIL
Well! Can you calm down a bit with the restoration of the SEPIL page (and associated content changes)? It's better to discuss than to be bold, especially when you've already been reverted. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

State Sponsored Terror/ArbCom
Hello. Was having a look through your contributions and saw this edit, which I'm fairly sure violates the ArbCom ruling against you. I've given User:PhilKnight a heads up about it, just so you know. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrib Gas Project
Please have a look at my initial proposed structure for this page if you've time. Thanks Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your COI and Current Editing relating to Corrib Gas topics
I made a request to you here:- which seems to have gone unanswered. I'm going to repeat it for clarity.
 * The guidelines on COI suggest that at the very least you "exercise great caution" as opposed to editing aggressively on these (Corrib Gas) topics. From my statement in the medcab case, you are aware of my interests and are in effect calling me a liar. Please cease your continual personal attacks. At this stage, you don't seem to be able to approach this topic objectively so I am asking you to please exempt yourself from editing articles related to this topic

This situation has long gone beyond the point of being disruptive to wikipedia. I am now asking you to please stop editing on this topic as you don't seem to be able to edit with a NPOV. Other editors as well as myself have drawn you attention to your COI, POV and Soapboxing as well as other policy and guidelines and have been repeatedly ignored. Please now stop editing on this topic. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Shell ireland protest.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Shell ireland protest.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Shell ireland protest.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Shell ireland protest.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Terence and Bob's lock-on.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Terence and Bob's lock-on.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Srahmore lock-on.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Srahmore lock-on.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR Statement
Hiya. Just a reminder that you might want to contribute a statement to the RFAR - myself, Gainline and Steve all have now, and the case is pretty much assured acceptance by the committee (five accepts, one tentative accept - only four are required). Thanks! Fin©™ 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just about to post the same thing - we're preparing to open the case, and a statement from you would be much appreciated, especially since a topic ban against you has been proposed. The case is likely to be opened within 24 hours, so please comment as soon as possible. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya again. Just a note about the comment you made about refuting Gainline's statement, saying you'd get around to it if you had time. I don't want to be telling you what to do or anything, but refuting stuff on ArbCom should probably be fairly high (the highest?) on your editing priorities - if the ArbCom don't hear any comment from you, they'll just work of what we've given them, and that's obviously not going to be in your interest. Anyway, just thought I'd say. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note re. arbitration case: Edit warring, Proposed injunction
FYI: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Evidence; Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Proposed decision. Regards, AGK 10:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments
I have made it clear that simple reversion of vandalism is not sufficient for someone to write a self congratulatory piece on the talk page, otherwise talk pages would be full of little else. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve an article. I also think it is pointless discussing anything with you, as you continue to flout WP:COI, with your contributions to the whole Shell to Sea articles. Snappy (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about you start abiding by WP:COI and stop worrying about Joe Higgins' talk page? Snappy (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any point in discussing anything with someone like you? Snappy (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2
For the duration of this case, is topic banned from articles related to Corrib Gas, broadly defined. Any uninvolved administrator may issue blocks up to 24 hours in duration for violations of this injunction. Attempts to game the injunction may also be taken into consideration. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 21:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

IDF photo
Hi, I noticed you added the words 'West Bank' to the caption of the photo of the soldier in the guard tower. Why? As the photo is used in the article, it is to illustrate an Israeli soldier. Why does it matter if he/she is in a guard tower in Jerusalem, Jenin, Hebron or on the Egyptian border? If you feel that this is a major issue, we can open it up for discussion on the talk page. thanks, Joe407 (talk) 12:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome
Nice to meet you too. FWIW, I do not have any experience on RFA's, so my advice may be useless, but I think it would be good form for you to leave a statement (it doesn't need to be huge or all-encompassing) on the evidence page here since your opponents seem prepared to argue that your failure to do so is a sign that you don't care and don't take your editing seriously. To reiterate, I have a lack of experience with RFA's, so I don't know if this is typical or not, but it looks to me that the Admins are not going to shape the discussion that is occurring - they are letting both sides state their cases and will then make their conclusions based on the information presented AND (importantly) the behavior of those presenting it.

If you like I can also give you some bits of paternalistic advice, based on my experience navigating the WP minefields. For now I will just say that no editor is without failings, and showing some sincere contrition where appropriate (for example about their charges of EW and PA - mutual as they may have been) would be a healthy and mature thing to do. Based on my reading of the history it does seem clear to me that GainLine started the disagreements and bad faith between between the two of you - his very first edits were some of the ones I cited in the section on his vandalism. His vandalism was on a BLP - which is considered very seriously at WP - and which is probably worthy of restatement. Good luck, Jgui (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As I expected one of the editors left me a note on my talkpage about how recalcitrant you are being, which is apparently an indication of their plan. Although I don't know of any schedule, it does seem that time may be running short. I left the following response -
 * I think its only fair to note that he has contributed, but he has not yet left a note in the Evidence page, perhaps because he is completely unfamiliar with this rather legalistic process that seems to be completely obscure to a newcomer - for example I know that I had to bookmark the pages I contributed to - since I couldn't otherwise find them. And I'm still not sure what is done next and by whom. Hopefully he will be able to participate soon, since it isn't clear what the deadlines are (if there are any?) Shouldn't someone at least communicate a schedule to the participants in this process? Jgui (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

'lo. Again, don't want to be telling you what to do, but you probably shouldn't wait for Steve or the arbitrators to reply before moving on to further rebuttals - delaying might mean you don't get to add your comments on my or Gainline's evidence before the case closes (though I dunno how much advance warning we get of a closing case). Thanks! Fin©™ 12:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Update and g'day
Hello, as of a couple of days ago, I am the drafting arbitrator for the case involving you - what I would really appreciate is some input on this page --> Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Evidence as to your side of the story (I notice you said you'd replied to steve crossin but I can't now see where (?)). If yes, then point me there and I'll ask some more questions to clarify. I hope to get this case sorted in the next week or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * analysis by LP here.  Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks Steve - LP, I will process these and comment - anything else you want to expand/add/or clarify? e.g. the origin of the disputes etc.? I am trying to get a bigger picture of the context too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I have read that page - you both come across as pretty civil there. One thing though, can you clear up the issue with the images as pointed out elsewhere? You can email me if concerned about privacy issues. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Peadar O'Donnell
Hey LP, good to hear from you again, it's been a while! Does this mean you've been unblocked or whatever?

If you look closely, the paragraph is not talking about the IRA's clash with de Valera but with O'Duffy, teh ACA and teh Blueshirts. Former enemies, no? Jdorney (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Text removal
I have removed the text from the Iraq War article because the placement of something so blatant in the lead violates WP:POV and WP:BIAS. Andy120290 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that criticisms for the reasons for the Iraq War belong in a criticism section or something similar. Putting it in the lead of the article shows an anti-war bias that violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Andy120290 (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism
Hello, glad to see that you're working on Capitalism: A Love Story, too! Just wanted to greet you and say that if you ever want to discuss a particular edit to the article, feel free to do so on the talk page, and I'll respond. Hope you understand my justification for linking to Moore in the article body, but I do agree with your recent edit to de-link the festival link since it appeared earlier. Happy editing! Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 13:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Félix Rodríguez
I hope that you will revert that last edit. With the way it reads, it appears that he was in some way responsible, when in actuality, it wwas a Bolivian military discision. If you do not agree, please use the talk page to discuss this.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not reinsert dictator. His title was president. Use o dictator might be interpretated as an agenda driven action. Thanks.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
Hello, just to let you know, I've brought up some of your recent edits for further examination at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement if you wish to respond there. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI
You have been mentioned here --Die4Dixie (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And again.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
This notice is to let you know you have been blocked for two weeks for violating your topic ban on Northern Ireland. This is the fourth time you have been blocked for violating this topic ban. If you want to edit in this area, file a motion to have it removed, but until it's removed, it's still enforced. Cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I am cognizant that you are participating in a case before the Arbitration Committee. If you wish, I will suspend the block solely for the purposes of participating in the ArbCom case (with it to be reinstated afterwards, along with any sanctions), or if you wish, myself or other folks can copy any materials you wish to be posted. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and the Shell to Sea campaign are placed under probation. All fall under 1RR, and a stricter rather than laxer interpretation of addition of and removal unsourced content.

is strongly admonished for edit warring and is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined. He is also subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

While is admonished for vandalising BLPs and sockpuppetry, he is also commended for desisting from early problematic behaviours and encouraged to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.

Non-compilance to any of the above editing restrictions may result in a block, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 09:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism
An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian killings...
Could you please explain your revert of my correction of your "Nasakom" changes. Ie, he you say my edit summary doesn't explain it, yet I thought this was pretty clear. Could you please clarify the problem as you see it? Let's put aside the rest of you blind revert and focus on the NASAKOM mention. I note your initial edit here had no edit summary - so please don't tell me that my edit summaries are insufficient. You will also note I explained each change i made to your unexplained changes, and indeed, I didn't change everything you added/changed yet (eg, "perceived" communist threat"), yours just reverted and said "disagree".

At least explain your difference of opinion on the Nasakom acronym.--Merbabu (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - I've subsequently created a quick stub on Nasakom which was a significant omission on WP coverage of Indonesian history. Could you please read and reconsider your NASAKOM edits mentioned above. As for your insistence on describing Suharto as a dictator, I'm wondering why you don't also change Sukarno's reference from president to dictator. I don't recommend it, only questioning the ostensible inconsistency. --Merbabu (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Waiting around for you to discuss your reasoning on Nasakom is ridiculous given the straight forward black and white intention of its meaning. I'm not going to argue 1 + 1 = 2 with you, nor will i wait for your justification as to why 1 + 1 doesn't = 2. You haven't even addressed it in your edit summaries. Thus, I've reverted the Nasakom part of your changes. As for your other changes, you've only said "I beg to differ". That's not enough - but I will wait for you to raise it on the talk page, before I fix. Note, I've listed it on the Indonesia project notice board.

Addition of material
Hi, I saw your posts on talk pages and am replying here on both of them. I didn't now there was a programme on Corduff, my suggestion would be to post what you would like added to the Corduff article (inc refs) and if theres consensus then I (or some editor) can add it to the article. My worry would be that something like that may be WP:TRIVIA but we can let the community decide on that. I have been following the GSOC story in the Irish Times and while it says there is action pending it doesn't say what and to who ( I had presumed it was Gannon ). My feeling here would be to wait until such time that a disciplinary procedure has begun before adding info.

On a separate but related issue from the above post, Coming from the the RfAR, I'd like to remind you that you should be discussing any reversions before you make them. Coming from the RfAR too, I belive you may help steer yourself clear of trouble by using edit summaries as you were encouraged to do. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to this, I'd just like to point out there are a number of stories on the Irish Times about the GSOC (from this search). I don't see why the recommended discipling of a single Garda is any more or less important than any of the other stories listed. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ive been abroad for the last 2 weeks and will be happy to post any info on the relevant pages.Cathar11 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh
Hey, I don't think you're addition of the "yearly income" line is needed in that section at all. It's very trivial, and can be taken one of two ways - Either you want to emphasize that "I can't believe he's ONLY donating that much", or you want to flaunt how much he makes. Either way, it's unnecessary and irrelevant to the topic. Gpia7r (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.  2 lines of K 303  12:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please make a comment on that thread.--Tznkai (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please make proper use of edit summaries, as well as respond to the linked thread. If you continue to ignore, I will have to assume you intend to continue reverting without explanation.--Tznkai (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Boston Massacre
Please explain why you reverted on Talk:Boston Massacre, as you are required to do. (Specificly, it might help if you explain why "separatist" is preferable to "Patriot".--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) . Ignoring communications does not help.--Tznkai (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban
--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? The same paragraph you edited says, and I quote, "The allegations were made in the aftermath of the publication of The Great Corrib Gas Controversy (see Corrib gas controversy) and over two years after the Director for Public Prosecutions had decided not to prosecute Connolly.[3]." (emphasis added). I know that "broadly construed" tends to be interpreted radically differently by sanctioned editors and the enforcing administrators, but come on, wasn't this just a tiny bit of a red flag?--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A tiny one, yeah. But the edit itself covered other areas of the CPI's activities. "Broadly defined" isn't defined very well. Am I forbidden to edit any part of any article that references the Corrib project? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yes. I'm not familiar with your history, but when the terms "broadly construed" are written into a provision, it really means broad, because the determination is the sanctioned editor cannot handle the topic, or anything closely related to it.--Tznkai (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also banned from editing articles about the recent conflict in Ulster, but I've edited articles that refer to it without anyone pulling me up on it, i.e., I've avoided the parts about the conflict. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just chipping in here, I don't understand how you think your edit wasn't in violation of your topic ban. You're banned from articles related to the Corrib project, and your edit was related to the Corrib project. It's not like you're banned from Corrib but were editing an article on Mayo that had Corrib content which you avoided (which is a similar analogy to your Ulster one). Thanks! Fin©™ 10:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello, Lapsed Pacifist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Constitutional autochthony
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Constitutional autochthony. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Constitutional autochthony. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe Higgins talk page
I can't believe you started a section about the anons comments on Joe Higgins talk page. Its time to let it go. Do you really have nothing better to do? All the anon did was to revert some minor vandalism and they put a big long spiel about it in the talk page which was totally inappropriate. Talk pages are for discussing relevant issues of the main article and how to improve it. They are not for saying oh look I reverted some petty vandalism, otherwise talk pages would be full of nothing else. Move on, get over it, do something positive, like actually using edit summaries or not mass introducing red links into pages. This is a trivial discussion about a trivial issue, a waste of everybodys time and example of the worst of wikipedia editing when contributors get obsessed within minutiae. I really can't believe that you have nothing better to do than obese about this trivial issue. Snappy (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"the United States and its vassals"?
Regarding this edit, seriously? That's NPOV? Ok... JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Rodney King
Thanks for being bold, but I think this move should be discussed first. As far as I can remember, this has been proposed before and it was controversial. Still looking for the thread, though. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 05:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement request
At WP:AE. <font face="Celtic"> 2 lines of K 303  15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Never big on citation requests"
Hello! I find that citation requests often fall on deaf ears, that tags I add never get replaced with proper citations. As a result, I am more inclined to remove/revert controversial (such as, I feel, the addition of a high casualty figure to the introduction of an article) edits, rather than simply stick a tag on it and hope it gets cited. If it's a non-controversial edit, then I will add a request, but I tend to err on the side of caution. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question
Hello. I got your message but I am unclear on the question you had for me. Could you point it out? Regards, Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jewish colonies
Hi Lapsed Pacifist! With all due respect to certain sources that use the term to refer to settlements, they are in the fringe. One doesn't need to go beyond a simple Google search to establish that the term means something else: 9/10 search results, and 10/10 books results on the first page refer to the term to mean something entirely different from settlements. Again, this debate would be entirely different if the term was used only to describe settlements (e.g. like Hamastan refers to the Gaza Strip according to some), but in this case, the term is widely-used to describe Jewish colonies in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. All of the above of course ignoring the racist overtones of using the term "Jewish colonies" to refer to settlements. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/Amendment
Please see this thread. Regards, Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  11:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Higgins talk page
I can't believe you started a section about the anons comments on Joe Higgins talk page. Its time to let it go. Do you really have nothing better to do? All the anon did was to revert some minor vandalism and they put a big long spiel about it in the talk page which was totally inappropriate. Talk pages are for discussing relevant issues of the main article and how to improve it. They are not for saying oh look I reverted some petty vandalism, otherwise talk pages would be full of nothing else. Move on, get over it, do something positive, like actually using edit summaries or not mass introducing red links into pages. This is a trivial discussion about a trivial issue, a waste of everybodys time and example of the worst of wikipedia editing when contributors get obsessed within minutiae. I really can't believe that you have nothing better to do than obese about this trivial issue. Snappy (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Take two since you don't appear to have read this the first time. Snappy (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me. Snappy (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, stop harassing me. Snappy (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
John Vandenberg (chat) 15:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On William III of England, you change Northern Ireland to Ulster; on British_Empire you append "(now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland)" to Britian, twice; you have been advised that the first case is interpreted broadly.
 * You have not been using edit summaries. You need to.  I don't like reading hundreds of diffs which may or may not be reverts.
 * wrt Talk:Joe Higgins, I can understand you taking a stand once or twice. You should have taken it to an admin noticeboard after that.
 * Please provide sources that support "Several hundred employees were killed in the [Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory] attack".
 * Finally, dont presume to know my politics, or accuse me of being political in my administration unless you have evidence.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See also. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with changing to Ulster, which covers a slightly bigger area; William's legacy is also celebrated by Orangemen in County Donegal annually. Nor do I understand the problem with noting the changing size of the British state; this had already been noted for its first change but not the subsequent ones. I remedied this omission. Pulling me on that seems an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the ban. I take your point about using edit summaries. In that particular instance, I had to revert the vandal manually as he had made more than one edit; ordinarily, the edit summary would have automatically shown it was a revert. I have an unhappy history with trying to get admins involved in disputes, and gave up a long time ago. On the Al-Shifa attack, I was under the impression that what was being challenged was the larger figure, that of the subsequent deaths from malaria, for which I then provided references. I concede I was very wrong about the number of immediate deaths. To me, your last point is still your weakest. Rightly or wrongly, it comes across as being from someone who has taken umbrage at a perceived insult to the "coalition of the willing", to use the favoured Orwellian term. I appreciate your comments elsewhere; despite our disagreements, it is refreshing to come across an admin who does not automatically assume bad faith. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Orange Order and The Twelfth are related to the conflict in Northern Ireland. While other parts of Ulster do hold marches, etc., there are also parts of Ulster that do not, and the same can be said for many other places.  Ulster was first added in February 2007, and the detailed list of places was removed in March 2008.  (I found this out using WikiBlame)  If you think that "North Ireland" is inaccurate, the place to raise it would be at the talk page, or on the talk page of The Twelfth.  While on the topic of your topic ban, and talk pages, I've noticed that your topic ban in the LP1 case does not specify whether you are allowed to edit related talk pages.  Has this been addressed since then?  Have you been editing related talk pages, with or without hassles?  It is best to discuss these ambiguities because the situation arises.  The old case can be amended to be more specific.
 * If you need to manually revert, use "rvv" in the edit summary. Every edit should have an edit summary; it helps other contributors.
 * coalition of the willing is the simplest name to give those nation states who you described as vassals; the other terms have shifted around because of waning willingness, but I havent bothered to keep track of them all. I wasn't using "coalition of the willing" as an assertion of fact; it was just a convenient wikilink.  My apologies for the distraction caused.
 * The term "vassals" would be cute in economic or political commentary, and to be honest "vassal" makes me, an Australian, both smirk and squirm. It wouldn't surprise me if you found suitable reliable sources to support mentioning "vassals" in the article Coalition of the willing, and I would have no problem with that, provided you framed it properly as a criticism put forward by "prominent so-and-so".  But "vassals" is an inappropriate description of Australia and Great Britain in an encyclopedia.
 * p.s. I have created Multinational force to be a more neutral article about this topic, in order that "Coalition of the willing" can focus more on the term itself, especially the volumes of criticism.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 11:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I had thought I would be allowed to edit my user page. Might the block be relaxed to facilitate this? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocks prevent any page, except for your own user talk page, to be edited. This includes your own user page, so no, blocks cannot technically be relaxed to allow any page except your talk page, that is without lifting the block entirely. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  22:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record:
Arbitration/Requests/Amendment was created by User:Steven Zhang regarding the ArbCom case against you. I do not know why he did not notify you, and as such, I'm providing this notice as an Arbitration Clerk. If you have a statement to make on this issue prior to your block duration running out, you may post here for others to cross-post, or you may do so yourself once your block expires. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 11:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S.
You seem to be on a crusade to eliminate "U.S." from articles concerning largely United States articles. Based on MOS:ABBR "U.S." is acceptable. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Lapsed Pacifist! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Loyola Guzmán -

WTO protest activity, "permitted" vs. "legal"
Did this edit summary make sense? I wasn't sure if I conveyed it all that well in the limited space available for an edit summary. Basically, a march can be unpermitted and legal (like this), while a permitted march may still be declared unlawful. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Pro-communist POV pushing & disruptive fact tagging
Your edits in Salvador Allende are disruptive in nature. The information in the last paragraph of the lead is properly sourced to Communism: A History by Richard Pipes with page numbers. But despite this, you added some citation needed tag. "His economic policy resulted in inflation which exceeded 300 percent a year. He adopted the policy of nationalization of industries and collectivization. His policy of collectivization resulted in expropriation of lands and crop production dropped." - the source for this information is reference no. 3. "The Supreme Court criticized Allende for subordination of the judicial system to serve his own political needs and the Chamber of Deputies requested the military to restore laws in Chile" - the source for this is reference no. 4. You also modified sourced information that "Allende established a Marxist regime in Chile", You are entitled to believe in Communism, but you cannot push your pro-communist POV through malicious edits like this violating WP:NPOV. This is a warning for your disruptive editing. If you continue this disruptive fact tagging, you will be discussed in the appropriate noticeboards. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:NGOs designated as terrorist by a government
I have nominated ngos designated as terrorist by a government for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Fight the Pipe
I have nominated Fight the Pipe, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Fight the Pipe&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Adambro (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom notice: 1953 Iranian coup POV
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and it seemed to me that you have a profile deeply interested in history, culture and minorities so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment because Catalan doesn't belong to a/one state. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Shell to Sea pictures
Hi there! I'm currently translating articles related to the corrib gas controversy in the French wp, but I can't import many of the pictures (mostly made by you) used in the english articles because they aren't on Wikicommons but rather on the public domain. Would you mind changing their status, so that I can use them ? I'm not living in Ireland any more and therefore can't make my own photographs of the protest ;-(--Internaciulo (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy
This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request for Touch Fuck All policy article merger proposal
at Talk:Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns

Thanks

RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Diversity Inc.
A tag has been placed on Diversity Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. katherine_a (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of José Maurício Bustani‎


The article José Maurício Bustani‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. You were the last to substantially edit the article, so I thought I'd leave you a notice as well... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Burr (novel)
I have reverted your edits to the article. I disagree with your rationale "Remove anachronisms" for replacing the word bastard with out of wedlock. This a pseudo-historical novel and bastard would be completely appropriate for the period. The fact that Videl has a preference for profane language in his writing makes its use here even more appropriate. Using out of wedlock is the anachronism here, and it lacks the pejorative meaning of bastard that is also integral to the novel's plot. --Wlmg (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We wouldn't refer to a character as a nigger throughout an article just because it was "appropriate for the period". "out of wedlock" is not an anachronism for an encyclopedia article of the early twenty-first century. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are roughly ten times the google hits for "Hamilton bastard" as there are for "Hamilton out of wedlock". This is political correctness run amock. If it is from the novel then it belongs there. If it were Huckleberry Finn nigger would be appropriate. Insinuating politically correct terms is unencyclopedic as they alter meaning to something that would never be the author's intent. Btw there are publisher notes on Burr that refer to Martin Van Buren as a bastard so terming him "illegitimate" in the article is dubious as well. --Wlmg (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Huckleberry Finn article doesn't refer to Jim as a nigger just because the book does. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Republic of South Moluccas
An article that you have been involved in editing, Republic of South Moluccas, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sutematsu (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Pics2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pics2.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ariel and WT:Legality of Israeli settlements
Hello, Lapsed Pacifist. I took the liberty to revert your edit to Ariel (city) article to the text coined during long consensus-achieving effort (WT:Legality of Israeli settlements). I hope it's ok with you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Enforcement
Hello. I've placed a  notice at requests for enforcement as you have violated the terms of arbitration. it can be view at WP:AE. <font face="jokerman" color="navy">G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 17:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Tiptoety talk 19:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)  Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."