User talk:Lapsed Pacifist

Articles for deletion nomination of Pat O'Donnell

I have nominated Pat O'Donnell, 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat O'Donnell. 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.

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 --> Wikipedia: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 | contribs | 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)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

ANI

You have been mentioned here [1]--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)

Wikipedia: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.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) 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 GainLine (talk · contribs) 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. GainLine ♠ _♥ 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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lapsed Pacifist. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 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)

The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia

re https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=The_Politics_of_Heroin_in_Southeast_Asia&curid=4478626&diff=326194225&oldid=324636244 : It's been a while since I read it, but I recall the heroin use among US troops was was affecting combat readiness because heavy use contributed to physical issues. Does that really fall under 'morale'? --Gwern (contribs) 18:27 16 November 2009 (GMT)

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) Template:Gblock. Ignoring communications does not help.--Tznkai (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

Template:Gblock--Tznkai (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lapsed Pacifist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can't see what that edit had to do with the Corrib project, unless you're taking "broadly defined" to its limits.

Decline reason:

direct and obvious violation of topic ban, no evidence that you intend to edit within this topic ban has been made in this unblock request. Jayron32 06:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement request

At WP:AE. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 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 ^{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 ^{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

Template:Gblock 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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Lapsed Pacifist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

William III was a 17th-century king. He took no part in the recent Ulster conflict that my first ban concerns. British Empire concerns England's colonies outside the British Isles, nowhere near the scene of that conflict and again, well before. Same applies to Fenian Rising; it took place over a century before the conflict in question even began, and as far as I know, all of it was outside Ulster. My reversion at Korean War was of a vandal. At Talk:Joe Higgins, I took a stand against a very stubborn editor, as there's rarely an excuse for blanking of inoffensive comments and I detest users acting as if they own certain articles. That was a stand you yourself vindicated. I did not restore text unsupported by sources, you ought to have looked more closely at that edit. Your last point I regard as nakedly political. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[William III]] was a [[17th-century]] king. He took no part in the recent [[Ulster]] conflict that my first ban concerns. [[British Empire]] concerns [[England]]'s colonies outside the [[British Isles]], nowhere near the scene of that conflict and again, well before. Same applies to [[Fenian Rising]]; it took place over a century before the conflict in question even began, and as far as I know, all of it was outside Ulster. My reversion at [[Korean War]] was of a vandal. At [[Talk:Joe Higgins]], I took a stand against a very stubborn editor, as there's rarely an excuse for blanking of inoffensive comments and I detest users acting as if they own certain articles. That was a stand you yourself vindicated. I did not restore text unsupported by sources, you ought to have looked more closely at that edit. Your last point I regard as nakedly political. [[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] ([[User talk:Lapsed Pacifist#top|talk]]) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[William III]] was a [[17th-century]] king. He took no part in the recent [[Ulster]] conflict that my first ban concerns. [[British Empire]] concerns [[England]]'s colonies outside the [[British Isles]], nowhere near the scene of that conflict and again, well before. Same applies to [[Fenian Rising]]; it took place over a century before the conflict in question even began, and as far as I know, all of it was outside Ulster. My reversion at [[Korean War]] was of a vandal. At [[Talk:Joe Higgins]], I took a stand against a very stubborn editor, as there's rarely an excuse for blanking of inoffensive comments and I detest users acting as if they own certain articles. That was a stand you yourself vindicated. I did not restore text unsupported by sources, you ought to have looked more closely at that edit. Your last point I regard as nakedly political. [[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] ([[User talk:Lapsed Pacifist#top|talk]]) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[William III]] was a [[17th-century]] king. He took no part in the recent [[Ulster]] conflict that my first ban concerns. [[British Empire]] concerns [[England]]'s colonies outside the [[British Isles]], nowhere near the scene of that conflict and again, well before. Same applies to [[Fenian Rising]]; it took place over a century before the conflict in question even began, and as far as I know, all of it was outside Ulster. My reversion at [[Korean War]] was of a vandal. At [[Talk:Joe Higgins]], I took a stand against a very stubborn editor, as there's rarely an excuse for blanking of inoffensive comments and I detest users acting as if they own certain articles. That was a stand you yourself vindicated. I did not restore text unsupported by sources, you ought to have looked more closely at that edit. Your last point I regard as nakedly political. [[User:Lapsed Pacifist|Lapsed Pacifist]] ([[User talk:Lapsed Pacifist#top|talk]]) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}