User talk:Lapsed Pacifist/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lapsed Pacifist. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · 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. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · 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)

Thats nice coming from you, I dont think you are quite au fait with the rule that you battle it out on the talk page instead of keep reverting, which helps no one. And after seeing the above notice, you really are quite silly to say something like that to me. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful

Hi LP. I see you're back POV-pushing on Shell-to-Sea related articles again. As you have a clear and self-admitted conflict of interests, I'm asking you to be careful here, and remember WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The GreenLightGo account has been blocked as a SPA sock, used to evade scrutiny, by the way. But please stop the campaign here. We're an encyclopedia and not a forum for bringing you war against the police and Shell to. Also, Indymedia is by far not a reliable source, given that the articles there are largely created by members of the public, many by yourself, and are primary sources - Alison ^❤ 14:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

LP, you're edit-warring on just about everything right now, even talk pages of long-blocked editors. The biggest concerns I have, and this concern is shared by many, many editors on the project here, is that you have a massive, declared conflict of interests and that you are aggressively campaigning here on Wikipedia. Right now, your getting to the point of being disruptive and are battling against clear consensus. If you keep down this path, it will not end well. Please try to work with other editors here, be aware of your conflict of interests and try to "play nice". Next step here will be blocks for edit-warring (and please read [[WP:3RR carefully and note the use of the number 3) along with an RfC and subsequent sanctions - Alison ^❤ 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to contact Lapsed Pacifist

Hi Lapsed Pacifist, Could you email me please: williamhederman2 AT yahoo DOT com

Thanks.

(I would have emailed you directly, but I can see no way of doing this). William —Preceding unsigned comment added by William VII (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution etc

I've asked another editor what the best next course of action is (I'm not sure it's WP:3). I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment at all on the talk page I've just linked to, I don't want to get bogged down into another argument on someone elses' talk page. Much thanks! Fin ©™ 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the editor User:Falcon9x5 contacted about this issue, and I'm notifying all involved parties that I've left a message on Talk:Shell_to_Sea#Dispute_resolution with my thoughts on how to proceed. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 01:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Vandalism in Ireland

Indeed, I would like to know the circumstances under which you created this redirect (it was in 2005, so it goes quite far back, I realize that) before I decide whether to ask that it be nuked or not. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI

Hi. I think you're letting your conflict of interest get the better of you - you should be discussing changes and attempting to write with a neutral point of view. Creating articles that're soley to promote Shell to Sea, or the Corrib gas controversy are a clear violation of this. Please please please stop doing this or I'm going to bring it up at WP:ANI (or a suitable subpage). Thanks! Fin ©™ 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Was trying to be bold!

I have reverted the redirect for now. Will engage for a discussion. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazi comparisons

Hey, comparing Nazi Germany to any country right now is extremely far fetched, and downright insulting. Being Irish, I can only assume you don't have much exposure to Judaism; comparing the Holocaust to current conflicts is considered extremely demeaning to those who lost their lives in Concentration Camps. Check out these pictures for some idea of what it was truly like. pictures. I recommend if you ever take a trip to Washington, DC to visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum. I guarantee you would never make such comparisons again after walking through those halls. The main idea here is that, the Holocaust wasn't a military operation against a foreign government, or even an attack on another country's civilians. It was the methodical extermination of a religion. If Hugo Chavez says Israel is similar to Nazi Germany for killing 1000 people, that is nowhere close to the 12,000,000 people who were executed at the hands of Hitler and the rest of the Nazis. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is sensationalist propaganda, used to foster hatred against Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeejazzy (talk • contribs) 06:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on the South Lebanon Army says nothing of Israeli training of Lebanese troops, however it does mention an alliance up until 1982. Regardless, there are many other examples of one nation training another nation's soldiers to accomplish a shared goal. How about- the US arming and training of Afghan soldiers during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. If Chavez, or whoever else, claimed that Israel was acting like the US in Afghanistan, it wouldn't cause the same emotional effect- though it would be more correct. Thus the comparison to Nazi Germany is sensationalist and usually linked more to anti-semitism than to an appropriate critique on Israeli foreign policy, which is stated in the US State Department's report on global anti semitism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeejazzy (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Thanks for the note and other fixes. Mackan79 (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fight the Pipe

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fight the Pipe, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

nn organisation also fails wp:corp

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight the Pipe (2nd nomination). 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. Oo7565 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cease your vandalism

Do not continue to vandalize the War on Terrorism page. Continued abuse on your part will lead to your eventual blocking from wikipedia. Cheers Wouglannin (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

they were talking about you

at the admin incidents page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#Vandal.2Factivist.2Fanti-Semite

it looked like you weren't notified so i thought i'd pass this on. Untwirl (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA

Please see Talk:United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East#Clean bill up of health. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Altering words inside quotes

In my judgement a comment in the history that "Achtung" is inside quotes should be sufficient (to justify the reversal as I presume you are not in favour of altering the wording in quotes to something not in the original text. So should a comment in the history that Wikipedia:MOS#Italics and quotations "For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics." to explain why quotes should no be in italics. --PBS (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In my judgement a comment in the history that "Achtung" is inside quotes should be sufficient (to justify the reversal) as I presume you are not in favour of altering the wording in quotes to something not in the original text. Or are you in favour of altering the content of a quoted statement by a British historian writing for an English speaking audience? --PBS (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than changing the text in a quote it would be better to footnote it if you really think that the average English speaker does not know what "Achtung" means (or can not work it out in this context), but one should not alter the wording in a quote written in an English language publication, for a none specialist English language audience. --PBS (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a headsup. As we disagree on altering words inside a quote I have posted what I think is a neutral discussion starter at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style#Foreign words in English language quotes. --PBS (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

War on terrorism template

If this is the "consensus" you were referring to, this obviously isn't valid. It was proposed on 2 July 2007, 3 other editors (including you) agreed giving no logical arguments, other than along the lines of "I agree", with the comments going from July 2007 to last month. The template since then no longer refers just to the US war on terrorism, and many of the things mentioned does not concern the USA, and the war against Islamist terrorism is now global, with conflicts in the Middle east, Europe, USA, India and Russia. Flarkins (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ShJ

I'm not experienced enough on WP to know for sure, but should those two guys be wikilinked while they're still redlinks? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know what the policy is. arimareiji (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulldozers

LP, hi, at Rachel Corrie I see that you're participating in the edit war over the bulldozer question, but I'm not seeing any related discussion from you on the talkpage. Could you please ensure that you're engaging in the talkpage discussions on these controversial issues? That will help to determine where the consensus is, and hopefully avoid future edit-warring. Thanks, --El on ka 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Fisk

Hi. I've just seen this edit to Robert Fisk; the edit is quite out-of-order. There was an on-going discussion at WP:BLP/N to which you were party; you then proceeded to add text very similar to the disputed text to a different article; the edit with which you did this did not contain an edit-summary explaining the edit, which you must have known to be controversial. It should be absolutely clear that this kind of edit is a contravention of Wikipedia's policies, in particular of the biography of living persons policy. That policy says that we must take particular care and edit conservatively on BLP articles. You did not: you completely ignored the unsatisfied concerns of other editors and inserted text that gives a highly misleading impression of a living person.

If I had seen this edit closer to the time, I would have been inclined to block you. As it is, that would only be punitive. Instead I strongly urge you (a) not to make any more edits on this topic without proper context or citations and (b) to ensure that any such edits you do make are neutral and not misleading.

I would not hesitate to block if you make any more such edits.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been through the reasons for my concerns at the BLP noticeboard -- despite your assertion, exactly the same arguments do apply. You were aware of the discussion that was ongoing. The addition of this line to Robert Fisk was thoroughly out of order. The text added was no more neutral or less misleading than it was at Mark Steyn. I unreservedly stand by my remarks above. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why may I not pretend (=claim) neutrality?

If I must repeat my arguments, the quote "Steyn wrote : "You'd have to have a heart of stone not to weep with laughter." gives a negative impression of Steyn (i.e. that he approved of the attack or found it in itself to be amusing) that is not supported by the source. This is precisely the same problem as at Mark Steyn (I don't particularly question its saliency, merely its neutrality). [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 14:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, the paragraph would be clearer, I think, if it were "in his account of the incident", rather than "on". Typo? Secondly, your source merely says that Steyn made those remarks, not that Fisk objected to them. Thirdly, that particular quotation, when removed from context, gives a misleading impression of the character of Steyn's remarks -- a longer quotation might improve this. Does this answer why I think more care was needed?

As to "undeservedly negative", I don't have the faintest idea. As I write above, it "gives a negative impression of Steyn ... that is not supported by the source". That is my point.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that one of the main reasons given for the removal of the description of the Fisk incident from the Mark Steyn article was that the WP:BLP rules say that articles about living people should document what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. Since the description was about something Steyn wrote about somebody else rather than himself, it was held that the rules forbade its inclusion. Clearly, though, the description does not violate that rule when it is included in an article about Robert Fisk rather than Mark Steyn. In any case, in my opinion, commonsense implies that what the WP:BLP rule says about the inclusion of what the subject of an article says about a third-party should be interpreted differently when the subject is a journalist. -- ZScarpia (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

COI

I didn't bring it up as I thought you'd accepted the fact (that you would discuss edits before making them). If I was mistaken I would've certainly brought it up at mediation - the last topic at mediation was the photos, I thought we were only discussing one topic at a time. Thanks! Fin ©™ 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sorry. The reason I didn't bring it up on the participants views bit was because it said not to refer to other user's edits or actions, which I took to mean not to discuss other users (purely the pages). Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Facts

LP

Here's a comparsion of the edits I made:-[1].

As you can clearly see, this didn't read correctly. I was merely correcting this. You obviously reverted on seeing my name without making any effort to see what you were actually reverting. Your edit summary backs this up and was particularly offensive. I've already made my history here very clear and your edit summary was aggressive and constituted a personal attack. WP:NPA

Secondly, I think you will find the use of the word force is very apt, heres a dictionary definition:- Force: physical, especially violent, strength or power:

As you are already in mediation on topics involved with Shell to Sea, I believe that is the correct forum for addressing your problems. G~~ain~~Line ♠ 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

Just further to this, while it may be rude to remove warnings sometimes, users can do what they want to their talk pages, your constant reversion of GainLine's talk could be construed as vandalism. Thanks! Fin ©™ 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting my talk page. I am fully entitled to delete its contents. Your aggressive and confrontational behaviour is bordering harassment especially such accusations as saying my editing is tendentious which is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black [2]. Please do not reply on my talk page it will only be deleted and I have no intention of engaging with you any further.G~~ain~~Line ♠ 00:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

Force/Violence

It's common sense - why're you arguing that either both police and protesters should use violence, or both should use force? I don't see why they must be equal. Also, I know well what a spade is, I have no idea why you mentioned it in your edit summary. Thanks! Fin ©™ 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please please please get off your WP:SOAPBOX. The sentence about the Garda Public Order Unit's purpose has nothing to do with Maura Harrington's husband. I didn't say all protesters are violent and I didn't say all Garda action isn't. Riots are violent by nature. The previous sentence says the unit is deployed to deal with situation where public disorder might be encountered. Right, now riots is one of those, and riots lead to violence. I don't think anyone would argue riots led to "force". Protests sometimes (though again, not always) turn "violent", they don't turn "forceful". The argument isn't over that particular unit's treatment of a man in Mayo. Please stop being so obtuse. Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as regards your point about double standards and the guy in Mayo using violence, the unit using force - so the republican rioters/"protesters" in the Dublin riots were using "force" when throwing bricks and missles at the Gardaí, but the public order unit was using "violence" to push the rioters south? Cop yourself on wouldya. If you wish not to mask the word violence with force, I suggest you start with Category:Law_enforcement. Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being so sarcastic and deliberately antagonistic, it's not pleasant. I wasn't saying "this is the way it is", I was saying "there's a flaw in your argument". Please stop talking stuff I say out of context. Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was totally sarcastic and was intended to give the impression that by pointing out a flaw in your argument, I had in fact proved it. Your sarcastic reference to the Reclaim the Streets protest (which, again, was a protest turned violent - breaking windows on a car are violent actions) only verifies that. I'm not going to you respond any further (outside the mediation pages) because it appears to be impossible to have a proper conversation with you - you continuously inject pov and soapboxing into everything. I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply back on my talk page either, and instead keep all discussion to mediation pages. I'd also appreciate it if instead of resuming editing of articles (and some blind reversions), you either asked for more assistance in the mediation or prodded one of the mediators, as I did. Thanks! Fin ©™ 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Again, this is the only reponse I'm going to give on this issue: stop restoring sections people delete on their talk pages (as you did to mine). While it may be an irritant when someone removes vandalism or 3rr warnings, I (and any other user on wikipedia) can delete whatever I want from my talk page, another user restoring it is equivilant to vandalism, please do not do it in the future. Thanks! Fin ©™ 12:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit my talk page in any way.21:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Falcon9x5. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I can do whatever I want to my own talk page, and don't have to explain my actions. This is the same for all wikipedia users. Adding back material that a user has purposely deleted is vandalism. I've given you ample warning of this so I thought a template was in order. Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Next Step

As you've decided to move away from informal mediation, I'm just wondering what's the next step you're willing to pursue. The options are requesting more mediators for the informal case or go to an RfC. If the RfC doesn't turn up anything and you're unwilling to go to formal mediation, it'll be ArbCom time. Gimme a shout. Also, you don't know what I'm thinking so don't claim the slow mediation suited me. I told you to keep it at mediation because that was a central discussion point, rather than having a sprawling discussion across many talk page. The point I made on the Shell to Sea page was before mediation, at which point (this was back in Decemeber) I had given up trying to talk to you rationally. And don't accuse me of being less than honest. Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, thought you'd moved away from it, my bad. Question still stands though, what's next? Fin ©™ 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a voluntary agreement between the two of us to not edit any Corrib Gas articles until we've got some sort of mediation (or rfc) going? Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And associated talk pages. Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was that a no? And, yet again, what's the next step. Thanks! Fin ©™ 14:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hihi. I'm thinking RfC is the best way to go, so unless you have a strong objection, I'll set one up tomorrow (probably early afternoon). I'll give you a shout when it's done. Thanks! Fin ©™ 00:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of John Huong

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shell to Sea mediation

Hi! I've discussed the matter with PhilKnight, and we agree that the best way to proceed with the Shell to Sea mediation is probably to file a new request for mediation at the formal Mediation Committee's page, for the following reasons:

Both myself and PhilKnight are short on time to give this case the attention it needs, since it's a very widespread dispute
The situation has changed (altough only slightly) since we initially began the mediation, and it will be much easier for a new mediatior to start with a fresh request with up-to-date info on what's being disputed

I hope, and I'm sure PhilKnight agrees, that this will help resolve all disputes regarding the articles. Thanks. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Pat O'Donnell.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pat O'Donnell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.