Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:43, 20 September 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

ETA Categories

You may disagree with current categorisation but ignoring the ongoing discussion, constantly inventing new categories and removing the ones that are in there isn't the way to move forward. You have already been asked to leave the article alone while we discuss it on talk yet you continue to ignore these requests. Similarly, whatever is the point in replacing four descriptive NPOV categories such as Organisations designated as terrorist in the UK by a new invented omnibus category Organisations designated as terrorist in the UK, Canada, USA and the EU which you've just set up? There may well be a case for renaming the parent category organisations designated as terrorist by adding "by governments or supranational organisations" but as has been pointed out to you by at least four editors, it makes no sense to remove the individual entries. Please wait and discuss on talk rather than wasting peoples time. Valenciano (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, many people disagree with you, and no one agrees, i.e. you are the only one that changes the categories. Please stop doing it. Escorial82 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial page moves

Lapsed Pacifist, you seem to be moving a lot of articles lately, and some of the moves seem to be controversial. Can I ask you to please slow down a bit? Per WP:RM, moves should only be done if they are not opposed. If there is any chance that a move might be controversial, it is better to first suggest the move at the talkpage. If no one disagrees after a few days, then go ahead and move the page. If there is disagreement though, then it will be incumbent upon you to build consensus for a move, and to let a neutral party make the decision as to whether or not there is consensus. Thanks, Elonka 17:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Your talkpage is awfully long, over 140K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. If it's alright with you, can I set up an auto-archive bot? That will automatically archive any threads older than a certain amount (such as 30 days), and then you won't have to worry about it.  :) --Elonka 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive bot setup, with 90-day cutoff, as requested. These things generally run on about a 24-hour cycle, but I don't know when the next "pulse" is. You should definitely see it kick in by tomorrow. If you have any questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and Israel

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Nuclear weapons and Israel, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. -- Avi (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding information that is not cited is a violation of wikipedia's rules against original research and orginal synthesis. Please only add properly cited material. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

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

Arbitration Enforcement

I have blocked you for 48 hours due to this edit and your subsequent revert to replace the material. The restriction the ArbCom placed on your clearly indicates that you are no longer to edit articles about the conflict or make controversial edits about the conflict, full stop. Please stop trying to find ways to continue the problems that led to the case - drop the subject entirely and don't edit about it in any article. Shell 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

DRV of Category:British occupations

As a participant in the discussion, you may be interested in the Deletion Review that has been listed regarding my closure of the discussion as "no consensus". Regards, Bencherlite 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage etiquette

Lapsed Pacifist, though not required, could I ask you to please make a small change to the way that you sign your posts? Currently you keep all posts left justified, and you sign with your signature two lines before your post. This can make the reading of some discussions a bit difficult, since your signatures are non-standard. So, would you please consider indenting your posts with :: marks (one colon per "tab" of indent), and signing your post on the same line as your last sentence? It would be much appreciated, and would keep discussions easier to read. Thanks, Elonka 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

--Elonka 01:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, I am concerned that some of your edits have not been in accordance with talkpage consensus. For example, at the article 2006 shelling of Beit Hanoun, you re-added the text "The Israeli Prime Minister's office appeared to defend the massacre" However, a week earlier, talkpage consensus (where you appeared to agree with other editors) was to not include that phrase. You also re-inserted the language "The US claimed", even though, again, the talkpage discussion (to which you appeared to agree) showed a consensus against that phrase. If you disagree with talkpage consensus, you are welcome to continue discussion at the talkpage, but please don't just edit war on the article itself. It may be considered disruptive to say "Fair enough" or "Fair comment" on the talkpage, and then continue to edit war at the article. I am hoping that this is just a misunderstanding; however, I did want to make you aware that the topic area where you are editing, has been subject to a considerable amount of disruption, and so the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators such as myself with wide latitude to impose discretionary sanctions. For now, I am not placing any additional restrictions, but I do strongly urge you to be very cautious when editing in this topic area, to ensure that you have consensus for making controversial changes, and that you are careful to only add things which are backed up by reliable sources. By doing that, the articles will stay high quality, and reflect positively on both us, and Misplaced Pages, as well as providing the best possible resource for our readers. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, again, you seem to be making edits that are not in accordance with talkpage consensus. At Green Line (Israel), there is a clear consensus at the talkpage that the term "settlements" is preferred to "colonies", and yet you continue to edit-war at the article about this. This comment at the talkpage was also uncivil. Please stop, and consider this my last warning on the matter. If you make another edit which is outside of consensus, or make another uncivil comment, there will be further restrictions on your editing, from a ban on editing an article, up to having your account access completely blocked. Please stop editing in a tendentious manner, and instead try to work with talkpage consensus, to keep your comments civil, and to include clear reliable sources for any edits that you wish to make. Thanks, Elonka 05:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing templates from pages

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

Autoformating dates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Links

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

Settlements

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

Stub tags after categories, please

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

Lehi

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

Unqualified "Terrorism"

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

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

Your expert

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

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

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

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

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

Go lecture someone else, you hypocrite!

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

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

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

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

WP:AE

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

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

George Orwell quote

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

Shell to Sea conflict of interest

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