User talk:Lapsed Pacifist/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 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

Hi, see Talk:Tom Moffatt for my comments on your changes regarding his 'defection', please add your thoughts. - Rye1967 07:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

See policy on weasel wording. They weren't there to get some rays. I don't understand the big indignation about the "shoot to kill" policy - it cuts both ways and never worried the provos. --Red King 17:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In Irish Republicanism, you say that two counties had strong unionist majorities, two has slight unionist majorities and two had strong nationalist majorities. Do you have a contemporaneous source for this, or are you just using the present day ratios? My impression was that there were indeed many substantially nationalist DEDs but that at county level it was nowhere near as clear. (My edit was to modify a grotesquely Unionist POV: I can't help suspecting that yours is not much better! But since I don't actually know for certain, I don't have a basis to revert. ) --Red King 15:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You must be going mellow in your old age :) - that was a good set of edits! --Red King 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am having a review on my contributions and notice that you have written on the A Star Called Henry page that Oh, Play That Thing! is the second installment of the trilogy. Since the book has already been published, I am most grateful if you could consider creating the Oh, Play That Thing page. I haven't got a copy of the 2004-published book and really have no right to comment on it. Many thanks. MarkBeer 08:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your endeavour! It sounds a great story of Henry Smart. Now I shall look forward to the third installment! Ta! MarkBeer 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

hi, I just wanted to bring your attention to the Canadian Military Task Force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. We're currently looking for the task force so that we can start to develop and organize Canadian Military history content on the 'pedia.Mike McGregor (Can) 18:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In Eamon Casey, you added He has recently been suspended from duties pending an investigation into allegation of abuse made by a woman in Ireland.. I can't find any reference to that in Google News. Given that there are about 10 articles about his retirement and none mention it, are you sure you have the right person? I found an article that mentions a 71 year old priest being cited for abuse of a 34 year old woman, and the article draws a comparison with the Casey affair. Can you verify your source, please? I've commented out in the meantime, as it is libelous if wrong.--Red King 23:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it an astounding scoop and your source not the most NPOV, but I see that others have picked it up now - see RTÉ news. You win. --Red King 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

(Sheehan texts moved to 56)
Your deletion of my entries under the Hibernians and your substituting with what I find you often do, is simple fiction just to suit your POV. I wonder how far you can be trusted in your continual reverting of facts that don't fit into the concept of how you would like Irish history to be. History is simply as history was. NO and NO again, Sinn Fein never opposed the Hibernians, they simply adopted them lock stock and barrel. I have entered a book by Professor Garvin (UCD) who wrote a short but precise background to them. I have quoted his words line for line.

And don't dare delete my entry on the All-for-Ireland party. They and only they opposed the AOH. History is as history was even when it doesn't suit one. Otherwise Greetings Osioni 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The All-for-Ireland League, much like the Greens (what a compliment), were and still are an uncomfortable lot for opponents of a pragmatic comprehensive approach then and now. Sorry for all those afraid lest they fall off the traditional running board. AOH etc to follow.Osioni 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Nicky Kehoe, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing! Stu 14:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've undertaken the daunting task of completely rewriting the King's Regiment (Liverpool) article, and noticed your 18 August addition to the inter-war section, where you added the following text regarding service in Ireland: "they were noted for their chivalrous reputation in their treatment of prisoners, compared to other regiments, and this saved some of the lives of its soldiers." [1] Is it possible you could provide a reference for this? Such a statement needs to be sourced. SoLando (Talk) 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi LP, would you mind having a look at the recent changes to the Provisional IRA page? Just in the interests of accuracy, I think you will agree with me that the most recent changes an anonymous user has made the weponry and operations section are not valid. See also the talk page there. Cheers, Jdorney 12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just took a quick look at the discussion happening at Talk:Lhasa. It looks to me like you're putting a lot of energy into talking about the article, and it's not accomplishing much.

Can you find any reliable sources that back up your points?? People who aren't listening to you might listen to your sources.

On the other hand, maybe I missed something in the discussion.

Hope this helps. Keep on Wikiin' -- Writtenonsand 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The versions of the two articles in question are old versions, we suffered a database failure in December, so alot of updates to articles were lost, as we had to revert to a old backup copy of the database from Sept, the Ulster Army Council article has been updated slightly recently since then if you want to have a look at it, Regarding Sinn Féin-related articles some of the users on politics.ie/wiki are members of the party, I was also a member of the party but am no longer active in that respect, so copyright is not a issue, but I have e-mailed the Sinn Féin Head Office for confirmation of this and will let you know of their response.--Padraig3uk 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a updated version of the Ulster Army Council article into the temporary page space, so that may resolve that issue, feel free to edit that if you wish. I'am not sure what the copy right situation is with CAIN, as alot of the stuff there is produced by the owners of the site and others are included subject to various copy-rights as indicated in certain articles on the site, so you would need to check each article for any conditions, or e-mail CAIN for clarification.--Padraig3uk 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the e-mail I recieved from Sinn Fein with regards to information usage from their website:

Hi Padraig,

Any information on our website www.sinnfein.ie is in the public domain and its contents can be reproduced.

Regards,

Sinn Féin Web Team

On 03/02/2006 23:43, "patrick" <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.com> wrote:

>> I'am a moderator on this wiki, http://politics.ie/wiki/, and I have been >> ask to enquire about the issue of copyright in regards to information >> used in the wiki, regarding Sinn Fein, or the party elected >> representatives, as alot of this info was obtained from the Sinn Fein >> website. >> >> So I would be grateful if you could let me know if its ok for us to use >> this info. >> >> Yours Thankfully. >> Padraig

I hope this will clear up any problems on that issue.--Padraig3uk 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A WP:RFAR is being opened against you. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you move an article anyway, after your RtM has failed? (Irish Republican Army). What were you thinking of??? --Red King 00:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 03:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

LP, constructive and helpful contributions are always welcome. There is no justification for advocates of militant physical force to discredit, manipulate, or distort Parliamentary history for having taken a constitutional path. By inserting the Larne gun running into the League’s page (for one) merely displays an incapacity to exponent ones agenda on suitable pages. IPP-period biased users should leave Nationalist pages alone.

Admittedly, the League’s Independent Nationalists would never have compromised for a rump Dominion within the British Empire as happened, and won "merely" 30% of votes cast in the 1910 election, although denounced by the Church. Neither of these are reasons why their concepts for reaching an independent All-Ireland settlement should not be recounted in detail without mutilation or censorship.

It cost me considerable time and energy repairing all that was demolished without any explanation. The AFIL is absolutely off bounds !.!.!.!.!.
Osioni 22:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this arbitration case which you are involved in has not had any evidence added to it. Please corroborate your claim(s) with evidence on the evidence subpage, or else the case cannot be completed. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 04:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your input on the AfD for this article. --MacRusgail 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

-Litefantastic 00:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

1) If Lapsed Pacifist edits any article from which he is banned, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome. -- Brownlee 11:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:0493 shellhq 18may.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Extensive refs. Go ahead...I will not get in your way. (Sarah777 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

If Wiki says it it must be true? Is it not a slang term? (Sarah777 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Replied...but can't recall where! Not really that fussed about this issue but as you say if the school spotted it they'd remove it as slang. Let's save them the bother. Regards (Sarah777 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

A chara, I'm a big fan of your past work, its such a pity you have been blocked from editing on the topic which you are so knowledgable. slan--Vintagekits 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you refrain from altering links that go to the Republic of Ireland to link to just Ireland. One is for the island, one for the country. If you wish them to appear under the country's official name they can appear as Ireland as agreed upon, but changing them from this to just Ireland is counter productive against the project. Thanks. Ben W Bell talk 14:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. The relevant agreement can be found here, WP:IMOS#Republic_of_Ireland_.2F_Ireland_in_location_introductions. Ben W Bell talk 12:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey if you feel that this will "This will have to be sorted out", then take it up on WP:IMOS. The fact is these locations are located in the country whose article is located at Republic of Ireland not Ireland which is an article on an island, and the articles have nothing to do with what Irish people identify themselves as. Ben W Bell talk 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the consensus agreed upon and listed in WP:IMOS. Linking the article to Ireland is misleading as that is an article on the island of Ireland. All location and town articles on Wikipedia link to the political state/country/nation that the town or location is in. Linking to the island article is misleading the reader by linking them to something unexpected. Ben W Bell talk 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re your Bolshevik articlew editing: please keep in mind that we don't overlink occasional years and months, since such links are basically usless. We do always wikilink full dates, like May 11, 2006, because it allows the wiki-engine to automatically select the presentation of the date "May 11, 2006" or "11 May 2006" depending on user settings. `'юзырь:mikka 03:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Booklaunch14.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Frank Fahey. As a member of the Wikipedia community, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information of living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article must include proper sources. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 01:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Corduff_oseighin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Saro wiwa day copy3.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:2007 0611jeff0115.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Protest at Barnacullia pier.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting pic! Mind if I move it to Commons? I can see it being used on ga.wikipedia - Alison ☺ 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of 3RR on ETA and do not edit war . BigDunc 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The edits you where making were changing the structure of the article which is being debated on talk page . Also you keep refering to state violence which without a ref. to say that Spain or France or anyone commit is your POV. I belive that a lot of states commit terrorist acts USA for example and The British have not got clean hands either but you can not put it in and remain with NPOV. BigDunc 13:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies with regard the structure you are right on that but your view on state commiting violence is highly subjective. Dont get me wrong I am not a supporter of what the Spanish are doing to ETA members and supporters. BigDunc 20:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lapsed, you removed a lot of text with this edit without making any edit summary. I had reverted a similar edit by you before (which you probably didn't see) asking for an edit summary. Just wondering why. I don't see anything too wrong with it, except that it need citations and a good copy edit. --sony-youth^pléigh 17:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Makes sense. (Could you type something as a edit summary though - helps with the watchlist. Thanks.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sony-youth (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is a good reason I didn't revert the whole of User:83.32.220.244's edit [2].

Hegoalde refers to the whole of the southern (hegoalde = southern) Basque Country, including Navarre, so it is NOT right to describe the autonomous community article as Hegoalde. I'll leave it to you to correct this.

Unfortunately País Vasco, Pays Basque and Euskadi are used ambiguously, so they probably don't belong on a disambiguation page either. Probably the best course is to decribe the scope of each article in clear, unambiguous English, and leave the discussion of these terms to the respective main articles. But Iparralde, Hegoalde, Pays Basque Nord and Euskal Herria are OK, since they are unambiguous in this context.
--NSH001 11:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Great Agbonlahor, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Agbonlahor. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:"Get_back!".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, then 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, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the commentary that accompanied that image was hilarious and made me giggle, but c'mon ... NPOV ... - Alison ^❤ 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Guards force digger through crowd.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide the sources you used for this article, to help establish Eluhanla's notability? Thanks, Picaroon (t) 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't re-add unsourced material to Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. As it says on the top: Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007. Its been there since *june*. I've challenged it, and removed it. If you want to restore it, you need sources. Since its from a see-also article, it shouldn't be too hard for you to pull in citations from that page. If you can't be bothered to do that, leave it alone William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the talk page rahter than simply re-adding [3] un- or poorly- referenced material William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem determined to avoid discussion in any form. Thats not good, and won't get you anywhere. Are your arguments so weak that you aren't prepared to make them? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See-also: [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24h for repeatedly re-inserting unsourced material without discussion, as warned William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:Img 8636 bloodnosecloseweb.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Corrib gas controversy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kunle Eluhanla, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kunle Eluhanla. Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be rude of me to call you a liar, so I was obliged to block you for 3h for [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lapsed Pacifist!
We thank you for uploading Image:Guards force digger through crowd.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Tánaistí of Ireland is NOT a subcat of TDs. Snappy56 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading Image:S6300069.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 14:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(Friendly suggestion.) I fully appreciate that you obviously have a social conscience, but please try to avoid editorialising content and using Wikipedia as a soapbox. You know this already, but Wikipedia is not an indymedia style outlet. It's supposed to be neutral and factual. If an event or action involves a police force using physical force, just call it that - don't apply a POV term like "extrajudicial punishment". Let the facts speak for themselves. Otherwise you run the risk of losing credibility as a balanced editor, as does Wikipedia as a balanced research tool. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Guliolopez, Lapsed Pacifist has lost the run of themselves as regards as pretence towards neutrality. Blantant POV pushing is this editors hallmark. Doesn't provide any citations for the POV and when challenged turns aggressive against other editors. It's just not acceptable on wikipedia. Start your own blog and stop trying to force wikipedia to become a mouthpiece for your opinions. Snappy56 (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted 3 times on 30 May, just look at the history. Which part of wait until a full discussion has been had by all. do you not understand? Snappy56 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This getting ridiculous. Shall we agree to a truce? I propose we start a topic on Irish Wikipedians notice board about what articles should or shouldn't go in the TD category. Brownhairedgirl has gone on a wikibreak so no need to wait on her anymore, just everyone's opinion from the wider community. Until a consensus has been reached, I propose no further removal from the TD category; if the outcome of the discussion is to leave the cat as is then fine by me and if the outcome is to depopulate the cat then a bot will be assigned to do all 733 articles at once. Is this acceptable? Snappy56 (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You won't win any prizes for politeness either. There is no point in further discussion since you have already pre-conceived notions which you try to foist on the community. If you are going to de-populate the category of individual TDs articles, then do it properly. Get a bot to do it, don't do it piecemeal and have it partially populated. Snappy56 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to notify you of the following request. --Domer48 (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the above report, I have blocked you for 24hrs for violation of of remedy 1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist: Lapsed Pacifist is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. The ban is intended to include any page in Wikipedia which Lapsed Pacifist engages in a dispute related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

You have been editing long enough to know that using the word "terrorist" in relation to an Irish/British conflict is likely to inflame. Moreover, just because this particular body existed prior to the modern period known as The Troubles, does not preclude it from being part of "the conflict in Northern Ireland". On the expiry of this block, my suggestion to you is to interpret the boundaries of the remedy a bit more liberally. If you appreciate that, and this was a genuine misunderstanding, you may request an unblock. (By the way, you might consider archiving your talk page. It is cripplingly large at the moment.) Rockpocket 17:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure the Tans wernt ever even in Northern Ireland and definately not around during "the Troubles". Seems unfair.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The ban has nothing to do with The Troubles specifically, but the Irish/British conflict over independence. I don't think I'm making a big jump interpret the "Northern Ireland conflict" to include that. If LP genuinely feels the Tans have nothing whatsoever to do with the Irish/British conflict then he can request an unblock and get a second opinion. If he made a genuine mistake he can acknowledge that and request an unblock. Rockpocket 17:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats not how I read it. Can you show me where it says he cant edit anything with respect to "Irish/British conflict over independence" because here it only talks about the O6. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)

Obviously our interpretation differs then. I would suggest we leave it as that, considering condition 8 of your own probation. Rockpocket 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This is partly in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and partly so that those who regularly deal with stub articles know what stub types are likely to need re-sorting soon. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 02:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Jack Bauer, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. -- 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)

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)

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 ^babelfish 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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^Talk 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 Wikipedia, 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"[6] However, a week earlier, talkpage consensus (where you appeared to agree with other editors[7]) was to not include that phrase.[8] You also re-inserted the language "The US claimed", even though, again, the talkpage discussion (to which you appeared to agree[9]) showed a consensus against that phrase.[10] 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 Wikipedia, 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.[11] This comment at the talkpage was also uncivil.[12] 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LP, I am concerned that you are once again edit-warring over the word "colonies" vs. "settlements", this time at Oslo Accords.[13][14][15] 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.[16] 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Go lecture someone else, you hypocrite!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

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