User talk:Lapsed Pacifist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:Current polls
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 12:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you (Irish language)

For your revert of Irish language. This fellow (User:Mac Duach) continues to replace English names with Irish names, completely ignoring Wikipedia policy on naming. He's keeping a few of us quite busy! ℬastique▼^talk 30 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)

Finland

Hello. I agree with you that Finland is geographically in Eastern Europe, but as the very first line of the Western Europe article states, geography is not necessarily the most important factor in this case. The Eastern Europe article does not include Finland as part of it, and neither does the United Nations Statistics Division. Moreover, the Eastern Europe article refers to Finland as a one of the countries that "successfully have asserted their belonging to the West despite their Eastern location". All this makes me wonder why you reverted my changes by removing Finland from the Westen European countries list. Regards, --Tuomas ^hello July 6, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

Orange Order

I agree with the points you want to add. The only debate is how best to make them unemotively.

Meeting with residents

You may well wonder at the astonishing co-incidence, but OO have always (AFIK) been able to refuse to talk to residents' representatives on the basis that they will never talk to "Sinn Fein/IRA", and unsurprisingly (since the estates concerned are always Nationalist working class ghettoes) they have been able to find a past or present member of SF in the leadership. To be fair, this is a recent excuse: originally it was very simply "we will walk wherever we like on the Queen's Highway and we don't need anybody's permission". That was getting them nowhere with the Parades Commission and their parades were being banned, so that's how they came up with this ruse. It's an effective one, playing well in the Daily Torygraph and the Daily Moan. So yes, you are right about the effect but the current explanation needs to be given. I'd be very happy to be proved wrong, if you can find a case. --Red King 6 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

I've moved and developed that section. I hope you agree that it captures your point by giving it a context. --Red King 6 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Fifth Commandment

I accept that it is valid to report the "never on a Sunday" incident and that you should undo my rv. What I really should have done (and have done now) is to rv the sensational editorialising about it. I can see a case for saying something about the curious values of a self-styled religious organisation that it would make such a threat, but it needs to be said in a less confrontational way. You don't know that they planned murder, but you can certainly infer that there wasn't much "Blessed are the meek" going on. --Red King 6 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

The problem is that you are accusing the Order of planning murder. This is conjecture. I agree that it is not an unreasonable construction on their words but nevertheless it is editorialing to comment on what you believe (but don't know) to be their intent. It is getting on a soapbox when you make religious references in a sarcastic way. (Though, as I said above, the statement was not remotely consistent with New Testament Christianity, so we need to find a better way to make a point that certainly is relevant and should be said). --Red King 6 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy is not Irish

Eddie Murphy is not Irish. He has an Irish last name, but that does not make him Irish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.253.204 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 3 July 2005
Lapsed is a vandalizer. He needs to be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.109.253.204 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 5 July 2005

Neither are Alex Haley, Alice Walker, Martin Luther King Jr., or Toni Morrison. If you insist that they are, please cite reliable sources. If you cannot cite sources, please refrain from re-adding them any further.

Thank you.—chris.lawson (talk) 8 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the gravity of the issue here. If you are going to add obviously contested names to the List of Irish-Americans, you must cite sources. If you continue to refuse to cite your sources, I shall have no choice but to initiate an RfC regarding your behaviour, which is entirely unacceptable.

Please stop adding non-Irish people to the list unless you can provide reliable sources stating they are Irish or of Irish descent.—chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Because you persist in making these ridiculous edits without even the slightest attempt at backing them up with outside sources, I have initiated a formal RfC on your behaviour. You may find it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lapsed_Pacifist. —chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

You and the anonymous user are both in violation of the 3RR by continuing your revert war on List of Irish-Americans. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop, and please desist from using edit summaries for discussion. That's what Talk pages and the RfC are for. —chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Tibet in general

Why exactly do you feel so strongly about Tibet? Is it because you see a parallel between Tibet and Ireland?

I assume that you compare Tibet to Ireland, and China to the United Kingdom. This really isn't the only parallel you can draw. For example, why do you want Northern Ireland to be a part of the Republic of Ireland, even though there are more Unionists than Nationalists there? (from Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland.) Don't you respect the will and the right to self-determination of the people of Northern Ireland? Is it because you want to see a unified Republic of Ireland, because it is tragic to see Ireland short by six counties, to see the territorial integrity of Ireland at the mercy of a hostile, foreign, more powerful country?

Ask yourself this, and perhaps then you'll see why so many people are so passionate about a unified China, even if they know that certain border areas don't quite feel the same way.

I'm not trying to convince you of any particular POV here, just asking you not to draw analogies quite so readily about your own heritage and other similar or not-so-similar situations around the world, and see that there are always multiple ways of looking at the same issue. And this helps with NPOV writing too. I find that a certain level of "doublethink" is useful when writing for Wikipedia. Whenever I write about something controversial, I read it from the two opposing perspectives and see if anything offends either side. If it does, then I rephrase it, rewrite it, or simply cut inflammatory POV statements out, even if I agree with the aforementioned inflammatory POV statements.

-- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 22:41 (UTC)

If you're indeed "well aware" of how different nationalisms judge themselves, then you should make a better effort in upholding NPOV here on Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) July 8, 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Exactly what Ran has been saying for the past month. Although I agree with you entirely about Tibet and all, and how it was an independent country, it was not recognized by most nations at that time, and saying that "before 1950 it was the highest national capital in the world" is POV, because not everyone agrees that it was a national capital. --Hottentot

It still wasn't that good. :-( --Hottentot

I don't think we need to improve on it, because why do we even need to have that fact in there? --Hottentot

Ok, fine, change it back if you want. --Hottentot

My bad. I forgot that I said that.

"Physicians for Human Rights" is an "apolitical" link? Man, you're using some weird, weird yardstick here.

Let me give you a hint.

• "Tibet is a part of China. After democratic reforms in Tibet, the serfs have been liberated, living standards have risen, and Tibetan culture is undergoing a new rebirth." -- For PRC rule in Tibet. e.g. [1] [2] [3]

• "Tibet is occupied by China. Ever since the invasion, Tibetans have been subject to violent oppression, torture, imprisonment, and execution. Tibetan culture is being deliberately extinguished." -- Against PRC rule in Tibet. e.g. [4] [5] [6]

• "Since 1959 the PRC has maintained direct rule over Tibet, displacing the rule of the traditional Tibetan lamas. The PRC has brought roads, schools, and hospitals, but also communism and a steady influx of Han Chinese cadres and settlers. Some view the rule as benevolent and beneficial; others label it colonial and oppressive." -- Apolitical. e.g. [7]; Wikipedia

• "We are dedicated to helping Tibetans improve their lives. We are not affiliated with any political movement or organization." -- Also Apolitical, e.g. [8]

-- ran (talk) 03:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Then rename the labels. "Physicians for Human Rights" does not belong with apolitical, neutral sites like Haiwei's Timeline or Tibet Support. -- ran (talk) 03:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you open a line of communication with User: Ran. I'm finding that when I reach a compromise with one of you, the other objects. — Um, no. There has always been an implicit compromise between Hottentot and me, our communications have been cordial and frequent, and we've rarely stepped on each other's toes. It is you who come in and wreck the compromise arrangements that we have reached, forcing both of us to revert your POV-pushing edits. -- ran (talk) 17:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Languages article

Please either order the languages by their total number of speakers, or by their number of native speakers, but not by a little of both. If you haven't noticed, most of the languages in List of languages by total speakers only have data for the number of native speakers. I'm the one who added data for the number of second-language speakers to some of the more populous languages, but only to some of them. Please finish the job before you rearrange the list. kwami 00:04, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make it clear the first time! kwami 00:16, 2005 July 10 (UTC)

Crossmaglen, Sorry

I'll claim fault here - I saw your edit changed "Northern Ireland" to "Six Counties" and didn't realize that you'd left the first mention intact. Sorry. I've reverted my edit, yours is good as it stands. --Golbez 03:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jean McConville

Hello Lapsed. On June 16 2005 you changed the wording in the Jean McConville article from "The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body." to this: "The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body. After a prolonged search, co-ordinated by the Garda Síochána, her body was found."

That's incorrect. The Garda Síochána did indeed launch an extensive search in 1999, which in fact they expanded and continued for several weeks further than was intially planned, because no body could be located in the area specified by the IRA. Mrs. McConville's body was in fact only discovered - by accident - in 2003. I have since changed the article to reflect this. Cheers. Fergananim

Islam

The links were removed per the conversation in the Talk page, also that the Editor referred to other editors as "Islamofacists at Wiki" did not help. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Meh, in all honesty I'm not that bothered by wheter they stay or go. Yeah, I'll leave it be next time. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:39, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

GB

GB comprises England, Scotland and Wales. UK comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Please ensure you understand geography before reverting pages and editing posts, thankyou.

Vanunu

(moved to Talk:Mordechai Vanunu)

COTW: Culture of Sudan

This article is now the Collaboration of the Week! Thanks for your support. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 21:34

Accuracy

In The Troubles article I wrote that the dispute was between, "Northern Ireland's Unionist community, which is primarily Protestant, and Nationalist community, which is chiefly Roman Catholic." You changed this to one "between Ulster's Protestant and Roman Catholic communities". Care to tell us how this is more accurate?

Sean O'Callaghan

I thought you might be interested in this Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sean_O.27Callaghan,

National Identity

Wikipedia is concerned with fact, not "what people regard". The FACT is that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, its head of state is HM The Queen, its head of government is the Prime Minister in London and its only official flag is the Union Flag. Whether your opinion regards it differently or not is neither here nor there. These are not my opinions. These are facts. Hammersfan 20/09/07, 14.37 BST

There's a reason no "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" policing template has a flag on. Because there are no individual "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" templates - there is a single template for all the major police forces of the United Kingdom, and, if you look closely, this template includes the PSNI, because Northern Ireland is also part of the United Kingdom. However, there are two nation states on the island of Ireland, the United Kingdom (through the constituent country of Northern Ireland), and the Republic of Ireland. The most visible, obvious and recognisible national symbol is the flag, which is included on many other Wikipedia templates to differentiate between different nations. Ergo, the use of the Union Flag and Irish Tricolour is appropriate in this case. Hammersfan, 20/09/07, 18.19 BST

Garda:Current Controversey

"The violence and intimidation results from a government decision..."

Is this a fact, does the justice minister decide local policing matters? Has a garda been arrested for violence/intimidation? Have you got a source?

"Then Green Party leader Trevor Sargent condemned the Garda's handling of the protest as "disgraceful"."

Where is the link to this statement.

This is an encyclopedia not indymedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.181.170 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag Ireland

Hi. I don't have a source because I didn't put that passage there originally. Just wanted to make sure you had a good reason because you left no justification in the edit history. I've moved the text to the talk page until someone can provide some evidence. Iota 15:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland, Fermanagh

I have reverted your implication that County Fermanagh is still used for local government purposes, my reason is that whilst the historic county may be very nearly the same extents as the current Fermanagh District Council their is some difference is the boundaries. Otherwise one might not be unreasonable making similar claims for the counties of Antrim, Armagh and Down. Djegan 19:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edit history

Hi there,

Just a note on your recent edits. It is helpful and usually preferred if you "tag" your edits (by using the "Edit summary" box when editing). If you could perhaps merge your many small edits into one or two major edits that would be appreciated also (otherwise the edit history of an article is somewhat "spammed" and it is hard to immediately compare edits - except by selecting a range of edits).

I hope I don't give offence by stating the above, your contributions are indeed good and very useful.

zoney ♣ talk 23:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi there,

You don't have a page to say where you are from. I presume you are either from Ireland or from Irish descent. In any case, welcome! It is nice to see more Irish people here.

One tip - be careful about language and subtlety. One or two edits lost important qualifications that are important in history. For example - it isn't true to say that it was only to keep Britain happy that the Paris Conference didn't recognise the Irish Republic in 1919. Europe was giving the conference delegates headaches and the last thing they wanted was to cope with yet another state appearing and having to be recognised, with all the diplomatic complexity that entails. The attitude of some leaders, going by their correspondence, was 'look. We have enough on our plate. The agenda is too crowded. The other states that have come about are thanks to the collapse of Austria, etc etc. You've been given home rule. Go away and play with that. We're too busy.' They also felt that they owed Britain bigtime because of its role in the war, so if it wanted to keep the Irish out the rest were bound to say 'yes'. But even if Britain was neutral and told them 'you decide about the Irish' on the evidence of the contemporary correspondence the response would almost certainly have been 'we've enough new states to worry about. Go home.'

Similarly when talking about unionism around 1911 it is wrong just to talk about Ulster Unionism. There were unionists all over Ireland. Where I am in right now (Rathmines) had a unionist majority in its local council until 1930! Militant ulster unionism really seized control from the previous southern leadership of Lord Midleton, but the non-Ulster unionism cannot be ignored. In addition it was not simply to protect their special position that unionists were opposed to home rule. The previous decade had seen the devestation caused in inter-religious marriages by Pope Pius X's intolerant Ne Temere decree. Many moderate unionists who might have tolerated home rule were driven against it for sound economic reasons. The nationalist leadership were talking about protectionism. They however lived in the only industrialised part of the island. Protectionism would have helped rural Ireland (most of the island) but could have wiped out the industrialised north east that relied on being able to export its produce. Tragically the nationalist leadership did not face up to this problem until it was too late. If they had, they could well have got the neutrality of a significant proportion of working class protestants who feared that their jobs would be on the line in a protectionist home rule Ireland. It was only at the Buckingham Palace peace conference in July 1914, when nationalist and unionist leaders sat down together at the initiative of King George V, that nationalist leaders fully grasped the economic reasons behind some of the opposition to home rule. By then unionist opposition based on economics, fear of religious discrimination, fear of a triumphant Roman Catholicism and self interest had welded together to create a viable unionist movement.

The problem with Irish history is that it can all too easily be reduced to simple statements. Usually those simple statements are simply wrong because the truth was far more complicated.

One final point - I see you've removed the word 'ministry' and replaced it with 'government'. That is a mistake. They don't mean the same thing. A 'ministry' in many ways was just the ministers. Government as we understand it today is far bigger: ministers, civil service, advisors. etc. 'Ministry' is much more limited and was the word used to describe cabinets certainly up until the 1920s, because far more so than today they were based around a group of ministers on their own. De Valera's Áireacht was a cabinet but not in a modern sense a government: it had none of the organisation or backup a government would have. It was largely a group of men and one woman with a small number of civil servants. In contrast you could call the Lord Lieutenant's administration a 'government', ie a bureaucracy headed by ministers. So 'ministry' is the right word to describe the cabinet of de Valera from 1919 to 1922. 'Government' isn't.

Anyway, enjoy Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN 04:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Achillbeg Island

"It was evacuated by the government in the 1960's..." - Why?, add to article. WikiDon 18:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC) Any thing?

History of Dublin

You're being a bit petty here. The only difference between "spies" and "agents" is that one is an insult and one is a description. I could say similar things about some other edits you've been making, eg changing Northern Ireland to Ulster in the battle of the Boyne article and removing it the natonalist terrorism article. Do you know of any contentius orange marches in cavan monaghan or donegal? No neither do I. Remember that this is not a forum for people's political opinions. Jdorney 08:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery

Hi there, I noticed your changes on Montgomery. I appreciate that Irish independence arouses strong feelings but I'd like to ask a couple of questions about your edit. The charges of brutality aren't linked to Montgomery on the page, are you saying that he instructed or took part in any of these acts? If so then this should probably be stated, otherwise the text would probably be better placed on Anglo-Irish War. I'm not an expert but not of the (admittedly short) biographies I've read on Montgomery have any reference to this. Leithp 20:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have a couple of issues that you didn't address though; if Mongomery did instruct, or have knowledge of these acts, it should be stated in the article (preferably with a source). If this is just speculation then it should be removed. I wouldn't argue that some of his contemporaries in the army were bigoted, but if you're laying that charge at Mongomery's door, again you would need a quote or source. I know Mongomery isn't the most sympathetic of historical figures, but I think the article should be kept as neutral as possible. If there is documentary evidence of his complicity in these acts then it should be in there, but we should keep clear of speculating on what Montgomery might have thought or done. Leithp 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see you edited Montgomery again. Both those references, while useful, were both written by you. This doesn't help me in trying to find independent proof that these acts occured. In effect you are accusing Montgomery of having participated in war crimes. Since I can't find any evidence that he was involved in these (other than accusations from yourself), I have to question whether this kind of material is suitable for an encyclopedia. Please don't take this personally, it's just that I'm trying to keep the article NPOV. Leithp 14:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I assumed good faith on your part and looked into Montgomery's record in Ireland at the central reference library here in Edinburgh in order to got some more details. He wasn't a "commanding officer" he was a staff officer, something quite different. Also his behaviour seems to have been generally decent if ruthless towards the IRA. Tom Barry, an IRA leader, descibed him as efficient enemy who behaved "with great correctness". I think you're mixing him up with Arthur Percival, whose tactics were quite different from Montgomery's. In fact Montgomery seems to have been in favor of British troops evacuating the area. I struggled to find Irish History books that referred to him, but for the record my two main references are:

Peter Hart- The IRA & Its Enemies- Violence and Community in Cork 1916-1923

Nigel Hamilton- The Full Monty- Montgomery of Alamein 1887-1942

I'll edit the article accordingly.

Leithp 15:07, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Irish words used in the English language

Hi there. Re. Fine Gael and its pronounciation, I see you reverted my changes. While Feena Gale is used, so is Fin-eh Gwale. I believe the latter is more correct esp. if one is speaking as Gaeilge whereas the former is maybe more common amongst English speakers. Anyways - here's a link which seems to suggest a middle-ground; [9] - Pete C ^✍ 20:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a fair compromise ... - Pete C ^✍ 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Puno & Lhasa

There are thousands, if not millions of subnational entities all across the world. Half of the county capitals in Tibet are probably higher than Lhasa. And borders are changing all the time when we get to these small divisions. Even if we restrict ourselves to just first-level divisions, there are probably many capitals in the Andean region, the Alps, the Himalaya and Hindu Kush etc. that are higher than Lhasa. Puno was just a brainstorm that I had and checked. It might not be the highest. -- ran (talk) 00:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The dispute as described in Tibet#Status is over whether Tibet lost its independence in the 13th century or in 1950. If it's 1950, then what you're putting into Lhasa is correct. If it's the 13th century, then what you're putting into Lhasa is incorrect, because 1) Tibet was not independent before 1950 and 2) we don't know whether Lhasa was the highest capital in the world in the 13th century, considering how many tiny states existed at the time in the Himalaya, the Hindu Kush, the Alps, the Andes, etc. So once again, you're pushing one POV at the expense of another. -- ran (talk) 01:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You're accusing me of supporting something I don't support because I'm trying to uphold NPOV. Why don't you stop using Wikipedia as a vehicle for your political campaigns, and actually read our official policies, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? -- ran (talk) 18:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Stop shifting the topic. You were the trying replacing one POV (PRC) with another (exile groups). I on the other hand was the one who provided qualification for the population figures.

This argument isn't even about that. It's about the statement that Lhasa was a national capital before 1950. Once again, you are the one inserting an POV for no good reason other than bolstering your own political opinions. -- ran (talk) 18:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no, it was not recognized de jure, although it was dealt with de facto as an independent country (the way Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. are dealt with today) since the Nanjing government had little leverage over it. As for my personal opinions, you should have learned that as a Wikipedian adhering to NPOV, you have no personal opinions. I am not of the opinion that Tibet was either dependent or independent during that period as long as I'm editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you keep on accusing me of opinions that I don't hold even while you are pushing your own opinions into Wikipedia. -- ran (talk) 20:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you still don't understand NPOV. Let me just sum it up in two points:

1. One POV is not the same as NPOV.
2. What is "obscure" to one POV is common knowledge and self-evident to another POV. The fact that Tibet was pretty much independent between 1912 and 1950 is quite "obscure" in China too.

-- ran (talk) 20:36, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Geez, look - this is not a war. I'm sure we're both trying to make Wikipedia better. I've done so much for your POV already, using juicy words like "deceitful" (which you removed?), "swamping", "chauvinistic", "colonial", etc etc. And providing you with that entire XPCC example. Why can't you see that I'm trying to uphold NPOV, making both arguments as powerful and coherent as they can be? Why do you have to work against me? -- ran (talk) 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you repeatedly ignoring my attempts to discuss on Talk:Politics of China while reinserting what I'm attempting to discuss about? -- ran (talk) 07:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Six Counties/Northern Ireland

I noticed you reverting my reverts. Can you explain why "six counties" (a POV term used by a minority of nationalists) is preferable to Northern Ireland (the official name used by both governments and a majority of media in both the Republic, Northern Ireland and Britain)?

Also, I'm not sure what point you're making in the Progressive Democrats article. How does that set the PDs apart from other parties? It appears to be a minor incident not worthy of mention in the PDs article, maybe worthy of mention in a possible Eddie Fullerton article. But if it says something important about the PDs, please make that point explicitly rather than just leaving it hanging there. Demiurge 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I noticed your contributions to Flag of Ireland. Can you hold off on making more Northern Ireland->Six Counties edits until we've finished our discussion on Talk:Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland? Thanks! Demiurge 16:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Eddie Fullerton

Fair enough; I'd never heard of Eddie Fullerton or the incident in question before. Feel free to add your explanation of the significance of the refusal in to the article along with a citation (link to newspaper story?) if you can find one. Demiurge 14:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:State terrorism#United States

Please see my request which is addressed to you on Talk:State terrorism#United States Philip Baird Shearer 19:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Morwen - Talk 16:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Look, you need to stop confusing explaining an opinion with supporting an opinion. As a wikipedian I am obliged by the NPOV policy to explain all opinions in any contemporary controversy, regardless of how much I support or oppose them. I am obliged, in fact, to make all opinions as well-supported and convincing as I could possibly make them, without either supporting or opposing them. This is simply what Wikipedia does. You need to stop taking offense at everything. -- ran (talk) 21:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Name

Pretty good username. I may be similar. ~ Dpr 05:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu's ethnicity

Over 20% of Israelis are not Jews, including many with Russian sounding names; I'm not sure why one would assume he was. Also, the "former" applies to "Jewish" along with everything else. In any event, that's not the main issue, but rather the POV pushing into the article header about who human rights groups "often compare him to" based on some non-notable comment by one indiviual. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, "former Christian-Israeli nuclear technician" doesn't make it any better. Does that mean he is a former Christian, former Israeli, former nuclear technician, or some combination of all of the above. How about "Israeli former nuclear technician"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

OK done. BTW, "Vanunu" is a Morroccan name. I'm not sure if non-Jewish Morroccans have it as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.—chris.lawson (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Double Standard

Why is it unacceptable to you to mention Roman Catholics on the Irish-Ameircan page but it is okay to leave in that Scotch-Irish desinate Protestants? You can not leave information out about one type of Irish-Americans because you have a prejudice against them. 64.109.253.204 18:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

John Bacon

If you wikilink him, you'll get a British sculptor.

Horrors! As is well known, Wikipedia is completely unable to deal with the same name shared by more than one well-known person: that's why Wikipedia was forced to choose one each -- and only one -- John Smith, Robert Shaw, and David Jones. Bummer for all the other John Smiths, Robert Shaws, and David Jones'. Oh wait...

And in checking out your link, my suspicions seem justified: not only would linking to him create a red link, but any article that fills in that link wouldn't survive a VfD. If the person isn't notable enough to have an article, the person isn't notable enough to be on the list -- unless you think it wise to attempt to list every Irish-American who ever lived, which means you might as well throw me on there. --Calton | Talk 13:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

... you might find other users more discerning.

I do not believe that word means what you think it means.

Whether an entry needs to have an article to themselves to justify being on the list has been suggested, but nothing concrete has been agreed yet.

Bilge. Not only is being qualified for a stand-alone article pretty much the Gold Standard for inclusion on any List of XXX people, no discussion suggesting otherwise has taken place on the List of Irish-Americans Talk page. Discussion of your modern-day application of the One-drop rule and of using a person's article as source for whether to proclaim them Irish-American, yes, but not a whisper of a breath of a possibility of a suggestion that notability is not a minimal, even primary, criterion for inclusion. Otherwise, we could throw my great-grandmother Mahoney onto the list. Any such argument is the product of your imaginaton.

But let me guess: John Bacon was an ancestor of yours, and By God he's going to get some form of recognition if you have anything to say about it. --Calton | Talk 14:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

True History of the Kelly Gang

You reverted my stubsort on True History of the Kelly Gang with the edit summary NPOV. I presume that you intenmd to imply that Kelly was not considered a criminal by all, and that so designating him is POV. But {{tl:crime-book-stub}} includes books about alleged crimes. Kelly was certinly accused of crime, and the article as it stands refers to his being "on the run from the police". Those are facts. Note also that stub types, unlike other categories, are primarily intended for editors, not readers. If this article is expanded so it is not a stub, then no stub type will apply. Category:Book stubs is severly overpopulated, and Category:Crime-book stubs is the best fit for this article. Please revert your change or indicate that you won't object to my reverting it, or else suggest some better stub type. Note that this is an article about a book, and a fictional book at that, not about a person. DES 01:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You replied: The link you gave me for book categories was red. You're right, I think the book's designation as "crime" is subjective. Is there one for historical fiction?

Sorry about the erros in the links before. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types for a complete list. the relevant subtypes to book-stub are :

• Children's books stubs ({{Child-book-stub}}
• Fantasy book stubs ({{Fantasy-book-stub}}
• Non-fiction book stubs ({{Nonfiction-book-stub}}
• Science fiction books stubs ({{Sf-book-stub}}
• Crime-book stubs ({{Crime-book-stub}})
• Publishing stubs ({{Publish-stub}}

Note that a stub type is generally not created unless there are expected to be at least 60 and usually over 100 stubs in the new type. There is not currently even a stub-type for fiction, much less historical fictionm. Perhaps there should be. The link above shows how to propose new types -- one for fictional character is currently under discussion, and i have suggested one for biographical books. DES 02:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to revert it, I'll leave it alone. Lapsed Pacifist 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thnaks. DES 02:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Bradley

Tom Bradley is an African-American, he is not an Irish-American. 64.109.253.204 08:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Tom Bradley is not an Irish-American, the proof is he is an African-American. Even if he has a distant Irish relative, which he doesn't, that would not make him an Irish-American. He does not belong on a list of Irish-American Mayors with the likes of Richard J. Daley, Frank Murphy, or William O'Dwyer. 64.109.253.204 08:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What is your problem?

What is your problem, seriously? Why do you have to try and ruin something by vandalizing it. Why do you waste your time to try and ruin something someone else has worked on? What is the good of it? If you have fun from this, you are pathetic. If you are an African-American with a a grudge against Irish-Americans, or an Irish citizen with a grudge against Irish-Americans, you are just weak and a coward. I don't see what sense there is in doing what you do. Please try to explain it to me if there is any. You certainly aren't proving any point. 64.109.253.204 08:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't you have any compassion or any concern to be respectful to others? 64.109.253.204 10:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

64.109.253.204, please be careful not to violate Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. -- Essjay · Talk 10:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist is personally attacking me by vandalizing whatever I add. 64.109.253.204 10:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right; take the high road. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks applies to everyone equally; if you have grievances against Lapsed Pacifist, please make them at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Personal attacks by anyone, for any reason are not tolerated. -- Essjay · Talk 10:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider this personally attacking him, I'm trying to reason with him. 64.109.253.204 10:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether you consider it to be a personal attack or not, obviously other users do (or we wouldn't be having this conversation). If you are observed violating NPA, you may find yourself blocked from editing. There is no reason for that to happen; I've laid out above what the proper steps are to solve the problem, now it is up to you to follow them. I strongly suggest that you not comment here again until after you have taken the matter to RfC. -- Essjay · Talk 10:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

State Terrorism

You aren't actually removing any claims from the article. As far as I understand, you inserted the claim that the UK government/Army/RUC colluded in the deaths, and the material that you have included does not support the removal of the word 'unauthorised'. If you can find some more material, then include it, but a claiim like that needs to be better sourced than it is at teh moment.illWill 11:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I personally believe that it is likely the collusion was authorised, possibly at official levels, the sources you provide do not support that assertion, therefore the onus is one you to prove that the collusion was authorised, as this is a far from commonly-held theory outside Irish Nationalist circles. The word unauthorised has been inserted by numerous editors, for the simple reason that the Wikipedia looks bad if it makes unsubstantiated claims.illWill 11:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The entry still needs editing - at the moment it reads (perhaps unintentionally) that this was official British policy, whereas many readings of the Stevens Report would suggest that certain wings of the Army and Intelligence services took advantage of an official policy which left them virtually unsupervised. In this sense, it is not state terrorism , although there is a case to be made that most state terrorism actually consists of ignoring the actions of proxy groups. Either way, more material needs to be added to the section.illWill 11:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Military occupation

Lapsed Pacifist, you have violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule on Military occupation. Please revert yourself and work out this issue on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As you well know, the other editors of the page consider Northern Ireland to be under no Military occupation of any kind (whether part of all of Northern Ireland, disputed or not disputed, etc.). Your "tweaks" and moves are really game playing to avoid 3RR violation that do not address this fundamental issue at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Respect

I'm asking you to be respectful of me and not try to destroy the work I am doing. Can you please give me that? What you are doing does not make sense, it is just mean, don't you see that? LP, I'm trying to reason with you, I have been trying to reason with you for a while, but you never respond to it, the only thing you have done is threaten me. 64.109.253.204 18:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you work for Sinn Fein?

Lapsed Pacifist - Your edits are obviously those of a zealous Irish Republican and in many cases do not conform to encyclopaedic standards. This is exemplified by continuous editing of articles on IRA volunteers, British "collusion", exaggerating Sinn Fein electoral performances, replacing "Northern Ireland" with "six counties" as much as possible, describing the British as "oppressive" at any opportunity, attacking unionist/protestant culture, constantly injecting subtle language to boost Irish Republican views whilst disrespecting all other views, etc. .... Do you work for Sinn Fein? It really would not surprise me. Jonto 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Professional Vandalism

Your "pov edits" and the revert wars your engaged in are nothing short of professional vandalism and this is the reason I am reverting your edits. Djegan 19:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Much of the future of Northern Ireland will be decided by its electorate, not by informal surveys.

• That's fine, but this is Wikipedia, and:
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  • All articles should be written from a neutral point of view

--JW1805 20:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Mary Robinson

I agree, but that report you quote is actually completely wrong. Far from resigning early, she extended her period in office by one year at Kofi's request and resigned at her request with his agreement. If she wanted to, as Kofi made clear, she could have stayed on — indeed he wanted her to stay on. But she felt that she had gone as far as she could in the advocacy role he had designed for her. Instead of sitting in an office administering like previous HCs, he wanted her in the field "preaching", hectoring, raising rows, etc. He wanted her in human rights terms to "do a Bob Geldof" and become the voice of human rights. The next decade would then be followed by a series of HCs who would be administrators and policy makers implementing the worldview she had pushed. Apparently he thought (correctly) that every so often a high commissionership needed a "prophet" to challenge the world, followed by administrators to implement that vision. Having seen her as President of Ireland he felt she was uniquely equipped to do just that. That the US wanted her out is no secret. But Annan wanted her to stay, hence the extension of her term. It was her decision, and no-one else's, to leave. (Unfortunately, as I have so often found, the net is not always a good source of reliable information. One person can get a fact wrong, twenty can copy it, fifty can copy them and before you know it google proves something that is completely wrong! I learnt that to my copy some time ago on Wikipedia when I inadvertently got a line of facts mixed up. I corrected it when I spotted it two weeks later, but now that error has been replicated on hundreds of websites around the net. All I can do at this stage is cringe and utter bugger every time I stumple across it! But now a google search proves that something happened when in fact it didn't.)

Slan FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been blocked from editing for violating the Three revert rule (3RR) at The Sword of the Prophet. Thryduulf 01:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Biased edits

You would do well to calm yourself and not try to put forward your point of view in every Irish article you edit. That's known here as POV-pushing and is not looked on kindly. I'm somewhat of a nationalist myself, but I largely leave that behind to the best of my abilities when editing here. I should point out that this leaves one in a much more respectable position to counter those seeking to push a point of view from the opposite side. With such POV-pushing as I've seen, your own attempts to change wording of articles are not going to be taken seriously, even if they are sensible. (see "Boy who cried wolf").

Editing to a neutral point of view is one of the core principles at Wikipedia.

zoney ♣ talk 09:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What facts are presented, what facts are emphasised, what facts are picked out for inclusion... these are all issues related to POV-pushing. Saying edits are not NPOV does not mean they aren't factual. zoney ♣ talk 09:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

POV Edits

I have reverted your edits on 1996 Manchester City Centre bombing and Fianna Fail - you need to realise - and I think this talk page agrees that your edits are highly pov. Quite frankly terrorism is terrorism and not kinda, maybe, mightbe terrorism, and Northern Ireland is Northern Ireland and not the Six Counties. If someone referred to the Republic of Ireland as the Twenty-Six Counties I am sure you would agree it was pov and dubious at best. Wikipedia is not a republican manual. Djegan 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with your edits, LP. I always regarded you as a fair editor, but creating links that replace Northern Ireland with Six Counties is POV. You know very well that Wikipedia, correctly, does not use Six Counties, anymore than it uses North of Ireland, Ulster or any other sectarian name that one or other community despises and takes offence at. Please don't undermine your previous high reputation here by engaging in provocative name changes of the sort that normally are only seen from people pushing POV rather than NPOV and by vandals trying to provoke an argument. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is the legal name of the entity. Ulster, North of Ireland, 6 counties etc are POV terms used by either community which cause offence in the other. Therefore, as POV terms of one side they should not be used. Northern Ireland, as the official and legal name of the entity, is entirely NPOV and encyclopædic. It is that simple. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Jtdirl - this Northern Ireland controversy has made me very cynical about LP's edits to the point now where I revert on sight. If you think Northern Ireland's name is for negotiation on wikipedia then you have another thing coming. Djegan 18:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the debate, LP, and I found your arguments completely unconvincing and made me wonder if the trust I presumed all your edits warranted was misplaced. I fail to see how any credible contributor to an encyclopædia can argue that the official name of a place is POV while sectarian names are acceptable. I had expected higher standards from you and am deeply disappointed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No I am not disappointed in Seamus. There is a difference between an individual who holds a POV expressing them (whether it is Seamus, Adams, Paisley, Trimble or anyone else) and a neutral encyclopædia using language that represents a POV of one side. Northern Ireland, as the official name, is the only NPOV term Wikipedia can use. Any attempt to use Ulster/Six Counties etc will be reverted on sight and may be reported as vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the arguments thoroughly and found nothing of any use in them. It is standard encyclopædic standard to use official names. The official name of the northern state is Northern Ireland. Therefore it is used on Wikipedia. Anything else will be reverted on sight by editors. It is automatic, just as any attempt to refer to the modern Republic of Ireland as the Irish Republic, Southern Ireland, or the Irish Free State is reverted on sight. If you don't like the name Northern Ireland get Northern Ireland to change the name. But as long as it is the official name, that is the term used. Anything else is treated as vandalism and will be reverted on sight and reported as vandalism. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You can make all the claims you like. The fact is that the official name is Northern Ireland. Wikipedia uses official names. Therefore any attempt to add any unofficial names, especially those exclusive to either community, will be reverted by whichever editor sees them. Stop this ridiculous game now and get on with serious contributions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy is clear and will be enforced by people here. Ulster is out. So is 6 Counties. They are both terms exclusive to one community alone and so are not NPOV. Stop the silly messing. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

LP, their comes a point where people will get very tired of your pov edits and make a very big heave against you - and that time is approaching fast. Djegan 18:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on using "Six Counties" then make your case at Talk:Northern Ireland for moving - otherwise I suggest you stop reverting as we (people with sense and a npov outlook) will prevail. Contribute at www.uncyclopedia.org - it needs people like you. Djegan 21:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

British Israelism

If you can't find any source for the claim, then I can't see how you can leave it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned Up the List

I've cleaned up the List of Irish-Americans and moved the non-Irish-Americans to a seperate section that is designated for people who aren't Irish-Americans, but have Irish ancestry. Please do not revert. This is similiar to a list of Jews. It is much better this way because it does not mix in Irish-Americans with people who only have small Irish ancestry. 64.109.253.204 21:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

There are other people on the list mixed with black. The people I moved to Irish ancestry were because they were not Irish-Americans. No one else on the list has as little ancestry as the ones I moved to the Irish ancestry section. Stop using wikipedia to make a point. Your point isn't valid because you say it's because they are black, yet other blacks are on the regular list, and no whites are on the list that have as little ancestry as those African-Americans you've added. 64.109.253.204 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you racist? Why do you only add blacks to the List of Irish-Americans? 64.109.253.204 23:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Your sources. Considering they aren't Irish-Americans, they shouldn't be on the list at all, you should take the compromise of them being on the list but in a section for people with little Irish ancestry. 64.109.253.204 05:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Minor Ancestry

You moved people that are 100%, 50%, and 25% Irish to the minor ancestry section. The ancestry section should only be for people that are like 90% something else. 64.109.253.204 05:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

stop edit wars

If you don't these edit wars on numerous pages you will be blocked. You (and those you are rowing with) have breached the 3RR rule on individual pages. You could have been blocked but this time haven't. But you will be if this continues. This is your last warning. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

LP is an unrepentant troublemaker whose primary interest appears to be to champion his own POV on many articles, and to continually revert anyone else who has constructive additions. How are such people dealt with? Nearside 01:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

I have been informed that you have committed multiple violations of the 3RR rule and have caused two pages at least to have had to be protected. Therefore you and User:JW1805 have both been blocked for 24 hours. (You could have been blocked for 24 hours on each offence!). Any repeat of this will lead to longer blocks.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 06:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Slave trade

Can you please reconsider your revert to Guy Montag's version? It is unfair to include Islamic descriptions in the headlines but no Christian or Jewish religious descriptions.Heraclius 00:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

last warning

Your behaviour on Wikipedia has gone beyond the bounds of what can be tolerated. You are engaging in widespread reverts to insert blatently POV language into articles. But for the fact that you were once a credible editor here you would have been blocked long before now for your behaviur, but you have used up all the previous goodwill that existed towards you in your recent behaviour. Please stop. If you continue, you will be subject to a long block for this behaviour. This is your final warning. Please heed it.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Because you have continued, despite repeated warnings, to wage edit wars and reverts to push your political agenda, and because as soon as you came back from your last block you started back on your old behaviour on many of the same pages, you have now been blocked for 3 days. If when you come back you continue to behave as you have been doing you may face a far lengthier block. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Just some of the evidence of constant reverting of articles

1. (cur) (last) 03:33, 28 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv blanking; 59 out of 108 is slight)
2. (cur) (last) 17:35, 27 July 2005 JW1805 (rvt. Once again, 59% is not a "slight" majority)
3. (cur) (last) 10:53, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv blanking)
4. (cur) (last) 00:02, 27 July 2005 JW1805 (rvt attempt to obscure poll results)
5. (cur) (last) 23:36, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Revert edits by Timrollpickering to last version by Lapsed Pacifist)
6. (cur) (last) 14:14, 26 July 2005 Timrollpickering m (Reverted edits by Lapsed Pacifist to last version by Timrollpickering)
7. (cur) (last) 10:25, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; That's why it's mentioned. Why the other changes?)
8. (cur) (last) 13:58, 25 July 2005 Timrollpickering (Revert on poll - the question is more clear cut than an election - see talk page; wikify links)
9. (cur) (last) 07:18, 25 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Make a better case, Jonto)
10. (cur) (last) 00:58, 25 July 2005 Jonto (Revert to version by JW1805. I disagree - I have outlined the reasons for polls on the talk page - Please discuss there first Zoney.)

1. (cur) (last) 22:39, 27 July 2005 Djegan m (revert vandalism)
2. (cur) (last) 22:32, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
3. (cur) (last) 10:00, 27 July 2005 Djegan m (revert)
4. (cur) (last) 06:59, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; please write accurate edit summaries)
5. (cur) (last) 22:30, 26 July 2005 Djegan m (revert sectanism and vandalism of LP)
6. (cur) (last) 22:28, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
7. (cur) (last) 10:15, 26 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV term "six counties")
8. (cur) (last) 08:22, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
9. (cur) (last) 09:53, 25 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV term "six counties")
10. (cur) (last) 06:59, 25 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv needlessly simplistic edit)
11. (cur) (last) 21:48, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (rvt (corrected needlessly complex sentence structure))
12. (cur) (last) 21:39, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv needlessly simplistic edit)
13. (cur) (last) 15:37, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (corrected needlessly complex sentence structure)
14. (cur) (last) 15:34, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; Restore context)
15. (cur) (last) 04:57, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (simplify sentence)
16. (cur) (last) 04:08, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
17. (cur) (last) 00:00, 23 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
18. (cur) (last) 23:48, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Revert edits by Djegan to last version by JavaJive)
19. (cur) (last) 20:27, 22 July 2005 Djegan (revert sectanism and vandalism)
20. (cur) (last) 20:20, 22 July 2005 JavaJive m (wikify date)
21. (cur) (last) 19:06, 22 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
22. (cur) (last) 17:37, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
23. (cur) (last) 10:14, 22 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
24. (cur) (last) 05:18, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)

In addition you have been adding in factual errors all over the place. It is hard to believe that calling the Irish state the Irish Free State years after you know very well it ceased to have that name, and was only called that by fringe republicans, is anything other than deliberate POV vandalism, as is using Sinn Féin language about the name of Northern Ireland when you know very well that Wikipedia cannot use that name for the northern state as it is POV. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Welsh nationalists

OK, it looks like I should have checked that out: I thought the incident had happened after the OIRA ceasefire in the 1970s. There's no doubt that the IRA had enough guns during the start of the troubles, but they withheld them from units in Belfast whose loyalty was dubious. In fact according to Henry MvDonald in his book on the INLA, the army leadership was very quick to make weapons available for attacks on the Provos, something which perturbed many members in the Belfast units. Palmiro 12:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Six Counties

I respect your view on this, and I believe that it is appropriate in a few instances to use that term. That being said, I can't support your revert-warring over this.

What I'll ask, is that you follow a couple simple guidelines for this. I Think this will help you a lot.

• Don't replace links to Northern Ireland with - [[Northern Ireland|Six Counties]]. This can be confusing, and our policy is to generally avoid linking through redirects.
• Once or twice at most per article, if the article relates to the political aspects of the Irish divide, I think you can safely insert that term as a parenthetical note only. Something like "In Northern Ireland (the "Six Counties"), there are..." might be just fine.

Hope you'll agree, because I think you're fighting a little to hard for this "cause". Though you might not like it, the world overwhelmingly refers to it as Northern Ireland. Try to get back to positive contributions and don't let petty fights rule the day. -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Gerrymandering in Northern Ireland

I'm considering editing the Gerrymandering entry to remove the (in my view) loaded term Apologists. Before doing it I thought I would run it by you because I don't want to get into a revert war on it. My view is that the likes of Nicholas Whyte [10] has shown that there wasn't any gerrymandering of the NI House of Common boundaries and I've never seen any analysis that shows the other point of view. If you have any evidence that gerrymandering actually happened in NI wide elections (I'm not disputing it happened in local authorities) then please point me in that direction. DM Andy 19:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

wp:an/i and policy

Please note that I took and take no part in all of the rancor, so your assertion that someone would explain how your knowledge of the blocking policy "bears no relation to reality" is misdirected. What I said is that the matter brought up on wp:an/i did not rise to the level of immediate action. In other words, there was no administrators' noticeboard content -- no need for admins to keep an eye on a vandal or for an admin to redress a wrong quickly. That you have a disagreement is certain, that that disagreement is something for the block policy is not. It was pretty clear that what was going on was one user butting heads with 3 or 4 others. Wikipedia is not really the place for negotiating absolute truth or for righting the wrongs of the world, because it's a tertiary source of information and never a first hand source. If the world is wrong and the editor right, the editor is obliged to say what the world thinks. When these disagreements lead to reversions and revulsion, someone, sooner or later, will violate the 3RR, but, other than that, the answer is to open up a Requests for Comment on the article (not the people). If you believe that the community's consensus is vague, that a few people are claiming to speak for the world when they are not, then an RfC on the article can help arbitrate the content dispute. As for the people who remove what you say, you can ask them to agree with you to have arbitration on the content. (Note that this is not the same sort of arbitration as that which falls on persistent vandals.) It just wasn't a blocking issue or a wp:an/i issue. Geogre 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow up: You made your report, and folks waited to see what the response was. I think that people thought, and I certainly did, that the grounds were convoluted enough that an unambiguous reversal was not warranted. That's all. WP:AN/I will get things done if a move is really quite dramatically and unambiguously wrong. Beyond that, it requires the longer process. What happened then, though, is that both sides began rehashing their entire disagreement, addressing each other, etc. All of that was beside the point. Was there a block that needed to be reversed? Well, the conversation itself got into name calling and he-said/she-said, which, to me, indicates again a need for y'all to go through a requests for comment on the article to determine true consensus and then to abide by that, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. We're not obligated to agree with consensus, but we are somewhat obligated to follow it. Geogre 15:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Royal Dutch Shell

I'm responding to your comments on the [Royal Dutch Shell] page. I don't have a lot of time at the moment, but can provide a couple off hand. --129.173.105.28 13:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahoghill attacks

Once more, you attempt to subvert wiki entries to conform to your own POV. What happened in Ahoghill was terrible, but what you wrote was as bad. I lived in Ahoghill from 1984 until 1999. Have you even visited the place? Your implications and claims outlined regarding the attacks is just another example of bigoted POV that does not belong here. Do not use wikipedia entries to forward your own disgusting bigotry. There is no excuse that you can give for this activity. You have been banned several times before for such entries, and I'm certain that you will be banned again. As soon as I've finished this entry, I will report you immediately. You disgust me as much, if not more, than the scum that continue to wage war against each other in my home country. Someone as clearly intelligent as you are should know better. Nearside 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've reported you again. Clearly, you have no interest in anyone elses point of view except your own.Nearside 22:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Moderate your own tone. Moderate the bigotry you push. Give me a reason to believe. Nearside 02:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the vague comment. You're kidding, right? Nearside 03:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Volunteers to IRA

See Talk:Irish Republican Army. Somewhere in the morasse there is a statement by Damac that vis a vis the IRA article "technically it should begin in 1917 with the formation of Brugha's Resident Executive". Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

D D Sheehan MP.

Glad to make contact, and first of all many thanks for the useful brushing up on wording (I have obviously been away in Europe for quite a while).

There are several minor historical changes made which are inaccurate and which I am sure we can agree on. Also too many unnecessary non-existing "links" where similar pages could have been linked, or are most unlikely ever to be created. Other major changes I cannot accept in the interest of historical accuracy.

To begin with: a settlement of the "Irish question" was the term used by all sides as the goal strived for in one form or another at that time. You change this to a "dispute". This term is not ok ?

You delete the fact that one of Sheehan's sons were killed in the RAF, changing it to RFC. Fact is the RFC was renamed RAF in 1917, and Martin Sheehan was killed in October 1918 (in the RAF).

Why did you delete that Sheehan's party, the AfIl, stood down en bloc in 1918 ?? Not he alone issued the manifesto as you insert, but he together with O'Brien and the AfIL. This is clearly stated in MacDonagh's biography of O'Brien, and in Sheehan's book (and elsewhere). I do not follow your intentions ? I will re-enter the original text. By the way, I will be entering a full page on the history of the AfIL in due course. Also the Irish Land and Labour Association.

Your inclusion that the "paramilitary" UDF were (allegedly?) encouraged to join the 36th Ulster Div. is not something for inclusion here. I propose the simple statement I have reverted to. ok ? (I would also not be for including that Redmond encouraged the "paramilitary" Irish Volunteers to join the 16th Div. Neither statement belong in here.

In the "closing chapter" a third party entered the sentence quote: "whose war service was far from esteemed in the politically ultra-nationalist dominated southern portion of partitioned Ireland". Let us be honest, this was indeed largely the case, though the wording used may be a little "ultra" as well. But so too is yours quote: "who in Ireland at the time were largely regarded as having been the victims of British duplicity".

Consensus proposal: ".. whose war service was overshadowed by Britain's failure to fulfil the promises she made to the Irish who joined at the outset".

Lastly, a most extreme form of censoring which cannot be accepted. You completely eliminate Sheehan's reasons for having to leave Cork. This was no fiction but historical truth. The wording was carefully chosen so as not to reflect on anyone, other than himself. Such were the times (read Peter Hart and others). I do not wish to indulge in a combat with you of re-entry and deletion. How can we come to a concensus in the spirit of the Wikipedia ?. History otherwise becomes a collective conspiracy propagated by a small circle with a private agenda.

I need to insist on correct reasons being given without my havig to link in a home-page with the background details.

N.B. Canyou please delete the "Need to tidy-up banner" ? Thank you.

Osioni 01.55 Aug. 24

(Following text moved from Hiberians (84) to here).
I know I owe you some replies from last year, but I was away a lot. Then I wondered if there was any point in giving you details of how militants forced the Sheehan family to flee their Cork home by continually firing into the boaded up house. They were emergency evacuated by the authorities in the middle of the night after a tip-off that something serious was going to happen, in an army tender to the rail station and were on the mail boat to England a day later. As if you would want to understand the situation prevailing in Ireland towards the end of 1918 in the case of ex-servicemen. Particularly one who as an M.P. politically supported the interests of the Protestant minority, seeing it as the only hope of ever achieving an all Ireland settlement.

Some clarifying words have been added to the last paragraph above. LP, to discredit and misinterpret is a clever way of displaying superior knowledge (!). The personal insinuations in your reply are very base. Sheehan had no further connection with the army after Dec. 1917. To understand where he stood, I invite reading his Speech April 12th. 1918.
I appeal on behalf of a balanced interpretation of that period without your continual defence of the righteousness of your particular standpoint, reflecting more weakness than strength. Osioni 21:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing Northern Ireland to Six Counties

Hello, please stop changing the internationally-recognised name "Northern Ireland" to "Six Counties" in the future. Northern Ireland is the official name for the region, and so it should be used by Wikipedia. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Please stop trying to POV articles. Between you adding in Six Counties and an anonymous unionist editor adding in rubbish about historic Ulster and modern Ulster (by which he means the North) it is getting tiresome having to stop people trying to POV articles with their own linguistic agendas. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention your antics changing "loyalist paramilitaries" (or "terrorists", or "bombers") to "unionist paramilitaries" (or "terrorists", or "bombers"). Do you think we're too thick to figure out where this phrase came from and what it implies? Demiurge 23:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Irish Newfoundlanders

Regarding your comments on Irish Newfoundlanders,the page should not be redirected to Catholic Newfoundlanders as the latter would include significant numbers of French people from the west coast of Newfoundland. The protestant Orange Order was present in Newfoundland and had Irish members, however, it also included significant numbers of Englishmen in its ranks. The majority of Irish people would came to Newfoundland were Catholic and not Protestant. Jcmurphy 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert

You reverted at List of ethnic groups when you did not have to, no questionable ethnic groups were added, they were all real ethnic groups that no one has had a problem with. Please revert again back to the correct verison. Thank you. 66.73.198.159 02:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop your NPOV posts

Please stop inserting your NPOV posts in the MI5 page please, the fact that 4 people have reverted your reverts for being NPOV hints that is you that is being NPOV not everyone else. Silveralex 15:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV posts were also made at Royal Dutch Shell and Corrib Gas Field even after an extensive discussion on the RDS talk page. --24.137.104.16 02:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are you Silverlax and you 24.13.104.16 objecting to NPOV posts????? I thought that was the whole idea of Wikipedia to put up NPOV text. I really cannot understand some people. Haven't you anything better to do??? Wallie 06:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment please

removed comment by sockpuppet for banned user User:Skyring as per policy. (His comments and edits are all being removed.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi Lapsed Pacifist, I left a message asking you to stop inserting Irish-nationalist POV into articles 4 days ago. Since then, at least another 3 people have mentioned, on your talk page, that they think you are inserting Irish-nationalist POV into an article. For this reason, I am blocking you for 24 hours. Please do not continue with these types of edits after your block expires. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk page revert war

Please don't revert war on another user's talk page. violet/riga (t) 14:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, please don't use automated revert functions - you should give a full edit summary. violet/riga (t) 14:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A user can do with their talk page pretty much as they please. If he wants to remove your comments then that is up to him. It's very rude to revert war against a person on their talk page. My second comment was intended as a more general thing as I noticed numerous times that you have used the automatic rollback. violet/riga (t) 15:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the etiquette involved with talk pages. I'll put it to you another way - if you continue to revert war with someone on their own talk page you will receive a short block. violet/riga (t) 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

He removed your comment, and was totally within his rights to do so. I removed them because he clearly didn't want them there and went offline before you readded them. violet/riga (t) 15:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to search through the policies just to prove what should be obvious. Don't repeatedly revert a persons own talk page or you will receive a block. violet/riga (t) 16:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Blanking or removing content from article talk pages is wrong (except for WP:NPA). Blanking or removing content from user talk pages is a different matter. violet/riga (t) 16:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, the reason I removed your comments should have been clear given my previous message. I requested that you indent your comments appropriately so they show the progression the discussion took. I had previously indented other messages you had left on my talk page. Since you disregarded my request for you to indent your messages appropriately, I removed them. If someone requests something as simple as indenting your comments on their talk page, it is only polite to do so, whether or not you like indented comments or not. I find using indentations useful to show the discussion in proper context.

As it is my talk page I feel that I am entitled to request others to follow my personal preference for layout. If you asked me to lay out my comments on your talk page in a particular sensible fashion, I would do so, out of courtesy. Please grant me the same courtesy. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Garden of Remembrance (Dublin)

Please stop reverting this article and explain your concerns on the Talk page. Your misleading edit summaries are also not useful. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

---

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires.

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

POV-pushing

I am disappointed that you have gone straight back to your old habits [11] immediately after returning from your most recent block. I had hoped you would learn something; seems that you are determined to continue your campaign of professional POV-pushing. Demiurge 16:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: As I am disappointed with your campaign of constant misrepresentation of my edits, and your less-than-elegant reverts. We've already discussed the very large gray area where unionism meets loyalism. Why do you insist on beginning a section that includes Dublin with the words "In Northern Ireland" instead of "In Ireland"? Lapsed Pacifist 17:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

He needs a geography lesson, methinks. Don't even bother justifying yourself. He will just do what he wants, and ignore you. It is pathetic that some of these folk are just self appointed policemen going around annoying the hell out of everyone, and giving each other "wiki medals". Their sort doesn't create anything, they just destroy someone else's good work. You will notice that they use the phrase "sock puppetry". This happens when people change their identify, simply to escape from these rogues. It is like getting an unlisted telephone number from the authorities, when you are being criminally harrassed or stalked on the telephone. Wallie 07:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good to see you back

I'm glad to see you back, LP. But please think carefully about your approach to editing. You seem to constantly pick battles you can't win and make edits that most other editors regard as POV-pushing. The whole issues about what to call na se chontae, the use of the terms loyalist or unionist, etc, are arguments you aren't going to win and if you insist on making the sort of edits you've been making in those issues, you'll only end up getting banned again. You've clearly got a lot of good contributions to make that won't get constantly reverted, so please think about concentrating on those ones instead.

Beir bua, Palmiro | Talk 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, LP, read this effort from Palmiro. He said most other editors regard as POV-pushing. In actual fact, "most other editors" probably don't care one way or another... but you can't prove it. You can do the same thing. If you say "Tony Blair is an influential and respected leader", this will be considered by most other editors as NPOV, as these folk see Tony Blair as being in authority. If you say "Tony Blair is not an influential nor a respected leader", this will be considered POV by these people, and they will all line up to tell you all about it. If you say "Many think Tony Blair is not an influential nor a respected leader", then they will think it is POV, but they cannot say it... the can't prove it either. You are getting across exactly the same message, but in a coded way. Good isn't it? Most of all, don't get in a war with these people... But this is the good part. You can still win. Just lay low for a while, while they forget about you and get on someone else's case. Then come back with your initial arguments, while changing your tactics slightly. Word your points in some official sounding way. I find starting sentences with "Clearly," and "That is" works well, as these folk are like police, and see this sort of language as coming from their commanders, who they rely on for promotion and praise. Last, always remember... you have as many rights as they. Wallie 07:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mountain categories

Hi, I've removed hills that are in Category:Mountains and hills of Ulster and Category:Mountains and hills of Northern Ireland from Category:Mountains of Ireland, since the first two categories are already subcategories of the latter, so we need not duplicate. Hope this makes sense! Grinner 12:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Re your message, I'll explain a bit. You created the Munster cat, so all the hills in Munster are now there. The Munster cat then nests within the Ireland cat, so we don't list all the hills in Munster twice. Eg if you look at Category:Mountains and hills of Scotland, there are no actual mountains in there, everything is in an appropriate sub-category.

Nice work on the Connacht category, by the way!

Grinner 08:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

RtM Irish Republican Army

No - I could hardly request it given that I plan to oppose it. --Red King 08:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I still believe that there has only ever been one IRA/Oglaigh na hÉireann, and that it became the National Army in 1922. Any other organisation to use the name is a pretender. Attaching a date range to it puts it on a level with these pretenders. However, if a change is unavoidable, then I regard this as the least worst of the proposals that have been made to date. So my opposition is not as implacable as user:Jtdirl's. --Red King 16:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See wikipedia:requested moves --Red King 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This pretend united Ireland

LP,

Why have you created the article Abbeys and priories in Ireland by simply copying the contents of Abbeys and priories in the Republic of Ireland and Abbeys and priories in Northern Ireland into them (would a disambiguation not do)???

Why did you present List of universities in Ireland as if it where a list of universites in a single political entity[12] - but simply copied the contents of List of universities in the Republic of Ireland and List of universities in Northern Ireland into the article (in a less than accurate manner I might add)???

We had a showdown over Northern Ireland before, hopefully not over this - it is unhelpful to duplicate matter.

Djegan 20:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means use as many question marks as me, and play dumb. But duplication of material is just something that make wikipedia look unprofessional - claiming that you are doing it on apolitical grounds, that is simply nonsense. Wikipedias policies are clear on duplication of materials, if you want to merge two articles then submit a merge request on both articles. Simple. Djegan 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Template

The problem with the template is that it is a list of various organisations, some very small that share Irish republican ideology. As you'll know if you read the deletion debate, I don't have a problem with its existance. What I do have a problem with is treating events like the civil as if they were only important as part of republican history. I think you'd agree they have a far wider importance than that and that the republican story is only one part of them. If we had a republican template on the civil war and war of independence articels, does this mean that we should have a free state and British empire template on them as well. Jdorney 21:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps

Please explain this latest edit you made, it makes no sense. -- ran (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It makes no sense to revert someone else's edit without looking at what it is first. I corrected religion to religious and added "three leaders" for clarification -- why did you revert that? And do you think we're going to have a government of Xinjiang page judging from how other country/territory/province articles are laid out on Wikipedia? -- ran (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rathmines

I note you removed the following from the Rathmines article: This area was the property of the established church in Ireland from the English reformation right until the Restoration of the English crown in the 17th century - is this untrue or just unsourced? --Ryano 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1996 Manchester City Centre bombing

Can you please stop reverting the edits on this page? The overall opinion is that this was a terrorist attack. In fact, looking through the page history, you are the only person who is removing that sentence! I'm not going to start an edit war with you, because looking at your history that is all you want. -- 9cds^(talk) 10:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Population of Lhasa

Please see Talk:Lhasa#Tibetan minority. -- ran (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Manchester attacks page

Hi, I don't know whether you're around. I ran out of reverts on the Manchester attacks page. I've pleaded with the editors concerned to do the right thing, just as you did way back when. But ultimately there's very little you can do with editors who just won't collaborate and disregard the policies (which in this case are very well founded). NPOV might be nonnegotiable for Jimbo Wales, but without reverting, how can you enforce it with editors who just don't give a shit? James James 06:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)