#1: A batsman has easily reached his crease after a comfortable run. But he strolled in with his bat in the air. Do you appeal?
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog
Examining the Cricket World — With Adequate Protection, Of Course
#1: A batsman has easily reached his crease after a comfortable run. But he strolled in with his bat in the air. Do you appeal?
#2:
#3:
#4:
#5:
Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog 
It’s fair to appeal in all five instances. Forgiving the batsmens’ carelessness and/or ignorance of the rules should not be called ‘spirit of the game’. Is there any such thing that would forgive a mistake by the bowler?
A batsman’s head is worth more than a bowler’s ball, alas.
I’m not very sure what you mean with the first example, the 2nd, 4th and 5th are non-controversial to me. I think the Steve Waugh handling wouldn’t have been appealed had they not already been appealing for an lbw, but it’s an out. There are 10 ways to get a batsman out, rare as some of these are, they are all valid (other than timed out, which is a regularity and has nothing to do with the fielding team). Also, none of those situations is like the Ian Bell run-out, or other controversial appeals. I have more problem with a ball hitting the pad, then hitting the bat being ruled LBW, as there is obviously no way that ball would’ve hit the stumps, but that is well within the laws.
@Erez, I’m not sure what you mean regarding the pad-bat LBW. In such an LBW, it’s reasonable to assume that it hit the bat only because of the pad deflection. In absence of the pad, it could have gone on to the stumps *or* hit the bat *or* the bat playing on to the stumps. In any case, it’s a misjudged shot where the batsman is relying too heavily on the defense of his legs rather than his bat.
Inzamam’s (#2) is the only one I’d think about. I would appeal for the rest with my eyes closed.