User talk:Bastun/2017

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hello, the previous discussion you were involved in regarding Donald Trump's infobox has closed and there is a new one underway which may interest you. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously defending bathroom humor as protected under TPO? I got thank-yous from Jack Upland for both of my removals. Clearly he cares less than you about keeping that on the page. I'd suggest a self-revert but, absent that, someone else will be along shortly to do it for you. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

TPO is unambiguous. You, and Jack Upland, are perfectly free to remove your own remarks, but not those of other people. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

stop and get consensus Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician, there's a talk page you can use, rather than my page. As per BRD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Clearly I am not the one who needs to use it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21

30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying my best to be a wikipedia contributor and maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems you undid a revision I did on adoption and it says rv spam. I don't know what RV is but I do know spam is not a good thing. Why did you remove the reference? The site I gave is the U.S. governmental site on adoption. It is not a for profit site. It's goal is to find homes for children free for adoption but not fingding homes due to being in the hard-to-place category due to special needs or age or other factors. By giving the information of what is available on the site, it will help the adoption of these children. So why in the world would you want to remove this information and info about a U.S. governmental site. Please reply and undo what you did so people are aware of the opportunity to actually view waiting children, therefor increase the chance of finding a home. Thanks. Gelo962. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gelo962. I reverted the addition because it looked like linkspam to me - the article attracts a lot of such spam from professional, for-profit agencies. There is nothing on the home page of the site you added obviously indicating that it is a government site; I clicked on the http://www.adoptea.org/ link on the bottom of the home page which states "The Adoption Exchange Association (AEA) is the country’s premiere national network of adoption professionals and organizations" and states that it's (U.S.) government-funded, not a government program or organisation, so I think my confusing this with a private agency is understandable. In any case, the adoption article is about adoption as a concept, worldwide, not a "how-to" guide for the U.S. It might be an appropriate addition to the Adoption in the United States article. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for getting back to me. It sounds like you are acknowledging adoptuskids.org is indeed is not a business. It is the government's way to get all the waiting kids "in front of" possible adoptive families. And if you click at the bottom of the page on "made possible by a grant from Children's Bureau" you will see the Children's Bureau is part of the Office of the Administration of Children and Families. Anyway, I support you 100% in keeping profiteers out of this page and keep it up. However, showing more about the kids who need adoption the most, via adoption exchanges (the main one of which is adoptuskids.org, is very, very important, so I will put it up again under the foster care section, as all these kids are presenty in foster care. Maybe I should add an article for adoption exchanges as well so people know they exist. Thanks again. If you have any further doubts about adoptuskids.org, just start looking through it and you will see there is no profit entity in it at all. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gelo962. Again, as mentioned, it's not an appropriate link or inclusion for a general encyclopedia article on adoption (there are many similar organisations and services around the world). It may be suitable for Adoption in the United States. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Glad I'm finally getting the hang of it. And someone else gave me some constructive advice on my first article (Randall Hicks), which I followed, which was much nicer than what seemed mean-spirited from one person who wanted it deleted. It felt like being the fat kid in school again, getting picked on by the cool kids, which in this case is the wikipedia pros. At least my second article (Brian Wiprud) has not gathered any negative comments, but we will see. I'd like to start adding some of authors I like, but will stop if they keep getting hammered. I've already learned to not provide too much information, just barebones info, which strikes me as very funny and counter to good research, but that's what I'm doing now, as instructed. I personally like the articles where I learn new info, not just telling me what I already know, like a list of their books. What good is that? Anyway, thanks. Gelo962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelo962 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Adoption exchanges also does seem like a good candidate for an article. Enjoy your editing! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? And can others edit it? Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alfie. Yes, that's it exactly. You could also further break it down if you wanted by setting up a page such as "User:Alfie Gandon/sandbox/Irish slaves myth" if you wanted to work on more than one sandbox article at a time. Technically, yes, anyone else could edit the draft (see WP:UP#OWN ) but it'd be considered rude to start editing a draft article on someone's userpage/sandbox without being invited. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Consider yourself invited. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alfie Gandon, will take a look. Probably won't be until next week, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of it now? Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And now? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Batsun, you reverted my edits to the people before profit page. I removed their ideological stance of "united Ireland" and also changed their description from being a socialist political party, to a trotskyist political party, whats the issue ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfixer2113 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You removed sourced content for the former; and they're certainly socialist. If you want to include Trotskyist, by all means do, but reference it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

They have now outlined their position as neither green or orange when it comes to the national question of Irish unity, so I think I was justified in removing it.

I will add and reference trotskyist shortly, but how does one go about editing their stance so as to reflect neither "united Ireland" or "unionist"? I would have thought removing the stance was appropriate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factfixer2113 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the referenced article is from 29th June 2016 and is pretty clear: "The truth is that People Before Profit stand for a 32 county socialist Ireland." If you can find later references that contradict or amend this stance, then I would suggest removing the label from the infobox, but raise it on the article's talk page to explain why you are doing so, and include the later link there. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Irish topics

Thank you for quality articles on Irish topics such as the early Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, for thinking about the name Ireland, for page moves, for "Welcome indeed to post-truth Wikipedia", for removing a bizarre inclusion, for succinct edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion in Ireland

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Bertrand Russell. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: Hello, I'm inexperienced when it comes to articles for deletion. I'd be interested in your opinion about whether or not the names/ages of the children who died at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home is 'notable' enough for List article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_names_of_children_who_died_at_the_Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home

AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi AugusteBlanqui. WP:NOTMEMORIAL, unfortunately, is a thing. Lists of the dead tend to rarely survive an AfD (with the odd exception for American mass shootings, for some reason) or even being included in an article, unless some arbitrary "encyclopedic value" can be satisfied. E.g., the list of victims of the Omagh bombing gets removed, but the victims of Bloody Sunday are included because the details of how they were killed was judged to add information to the article... I think probably the best we can hope for there are links to external sites that maintain the list. Am about to head out, but will participate in the AfD later. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bastun: The list is easy enough to transcribe into Wikisource if the article is deleted. This would retain the information if the external links die off. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey. On Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland I added a bunch of language tags that you've reverted. Language tagging has many benefits; MOS:ACCESS (specifically WP:ATLANG) recommends their use across Wikipedia, as does the Irish Manual of Style.

I know that An Post, Dáil, Taoiseach, Seanad Éireann and so on are Irish words that are widely used in English-language contexts in Ireland, but one of the purposes of language tagging is to provide help to speech synthesisers, for example. Applying language tags telling software "this word is (or was originally) Gaeilge" makes literally no difference to most users — there's no visible difference in the rendered page — but means that assistive technologies are less likely to screw things up.

Are you happy for me to revert your reversion, or would you like to discuss the matter further? — OwenBlacker (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

PS: You might like to consider bold, revert, discuss rather than just reverting edits made in good-faith but with which you disagree. 😊

Hi @OwenBlacker: - interesting point about the speech synthesisers. The problem then is that there are literally hundreds of articles about Ireland and Irish topics where terms like "An Post", "Aer Lingus", "the Dáil", "the Taoiseach", "the Tánaiste", "An Garda Síochána", "gardaí", etc., are very widely used - and for all intents and purposes they are the commonly used terms in English, too. What I mean is most Irish users wouldn't regard them as needing 'ga' language tags. Perhaps this is something that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland? (No objection if you want to revert my reversion on the postal addresses article in the meantime.) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bastun:. I'd suggest they should all be tagged — albeit as a low priority task, of course. I'll raise it there and notify WP:WikiProject Accessibility. Thanks again. — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Just added my first language tag, @OwenBlacker:. Will try to remember to include them in all future edits. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand now when I look back what I did was completely crazy and wrong at the time. I understand that when you pointed out what I was doing was wrong I ignored you and continued to defy the rules. I now understand how this works and I am trying to avoid mistakes and stick to the rules. I research many people and collect information which helps wikipedia. I really love wikipedia. I want to forget my mistakes which I understand was completely wrong. I want to learn from other elder editors.

I've notified the admin who blocked your GaryFG8125 account, here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How many blocks are you on now, ATL? You reverted me before even giving me time to post to talk. You've already demonstrated several times recently your lack of appreciation for policy, most recently your bizarre and patronising comment when removing a RS earlier today, so really - just don't. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Again ad hominems are not very good arguments. What "bizarre and patronising" comment?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Cab you take a look at the latest revision history on John McGuinness (politician) please? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 00:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's be Gary...  :-) Please see two sections above and here, where I raised this with the blocking admin. If he's still just reverting without engaging then I'd be inclinced to agree with Black Kite. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry to both editors involved here. But I did not set out to cause any harm here. I just taught I added information which is correct and not damaging in anyway. My apologies again any harm done on my side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.102.163 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Point to an example, please ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As is cutomary, if you have questions to ask on an article, ask them on the article's talk page and ping me, rather than using my talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What record is this being maintained for, exactly? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This probably counts as canvassing but I do not care I do not want to give El Cid any excuse to make a bogus report of #RR violation. Could you please re-add the erroneously removed tags and remove the attacks which are dubious, which El Cid seems intent on keeping like they are the one ring to rule them all. This user is acting against the discussions and is acting like an article owner, a careful effort will be needed to edit constructively and avoid individuals form getting away with bully ownership and troll tagging on user talk pages. Sport and politics (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Overtaken by events - article now under full page protection. El Cid should be well aware that it is not in order to simply remove tags without consensus on the talk page being achieved first. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I came upon this by accident. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Heh, yes - I saw it at the time, all right. They neglected to mention that I'd also added references and, indeed, complete incidents to that list previously. But hey, alt-right fake news, why bother with balance... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

hi Bastun why are you reverting edits on the DDI page when links are broken DDI have stated on many occasion that they neither left nor right on RTE and irish times and so forth why arent these reference allowed to be used as they are clearly a centre party.or does not fall well with your idealogyRailsparks (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Discuss on the relevant talk page, as you were invited to do, not here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

hi Bastun I see you are amending the above article re the subjects Irish nationality. There are plenty of online sources so i an confused what your issue is. Best wishes 2001:8A0:7BDD:FA01:DA9:A4FF:AEED:46A6 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discuss on the relevant article talk page, not here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

[1]. You basically reinstated an accusation of anti-semitism. I hope you realise what that entails. Myers has been active on the talk page before, so. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page, that's what it's for. Not here. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue and in this case I'm pretty sure old habits die hard. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had already reverted my edit. It's been a good few years since I've edited wikipedia and I forgot how to read a diff properly. I only saw the absence of the new material I inserted but returned it to the original version when I saw the other stuff was still gone too. 78.145.35.155 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No bother :-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are the guidelines for including a religious category (slightly different from what you stated):

"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

Since the first guideline is contained in the second, here are the reasons why Casey's Catholicism is relevant to his public life/notability: 1) as a Catholic in nineteenth-century Ireland, his sphere of academic opportunity was probably reduced due to his faith (just look at the state of affairs at Trinity College, his alma mater); 2) he was a professor at Catholic universities (for at least the last 18 years of his life); and 3) he devoted his energies to the advancement of Catholic education. For more information, see his Catholic Encyclopedia article.

Therefore, he meets the guidelines for including a religious category. If you still feel like you need to remove the category, even though the articles meets the guidelines, then that is on you.Akasseb (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You know you broke the 3RR right? You shouldnt be so quick to smash that 'undo' button.Yes I'm Drunk (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

And "Yes, I'm drunk", you know that we don't allow sockpuppetry here, right? Because you're quacking like a duck. Valenciano (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, just saw you reverted a reply I made to BURob13 on AN. Mind if I restore it? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

RIB: Judging by the edit summary, I assume it was an accidental watchlist rollback. We really need to put a confirmation button on that thing. GMG^talk 14:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Been there, done that! Got to agree, I misclick the rollback link and oops. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: oops indeed, apologies! @GreenMeansGo: is right, that was an accidental misclick. Thanks for fixing, GMG! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Bastun. Your welcome. I am glad to have added to the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home Wikipedia entry the external link to The New York Times article about the Home. I thought the article solidly belonged in the external links. Iss246 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened on the talk page. No idea why you expected me to start it, as I'm not the one that is trying to change what has long stood on the page. Neither position is cited, therefore either evidence or clear consensus on talk should be provided for a change when contested. Baffling that you would revert a decision to remove the political position section entirely, I did this to provide a neutral option until something is agreed upon (that way neither editors position is present). Helper201 (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Bastun. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

No wrongdoing implied; just a heads-up. Those articles have a minefield of procedural constraints... — JFG ^talk 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the sanctions that let someone challenge a fact about an American politician that gets it removed from a page for up to a month as an RfC is called? Yeah, I came across them during the presidential election! ;-) Thanks for the heads-up, JFG! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bastun edit war (Result: Page semied). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that you repeatedly and disruptively deleted a section on a cat mouser, saying that because the cat is an animal and therefore it cannot have a politician infobox - despite the fact that it is used on many other mouser sections - I'll draw your attention to the page which details how "The Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office is the title of the official resident cat" and on that page, there is a politician infobox. Not only did you misconstrue this as trolling and undo the amendments without any consultation, but you aggressively attacked the said editor, even using profanities to prove your point of view. Now, the page is restricted, without any conversation with the actual editor, because it was deemed to be reckless editing, despite the fact that the same edits have been completed on other pages for mousers and it was deemed acceptable and the editor, I assume, just wanted to create a consistent format for all cat mousers. I ask that before you jump to conclusions about whether or not you believe the said edit was correct, you consult with the person as to what they were meaning to do and not act in the insolent and petulant way that you did - swear and try to remove anybody's views who are different to yours from the internet. If you disagree, talk - don't shut down. I hope you change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajeshFeiggo (talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC) RajeshFeiggo (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see section immediately above. And the related AN/I page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bastun edit war (Result: Page semied). Feel free to contribute there, where NeilN will see it and can react, or indeed on the article's talk page, as I did. But I'd also advise you to read WP:SOCK first. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)