User talk:Bastun

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here - especially as you're one of the Saints rather than sinners and without some knowledgeable, level headed editors like yourself it may be doomed to failure...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Hi Bastun. I am trying to keep out of a certain editor's way as much as possible to protect what remains of my sanity, but as you were involved in the discussion above I'd be interested in your take on the usage "X was a Member/Volunteer..." which seems to have crept into a few articles. I would propose that the form volunteer would be more in keeping with the MedCab resolution (as I read it) and also with our MoS. Finally, I'd be interested in your take on this edit; my understanding obviously differs from that of this user's. It may seem like a fairly trivial stylistic matter, but I think it's a shame to go through all the good work that seems to have been done in MedCab only to have the result (apparently) misrepresented like this. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, --John 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The cabal consensus decision was pretty unambiguous - lower case 'v' (with a piped link as you suggest being absolutely fine. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what is refered to as incorrect. p.s. why would you ask Bastun?--Vintagekits 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I took part in the debate, why wouldn't he ask me? Can I remind you of the decision?

Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article. Please do not modify it. Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty clear. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being" - clear as day!--Vintagekits 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The time being hasn't been finished, or finalised, or overturned by consensus. So lower case 'v' it is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually thats incorrect - you cab go to the talk page it you want to change that.--Vintagekits 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me where a timelimit was agreed, or where a decision was reached to change the cabal outcome? All I'm seeing on the talk page is 'closed - do not alter...' and the box on the project page says:

State: Closed

Comments: Concensus has been listed above.

That's pretty unequivocal... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why I am even discussing this with you - you've nothing to do with it - I'll let Tyrenius confirm the state of play as your opinion is insignificant in relation to this.--Vintagekits 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're discussing it with him because he is an interested editor, whose opinion is as valid as anyone else's. Rudeness is not required, so please cut it out as a habitual mode of communication with other editors. Tyrenius 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See the end of Talk:Volunteer_(Irish_republican)#The_capital_.22V.22_or_little_.22v.22_debate. This puts Vk in the clear for his usage of V since on that article - no one responded to his final statement in that talk page section. However, it hasn't achieved a consensus as such which can be enforced, so it is open to further debate still. Tyrenius 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Volunteer (IRA). --John 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For repairing vandalism to my user page. --John 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for that.--Domer48 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was Gold's edit reverted. I'm I gold too? Now there were five editors material removed and golds makes six, are they all me? Why is that not reverted? Why request a bolck with thoses editors material removed? --Domer48 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anyone, so no point asking me :P As regards the "5 editors", that's stretching things a bit - I think some of them were minor enough edits, e.g., correcting typos? Its common practice to request a block when an edit war is underway (and indeed, more grounds for it with the ArbCom case). Which version is the one that gets locked is irrelevant (as is made clear by the template that gets put on the page). As far as I understand it, it'll be whatever one is there when/if an admin locks it, but that has no bearing on which is the "proper" one - that gets debated on the Talk page and consensus rules. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RE. Blatantly Incorrect edit summary

Having received an explanation on the background to my first edit from User:sony-youth I have recognised where all the suspicion and accusations have come from but I just thought I should point out to you that in my eagerness to edit a page successfully, I took my time and copied and pasted the introduction from the page and essentially tinkered with the formatting, my contribution and previewed endlessly, several days in fact, before I posted my edit and was totally unaware that the page had moved on from what it had been when I started. As User:sony-youth pointed out to me in the above explanation I had reverted to a version of the page editted by User:Domer48 and so I have concluded through searching the history of the article that the version of the page I was working from was possibly this one and considering that from my view it is evident that I merely added some 400 bytes nowhere near the 70kb you suggested. However I can totally see how from your view the changes were substantial. Therefore I accept your view that my summary appeared incorrect, however I would also like you to accept that from my perspective it was a small contribution and my edit summary was in no way intended to deceive or misinform anyone on WP and please take WP:NEWBIES into consideration. Kind regards --Pappin76 04:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS besides the confusion was there anything else wrong with my edit any advice on my contribution would be welcome

Hi Pappin. Ah, that clears up a lot. As Sony has explained on your talk page and as you state above, you can see where we reached the conclusions we did. Apologies if my section heading 'Blatantly incorrect edit summary' came off as harsh or offensive, but I was going by the difference between the preceding entry and yours. I hope this "welcome" hasn't put you off Wikipedia and look forward to collaborating in the future. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlock on Article

Hello Bastun, I have agreed with Sony to remove a quote on the Famine article, could you request to have the article unlocked. Thanks--Domer48 13:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the article talk page. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On Tyrenius talk page

Why did you remove made edit here - I am seriously unimpressed with this.--Vintagekits 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Users are free to remove comments from their talk page at their own leisure. That said, it's considered very bad taste to remove portions of comments in a way that might be misleading. ugen64 14:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But as the diff points out - it wasn't my talk page. Apologies, Vintagekits. I think what happened there was I meant to copy and paste part of your comment to use in my reply and ended up cutting and pasting instead. Not my intention. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept then that it was a genuine mistake.--Vintagekits 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

I think this needs your attention. Aatomic1 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border

Please stop adding the term County Londonderry after the listing of the city of Derry, like Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham etc the count of a city is very listed after the city name in articles. Not only that you are adding oxygen to fire that is the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute. Currently there is little/no argument over this issue amongest established editors please edit within the consensus or establish a new one.--Vintagekits 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

None of Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, or Birmingham are border towns. As with all other settlements listed in that section of the article, Derry has always had its county listed - you seem to be the only objector. As regards the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute, the WP:IMOS is quite clear - Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are edit warring and I am pretty damn sick of it to be honest. THe name of the city Derry is never followed by its county - you are dirupting wiki by adding Londonderry and know it will wind up other editors. Derry is NEVER followed by its county name just like all other main cities. Please self revert and stop edit warring against MOS and consensus.--Vintagekits 10:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It was there for months with no objection (apart from yourself). Not aware of that part of the MOS. Linky? As for the rest of it - the appropriate place to discuss it is the article's talk page, not here. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Famine Links

Doing this, I still prefer Great Famine (1845-1849). I think it's truer to the most used name. Is your take on this similar? GH 10:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gold. Hmm, yes - I think its better than 'Great Irish Famine' (although IIRC that's what I voted for at the time). Hindsight is great :-) If you're proposing a move, I'd support it. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stargate Horizon

Hi. As you might gather, I personally could care less about the article. However, I'd like to encourage you not to "bite the newbie" since the user seems to be working on it in good faith and with serious wikifying effort. I don't know much about (or really want to!) fan fiction, but it is a category. Maybe you could explain to the user about the notability criteria for that category? Take care. HG | Talk 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye - wouldn't be too bothered about the article either if it was actually clear that its fanfic, and wasn't leading to articles like "Ascendant Empire", which give no clue at all. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Final humorous warning for jokes

This is your last warning.
Your continued joking is amusing and considered very funny, and you will be given awards without another warning if you continue. --John 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

You're a star, Bastun! I laughed so much that my drips pulled out!

May I nick this as my standard riposte in future:

Sorry, Brixton, I'm confused. When you say they became the IRA instead of being the Provisional IRA - does that mean they became the Official IRA? Or is there a group out there calling itself "The IRA (accept no substitutes!)"? Do you mean the

• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA?
• Army of the Republic of Ireland? (And let's not even go near the Irish names and/or translations of all of the above).

Conclusion: Disambiguation and accuracy are good things. Moral: Always look on the bright side of life.

...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Famine

Hi Bastun, I entered a piece on the Great Famine page. It's about name change, again;-GH 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me!

My asking for a citation was not "pointy", the reference provided has no mention of criticism of Gerry Adams. Please check in future. Brixton Busters 10:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags immediately after a reply, it hasnt been fully discussed and could just encourage an edit war. regards--Vintagekits 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I could just as well say to BB not to insert tags when text is restored because he doesn't like it. Adams was widely criticised at the time - I remember it. When he removed the sentence earlier today as unreferenced, I added 5 sources before restoring! Welcome back, btw. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)