User talk:Bastun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For the classic line: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?!" That po-faced debate seriously needed lightening up. Keep up the good work. JonCTalk 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Trump Infobox RfC[edit]

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)

Trump banter[edit]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

edit warring[edit]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)

question[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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 (talkcontribs) 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, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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 (talkcontribs) 22:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Sandbox[edit]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)

People before profit edits[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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 (talkcontribs) 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Irish topics

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion in Ireland[edit]

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

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

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)

List of Tuam children nominated for deletion[edit]

@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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)

Language tagging[edit]

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.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

78.16.20.227/GaryFG8125[edit]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

BRD[edit]

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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮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)