User talk:Bastun/Jan - Jun 2008

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

Apples and oranges

I thought this was hilarious. Perhaps in days to come the "Vintagekits defence" will enter Wikipedia's annals in a comparable way to Bill Clinton's "but-I -didn't-inhale" defence against accusations of having used pot. In all seriousness, it should be obvious that the Vk defence is only available to poor downtrodden sons of Erin defending themselves against the scions of the brutal occupiers. It clearly would not therefore be available to R. fiend. Should we see what Giano thinks? Well done for standing up for Wikipedia's principles, and I do actually see progress from some participants in this area. Sadly not all though. --John (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You and your mates still hurtin? When someone lies Baby Jesus cries!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
He's crying now, then? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually he's taken it with dignity, unlike say User:David Lauder. One Night In Hackney303 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the circumstances and it being his second proven sock/meatpuppet incident, I don't think he had a choice - but my comment above refers to "Baby Jesus"... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The mediator page

You know, if you had asked me on my talk page, I would have restored that page sooner (I stumbled across the response because I was checking up something, since Aatomic1's talk page isn't on my watch list, I would have missed your gripe normally) SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC) User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion‎ Done. SirFozzie (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:M62 coach bombing#Perpetrator(s) section

Your participation is invited as an interested editor. Tyrenius (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


If a user returns, their talk page history should normally be restored, as they have no longer vanished, which was the only justification for deleting it. First port of call is the deleting admin, next WP:AN/I. They are probably entitled to retain deletion of their user page as sole or only major contributor. Tyrenius (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello Bastun. Nobody's prooven, that the Irish Republic controls the whole island. But, I'm too apolitical to get too deeply into the dispute there. Anways, I hope you guys get things settled. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When I say 'Irish Republic', I mean it as short-hand for 'Republic of Ireland'. I still think 'Republic of..' should be added, out of respect for Northern Ireland (which is a part of the United Kingdom). Just my opinon, though. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: But, it's hard to argue with the Republic's Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Information.svg Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Talk:British Isles. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Again

Information.svgPlease refrain from personal attacks. You have been warned before. You may be blocked from editing. Please comment on content, and not on other editors. Please read WP:NPA. Thank you. (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With the what now? Where would this alleged attack be, anon? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it was "Please be civil" judging by the anons edit in removing that part of your post.... *baffled* One Night In Hackney303 09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Bastun, I apologise if you thought I was attacking you on the British Isles talk page. I don't want to start off on the wrong foot and feel I might have done. I will try to be less emotional and more civil in future. Murphy71 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting Republic of Ireland postal addresses. I have already given [[User_talk:}the anonIP editor]] a 3RR warning. You will see from comments he left on my talk page that not just is it advertising but WP:COI as he works for gpsireland. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so I see. From the gpsireland site, it looks like they're developing some kind of unique address identifier tied in to GPS - so, not quite a postcode system, then. Having read the site, I hope the software is more accurate than their copyeditor... ;-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Slight correction to ww2c's point: the edit warrior doesn't just work for gpsIreland, he is the "director of GPS Ireland" (see the Irish Times article). I didn't get to read the site, because it was down when I looked, with see-control-panel message. Very impressive, that was! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, found it in google cache. May be handy for satnav, but we'll have to wait and see how independent evaluations rate it for postal usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish PostCodes

At least have the decency to leave a message on yours or my talk to explain your reasoning for outright removal - there are now 4 persons undoing my content. In any other place this would be seen as bullying. Does Wiki rules allow you to oeparte as a pack??? I do not accept your judgement on this as it was only in place for less than a 1 minute and you could not have possibly come to a reasonable or measured decision in that time, not least the fact that it would be normal to offer suggestions for improvement rather than to jump to outright removal. This in istelf is edit warring not by one but now by 4 persons Garydubh (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bastun you have jumped into an ongoing dispute here and are not helping - also in your undo you have left a part paragraph that makes what is a poorly constucted piece into a patchwork! I agree with garydub - what is reported in the Irish Independent could not be a genuine proposal. As you know - everything that appears in Press is not necessarily true and very often the press is used for political feelers which may be the case in this instance. As some one who is obviously deeply involved in the Post Code development process he will be aware of the validity of that which is reported in the Independent. I do not know much about this but as a professional driver I can see the point that the facts as stated do not appear to be very workable. Anyway coffee break over - back on the road - Have a good Easter Baggywrinkle (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from his website and from what he's said is that he isn't "deeply involved in the Post Code development process" - he's developing an independent GPS system which might or might not be taken up by An Post. And there's nothing to suggest its even been offered to them yet. For what its worth - the system seems far more sensible at least for package system. How that would translate to individual houses each having an individual code, I don't know. As to the rest of it, see Ww2censor's reply on your own talk page and my reply to Garydubh on the article talk page. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Bastun I am struggling to understand how people who obviously know nothing about this, obvious from their comments, persist in holding the article ransom to their ignorance. You refer to our system as a GPS System. The code is not a GPS System it is a geographic code - it can be used on a GPS system as it can on a GIS system and routing systems - and , of course manually if you wish. The tools used do not define a system. The current Post Code system in use by An Post is an OCR based system but you would not call it an OCR code - it is their Post Coding system. Perhaps it may also be a revelation to you if I highlighted that An Post firstly does not want a Post Code system (Quoted in the Article) and secondly will no longer be the only Postal organisation in the country from next year onwards - so any "Post" Code system developed will not be for their use - although there is nothing stopping them from using it. So your comment relating to requiring An Post to adopt the system is not relevant at all and unfortunately highlights again the common mis-conceptions on the subject. Adoption of a Government backed system will be managed by ComReg and the system adopted may not be that recommended by consultants to the Government. There are several other systems recommended by private players such as mine (two others I am aware of) and to be absolutely correct none require backing of the Oireactais - all that is required is popular use!!

It also may shock you to understand that predictions show that 80% of all items delivered in Ireland will be packages and parcels in 20 years time and are already a significant proposrtion now - tahnks to E-Bay and Web Purchases. Therefore, the current quest is not to design a "Post" Code but rather a Post, Parcel, Goods etc Code. Difficult to get these all in one neat "package" so the word "Post" is still used for popular understanding but it would be a mistake in designing a MODERN code to take this litteraly. It may also surprise those who persist on blocking expansive consideration here, that any item delivered to any location in Ireland (post included) travels 95% of its journey by vehicle. Therefore the Code adopted must take this into account. The Postman on the ground has no need for the code -It will have done most of its work before the postman gets on to the street. In fact, with deregulation in 2009, the days of a Postman's "round" will gradually disappear due to dilution of services to many providers who will be hopping from one area to another to carry out their route - all being achieved directly from a vehicle. Therfore, in its widest sense;- Courier, document, parcel and delivery services all require the capabilitities of any adopted Code whatever it is called and 95% of its influence will be everything but to those on foot!! Essentially, therefore the role of a modern "Post" Code is a logistics and navigation one i.e. all deiveries in Ireland, mail or otherwise, thereby requiring routing calculations which are achieved on specialised software where geographic coordinates and road/street digital map detail is critical. Web based purchases comprise part of modern mail and many of these are done by couriers in vehicles. After the routing calculations the next part of the task is navigation - i.e. the driver finding the delivery location or property! The driver does not have a daily route on an exact set of streets/houses - it varies day to day and indeed the driver may never have been that way before. For this reason the final part of the delivery must be designed to improve fuel efficiencies, time economies - this is even more important with the competition generated by deregualtion, the rocketing cost of fuel and the need to minimise carbon emissions. For this reason SatNav/GPS is an eessential tool for the final delivery phase. Near 100% road mapping for Ireland on these devices is leading to a greater demand for a solution to non unique addressing. Furthermore, the nature of modern deliveries is such that nowadays in a growing number of cases, deliveries are made to non structures. A prominent Dairy COOP recently adopted GPS systems on delivery trucks for delivering Grain as this is delivered to Silos which may not be associated with a property and the client may not be around when the delivery is made. Consequently, they were experiencing signifacant additional costs when they delivered to the wrong silo by mistake and had to pump it out again. So Delivering anything is a logistic and navigation exercise for which GIS, Routing Software and GPS are now routinely used. All of these tools have two things in common - the need for digital mapping and geographic coordinates. Therefore, any so called "Post" code developed must take all these requirements in to account. Codes which focus only on the delivery of mail by the traditional Postman will be doomed from inception as, ultimately, there is a greater demand from vehicle based deliveries than foot based postmen. There are many proposals about - one only of which is being currently mentioned in the article on Postal Addresses In Ireland and even then this is being reported incorrectly as that which is reported is technically unworkable. The system I am proposing is designed with Logistics and Navigation in mind using my background in supporting vehicle management and my deep knowledge of Air, Marine and Land navigation (MSc Degree) and near 30 years practical, support and teaching experience. It has at its basis geographic coordinates, which are the primary need of any proposed Code. (My local postman wants to use it straight away on his SatNav in his van as he is new and has taken up to 11 hours to get around his route, not knowing the area!!)

You should also be aware that I was consulted as a stakeholder by the Post Code board more than 3 years ago and I provided seperate advice to a member of the board on matters GPS and and geographic coordinates, position etc.

So hopefully this will have widened the knowledge of all those who are persistant in theire "Undos" in this article and absolutely refutes your assertion that what I have designed is a GPS System and that I have not been involved in the "Post" Code development. Furthermore, the misconception that An Post will have to accept any adopted system should now be permanently dispeled. Perhaps now at least so called "all knowing editors" will not be so quick to write off by input in this area. (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)This was posted by me Garydubh but I was so long writing it by the time I saved the system has lost my Log In details - just in case I get reprimanded again! Garydubh (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, no real news to me in that post - sorry to disappoint you (apart from you being consulted) ;-) But it illustrates more than ever WP:COI. The WP:5 aren't that hard to understand... Reliable, verifiable current information from secondary sources. That's why you're being reverted. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
that's intelligent - I, in great detail, highlight errors in statements you have made and you say that you knew it already!!!!???? If you knew all this already why are you using some arguments for reversion which are untrue?. No one was asking you to put anything in the article - this is a discussion page - for discussion is it not?? Glad to hear you know and apparantly agree with my comments - thanks and talk later Garydubh (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

BI Talk

Bastun, there are 2 admins already on the Talk:British Isles page, Waggers & Ben Bell. No need to get any more admins involved, like Alison who is very busy already, and one of the finest admins on WP, may I add. (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted :-) I've a very poor memory for who is and isn't an admin. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


And We will take the fact that User:Bastun has cut my warning from his own page as evidence he's seen it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What, I'm warning myself now? You've got in trouble with cut and pastes before... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Not really - any diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Bastun, you came on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board talk page and made what I felt was a personal attack against me. It fell off me like water off a ducks back. But that is no excuse to make any further personal attacks. Why don't you talk about the issue, and not comment on the editor (me). I think it's a form of low level intimidation, and it doesn't add anything positive to Wikipedia. So if you disagree with someone, just state why you do so. There is nothing else required on Wikipedia, but a good sense of humour is always welcome. - (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I said repeating yourself ad infinitum wouldn't win you any arguments. That's an observation, not a personal attack, in my opinion. YMMV. Sarah777, though, apparently feels accusing ppl of "PoV ravings" is perfectly acceptable. That is a personal attack. Agree with you on the sense of humour, though. I'd still repeat the advice you were given earlier, though, and advise you to register - it makes things a lot less confusing. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of us are not so easily confused. Sarah777 (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bastun, quote, "I said repeating yourself ad infinitum wouldn't win you any arguments. That's an observation, not a personal attack, in my opinion.". Well I consider it a PA. Please address the subject of the argument, not the other editors. You had no excuse to attack, unless to demean and intimidate. You tried, but you failed. It still doesn't make it OK. - (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not pay too much attention to the acquisitions or observations of That editor tried the same with me tonight (as referenced on my talk page), but when they were asked to come up with the goods their was nothing showing. Enough said. Djegan (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

DJ, you know full well that you made spurious allegations about another editor being under the influence of a political party. Tell the truth, it will set you free. - (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless you have something new to add (and I am very confident you don't) - I'm going to do what I did previously after having calling you bluff. Ignore you. And I suggest Bastun does likewise. Djegan (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggested reading: don't feed the trolls. Djegan (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You have to ignore me now DJ, because you bluffed, and you were caught out. Now bury your head in your hands and ignore me. It suits me fine, because I now know your POV, and I also have better things to do now, like go to bed and have a good sleep for myself. - (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, does that mean what I think it means??

Nuair a deireann tu "Bastun" an bhfuil tu ag usaid an gaelige ar bastard no an "conincidence" e seo. Ma ta se an chead cheann ta se an greanmahr. Freisin ta bron orm faoi ag scrioch anseo ma ta se mi-cheart. Taim nua go dti wikipedia agus nilim ro cinte faoi an etiquite Paul5121 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, nice. Thanks I'll do my best not to get too many policies thrown at me (ie: get given out to) Paul5121 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion guidance

Please help keep the guidance out of the Irish Roman Catholics category. The guidance cannot only apply for one category. In order for it to stay, consensus must be reached to apply for all categories. Leaving the guidance in for one religion category is obviously biased. It must stay out until consensus is reached on an all categories basis. (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I also seek your help in getting an Admin to protect the page from having the guidance readded. I have asked one admin already and am waiting for a response. (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Responded on the category talk page. In the meantime, please see WP:CANVASS. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I've blanked the userpage of User:Vintagekits as this seems more appropriate. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits' user page

You might want to weigh in on the ANI discussion here - Alison 08:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed Adoption

Unfortunately, I don't have a direct source, though for the current policy, see the S.A's Western Territory page (in the links). For many years, the S.A. has helped homeless "street people" get back in touch with their parents, who may have since moved away to a new address or even a new city. Of course, the vast majority who used this service were not adoptees. However, if someone was in this situation, and they were an adoptee with an amended birth certificate, the S.A. would only help find their adopted parents (even though it was quite likely they were born in a S.A. hospital).

So, previously, if a homeless person went to a S.A. office and said "I won't see my adopted parents, only my birth parents," they'd be shown the door. It appears that this is no longer the case. However, finding one's birth parents is more complicated, and fees are normally charged (not sure if waved for the indigent), and there's more red tape to cut through.

Getting beyond the S.A., virtually NOBODY prior to the 1990's in the USA had access to their sealed birth records. And this includes the other institutions involved, such as the Children's Home Societies, the state vital records department, etc.

Hope this helps,

PBGR (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


Do us a favour and please, slap one of these warnings on yourself too.

Ireland is 32 counties, not 26. Taiwan is not all of China. Despite what various states may claim.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because I didn't breach the 3RR rule. The island is 35 counties - Republic of Ireland has 29 of them and Northern Ireland has 6. A principle overwhelmingly endorsed by over 90% of the people on the island, north and south, when it was offered to them in a referendum. Yes, Taiwan is not all of China. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
eh? 35 counties. I know this is a trick question....but I can't help myself. Why do you say 35 counties? --Bardcom (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No trick. The Local Government Act 2001 [1] defines the legally recognised counties in Ireland. You've got the traditional 26, except Tipperary is split into North Tipperary and South Tipperary, and County Dublin is abolished and replaced with County Fingal, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown and South Dublin. (The legally recognised counties are on page 195.) That makes 29. Add in the six in Northern Ireland and you get 35 counties on the island. :-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow - that's a lot of songs that will need to be rewritten! LOL  :-) And Dublin has 4 councils - those 3, and Dublin city council. Does it belong to a county I wonder? --Bardcom (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"It's a long way to South Tipperary" doesn't quit scan, does it? :-) The cities also listed in that schedule are entirely separate administrative areas from the counties. So technically, if you add them to the counties, Fianna Fáil have indeed gotten us back the 32 "administrative areas" - and two spares! (Kilkenny merits an entry somewhere in that Act, too, basically saying its allowed call itself a city, but isn't, and gets none of the associated powers of one). Personally, I'm just sad there's no longer a County Dublin - and wonder when the GAA will cop on. Hmm - do we get to have 35 counties if we also claim London, seeing as its a GAA county? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR on British Isles

Hello Bastun. You are one of the editors who is named in the plan I have proposed on the 3RR board for ending the edit war on British Isles. For details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Wotapalaver .28Result: .29. You are welcome to add your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Those recurring BI disputes

It's too bad, but it appears the current dispute at the BI article, will eventually go to Arbitration. Most regretful, but necessary. These disputes are coming to a head & Arbcom will eventually have to make a ruling. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If it puts an end to incessant warring, mightn't be a bad thing at all. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
We certainly need to take it somewhere the numerical preponderance of British pov pushers don't always carry the day against WP:NPOV. But when I made this suggestion some time back Bastun and some Admins decided to simply declare consensus and impose their view. Sarah777 (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I gotta say that I'm a little peeved about your comment on BI. I hope my explanation of what I meant by my question on Dee's use of the term explains why I might be peeved at the apparent "hint" that I don't go by what references say. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain and Ireland

Bastun, Please stop edit warring on this page; it is not a dab; there is not record of any such decision being taken. If you insist on calling it a dab then please leave the dispute tag in place. Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, please stop edit warring yourself on all the BI-related pages, to insert your own PoV and erroneous "facts". BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not in my case, no, because 1 revert since the 7th of May is not 3RR by any stretch of the imagination. You may need to watch out yourself, though. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that is a breach of WP:CIVIL. However, you are fortunate in that those pushing British pov appear to be excused from any civility requirements. "You may need to watch out yourself" could be interpreted as a threat and frankly, I don't appreciate threats. Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How do you work that out then? It isn't. You warn me about 3RR when I made two edits a week apart? BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Better to be safe than sorry Bastun; I'm saving you from blundering blindly into 3RR. But "You may need to watch out" sounds/looks very like a threat to my hyper-sensitive ears/eyes. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doireann Ni Bhriain

Hi! I'm dropping a note to all the fairly recent editors of the Irish Wikipedians' Noticeboard.

I have just started writing an article on the journalist Doireann Ni Bhriain and I am calling for interested editors who would like to dig for some more sources on her career, her birthdate, and perhaps to find a usable picture for WP. As of yet, there is no section on her lengthy career with RTE, and that's something I would like to rectify soon. However, what I can find seems to be just a vague overview. I'm American so perhaps I don't know where to look for the best sources on this...this is where you come in! Please contact me if you'd like to help. Mike H. Fierce! 07:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IRA Correction

Thank you so much for telling me where I was wrong in a civil and direct manner! Crieff (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Needless Needling

Your first 2 edits on Thursday evening, [2], [3], were personal attacks against other editors. Bastun, you are forever needling other editors, why do you do this. It's mostly low level needling, not very serious, but it's continuous. Please add whatever knowledge you have to the various discussions. Maybe you don't have the knowledge, maybe that's why you needle so much! (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPA says "Before adding such a tag, please keep in mind that it will probably been taken as an insult or an accusation. Use with consideration." Yup, looks like that's true. I'd take your "warning about a personal attack" a little more seriously if it didn't contain one itself, and/or if you'd posted on Domer's page asking him to stop being disruptive. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ėġáḍβś₮ŭŃ!Sarah777 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping this is a test? :-) BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep I'd leave one on Domer's page but I haven't got a Domer-specific one; maybe ĖġáḍΔöмêŔ? Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Refactor talk page comment

Don't ever refactor my comments again on any article talk page like you did here or you will be reported and blocked. BigDuncTalk 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't refactor your comments, I copied and pasted them for reuse elsewhere. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 15:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)