User talk:Bastun/2016

RE: Irish Nationality

Hi. Sorry! But you can edit any that aren't....Sorry for the confusion. I was reading on citizens information that you must be a Irish national to serve in government. Gary. GaryFG8125 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Joobo is harassing other editors and making personal attacks. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I see it's sorted - thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I think that people with a COI should edit Wikipedia articles so long as their contributions are reverted immediately. When they make a request, they should do their own labor. Showing a WP:DIFF is the most clear way to make any proposal. At Talk:Iona Institute you suggested otherwise. Can you say more about why, or what could go wrong? I fail to understand. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Mmm, coffee... thanks! Personally, I favour Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing_strongly_discouraged as a policy. No problem with people putting the proposed edit on the talk page, though. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also favor what you linked as a policy, so I am glad we are in agreement. How should anyone put the proposed edit on a talk page? Is there any method that is better than a diff? In the case of Iona Institute, right now they have made no proposal whatsoever, right? If not a diff, then how could you communicate to an organization how to make a proposal? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Requesting_diffs_for_proposals Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right and I am wrong here. Still - I do see a brick wall for the Iona person. I feel they are unable to articulate a request, have not yet done so in a way that is likely to get a response, and am not sure how to direct them to do anything that is likely to have a positive outcome. I wish that Wikipedia had a process to close requests. It seems that in this case, there will perpetually be an open request and it seems like they are being directed to wait for a Wikipedia community response. Hmm... thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016

Hi. You seem to be keen on removing the opinion polling graph from the Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 article, on a rare basis of it "being illegible" or it being "small". It's perfectly legible, and it's actually not small (it's currently sized at 900px; that's surely not small) so I don't know where your issue comes from. You say "no one asked for it", but actually it was asked for here. You also seem to ignore the fact that opinion polling graphs are pretty common in Wikipedia. See some examples:

• Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015
• Opinion polling for the next Polish general election
• Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election
• Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015
• Opinion polling for the New Zealand general election, 2014
• Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013
• Swedish general election, 2018#Opinion polls

Just a few examples, but I could spend the entire day showing you examples like those. They are there because they're actually useful in showing trends in a quick and easy way that tables alone can't (just think how, otherwise, people wouldn't lose their times in asking for them or making them out, since it's not an easy job to do). If you're having issues with it on your mobile phone, it's only a particular problem (why are you using your phone as a main browser for Wikipedia, anyway? Wikipedia is mostly computer-oriented right now), but understand that we can't just make this to fit the purposes of a single person in opposition to a whole many (see how you are the only one that keeps removing the graph despite the article being frequently edited by others. You're the only one experiencing issues with it, it seems). And we can't just put it in the bottom, because no one is going to notice the graph there unless they actually go to the bottom, and because that wouldn't solve the issue you seem to be having anyway. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Whatever graphical representation that user was looking for is not the same as the one that you included. There is nothing similar or as ugly on the British election article. While I appreciate you may have spent time and energy on it, it really imparts very little relevant information (no key, and what are the dots? What are you doing when multiple polls fall on the same day?) and it simply isn't legible for any of the smaller parties or recent polls. That's on a Samsung Galaxy S4 and Nexus 9 tablet, because I'm travelling at present. When I return, I'll remove or edit it, and if detaining it, will certainly will move it to the bottom where it doesn't interfere with readers being able to easily access perfectly clear, legible data. And we write WP for readers, not editors. Interested readers will scroll to the bottom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The user in question publicly thanked me for the graphical representation (check it herr). So yes, one can say that he obtained what he was looking for. It's only you the one having an issue with it.

Again, I don't know what issue you may be having, but so far you seem to be the only one experiencing it. The key is included within the graph itself (you could try to notice it if you looked at it, it's just in the above side of the chart). Dots are opinion polls. Trend lines represent twenty-poll moving averages. It's all explained in the image's description. So, I can't see any reason for your current behaviour, which can potentially be disruptive editing by engaging in meaningless edit warring without any actual justification, as all your issues are either unsourced or are already explained. No other user has complained on the graph on either this or other opinion polling articles. Just don't use Wikipedia on your phone if that's what's troubling you, but this can't be made so that it can fit only your desires in detriment of others. Impru20 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you keep posting here? Keep it on the article's talk page. Try also reading for comprehension. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reported

I've just reported you here, for vandalic behaviour including the violation of the WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:INSULTS and going as far as to threaten me personally in my talk page. Warnings are not for personal use to intimidate other users. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Threaten you personally"?! Um... I take it English isn't your first language. I have not threatened you, I gave you a templated warning, as you've breached 3RR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a templated warning because you weren't able to engage in a peaceful discussion. You used a Wikipedia warning to threaten me instead of engaging in the discussion. And most seriously, you did it despite having violated the 3RR yourself. Your behaviour is highly disruptive, and as such it has been reported. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• It wasn't vandalism, from either party. Could you both please stop edit-warring over your comments. --John (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Polite warning

I'm kindly asking you to stop your continuous ranting and to stop breaching Wikipedia policies.

You complain that the chart is not verified. Ok, show me a single opinion polling chart of any opinion polling article of your wish that does include the spreadsheet, or that even does fulfill what you demand here. You say that's a policy. Show me where that alledged "policy" of yours is applied. Another user, VG31-irl, reverted your edit in the Irish general election, 2016 article, and agreed to the common established view that charts are already verified as the opinion polls are verified. I used the same reason as him to revert your edits. But somehow, you still insist on your claim to remove the chart by using a Wikipedia guideline (WP:V) to try to breach already established consensus.

You keep on your behaviour of not stopping such discussion, and resort to false statements to try to press on your claim. It was agreed for a second chart to be created with other users, so what you say that "other users requested to amend the charse" is inexact. First, it is false because, aside from you, only Wikimucker suggested that one time. Second, it is false because it was agreed with Wikimucker to create a second chart. So what you say is not defended by anyone actually, save for you. I asked you both to give me a date to create the second chart, and to justify the reasoning behind that date, but you yourself just said that I had to decide on it myself and didn't bother to answer. Now you claim that I don't want to. What're you doing? Stop your current manners.

If you keep on this behaviour, I'll have no option but to call for admin intervention or even reporting you for disruptive editing if needed, as you're even starting to revert other users' edits just to prove your (false) facts right to me, which you won't do. Be mature and assume that this is going nowhere.

Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

1) I am not ranting. If I or Wikimucker post on that page, we are replied to with a wall of text, though.

2) WP:V is a Wikipedia-wide policy (not a guideline). I'm not looking at any other opinion polls except the forthcoming Irish general election.

3) VG31-irl is in error, as they removed the template from a page where there are no citations. (They had been there previously before the article split).

4) I've really no idea what you're saying there.

5) The local elections makes a perfectly reasonable start date without any NPOV issue, as the Irish electorate voted on that day, which is more relevant than any opinion poll.

6) Please address the points I raised about OR and Synthesis, on the article talk page.

7) Please share your spreadsheet, after redacting your "personal data" (whatever that might be contaminating the poll data).

8) Kindly stay away from my talk page - anything you wish to raise can be raised on the article talk pages, that's what they're for.

9) You are perfectly within your rights to call an admin.

10) You are not within your rights to remove a 'citation needed' template without providing the requested verification - please either do so, or restore the template. Good night, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

1. If I answer you is because you keep answering me, at many times even with absurd complains of issues that are either already solved or non-existant. If you don't like my walls of text, just don't complain on issues that don't exist, such as the "polling agency sorting issue", which was already solved with the "sortable" function of the table.

2 and 7. Ok, I'll do it once you show me where that's done in Wikipedia. Show me an opinion polling chart, of any other user from whatever opinion polling article you wish, that does what you ask for. You say it's policy. Then you shouldn't have issues finding one... right? Show me an example of how and when that policy is applied (so that I can know how to proceed) and I'll upload the spreadsheet.

3. Or maybe the one in error is you, as per the previous point.

4. Where?

5. So, why you weren't able to say that from the beginning instead of going into a frenzy ranting accusing me of something that wasn't true? I just asked for a date and a justification. I wasn't given any specific date, so that's why I didn't make the second chart.

6. That's done for smoothing. That's not WP:OR. If you see other users' charts, you'll see that they also have their own proceedings to show trend lines. A 20-poll moving average keeps the trend smooth. However, as you may learn, an average enters the scope of WP:CALC, which is not original research, as it's just a number calculation. However, if you insist than this is a breach of WP:OR or WP:NPOV, I kindly (please) ask you to show us an example of another chart where what you say is considered as WP:OR or a violation of WP:NPOV.

8. I'm issuing a warning to you. Just in case this has to end in a report of you, that there's proof that you were formally warned. Btw, it's hilarious you say I "must keep away from your talk page" but you keep on harassing and pursuing me through the Talk:Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016 article. If you maintain such a behaviour, it's obvious that I must address you.

9. Yes, I am. But since the admin notification procedure requires for the proper warnings to be issued and for the discussion to try to be solved first between themselves, I'm just trying for the issue to be solved naturally without having to reach those ends. Because I can't understand how after your continuing disruptive behaviour you're still willing to press on this issue.

10. Yes, I am, since you're just abusing of a 'citation needed' template just to skip established consensus because you're not able to accept the result of it. It has been already two users against you that have removed such a template and considered it as a misuse. You are not within your rights to abuse of Wikipedia templates (a warning template with me the other day, the abuse of the WP:V policy and now the 'citation needed' template). Doing that violates WP:GAME. Impru20 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Good Lord!. I have never posted this sort of personal attack, along with a soup of policy links (probably entirely irrelevant ones I'll wager) on ANY users talk page and nor would I ever.

You have my sympathies Bastun. Thank you very much for flagging this peculiar issue across to me. Wikimucker (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, can you say where the personal attack exactly is? That's a serious accusation. So far, I've only seen you putting adjectives to everything everyone else is doing. I'll never say your use of policies is irrelevant. Rather, I'll say they're wrong and explain you why they are.

It was you the one pressing the WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies on me on this issue. I kindly ask you to prove where those are broken by putting actual examples from other charts where those were regarded as being broken. If you want me to upload the spreadsheet, do show me a real example of that happening so that I can check that policy you claim as so important, based on WP:V and that led you to use a 'citation template' several times, is actually real. You also claim a breach of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, yet you did not consider that WP:CALC does allow for simple calculus to being considered outside the sphere of OR (and subsequently out of NPOV, at least with the connection you made).

You actually demanded me several times to answer you, both here and in the article's talk page. I'm just doing that. Impru20 (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The chart does not need a citation. It would be impossible to provide one citation for all the polls that have been conducted over the past few years. The data is taken from the polls listed on the same page, all of which have a citation. All you could do would be to put all of those citations under the graph which is ridiculous and unnecessary. The WP Verifiability policy should not be taken that far; especially considering it's on the same page! I mostly edit airport pages and am normally quite tough on requiring citations but there is absolutely no need here. There already are citations. VG31-irl 23:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Monarch in FM infobox

Hi you previously got involved wit the disscussion and a similar issue has been raise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Scottish_.26_Welsh_First_Ministers_.26_Deputy_First_Ministers_infoboxes your input is appreciated Ouime23 (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Council of State" edits by 83.70.48.111

I added it because it is a title that has information that people might like to know. I would think from other countries such as the the UK that if a politician is a member of the Queens Pivy Council it is a honorific title, and I would think that the Council of State would fit under that category too. ~83.70.48.111

Message

OK. I never knew that. Thanks for telling me. But I would appreciate a more co-operative tone, there is no need to get aggressive. — Preceding text originally posted on User:Bastun (diff) by 83.70.48.111 (talk⋅contribs) 21:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

June 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on TheLiberal.ie. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, sorry, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, check your facts and the edit history on that page. I'd already engaged on talk, taken the article to AN/I, and not come anywhere near 3RR when you posted this. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bastun. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imthenumberonefan.
Message added 21:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GAB^gab 21:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thomas "Slab" Murphy, the criminal

You are invited to contribute and give your wise opinion on a discussion concerning the naming of an article on convicted criminal Thomas "Slab" Murphy. IrishSpook (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham pub bombings

Thanks for your revert of the edit John made (conveniently 'out of the blue' after two weeks - roughly - of his inactivity on this article following a quickly archived discussion on his talk page as to inclusion which then meandered towards other avenues). Your edit has been reverted by another user, inside of 4 minutes of your concise and patiently explained explanation for reverting John's seemingly flyby removal. It was done with what I can only assume is little consideration for your explanation for reverting his (John's) edit. There's been no consensus to actually remove it on the talk page as you say, and I believe our valid argument for inclusion is being rebuffed. If you want to take this further via any avenue, feel free to message me on my talk page and I'll support you in any way I can. I want consensus to govern either way, rather than opinions bludgeoning the other side's argument. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversion

You may want to review what "grammatically correct" usage of that actually means. There is a concise explanation on the WP article for the word. TimothyJosephWood 14:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Users, and IPs are allowed to blank thier talk pages and you restored a warning on a IP talk page. Do you read it? KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 23:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine Gael

Fine Gael is a progressive party. I do not have a link, but Progressivism is a ideological value of this party of which I am a member. GaryFG8125 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case, GaryFG8125, please a) familiarise yourself with WP:RS, and b) stop editing pages where your membership of a party is an obvious conflict of interest. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dya think 109.255.93.203 might have a connection to the other editors who made similar "gnoming" edits to the Fine Gael page? I'll keep an eye. You're already on top of it. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems likely all right... will keep an eye on it, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@HighKing: - and 86.41.11.187... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Richard Bruton

Thanks for intervening on my talk page WRT User:Fantastically. I would have had no idea about the sockpuppetry!

However the recent edit of Richard Bruton from IP 78.16.26.83, which I guess is associated with that user, seemed OK to me. From my knowledge of other WP pages for Irish TDs, it seems to be normal to put 'Teachta Dála' in the infobox only once, even where someone has represented more than one constituency, and surely the edit accomplished that. Then the word 'Incumbent' would come before the dates of a term of office currently being served, and 'In Office' before the dates of any past term. But perhaps I have that wrong? Please get back. Best wishes, Harfarhs (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Ireland

Since when did you become a member of the thought police? Sarah777 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How is saying "This is in the wrong place, over there is the correct place to discuss this" policing anyone's thoughts? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further examination you made the correct decision on the article talk page - I hadn't spotted the notice, So at least you were right about something :) Sarah777 (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lol! Sarah777 (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

edits

Why do you keep deleting citable material — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 22:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Because it isn't, and I'm editing in accordance with policy and consensus. You are not. Kenny telling a vile joke does not make his party right wing. Whereas several cited articles do declare DDI to be right-wing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Vile joke or not it is still a racist remark about someone's heritage,secondly the articles about DDI are just speculation not one person has been convicted in court on heresay or conjecture and that is what most of those articles are just speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railsparks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So how does Kenny telling a joke change the ideology of his party? The articles are used to cite DDI's ideology and position, nothing more. I suggest you read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. Maybe try editing outside the DDI article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok fair enough it might not change the ideology of a party but will agree that it is a racist remark regardless of what context it is joke or not?not one one of the articles on the DDI page suggests that DDI are right wing it is all heresay but not one proven fact again just speculation but allowed to remain,a political generating a story but is allowed to be used as fact most of the material used is just guesswork 2+2=5Railsparks (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RE: Disruptive behaviour on Saturday, 15 October

Your constant aggression today has helped absolutely no one. There seems to be a consistent pattern emerging. If we can talk this out I would be most greatful, as I do not want to continue this feud. I fully respect you User:Bastun as an experienced user. I want to end this and put it behind for the greater good of understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.11.188 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

My constant aggression?! This beggar's belief! You were banned for making personal threats against me, Gary. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. End of. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Jean McConville

In response to your edit summary: Unclear why this is being removed? It's referenced and makes clear that the IRA believed her to be an informer. - the lede already states this beforehand twice. The purpose of this statement and the way it is worded only seems to serve as an attempt to give credence and/or extra strength to the IRAs claims. Articles on actual informers such as Denis Donaldson don't go into this information. There is no need for the statement, especially in its present form. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to point out that my handle name is Soham321, and not Soham. You pinged a different editor on the Trump page. Soham321 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the heads-up! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom remedies at Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

Re: [1], I'm responding as I did with Soham321. I'm AGF that there is a possibility you really don't understand the ArbCom remedies. These are not my rules but ArbCom rules. Read the template box near the top of the talk page. Also note that, under discretionary sanctions, you can get blocked on the discretion of a single admin, with no ANI complaint necessary. You can attempt to end-run the ArbCom remedies by challenging the legitimacy of the RfC, but you and Soham321 are so far alone in this and I don't think you will be successful. I think most people will see that as gaming the system, and that will not reflect favorably on you.

I just wanted to make sure you're clear on all this. These are not my rules. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since Mandruss has mentioned me in his edit, i am obliged to give the following references for the benefit of Bastun, and also for the benefit of any Admin reading this:

• 1. (a) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=745810977
• 1.(b) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=745811801&oldid=745811377

• 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#DS_temp_block_warranted.3F

• 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=745884634&oldid=745883709 Soham321 (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: Feel free to point out which of those discussions says, (1) that we can simply reach a consensus to disregard the Arbcom remedies, or (2) that one can kill an RfC that is keeping their favored content out per established process and the ArbCom remedies. Folks, this is how we make decisions at Wikipedia in a (relatively) peaceful way, assuming the processes are respected. See WP:Process is important. You two are being disruptive with this resistance to process, and that is especially egregious under the remedies. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, if you feel i am being disruptive you are welcome to take me to ANI or complain about me to any Admin. Soham321 (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we're quite at that point yet. But dares such as that are often taken, and they are cited in the complaint. Repeated arguments with no foundation, even after explanation, are the definition of "disruption". ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, any more threats or accusations from you and i will be taking you to ANI myself. Either take me to ANI or complain about me to an Admin. Soham321 (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. As discussed several times in the Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page and User talk:CaroleHenson#ANI - as well as the ANI complaint itself. It is disruptive to continue to add comments that you have made numerous times - I will say that I did get caught up and kept the conversation rolling and regret that, I won't do it again. Even though the guidelines that you have been mentioning many, many times in the NPOV and article talk page were summarized in the WP Biography posting, you attempted to engage in the same Jane Doe conversation there. CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Jebus, CaroleHenson - refactoring someone's talk page contributions, or removing them, is almost never done unless the material is attacking someone. Not only have you apparently done that, you haven't even given me a diff for which contribution you removed. That's... not cool. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There was absolutely no intention to remove a contribution that you made. I will look into that and if that was done accidentally, I will restore it.

I don't see that content was removed. See this.

I did it per the issues that were raised at the ANI - and comments from others about the duplication of the conversations.

And, once I saw that even though I used the guidelines that had been the Jane Doe conversation, you started to bring up all the issues from the talk page that you've been repeating. Do you just copy and paste what you've written in the paste. I answered your issue at my talk page and per your issue with pinging there - I did not ping you.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, why do you keep bringing up the same points about the Jane Doe issue outside of that section?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Because they're extremely relevant to the other content disputes. And, for reference, "You absolutely know that Bastun continues to begin the same conversation over and over again. He added the same comments twice today, in different places." - yes, because you asked essentially the same thing in different places. So you got the same answer in different places. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying I asked a question of you at the biography project page? I had already summarized the guidelines that you brought up - in fact, I spent particular attention to your input about the guidelines you mentioned in the creation of the summary. If you have an issue with Mandruss, take it up with him.--20:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you mentioning Mandruss? I've no issue with him. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like I mixed up two different conversations - my head is spinning and pounding right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Trump Party History

Hi Bastun,

CaroleHenson is out... see her talk page. It's up to you to make the additions that reflect the talk page consensus. 168.88.65.6 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bastun. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You made comments here that were clearly not aimed at assuming good faith. Any admin will be able to see through your wikilawyering form of ad Hominem attacks. Your comments to me "Given your background" lends to sectarianism and with referring to me as a troll this is two attacks meaning harassment. Your comments did not contribute to the discussion but was merely very disruptive. You have attacked me and I was not the one that suggested the title and 3 other editors weighed in on the discussion. If you are too close to the issue, or can only offer insults and attacks, maybe you should abstain from comments or participation. If that is not possible I am sure we can seek arbitration covered under The Troubles related sanctions. Otr500 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Jesus, Otr500, chill - "your background" is on your userpage - American. All of the other participants in that discussion (starting with the Comments section) are either Irish or living on the island of Ireland, and most would be intimately familiar with that period of Irish history from school, university, and/or normal life - especially so, given the centenary. One participant is a published historian. Suggesting "Irish paramilitary" as a suitable title for an article that's supposed to deal in roughly equal part with Ulster Loyalist volunteers... well, if you can't see the problem with that, I suggest you read up on Irish history a bit more. You are, of course, free to refer me to Arbcom if you wish. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't offend me then ask me to chill. I am going to reiterate that this was a disparaging set of remarks. A good faith editor, from any country, can edit articles from another country without fear of being labeled (shadows cast) a troll. If I am the only editor not politically, religiously, or geographically involved, then I should, lacking some provable reasoning, certainly be considered impartial. If three other editors, that apparently according to you "...are either Irish or living on the island of Ireland", can make statements, but you attack "the American" because he might agree, then you possibly need a wakeup call. "IF" you know "One participant is a published historian.", and hint that he has made edits with subterfuge, why did you not comment there, in rebuttal to that editor, instead of attacking me? What I see is that from your point of view because I am American, an "outsider", surely ignorant, that I should be restricted on participation or comments.

"hint that he has made edits with subterfuge" - I literally have no clue where that is coming from or what it's supposed to mean. I made no such "hint" Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!}

All of this aside you have attacked me by casting doubts on my intentions instead of dealing with the issue. Instead of trying to expend some verbiage to counter my being offended you offer that I need to chill. This subterfuge, while ignoring my anguish, does not solve anything. In fact your reply sidesteps the fact that you made reference to me being a troll. Maybe you have been referred to as such, maybe you don't understand the implications (assuming lots of good faith), and maybe you don't care. The fact that I am an American (my background) still does not give you the right to assert or otherwise imply that I may be a troll (trying to disrupt Wikipedia) simply because "you" disagree with me. That is absurd and offensive. Otr500 (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Anguish"? Really?! Yes, you have the right to be offended. Hyperbole aside, I note I'm not the first editor you've threatened with sanctions on that page. I would propose you think about supporters of the various Ulster Loyalist paramilitaries and imagine whether or not they'd be offended at being labelled "Irish volunteers", then maybe you can see where I was coming from with my comment. No, I don't know why Scolaire would make that proposal, but he and I (and Mabuska) have disagreed on many things over the years (we've also agreed on many things...) I did not imply that you were a troll "because you are American." The other proposals did not originate, to my knowledge, from editors from Ireland.

Why are you not letting that process conclude before starting a "What should we move this to?" debate? (Rhetorical question, if you want to address that, do so on the article talk page, not here). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

1RR breach

Please self-revert your 1RR breach. Regards.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You will find since my first revert was of an IP, I have only reverted once. Unlike yourself, who reverted me twice.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

IPs are people too. I'm not aware of an exception for reverting IP addresses, just one for obvious vandalism. Maybe you can point the exception out to me, if it exists. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's written in {{Troubles restriction}}} which can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Bastun, DanceHallCrasher is totally correct, as it says there: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." I'm seeing a considerable number of SPAs mucking around on the Derry/Londonderry issue changing one to the other. As WP:DERRY is something that more clued in editors are aware of, would be great if would could all enforce it Martin McGuinness and multiple other articles. Best, Valenciano (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Valenciano, thanks for that. I do the Derry/Londonderry reverts as necessary when I come across them, all right. DanceHallCrasher - have you previously edited WP under a different username, or anonymously? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I have already admitted to editing using several different IP addresses. Regards.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hi Bastun, hope you had a very merry Christmas and best wishes for a very happy new year. Soham321 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)