User talk:Bastin/Archive 9

This page is an archive of my talk page up to the 25th January 2010. If you wish to trawl something up from these discussions, please copy the relevant part and post it in the current talk page. Bastin

Districts of Luxembourg
Naming suggestion at Talk:Districts of Luxembourg TrueColour (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Blairism
Do you think that Cult of personality is really relevant to this template? I tend not to, but I'm a fat ugly crazy citizen of the United States, just a standard citizen really, so I'm not sure my opinion on this matter would really count for much. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. And neither is 'Mandelsonian politics' (WTF is that?!), socialism, Liberal Democrat Party, feminism, or Sure Start.  The template has the potential to be useful (because the ideology is an internal party one, it's not readily apparent to people that don't know the subject), but this template isn't.  But, geez, is it even worth trying to argue with that guy again to change it...? Bastin 10:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "That guy" has been blocked for 6 months, so I don't imagine he'll be doing much arguing for a while. John Carter (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * About time, too. But I wouldn't put it past his sockpuppets. Bastin 14:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should he indulge in sockpuppetry, like he has in the past, expect them to be blocked like his prior socks were. I don't think the editor below is a sock, by the way, although s/he does seem to share some of the same unfortunate characteristics. Oh, well. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Falklands
Is Thatchers attitude to the argentine junta before the war of no interest. You know she loved the south american tyrannies, like pinochet. If you wipe out all oppositional, critical voices you're hurting the credibility of wikipedia, not the left./. Look at your user page, you want to exploit proletarians, you love reagan, only he can be President, your name is Yahweh - what are you on about. 'Play by the rules' - this isn't play at all, this is an encyclopedia. Why dont you grow up ? Sayerslle (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're a pathetic excuse for an editor if you think my user page is any barrier to my abiding my Wikipedia policy. You also can't read, if you took that from the Reagan box, but that's understandable - leftists generally don't understand what they read, or they wouldn't believe in murder, slavery, and theft.
 * I suggest that you read the rules and follow them. I don't choose to wipe out all critical voices - just the ones that aren't supported by reliable sources, as I pointed out.  If you can prove that HALF of the coverage of the Falklands War is dedicated to criticising Thatcher's relations with the Junta (which, of course, it isn't, particularly because she wasn't that close to it - she was close to Pinochet's Chile, arch-rivals of Argentina and which Argentina wanted to invade). Bastin 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 'she was close to pinochet's Chile' You must know the history there - and you say the left believes in murder. As recently as two days ago former soldiers were protesting that they had been beaten and forced to kill and torture leftists in 1973.  Are you philo-semitic because of Kissinger? What did your  reagan userbox mean then? I'm happy to be considered pathetic by people like you. Its an honour. Sayerslle (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, because I'm sure a lot of people find you pathetic. Pinochet's murders were not right-wing by definition, but made him less right-wing and more left-wing: belief in a larger state.  That's exactly what Hayek said.  The userbox about Reagan is quite clear - I don't support Republicans!  So, no, I didn't support Kissinger, Nixon, or his other socially-authoritarian, left-wing, tax-hiking, China-loving buddies.  If you'd bothered to read my profile, you'd know I'm a libertarian.  Now, since you can't read properly, and you've proven quite adeptly that you can't write properly (well done for doing something adeptly for once), stop trolling my talk page. Bastin 23:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Margaret Thatcher. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''Hi. You seem to be cutting a little close to violating 3RR but don't appear to be engaging in discussion. If you feel that your view is correct you may benefit from discussing the issue with other editors to form a consensus in support of your actions.'' Road Wizard (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that I'm reaching that point, but thanks for the advice. :) Bastin 11:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Lady Paddock
Bastin babes,

As a fellow right-wing bumchum come on! Tell me what is wrong with Template:Thatcherism II. It is what we believe in! SEE YOU SWEETHEART! REPLY BABES!

Lady Paddock--Lady Paddock (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with it? How about it contradicting Wikipedia policy on content forking, because there's a perfectly acceptable template called Thatcherism, as you're aware?  Or because it contradicts Wikipedia policy on neutrality, because you have not provided any verification through Reliable sources?  Abide by Wikipedia policy.
 * You are not a Thatcherite, as proven by your defamatory edits of the template. Furthermore, I am not your 'sweetheart'; you're just a whackjob. Bastin 20:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Babes, don't undermine me. Thatcher was a nationalist! NOT FASCIST LIKE THE BNP, NF, KKK, NAZIS! Nationalist! She adored Britain. She was ultraconservative and was social conservative. It is true, sugar!  I am nationalist, capitalist, ultraconservative, social conservative and certainly anti-workerism. EXPLOIT THE WORKERS. They are parasites who drown our economy! Look I love you because you are those men who love to control with their 'cici'! I have missed 'cici' so, so much!
 * Call me babes,
 * Remember, I am not a whackjob! I am just HUNGRY for you. I've got a CRUSH on you!
 * See ya xxxxxxxxx
 * Mwah
 * Your --Lady Paddock (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thatcherism
Template:Thatcherism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thatcherism template
You know that the links can be made to specific sections of other articles, not just to articles themselves, right? If there are sections of other articles relating to Thatcher/Thatcherism similar to those you indicate on the TfD page, I don't think there would be any objections to including them. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to identify such sections so far, although there's clearly potential in the article Libertarianism in the United Kingdom. Bastin 10:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Nations map
Hi Bastin. I'm wondering if you would be able to update File:Commonwealth of Nations members with territories.png as Rwanda was just admitted into the Commonwealth of Nations. Thanks! Arsonal (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the UKIP article
Sorry to say but the sources you have provided are insufficient. The first, listed as being in The Guardian, merely quotes what Farage said. This is no use as a source and certainly does not indicate that UKIP can be classed as a Libertarian party. The second source appears to be uncheckable on line. Do you have a link which allows it to be viewed? Please also take the time to study the talk page for this article. This particular tag and issue has been done to death - often pushed by unregistered IP users with an agenda. Unless you can provide 3rd party reliable sources which clearly state that UKIP are a Libertarian party, it would be better to not add this tag again. Thankyou. Setwisohi (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, you are right about the first one, and I'll replace it. But the article by Fraser Nelson (hardly a political nobody) in the Business (hardly a non-paper when it existed) says, "This will in effect position it as a protest party for libertarian Conservatives."  Please also note that there's no need to be so sceptical about sources not found immediately online.  For now, newspapers do still sell news... on paper. Bastin 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a checkable link to that second source or, considering the difficult nature of this particular topic, show respect for the current peace achieved on that page by leaving it out. The info box on that page has been subject to edit wars and the page subject to administrative blocks over this very matter - and it would be best not to re-open the issue without a clear source. Setwisohi (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? So the only information we may use is stuff available online for free? That's an incredible silly reading into the terms of WP:RS. Bastin 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As an addendum to that, based upon a reading of that second source, any tag should surely read 'Libertarian Conservative' and not merely 'Libertarian'? In any case, given the nature of the debate, it is a very slim source to make such a claim upon. Why not provide 3 or 4 sources? Then there will be no dispute over the issue. Setwisohi (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because it says 'libertarian Conservative'. That is, libertarian ideology, existing party affiliation Conservative.  Letters are important. Bastin 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As per the following comments section, it is also worth noting that Nelson (in the quote you provide) does not claim that UKIP are Libertarian. He claims that the party will appeal to Libertarian Conservatives - and even then, only if it follows a particular policy route. So, as with the comments below, you are interpreting the sources rather than using them verbatim to support the article. You have done this several times recently. Contrary to the usage of sources and source material as stated in Wiki policy. Setwisohi (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ladys not for turning
Separate to the above, I have had to remove one of your sources from this article. Please do note that you (the editor) must not infer what is meant or said in a source but point to a source which directly supports what is stated in the article. To do otherwise is to risk running contrary to Wiki policy on Orginal Research. Setwisohi (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

See this link and the section on sources. No original research. Setwisohi (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't infer anything.

The hard truth is that for all the razzamatazz in airless party conference halls, few speeches ever change anything – only Neil Kinnock on the Liverpool militants, Margaret Thatcher's "the lady's not for turning" in the depths of her 1981 unpopularity and David Cameron's great strut last year that halted Brown's election dead in its tracks.
 * So it's one of the three conference speeches that changed anything. Since the success in changing anything is a definition of importance, and it's clear that 'one of the three' is covered by 'one of', how is that original research? Bastin 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is "the success in changing anything a definition of importance"? Setwisohi (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fact check
Is this a dream that you had? "42% of Brits will vote Conservative". Off2riorob (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right, it's only 41%. Geez, since only 41% of the population is going to vote Conservative, we really should give undue weight to a list of unverified celebrity supporters in a field not characterised by celebrity endorsements. Bastin 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your forgetting the people that do not vote, imo only about 20 percent of the population may vote conservative, perhaps less. In Scotland only about one percent of the population there will vote conservative. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The first part is true; something like 20% of the population or so will vote Conservative (in 1997, Labour got something like 23%; Conservatives got 25% in 1992). But listing individuals that wish to vote for the most popular political party - even the second-most popular - in a country of 60 million people is absurd, almost no matter what the turnout.  It is a list that is inherently incomplete - and may well be inaccurate, because celebrities are probably even more likely to stay at home than other people!  Moreover, it is giving undue weight to trivia; celebrity endorsements barely matter to politics!  I could understand if it mentioned in passing people that appeared in major PPBs, but none of those has.
 * On the last part, you are going to be proven to be very wrong. 7% of the total population (17% of the turnout) voted Conservative at the Hollyrood election in 1997. Bastin 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify..I am not saying there was any error with the revert, I was going to revert it myself, this is just a little political discussion, sorry if I have disturbed you. The one percent in Scot was a guess, I think they only have one or two MPs there, anyway lets wait and see at the election how it goes, I think if you told Cameron that he was going to get 42 percent of the vote he would fall of his chair, the polls are getting more and more politically motivated and all the less truthful as a result. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't really say they're politically-motivated, because all the polls show a huge Conservative lead (that's why the figure I gave was the poll-of-polls, not just the single Ipsos MORI poll or any other single result or pollster). UKPR puts the poll-of-polls at Tories on 40%.  But neither ConHome nor UKPR considers that the poll out yesterday shows that the likelihood of self-identified Tory voters turning out is increasing, whereas the likelihood of Labour voters voting is decreasing.  That's the opposite of what you'd expect from just simple shifting of non-committal and throw-away voters.
 * But it's also not a popular vote competition. The Ashcroft effect in marginals, tied with the unions only backing campaigns in their own (and therefore Labour's) strongholds, means that the Conservatives will win by more seats than a national uniform swing would suggest.  I agree with ConservativeHome's analysis; the Conservatives look set to win an outright majority by more than 80 seats - a very solid majority.  And I think that, whilst they pose risk, the leader debates will vastly help the Conservatives.
 * True, Scotland's a specific issue. The Conservatives only have one seat there atm, and it'll be hard to see them stretch it far beyond that.  I think Edinburgh South, Stirling, East Renfrewshire, and Perth & North Perthshire are good shouts for Tory pick-ups.  5 out of 59 isn't stellar, but it's about trying to build respectability back into the Conservative brand in Scotland, in the same way as the party has done in Wales. Bastin 22:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you should work for the conservative campaign office, I have feeling the results will no where near reflect the poll figures, the times have changed, it used to be that polls were independent but these days there it little independent of money, it is going to be a very exciting time..you are predicting an eighty seat conservative majority, I will come to remind you of that when it is revealed to be totally wrong. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree at all either. Current polling, best case scenario at the minute is probably 15-20. The truth being, it could equally be a hung parliament.

I don't think Cameron is cosying up to the Lib Dems in the media because he thinks he will win by 80 seats, put it that way.

The tory lead wasn't based on Labour voters moving to the tories. It was based on Labour voters moving to Lib Dem. The shortening of the lead has been little more than them coming back.

That's why Labour are appealing to core vote now. They realise the tories are stuck on a solid 38-40% and won't be moving. They realise if they can move there share up to 33%, they can force a hung parliament or even win.

The tories took a real hammering in the last 2 by elections. As in Labour picked up 15% of the vote on each. The tories lost 22% in one of them. When you add that to the polls, they may well win a majority, but 80 seats is ludicrous. 50 seats is ludicrous

I suggest you take part in discussion on independent polling sites like Yougov. There is only so much you can get from a partisan sites like tory blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You're reading far too much into local election by-elections. On the Lib Dems; they polled 22% at the 2005 election and won 62 seats.  They briefly polled above that after their party conference and before the other parties had theirs, but that's it.  They average 18% or so in the polls, and that'll be where they remain.  They will, hence, win considerably fewer seats than at the last election.  The odds on the Lib Dems winning more than 70 seats are currently 4.9/1 on Betfair (although that is, admittedly, on a relatively small market).  You should be looking at 50 to 54 seats, really (4.7/1). Bastin 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

2004 NC Senate Election
Hey. I wanted to thank you for your contribution for the United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2004. But you need to remember to put the sections in chronological order. The primaries go first, then the general election stuff. As editors, we need to make each article as reader-friendly as possible. I reorganized it for you, but try and remember for next time.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was unaware that that was a convention for elections; I simply organised it by importance, because there wasn't that much of a chronological narrative before I made the edit. I would make the changes to the other North Carolina Senate election articles that I've created, as well. Bastin 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "convention." Most election articles, historical and recent, have it in chronological article from primaries to general election. Usually background info and/or a list of candidates may go before primaries. Still, you've made great contributions. A article is better than no article, as you created most many new election pages.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Convention as in adhering to a certain Manual of Style. I come from a country that (sadly) doesn't have primaries, and, in the general election articles, the main election results come at the top of the article, without deference to chronological order of the campaign.  Hence, I assumed that was the convention.  Thank you for correcting me. Bastin 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Uti possidetis‎
Not sure your edits to that article were too useful. Africa has seen its share of territorial disputes, but in general the OAU (now the African Union) has enshrined respect for previous boundaries (unless subject to freely mutually-agreed adjustments) as a principle for preventing endless irredentist wars... AnonMoos (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of the fact template next to unsupported statements is always useful. If you think those statements are obvious, you'll find no problem finding references.  However, I don't think they're obvious (although I'm happy to grant that the OAU passed a resolution, the consequences have not been peace in our time).  Statements should be verified by  reliable sources, and that's a fact. Bastin 12:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No it is not always practically very "useful" -- otherwise about 50% of all text in Wikipedia articles would be marked up with "fact" tags every sentence. AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I only added the tag to the statements that I questioned, hence the edit summary. Are 50% of statements on Wikipedia questioned?  Well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.  The fact that you're willing to argue against policy so vehemently suggests that you care a lot about the subject.  Perhaps you'd like, therefore, to use your time to edit the article constructively and support the queried statements, rather than to argue on my talk page. Bastin 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever -- at least 50% of the text in Wikipedia articles is not effectively backed up by formal source citations, and for that reason it's best to reserve "fact" tags for matters which are truly disputed or questionable, and not to pockmark articles with a large number of quasi-randomly added tags. My interest in Uti possidetis is exactly the same as was my interest in Athanasian Creed when User talk:Timmy12 was pockmarking it with pointless tags... AnonMoos (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The point was that I 'truly disputed' the statement. It seems absolutely absurd to suggest that Africa hasn't had many border wars.  Africa has more border wars than all the rest of the continents put together.  In fact, it's pretty much the only continent where a rejection of uti possidetis is regularly rejected.  So to use it as an example of uti possidetis is ridiculous, and requires evidence. Bastin 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I really, really do not think so -- there have been several attempted secessions (such as Katanga, Biafra, Soutehrn Sudan, Eritrea, etc.) and quite a number of incidents in which one country intervened in a civil war in another country, but the number of straight-up classical territorial-acquisition border wars has been rather small -- mainly between Chad and Libya over the Aouzou strip and between Ethiopia and Eritrea over Badme.  You could also count Western Sahara if you want (though it's not what I would really call a straight-up classical territorial-acquisition border war), but after that it's fairly slim pickings -- and in any case, what is actually more relevant to the article is that international law and the principles of the OAU uphold former colonial borders as the basis of modern state boundaries (subject to certain mutually-agreed adjustments). AnonMoos (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot the Ogaden War and 1982 Ethiopian–Somali Border War, the Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict, the Agacher Strip War, the Sand War, the Perejil Island crisis (although neither is in the AU), and so on. No continent rivals Africa for the breadth of rejection of the principle (although Asia has a few specific problems vis-a-vis India/Pakistan and Israel).  Nowhere else is border dispute used as an argument to explain all a continent's failings; "Of course Africa's poor/riven by conflict - look at the way Europeans carved up their countries without regard for ethnic groups" is a very common populist and even intellectual argument.  See, isn't it great to have a disagreement?  I hope you now realise that such a disagreement exists and that it warrants the loss of aesthetic appeal caused by the tags.  References to back up the statements in the article, please. Bastin 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

-
 * I have to admit, I've read a lot of your edits. I'd suggest that you are the one who has strong feelings on the subject.
 * Most of your edits tends to have a politicial motivation in my opinion. Which in general, isn't too helpful to the accuracy of an article. Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that you have an opinion on my motivation. It's not recommended.  I happen to be interested in uti possideitis, because of my interest in law and developmental economics, not because of any interest in seeing African governments talked down, or whatever your implication of my political motivation. Bastin 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

North Carolina Lt. Governor elections
I see that you have removed the content about the Lt. Governor's elections in 2004 and 2008 from the articles on the gubernatorial elections (North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2004 and North Carolina gubernatorial election, 2008). I disagree with your reasoning, but I don't have a good argument against your change. So, where did you put the content on those elections? They need to be preserved on some page, and that page needs to be linked multiple times from the articles on the gubernatorial elections, because I think people will go to one looking for the other. We need to figure out a good system before 2012! Awbeal (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Archie Mitchell
Hi. I've seen the same edits this user is making from someone else. You said he's a sockpuppet but do you know the puppetmaster account? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked him. Thanks for the help. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Bastin! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 20 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:


 * 1) Peter Butcher -
 * 2) Brian Maurice Bennett -
 * 3) Colette Flesch -
 * 4) Bernard Berg -
 * 5) Marc Fischbach -
 * 6) Daniel Ormelius -
 * 7) Stefan Wagner -
 * 8) Jeanny Dom -
 * 9) Ben Fayot -
 * 10) Fonsy Grethen -

11. Georges Wohlfart 12. Marcel Schlechter 13. Nicolas Estgen 14. Ernest Mühlen 15. René Steichen 16. Marcel Mart 17. Léon Bollendorff 18. Jup Weber 19. Lydie Err 20. Joris Di Gregorio

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

UKIP's libertarian and the burkha ban
Bastin, I was surprised to see an innocuous edit with a ref reverted on the Libertarianism in the United Kingdom page. However, looking at the edit history I can see that you have frequently reverted any edits that call into question whether or not UKIP is a libertarian party. I suggest that you try a bit harder to avoid POV editing. Fig (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to spend less time in the edit history and more time reading the supposed reference. Does the reference say that their libertarianism is being questioned as a result?  No.  Or, you could spend time reading my edit summary, which states that I agree entirely with the argument that UKIP is becoming less libertarian, and that one such less libertarian policy is the burkha ban.  I suggest that you read less selectively before attacking other people. Bastin 16:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Lenin
Have you had a look at the talk page of the Vladimir Lenin article? Notice how anti-Communist historians are considered "suspect" sources but pro-Communist sources are just fine and dandy. Paul Austin (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that you're comparing the Times and Telegraph to the Soviet censors. But, hey, they're all part of the great big capitalist conspiracy, right?  Wikipedia has long been criticised for its left-wing bias, and particularly its bias towards communist and anarcho-syndicalist positions. Bastin 10:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Back when i was an administrator i got into trouble for trying to stop what Adam Carr called "the Communist Party of Wikipedia" - i agree with you that it is depressingly large. Paul Austin (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)