User talk:Bastun/2021

Robbie Keane
I have warned both editors about 3RR and have fully protected the page for 3 days to allow everybody to discuss changes on the article talk page. GiantSnowman 15:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good call! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sherdog.com RfC Closure Has Had No Effect on Wikipedia Because of a Small but Organized Gang of Editors
Hi. You had participated in the 30-day RfC of Sherdog.com's reliability at RSN here Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318 and in the end it was closed to be used only for some basic fight information in the absence of reliable sources such as ESPN, on a case by case basis and with that fact that additional considerations apply on top of it (option 2 or 3).

But some editors (NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and a couple more) who voted for the reliability of Sherdog.com in the RfC, still enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the most trusted source on MMA-related pages and go edit-wars for it. They are like a small organized gang of editors that have taken anyting MMA-related hostage on the Wikipedia and act like owners of the whole site. It would be nice if you could help with the enforcement of the result and consensus that were reached there since you helped reaching the consensus in the RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.164.254 (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

They are especially active on pages Conor_McGregor, Tony Ferguson and Dan Henderson, trying to enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the source over reliable sources such as ESPN, Fox, UFC.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You appear to have forgotten to log in. I'm not going checking those pages, but on Conor McGregor, at least, was adding ESPN as a source, so what you've said above does not appear to be correct. If you are adding a non-sherdog source and get reverted, feel free to link the RFC on the talk page, and if reverted again, bring it to AN/I. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C
For the record, my own experiences of El C include the one where they completely ignored serious CIVIL violations I posted to their talk page, and three months later opted to IBAN me instead for something much less egregious. Newimpartial (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts, redux
Please be aware that Politics of J. K. Rowling is hotbed of PoV pushing concerns, and revertwarring to reinstated material, in a BLP, that at least three editors are challenging as WP:SYNTH and WP:POV is probably ill advised. This material was added boldly without consensus, it has been removed, and it now time for the D part of WP:BRD, which was already ongoing anyway (and clearly not coming to consensus to re-add that "reader-steering" material).

I was going to leave you both {{subst:Ds/alert|gg}} and {{subst:Ds/alert|blp}}, but I see that you've already received both (back to back, as in this case) within the last year. So should already be exercising extra caution in this topic area, which intersects two different DS regimens simultaneously. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * As you're templating the regulars, you'll be aware of the links from those templates, too, so we'll consider you covered, too, eh? ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait until you see what he and crossroads did to my talk page. All because I dared get a bit annoyed at crossroads' an Czello's consistent accusations of POV pushing against me and returned the favour for once. Drop the stick already.--Licks-rocks (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Abortion terminology
Hi - the FAQs on the various pages are worth reading. The last major RM in this area was here - Talk:United_States_anti-abortion_movement/Archive_8 - which I closed (I'd forgotten that). Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'd searched around the defunct project, the MOS and various WP policy pages to no avail. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Media sources
You argue that is it ok to break with WP policy and it is ok to use authorless publisherless sources, but you claim Gript Media is not an acceptable source? can you explain this? You provided a link but it didnt contain anything of relvance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerchasúr (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Aerchasúr (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * "You argue that is it ok to break with WP policy" - no I don't. Where did I say that?! "and it is ok to use authorless publisherless sources" - again, no, I did not say that. Don't put words in my mouth. What I actually said was that references do not require identified, named authors. There's a big difference. You don't seem to understand that the NLI catalogue is published by the NLI. Or maybe you do, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Gript media is not a reliable source. Concerns about its reliability were expressed by some members of the Irish WP community, so I opened a discussion on it's status at the reliable sources noticeboard, where the consensus is that it is not a reliable source. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the agreement of two editors, and a comment from another regarding opinion pieces, is not sufficient to establish consensus and state that Gript is not a reliable source. I would also note that part of your issue with Gript appears to be political, based on some of the reasons you give for it to be considered unreliable - at no point do you provide evidence that it has provided information that is factually incorrect, at all, let alone at a level beyond that of a regular media publication.Perpetualgrasp (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Roderic O'Gorman
With that message that you posted on my talk page, you're going down a dangerous path there Bastun. While you have definitely abandoned an assumption of WP:GoodFaith, you're right on the borderline of personal abuse. I don't exactly know what you thought that I was doing in adding the picture to the O'Gorman page, but clearly you harboured some dark thoughts about the addition. It would have been best for you to have kept those dark thought to yourself in a dark place. As William Blackstone said, "..the devil himself knows not the intent of a man"; do not presume to know my intent in adding the picture. I will delete your message in a day or so. In the interim, I advise you to reflect on what I have said and to add an apology once you've recovered your good senses; such a mitigation would stand to you should I decide to add this as evidence in any future complaint about your behaviour. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * So, to be clear, you don't see any NPOV or BLP problem with this edit, with your caption "O'Gorman poster advertising a public meeting during level 5 lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic", when the poster in the very photo you added says "Online via Zoom"; but instead think you should threaten me with a complaint for not assuming good faith? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Make your allegation explicit please. Give yourself as much rope as you need. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not answering the question, then? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which clause of the question should i answer first? For starters, the first clause is more rhetorical ("..you don't see any NPOV or BLP problem with.."), but for the avoidance of doubt, I don't see any NPOV or BLP problem with the picture that i uploaded. Do you? If so, Where exactly? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The misleading caption, which lets the reader think O'Gorman had organised a face-to-face meeting. Unless they click in to enlarge the thumbnail. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting to something we can work with. So... a misleading caption. Obviously I wouldn't agree that it is misleading. But let's say for the purposes of this discussion that I agreed that it might lead some viewers of the picture to imagine that the poster advertised a face-to-face public meeting instead of a meeting of the public facilitated by Zoom software. Why would that face-to-face vs Zoom conflict induce you to write the things that you wrote about me in my talk page? How are the two things even remotely linked? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you seriously expect me to believe that it's taken you until now to work out that the problem with your edit was the misleading caption, then there's not really much point in continuing this discussion. Suffice it to say that AGF has limits. We get it. You don't like O'Gorman. That's fine. You still need to edit more neutrally and less like a WP:POVEDITOR. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I started this discussion in order to help you out of a problem of your own making. That problem is your post on my personal talk page that overstepped the bounds of civility that is to be expected from a long-standing editor and came over enough to personal abuse to make me consider an official complaint. I have patiently tried to help you to see the error or your ways and offered you a remedy. We finally got to the heart of the matter, namely a connection in your mind between the caption for a photo and some dark motivation on my part for that photo/caption. The honest thing to have done would have been to confess that the connection was rash and unfounded. It seems that you are unable to bring yourself to do that. That represents a missed opportunity for self growth. It also sets you on a path to repeat the error later. For that reason I will retain copies of these conversations as, sadly, it appears that I will likely need the evidence in the future. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Dude. There's a "history" tab. We both know this. "Retain copies". lol! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A pathetic request
You may remember me from back in the day. I was looking at update some of the IrlProj tags to add "photo required" but have forgotten the coding. Any assistance welcome...and glad to see you've survived the pandemic! (Also my keyboard can't deliver that squiggly thing that gives my name, date etc after a comment. Hard times. - Sarah777.

OK...I found the "tilda"! But I'm still lost on the coding Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)




 * Oh, hey, ! Um... I've used that template, definitely, but d'you think I can remember it? Nope! I'll poke around some likely pages and come back to you. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Found it! Template:Photo requested has all the various parameters and examples. Btw, if you're editing on a desktop or laptop (or using an Android phone or tablet's "desktop mode") then the four tildas are right under the edit box on talk pages. Anyway, hope that helps,, and great to see you're still editing!  Cheers, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources for categories
Categories must be supported by sourced content in the article. Otherwise it could be a free-for-all, with everyone adding his/her favorite (but questionable) category as they please. Imagine someone going on a rampage, adding a murderer-related category to every politician they disliked. That's an extreme example, but the principle still applies. Citations belong in the article, not an edit summary. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Noted. There's a reference on the page already for O'Connor being on Chrysalis, so I've re-added that in the body and put it in the infobox. Cheers, Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had to look really hard, but I saw "Chrysalis" in very small letters on one of the images. That's good enough for me. Sundayclose (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * lol! There's a 'Releases' tab on the page - if you click on that, you don't need to strain your eyes :-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

McGuirk
Thought you might be interested in seeing this diff if you haven't already. I hear you're a "nutty leftie" now! (In all sincerity though, not sure what ye can do wrt personal attacks on WP but said I'd fire it on anyway.) ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm mentioned in a Wikipedia article? Fame at last! :-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing
Bastun your edits on the John McGuirk are becoming increasingly obstructive and ill sourced. You've moved from being generally unpleasant to interact with to clearly misusing a source to bolster your own position. If you continue down this path, which I have said is verging on WP:CIR, I'll have no choice but to lodge a complaint about your behavior and willingness to act improperly. You were wrong, it happens, it would be better to accept that and attempt to find a workable approach rather than simply refuse to accept what the source says. Perpetualgrasp (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Save it for the article's talk page - I am not discussing the same issue in no less than four separate locations. And no, I won't be stooping to taking the bait, either! Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here...

Ireland Dept of Defence.
Dear Bastun,

I was surprised when my edit was again deleted just as Josh had stopped the original series of deletions. Having witnessed some remarkable coincidences in real life, I’m happy to accept that this is another.

I would first remark that the deletion of an edit appears aggressive to someone inexperienced in Wikipedia. It would have been more helpful to me, and certainly less open to misinterpretation, had you amended it as you thought fit.

However, I believe that both you and Josh are misinterpreting the edit. The article in the DF Review is the story and the citations, originally included in line but lost along the way, are to the edits in the Irish Times and Irish Examiner. I actually tried to include these as citations, but this was beyond my (very) amateur skill level.

Rather than engage in another edit spat, could I invite you to restore my edit, properly cited; if you do not have the original inline citations, I can provide them.

Incidentally, the “Military Authorities” is as described in the DR Review. I’m not sure exactly who these are, but we must assume that these are officers tasked with producing this review.

And finally, I must say that I find the various help functions, including the disputes procedure, rather daunting and would be happy if you could point me to any help forum.

Regards,

GreatRedFox (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, . First - as per the note on the top of this page - I'll reply to your substantive points on the talk page of the article itself, Talk:Department of Defence (Ireland), as other editors may also wish to contribute and it's more useful to have any discussion in a central place. Secondly, yes, there is unfortunately a fairly steep learning curve associated with Wikipedia - the culture of the place as well as the technicalities of the editing process.  You might find The Teahouse a good place to ask any questions you may have. Regards, <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Killincarrig
In this article the County Wicklow "template" appears before the references - and I can't figure out how to change that. Any ideas? Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah - that's one of those things I never think about; until such time as I need to know about, then I'm stumped! It looks like if you include a template somewhere on the page, then that's where the references will appear. I've placed it ahead of the county template, which seems to be the standard, and it looks to be working ok? Cheers, <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Fight records
Moving the above to the Conor McGregor article, the proper place for discussion. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
Hi. When several discussions are taking place, including at DRN, you shouldn't reinstate the disputed edit, as you did here. Removing a note indicating that a dispute is taking place and then making edits that caused the dispute again is clearly disruptive. They have of course been reverted following the outcome but it shouldn't have come to that.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is my talk page. Do you see any mention of a notice about DRN here?! I wasn't informed of the DRN discussion, haven't participated there, and wasn't aware of it or that the 'dispute' tags in the results table related to it. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The clue was in the note that you deleted and you were invited to participate in the DRN clearly hereNEDOCHAN (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleting templates indicating disputed content and reinstating said content without consensus or discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN
Holy cow are you right about WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, I've never seen anyone double down this hard on something so minute and straightforward. He's going around to admins making a fool of himself here and here. Like, what does he possibly stand to gain from all this? –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 09:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I really don't get the utter intransigence and refusal to accept sources other than Sherdog, or even moreso, the outcome of an actual RfC. Unfortunate. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Aerchasúr
You are not engaging in what I contributed which was not a personal opinion or original research. Adding a quote of an Irish Times colmist is well within Wiki policy. I will engage, in the WP:BRD process but there is an onus on you to follow Wiki convention in your responses.Aerchasúr (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The place to engage is Talk:Sex in a Cold Climate, not my talk page. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Irish Slave Myths revert
Hi, I politely disagree that my edit deprecates any useful information. The original statement:"Additionally, in terms of numbers, according to philosopher Michael J. Monahan, even the highest "and most likely exaggerated" estimates that as many as fifty thousand Irish laborers were sent to the Caribbean against their will "pales by comparison" to the millions of enslaved Africans who were transported to the Americas." It gives weight to hearsay "most likely", unnecessarily imo emphasizes a title and name "philosopher Michael J. Monahan", but most importantly compares different data sets "Caribbean" v "Americas". This clumsy comparison will only undermine the larger point. I researched total populations, and Irish populations of indentured servants and penal labour in the Americas, and the only thing close is the information in Indentured_servitude_in_British_America, which appears to be pretty good and provided a better geographic comparison. They however don't specify what percentage is Irish. The resulting phrasing I came up with, with the intention of focusing on the point of the statement (imo) of the huge difference in shear numbers between Irish (and all other, for that matter) 'forced labour' compared to that of the Trans Atlantic African Slave Trade. Again for reference what I wrote was the perfectly accurate adaptation, which reinforces only more accurately the point, of: "Additionally, in terms of numbers, the estimates of Irish laborers sent to the Caribbean, along with estimates of total numbers of prisoners and indentured servants in British America, "pales by comparison" to the millions of enslaved Africans who were transported to the Americas." I think this is a pretty darn good solution and it should be allowed to stay in the article. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually disregard, I have a better solution. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I was discussing
Anyway I've put a compromise.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * NEDOCHAN@undefined, discussing where? There's nothing on the article talk page, which is where discussion should take place?

Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on this article. The editor has already been banned under their IP address for pushing their POV on this article. Have a great day! Equine-man (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)