This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi! As you tagged yourself as being in Ireland, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. We know have a recognised Wikimedia Community Ireland User Group and we have been running workshops and other events in Dublin and beyond. In case you are interested our next event will be this Saturday in Collins Barracks, you can find the details here. Smirkybec ( talk) 21:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- re this, perhaps the same wording should be used in the lead? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- can I suggest perhaps not getting into a discussion, on the 3RR noticeboard, of the details of edits themselves. This will be used as an invitation by the editor concerned to respond about "substance", i.e., why he thinks he's right about the material. I think it's better to focus on process, i.e., the fact that he exceeded 3RR, didn't bother to discuss, etc. He'll also say it's a "BLP issue" purely because the article is a BLP. Your second paragraph of the recent post was helpful -- but perhaps you'd like to consider redacting (deleting) the first paragraph? You can do that as long as no-one else has yet responded. Up to you, of course. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your rewording is not neutral, you opted to omit key facts (which will mislead readers) that I included in the rewording that summarised both sides and was balanced. You also readded sources that are irrelevant to her being in Ogra from a controversial paper with a history of being notoriously politically prejudiced.

Please bear all the above in mind. Tyrsóg ( talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"controversial paper with a history of being notoriously politically prejudiced" - you're talking about the biggest selling daily newspaper in the state. I think your POV is showing. The section is about notable former members. Cahill is notable. The reference you're removing isn't there to establish that she was in OSF, it's there to reference the claim she made. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You also seem to be removing a reference which quotes Gerry Adams' on the matter, which seems a bit bizarre. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for wrestling that back from non-admin closure. On the opposite side of the coin is Rape jihad, a well-sourced article under attack which you may be interested in. Pax 22:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

An article which you recently supported has come up for deletion review. As it was of interest to you before, you may wish to weigh in again. Pax 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Batsun,

Why did you remove the "Roman Catholic" parameter from the infobox for Maureen O'Sullivan, per se, and do so without collaborative discussion on the matter? It's widely known that Ms. O'Sullivan was a devout, practicing Roman Catholic. The editors at The New York Times - not known for religious zealotry - even saw fit to reference her Catholicity in their obituary for her: http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0517.html.

I'm going to reintroduce the parameter in her infobox, and look forward to discussing it with you if you have a different viewpoint.

Dave Peters ( talk) 18:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dav. 1. BRD. The addition was unsourced. 2. It wasn't known by me. I don't assume that every fellow Irish person is or was a Catholic. Or the relevance of including a person's purported religion into every single biographical article, but it seems to be something of an obsession around these parts. 3. It's a single line in one online obituary, but hey, that qualifies as a reference - now it's sourced! (I've even added it to the article, which you forgot to do.)

News articles often die, so it's useful to use the waybackmachine which hosts archives. It's better than removing the link entirely.

[1]

-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Harizotoh9. Will investigate waybackmachine. I've reverted, though - the article cited doesn't actually say anything like what it was being used to cite. Regards, Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Darkness Shines. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on David Quinn (columnist), but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. read the source used Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not from Ireland, are you, Darkness Shines? Quinn is rarely not decrying same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex parents, or surrogacy (despite the latter being used mostly by straight, married couples). It took all of two minutes to find a reference. You can listen in live online to RTÉ Radio One in about 5 minutes from the timestamp of this comment, in fact, and hear him live on This Week, no doubt promoting the same views. There was nothing violating WP:BLP in what had been included, in any case. A little note after a templated boilerplate is hard to notice. Regards, Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bastun. You have new messages at Talk:Timeline of Dublin.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. To expand on the rationale for this template, it might be worthwhile opening a thread on the relevant talk page. Otherwise the moral-highground is somewhat diminished when responding with "take it to talk" in relation to any removal attempts. If you feel strongly about it, then perhaps an AfD might be worthwhile. Thanks Guliolopez ( talk) 13:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm way out of practice on the etiquette of some of the behind-the-scenes stuff. 14:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am writing to inform that the Celtic Phoenix article will not be merged or have information that I added onto the article to be deleted. I also demand that the merge template be removed from the article as I will not allow the article to be merged. I want the article to stand out from other articles related to the Irish economy, so I want it to be neat and tidy as well. I would be please for allow you to help add information onto the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Bastun, is it just me, or it starting to sound like he's really trying to do a POV fork? — C.Fred ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That, and a very blatant case of ownership! How best to deal with? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I HAVE SURRENDERED. I HAVE MERGED the Celtic Phoenix article into the Economy of the Republic of Ireland. Happy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanMcKaneWiki ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The Post-2008 Irish economic downturn has been updated and fixed up! -- DylanMcKaneWiki ( talk) 14:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And moved to 2008–13 Irish economic downturn! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And now it's back to Post-2008 Irish economic downturn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Try not to be patronising and actually read my edit summary! This is a man who acted as a British agent. Of course he's British! To claim anything else would be pedantic nonsense. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Under the GFA, he could be Irish, British, or both. What do reliable sources say? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, using common sense, do you really think it's likely that a British agent would identify as Irish? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I think, using common sense, we can safely say he was a bricklayer. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday a disruptive editor improperly changed one of the entries on the RfC at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

He changed

"In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed."

to

"In infoboxes on articles about non-religious (as opposed to anti-religious) nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed."

During the period when the question was changed, two !votes were cast, including yours.

Are you still OK with your !vote, or would you prefer to change it because of the question changed?

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Discuss-Dubious interfering with RfC. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Still happy with my contribution where it's at, Guy Macon - thanks. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Saoirse Ronan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose ( talk) 22:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some 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. Thank you. Musdan77 ( talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, a newbies' template! I've actually been editing for longer than you, Musdan77. Would you mind telling me which of my edits did not appear to be constructive? Thanks. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That template is a level one. We (or at least I) usually don't start past level one. I looked at your talk page (though I didn't look at the archives) and didn't see any level ones for that category, and I figure it's nicer not to begin with a higher level. But, I guess you were offended by the "Welcome" part. I meant no offense at all. But, accusing someone of a personal attack (when it's not true), to me, is as bad as someone actually attacking. -- Musdan77 ( talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel the same way about edit summaries accusing people of disruptive editing... Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not following WP:BRD and edit warring is disruptive. I don't know why you haven't learned that by now. So, you felt you were wronged and then you wanted to retaliate? -- Musdan77 ( talk) 19:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed - but I had followed WP:BRD. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bastun. You have new messages at Davey2010's talk page.
Message added 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sundayclose ( talk) 20:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that there's a block evading contributor, at the Derry discussion. GoodDay ( talk) 13:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, some duck noises emanating from that page... Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anti-austerity protests in Ireland page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Here he is the recognized Catholic faith, Have you ever seen him? /info/en/?search=Pierce_Brosnan#cite_note-79 -- Muhib mansour ( talk) 16:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Muhib mansour, he is a Roman Catholic. That's not in dispute. WP:BLPCAT is quite clear on this: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Brosnan has self-identified as a Roman Catholic, but he is notable for being an actor, not for being a Catholic. Regards, Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this condition of this categories in Wikipedia, you said to me, that the category of religions, it must be a personal confession or responding to question

and this is cause That I copied the link in the top, so you know that he himself admitted that the Catholic faith, I do not know if you read this link,

(However, in 2013 he commented, It always helps to have a bit of prayer in your back pocket. At the end of the day, you have to have something and for me that is God, Jesus, my Catholic upbringing, my faith... God has been good to me. My faith has been good to me in the moments of deepest suffering, doubt and fear. It is a constant, the language of prayer... I might not have got my sums right from the Christian Brothers or might not have got the greatest learning of literature from them but I certainly got a strapping amount of faith.) -- Muhib mansour ( talk) 14:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Muhib mansour - yes, I've read the interview and agree that Brosnan self-identifies as Catholic in it. You're missing the point though - a person doesn't get included in a religion category just because they're a member of a particular religion and we have a source confirming that; the person's beliefs must also be relevant to their notability. Brosnan therefore meets only one condition, not both. Actors are notable for being famous actors, footballers for being famous footballers - not for being famous Catholics or Jews or Hindus or whatever. If you check Category:Irish Roman Catholics, for example, you'll see membership is limited to clergy, journalists known for their promotion of Catholicism, and those who fought in rebellions which had a primary aim of achieving religious freedom for Catholics. There are no singers, footballers or modern-day politicians. I hope this is clear? Regards, Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

.

What wrote to me unconvincing never

At first you said, that religious categories should be a personal confession, and you read the personal recognition of Brosnan as a Catholic

your says that the actors, footballers and singers should not be classified as religious people in Wikipedia, I do not know where you came to this law, and I am I have never read in Wikipedia

He says that the actors and soccer players and singers should not be classified in religious Wikipedia, do not know where I came to this law, and I am I have never read in Wikipedia

If you read the category (American Roman Catholics) you will see is full of artists, actors, singers and athletes reverse of what you said , In other religious categories also you will see it And the lack of presence in the category (Irish Roman Catholic) it means should to be developed, to become like the rest of the religious categories, and not deleted. Excuse me, if I have not read the words more convincing from you, I will return categories -- Muhib mansour ( talk) 18:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Muhib mansour, above, I linked to the Wikipedia page on Biographies of living persons - the instructions on that page are policy - the rules we edit under. It's very clear, and they're not optional. To quote from the Biographies of living persons page (section 4.4): "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Two conditions, not one.

See also the page for Category:Irish Roman Catholics: "Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and where the person has self-identified as a Roman Catholic. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories." Again - Brosnan has self-identified as a Roman Catholic. He is, however, not famous because of his Catholicism.

If people categorise other entertainers incorrectly, such as in an American Catholics category, so be it; they're probably not on my watchlist. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

..

Yes I read this condition also

But I think you explained, what is written is wrong

the condition which you put link to me, means that well-known, or identifeid in this way, and not because it is known in this way, or that identified because of this form

If we apply the Brosnan, it is known as being a Catholic through sources

Brosnan is true , he is known as actor not known as Catholic belief, but he is known as a Catholic, or identified from the many rest of people being Catholic

Always you put me (Irish Roman Catholic) category as good category , but I see it a primitive category,If I compared to the category (American Roman Catholics) or (English Roman Catholics)

If what I say is wrong, you will not see for example Jennifer Lopez article, categorized in American Roman Catholics, although she is known for being an actress and a singer, not a Catholic for being , lopez is like brosnan , not difference.

And the same thing with articles: Selena Gomez, Jennifer Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Alfred Hitchcock, Clint Dimpsey... etc

This is the same thing with a category (English Roman Catholic) where you will see articles like : Wayne Rooney, Amelia Lily, Lewis Hamilton.

I think you understand what I mean , If you do not reach an agreement with me, its better to ask the rest of the members, and see what their opinion -- Muhib mansour ( talk) 21:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The point of a category is to add value to the encyclopaedia. Adding someone's religion - if they're not notable because of their religious beliefs - is as pointless as adding a Category:People with brown eyes - over 90% of people from Ireland would be included in the Catholic category (many of them incorrectly!). Yes, many people are added to categories even though they shouldn't be. That's not an excuse for doing it on more articles. Adding people to a !religion, atheist, or !sexualorientation category may also serve to get people victimised or otherwise targeted. The policy is there for a reason, and is already the result of consensus of the editors. If you want to try to get the policy changed, that's your prerogative. I acted within policy, and will continue to do so. Regards, Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Category name is just (Irish Roman Catholic) and not (Irish people of being famous as Catholics), which means that anyone Irish person article in Wikipedia admits being a Catholic will be added this category, only if he admit, and this is the basic condition in Wikipedia

If this category is Exclusive of priests as you say, what is the benefit of having this categories (Category:Irish Roman Catholic priests)

You say all religious categories is wrong except (Irish Roman Catholic), but I say that the error exists only in this category and the rest of the religious categories are correct

It seems that I will not agree with, so I will try to ask the other prominent members of the Wikipedia on this issue

For me either to change your opinion in this issue, or that all religious categories will changing in this Wikipedia -- Muhib mansour ( talk) 11:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know. Sometimes those categories are actually relevant, especially with Members of Parliament and/or those threatened with excommunication. Yours, Quis separabit? 11:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page, as you've seen. On a related note, what exactly do you mean by the edit summary on Paddy Wilson, "(Undid revision 681841048 by Bastun (talk) inextricably linked as YOU should well know)"? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting your edit without giving an explanation. You reverted pages that were overcategorised. - 108.71.133.201 ( talk) 02:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

user batsun i have tried to reason with editors but to no avail i have used citable material which i was told i could use and when i use it the page is reverted i have left queations on the users pages and they have not replied,if you are willing to accept my sources as citable sources i will engage in a calm and collective manner Railsparks ( talk) 18:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Then do so on the talk page of the article in question - Direct Democracy Ireland. Don't just keep re-inserting your material or you will be blocked. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Batsun have asked a question to which i am getting noreplies i will now say it again "Where does it say in the references on the DDI page that DDI is Right Wing? Railsparks ( talk) 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Christian terrorism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Parenthood|publisher=New York Times|date=29 November 2015|accessdate=30 November 2015}}</ref><ref>((cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/29/politics/mike-huckabee-planned-parenthood-domestic-
• terrorism'|last=Bradner|first=Eric|publisher=CNN|date=29 November 2015|accessdate=30 November 2015}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. 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.
Thank you for starting a discussion on the article's Talk page. 66.87.115.72 ( talk) 13:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

hey there is no reason to delete the entry! your point is absolutely nonsense. it is actually even against your original intend to have a ground to delete this entry. it doesnt matter at all if there was one attack or even a series attack, --> fact is there WAS an attack , especially in the given entry i put on. The source has nothing to do with it. either you stop with deleting this entry, since there is foundation to do so, or i will get an admin involved. if there is any reason to argue about entries im open, but this is simply ridiculous. Joobo ( talk) 12:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)