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.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the latest chat on the Volunteer mediation? Things still seem a tad up in the air. You might want to take a look as this will be closing soon Weggie 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, still open. Ok - will revert my last edits pending closure. Bastun 16:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I was more meaning the mediation decision which has now changed at least three times seemingly so if you have an opinion it may need adding in the mediators section (even if all the arguments have been out) as the mediator seems to be getting railroaded into a decision Weggie 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you.-- Vintagekits 22:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A key to resolving such issues is clarifying and applying policy, whose application can be difficult to discern at times. Tyrenius 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a "{{ prod}}" template to the article Martin McCaughey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, could you please explain why you reverted my edit on the NI article without any discussion or consultation? Thanks. ( Sarah777 01:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah. Plain and simple, clarity. The previous version was The remainder of the island of Ireland is governed as a sovereign state, Ireland, also described as the Republic of Ireland. I thought it was a clumsy construction at best and confusing as hell for someone not familiar with the island. The replacement is clearer and accurate. Bastun 10:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The citation notice is in the wrong position. I purposely didn't move it, someone else can do that. Taramoon 12:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw you asked the question as to why this was removed from the M62 coach bombing article. This issue came up about a year ago with regards to the Greysteel massacre, and was discussed on Stubacca's talk page although no actualy conclusion was reached. I agree with you on the issue, I think the information is very relevant, but its quite a contentious problem and there is little consensus.-- Jackyd101 14:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing - I think the following are relevent here - Name/Age/Occupation/Regiment (in a table) as it would demonstrate the claim that families were involved and which regiments the army dead came from Weggie 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To expand, I think a list of fatalities from any incident - ranging from a bombing like this to a train crash (for example) - are a good idea where they can be procured. The difficulty is presenting them in a manner which doesn't overwhelm articles with narrative lists. The only solution I can come up with is the one of creating "appendixes" using the method suggested at the bottom of my user page.-- Jackyd101 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been involved in the flag debate on the Northern Ireland talk page. If you remember there were four option listed about the way forward. If you wish you can go here and make your position clear. regards-- Vintagekits 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard to find some of these things. However, if you see a template has been used, then click edit to search the coding, you will usually find the name of the template in there somewhere (some templates transclude other templates, so it's more complex). The one you want is:

{{subst:unsigned|USER NAME}} -- ~~~~

I've added a signature, which is not part of the template as such. "Subst:" means it puts the text permanently on the page. Otherwise it has to call up the template text each time it's accessed - and a change to the template will then change the text that comes up. Most templates should be used with "subst:". Tyrenius 23:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the link to the list of names, I left a comment at Talk:Omagh_bombing#List_of_names. Thanks.-- Chaser - T 16:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

May as well use this section rather than create a new one. I've just left some suggestions for further improvement of the article in the template on the talk page, not sure if that will come up on your watch list or not. Thanks. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 12:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Wikipedia is an excellent website but sadly on some subjects it has become a forum for bile, prejudice and ignorance. Many of the sites covering Ireland are sad examples of this. I have tried to get some commesense but have failed so I am not going to bother any more. Ireland is a country. The country's official name is the Republic of Ireland. It is part of the British Isles...and so on. Self important users, for narrow poltical reasons, seek to deny these facts. When entries are corrected (by me or others) they get ignorantly on their high horses and revise entries to conform with their own absurd points of view. It is boring and tedious and a waste of time to try and take them on and I've had enough of it. PaddyBriggs 09:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, the Irish people are genetically closely related to those of Spain. Recent research: [1] suggests that much of the current population share close ancestry with the Spanish. In your message to me, you state that the recent Spanish migrations were minute in their demic effect: I agree, and hence I referring to Ireland's Iberian post-glacial heritage above. I will link this into the article to make it clear. Likewise, there is no clear evidence that there is a strong genetic heritage of the Celts in Ireland. This goes against current fashion, so many don't like this. This doesn't change the absence of evidence to support this. I happily acknowlegde the significant contribution of Celtic culture to Irish people - as is mentioned on the 2nd sentence. However, in terms of demography, there is nothing to support a largely Celtic origin. Consequently, I will remove this. Apollo Crua 12:10, 27 March 2007 (GMT)

The demographics section was/is referring to more modern (as in, actually recorded) history, though. Hopefully my latest edit, separating out the post-Ice Age and more modern influences, is acceptable. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

hi..rather than get lost on the talk page... in more specific response to a question you raised on the BI talk page, I'll refer to what I already said on that page in response to a somewhat similar question from Sony youth.

"Recognised" by the refs, most of which are published outside of Ireland. Even where the authors decided to keep using "British Isles" they recognised that there was an issue with it. "Increasingly" because one ref says so specifically, because Folens and several other Atlases (i think Michelin, Reader's Digest, etc) that used to refer to British Isles no longer do so, because of the Embassy spokesman quotation last year, because of the renaming of The Lions, because of the Guardian article quoted in the BI dispute page, etc. In any case, "recognised as problematic" is for sure; "increasingly" seems pretty darn well supported. It's a way of avoiding "often" & "sometimes" and of avoiding a desire for polls that don't exist either for or against. (BTW, according to Webster, sometimes means "now and then" or "occasionally", which just isn't a reasonable characterisation of the situation). Hughsheehy 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Hughsheehy 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the god of love, not this again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seaned ( talk • contribs).

I'm pretty much used to Wikipedia's ethics and anti-democratic stance, thanks for reminding me of the hipocresy here

-- Seaned 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Users can delete at will from their talk page, including warnings. If they remove a warning, then they are deemed to have seen it. This has been discussed frequently on forums such as WP:AN. Some users disapprove of this. Removal of warnings can add circumstantial evidence about a user's motivations. It is certainly inappropriate to delete a conversation before it's finished. However, none of this should incur sanctions (though occasionally it does anyway). This has all evolved over the last few months, and in the past it would have been seen as wrong to carry out such deletions. Have a look at WP:TPG and WP:USER, but regardless of what it says there, I have given you the current practice, which is what counts on wiki. If you leave a warning, you might want to make this very clear in the edit summary, as this could be where someone else looks. Tyrenius 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you search WP:AN or WP:AN/I, you'll find relevant discussions, when the matter has been brought up there, and the conclusion was that users can remove material. I know that a lot of people, including some admins, aren't aware of the conclusion of those discussions. Tyrenius 02:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No prob re: the talk page. I've put it back in. These things happen. Thanks for letting me know. Next time, just stick it back in and forget about it. -- sony-youth ^talk 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Bastun, I thought I made an error on the HT article, and so I changed your edit (not realizing that someone had edited it). I wasn't trying to step on toes. What I originally meant about the economy crashing due to a *decrease* the amount of new users is that that leads to less demand for finished players, as teams always train more players than they can use. Hope I didn't offend! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benmor78 ( talk • contribs).

Your information on illegitimacy and the Catholic Church is wrong...see the De Valera talk page for a citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia. He could have had a Church career by entering a religious order. I posted that info on talk at the same time I removed the incorrect information from the article. -- Samuel J. Howard 03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make up WP policy on the hoof. Please read WP:REGISTER for a deeper understanding on the way WP works. There is consensus that generally should be dropped. BTW, I never see you rv Tarkencoll. Are you afraid of him, or are you just plain pandering to him. Apologies for being so direct, but I'm curious! -- 86.42.153.154 16:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. On many levels. But someone who won't bother registering doesn't deserve my time on a response - even if I am curious as to why someone who uses a particular term in their edir then says it should be dropped... Meh. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A silly response indeed, bizarre? generally! But it is interesting that you will not rv certain editorss, that's all. It just makes me wonder about your sense of purpose, if any. My edits are very innocuous. Just curious. -- 86.42.153.154 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I ask that you stop removing tags that have been correctly added due to neutrality disputes. Simply because you do not agree does not give you any grounds to remove the tag. You have not addressed the dispute. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. The category was specficially created for POV reasons. You failed to address the NPOV problems, simply because you don't like it on the article doesn't mean it can be removed. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"See WP:AGF." "The category was specficially created for POV reasons." Hmm, maybe you should read WP:AGF too, because you don't appear to be applying it. I've read the creator's reasons for creating it, and they seem sound to me - a way to categorise pages describing IRA actions that resulted in killings but are "known" by places and are therefore being removed from the "Category:People killed by the IRA" by yourself and Vintagekits. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but we could just go round in circles and get nowhere. How about reverting this edit then, as I can't for 3RR reasons? As you're well aware it needs to be reverted. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Partially reverted. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy enough with that, even though it leaves large amounts of whitespace for no real reason. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 23:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing members - if the name leads to another article then fix it dont just remove it. You are really pushing the limits of WP:ASG today and I wont be in a hurry to forget it.-- Vintagekits 00:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are just going to be lazy and not fix it then I will just revert it later - to be honest after your actions today I have very little time for you. -- Vintagekits 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This edit is clearly inappropriate, given the name you removed clearly states the person is dead and therefore cannot refer to a living person, if it links to a living person you should disambiguate it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing whatsoever in the Patrick Doyle article to indicate he is or was ever a member of the IRA. The onus is surely on an editor to make sure an entry they are making on that list is to the correct article - it is not my job to do their work for them. In any case, there is no disambig page or article to link to. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I my opinion this editor is borderline touching on WP:POINT and seriously embarassing himself today. To be honest before this I may have strongly disagreed with many of Bastuns views but thought that he was a decent editor - however after today that has all changed.-- Vintagekits 00:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll make this simple for you. You removed an entry of someone who died in either the Easter Rising or Irish War of Independence, so well before Peter Doyle was born in 1953. That is clearly disruptive and trying to make a point, as one cannot possibly be the other in the mind of any rational thinking person. You disambiguate the link to Peter Doyle (Irish republican), it's not difficult. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, obviously its more difficult than it looks :-) Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Have you breached WP:3RR on this page over the past 24 hours?-- Vintagekits 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP it is paramount not to have a name on a list of IRA members that inadvertently links to an individual of the same name who is not an IRA member. The priority is to stop this. Removing the name from the list is sanctioned by BLP and should not be hindered in any way. Reinstating such erroneous links knowingly is a serious matter. It's up to list makers to be more careful. If an editor chooses to disambiguate rather than remove the name, that's enitirely up to them, but there is no obligation to do so. Also WP:3RR does not apply to users, who are removing BLP vios. Tyrenius 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article, and the sources before trying to make a point. Even a cursory check of the names of the references would have showed you that all 3 men were referred to as IRA men. Thanks. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 00:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop adding County Londonderry after the name of the city of Derry - it is in breach of its MOS and more evidence of your attempt to WP:POINT. You actions since you embarassing behaviour yesterday are pushing my WP:AGF to the limited.-- Vintagekits 08:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You real are on a roll! You are wrong! Derry NEVER carries its county name after it it is simple Derry - much like (a I have already pointed out!) Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow who also do not carry their county names in addition to their own.-- Vintagekits 09:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

For example see - Derry Celtic F.C., John Duddy, Derry City F.C., Derry News, Rosemount, Derry, Derry Journal, Waterside, Derry, Derry Gaol, Creggan, Derry, St Cecilia's College, St. Joseph's Boys' School, Eugene Ferry. Enough?-- Vintagekits 09:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to acknowledge this, apologies and self revert or are you once again going to force admin to needlessly get involved in a situation that could have been reasonably sorted out?-- Vintagekits 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vitagekits has now reverted two of my alterations to Tony Jordan and Michael Clarke - both in ref to the alleged IRA member - the second in clear breach of agreed policy to refer to members of IRA and on subsequent references the word volunteer (small v) can be used. I don't want to mess up a regular person's talk page with NPOV/POV talk about terrorists. So how do I resolve this one? - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been reported here for breaching the 3 revert rule. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into this report as an admin. "Tirghrá" is a partisan source but I do not accept that it is unacceptable as a reliable source. The IRA as an illegal organisation is unlikely to have the sort of perfectly reliable and neutral sources which would be perfect, but the fact that the Republican movement has a profound interest in its own history means that this sort of source can be acceptable. Even if it was not, then this would not be an exception from the three revert rule.

There is no application of biographies of living people policy because the people in the book were all killed in the troubles for them to get an entry. You are allowed to change links so that they do not point at articles for someone different, in other words, to disambiguate them.

The upshot of this is that I think you have technically broken the three revert rule. I am not intending at present to block you because I accept that you believed you were not breaking policy and you were active on the talk page discussing the issue. However, if you continue to engage in reverting along the lines you were doing, I may change my mind. Are you happy with this resolution of the report? Sam Blacketer 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with this resolution, though do please note I was acting in good faith following an admin's comments [2] [3]. Thanks, Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with JzG on removing redlinks, but disagree with him that Tirghrá is valueless as a source. However, admins do not have any additional privileges in editing disputes. I will close the 3RR report now. Sam Blacketer 17:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record my votes in AfDs are always per policy and guidelines, yet you will notice I am voluntarily removing myself from the AfD process on related articles.

Your votes on Arbuthnot related AfDs seem to have been partisan at times, and little more than piling on - examples [4] [5] [6].

In the interests of somehow resolving this dispute in a timely and civil manner I don't believe I'm asking a lot to ask you to refrain from voting in Arbuthnot related AfDs, especially as the agreement will prevent the editors involved from nominating them in the first place. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your claims aren't backed up by the evidence.

• Alexander George Arbuthnot - [7] [8]

Slight problem, neither of the people you agreed with said why the person met the notability guidelines at WP:BIO, and neither failed to address the lack of multiple, independent non-trivial sources. So your vote wasn't based on policy (sic).

• John Alves Arbuthnot - [9] [10] [11]

Another slight problem, not one of the people you agreed with said why the person met notability guidelines, again specifically the lack of multiple, independent non-trivial sources. Also everyone seem you agreed with was "keep per MGM", but his vote wasn't based on guidelines and some of his other recent votes have been equally dubious - [12] [13] [14] [15]. Look at each article in turn and the lack of sources, and also the "sources" he provided. His votes are not anywhere near based on Wikipedia guidelines, therefore neither are the people who agree with him, including you.

• Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet - [16] [17]

Same again, no multiple, independent non-trivial sources.

Again, the McCaughey AfD occurred before you started being disruptive. Also your AfD participations are quite telling, apart from the Virginia Tech massacre the only ones you've participated in since February are the recent Arbuthnot ones, so I'm more than justified in my assessment in my opinion. It seems you can be relied upon to pile on with a "Keep" vote, and that's exactly what I'm trying to prevent with my proposal. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Check again - 8 AfD participations since February: 5 unrelated to Arbuthnots including a 'Keep' on McCaughey; 3 on Arbuthnots. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you learn what "since" means, although I did miss the Essjay one admittedly. My point stands, you vote in a partisan way that ignores guidelines. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 11:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then, "from 1st March", it's still 3 - 3... you're clearly incorrect. But lets both of us stop beating a dead horse. I've already said I'm willing to work with the proposal. And its a good one. Thanks for coming up with it. Maybe try persuading certain other editors to go along with it too. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Although the proposal is now moot due to the actions of a certain editor, an example of what I was proposing can be seen on the Emma Groves AfD which you're aware of. I would still suggest such a thing would be preferable to partisan block voting by both sides, and allow community consensus to be formed solely by neutral parties. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have contacted you after making the rvs. The main problem I had is that almost the entire page is your interpretation of her writings. I will try again. Hope you approve. Pls. lv me a message on my talkpage if you don't. Sergeant Trotter 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, I'm sorry - I just think striking is the best way to deal with a comment like Sarah's - it encourages her to take it elsewhere - to your talk page where you can feel free to ignore it. For the record I don't think you've ever engaged in a personal attack - and this time I have no idea what she's talking about. But I could hardly strike one comment without striking the other, and if I was going to strike that one yours didn't need to be there - and I didn't edit. It's up to you but I would encourage you to do the same - with a "discuss on my talk page" edit summary, rather than letting this stuff take over. -- Lo2u ^{( T • C)} 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bastun, a very nice new article. I put the stub-Ireland on it. Actually, I didn't have to buy a drink there, so I don't know the price of a pint there. But ended up in O'Donoghue's Pub, and had another 3 or 4. Nice night. Gold♥ 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I just linked to it in my reply and was surprised to see it appear as a redlink. Didn't have time to do all the stubby and cat stuff though. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 07:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Bastun, thanks for some of your comments. I really don't like accusing anyone of directing a personal attack against me. You have asked me for the link, and to be honest I had some difficulty tracing, and also I was busy at other things too. In a court of law, it's most often in the way a transgression is interpreted by the recipient that is accepted by the court as being fact. So if the recipient has been hurt by some remark, the court won't deem on whether the recipient should, or should not have been hurt by a remark (slander). Basically, the way I took this remarkis as follows. You addressed me, and you pointed to a WP link that was all about "hate". The inference was that I hated the term "British Isles", or maybe I hated the term British. This could, in the circumstance be inferred that I harboured "racial hatred". Well Bastun, that's very far from the truth. Sometimes these disputes get into the area of hyperbola, and maybe the odd "point" is pressed a little too strong, but Bastun, it's not hatred, it's just debate. It's important that one can argue, with fervour sometimes, without being tarred with the above, and it's not a nice accusation to take, especially when it's incorrect. Gold♥ 01:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply here. Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Bastun that it was you who made the "interesting... chain of assumptions" - I didn't assume anything about you, nor did I question your motives for being on the British Isles (BI) page, nor would I tell you how or what to think, or believe for that matter. That's your personal business. The paragraph you pointed to, without going into detail, did not represent me, or my beliefs, at all. Neither did it represent anything I had said. It can be uncivil to make an assumption about another editor, it's always better to keep the subject, and not to make the other editors the subject. You said, "To be clear, my intention was only to point out that an editor can't remove something because they don't like it". Who told you that I don't like the term BI? Who said that I wanted to remove the article BI from WP? Also, the content of your direction was about hatred. The situation is, that because you pointed to that paragraph, those words became yours, including the "hatred" word. It was not a "relevant essay", it was totally uncalled for, and totally irrelevant. Quote, "I don't think linking to WP rules, guideline or essays is generally frowned upon". Bastun, it's not a WP rule you pointed to, as you said, it's an essay, and I believe that it is an essay that should be rewritten. What rules did I break Bastun? It was totally uncalled for, and I hope you see clearly, my points. Neither do I harbour grudges, I wan't to move on from here, and thanks for kinder words earlier, but it is important that you understand the points I have made here today. Gold♥ 01:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bastun, I would like to take this opportunity to apoligise to you about the lurking remark. It was misconceived and I totally withdraw it. Happy editing. Gold♥ 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, I shouldn't have been editing last night. "Wine and Wiki, makes editing tricky";) Gold♥ 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I'd reply in rhyme too, but I can't think of anything to rhyme with Kopperberg... Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please -let's not revert-war over this. The discussion is going fairly well to-date & we should probably keep at it - Alison ☺ 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You may not have known even I (with my generally incorrectly guessed at motives) took grave exception to that edit? One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw the revert all right, but wasn't aware of the AN/I report. Thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, Bastun ^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You learn something new every day! Oh and with regard to any future meatpuppetry investigation, I wasn't planning on including you in it so no need to worry. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions for improvement give me a shout or be bold, as you can tell by the history there's been little input from anyone else since I started improving it, and I'm not vain enough to think input from other editors couldn't hurt. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 15:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OC is the name all the sources use (and the IRA), and the acronym is established in the first paragraph of this section. I've no objections to the full OC name being used again if you want to, but CO is wrong. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 09:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I try and make articles clear for the "average reader", but at times it's easy to think that something is obvious when it isn't really. One Night In Hackney ₃₀₃ 11:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I just think it was meant as a quote (along the lines of everything else in that section), but couldn't tell where it came from so left it for whoever added it to ref it properly. Added quotes and ref now. That whole section is still a mess, tho. What should be done - rewrite now or leave it for the "defense" to add a similar number of quotes? -- sony-youth ^pléigh 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't look at where it was quoted. Yes, the neglect, etc. are far more relevent and substantial. As are attitudes to Ireland (for example popular view that the famine was sent from God as punishment for Popery). -- sony-youth ^pléigh 10:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, Lest you inadvertently stumble into a breach of 3RR I think it fair to warn you that you have already made two reverts. I think changes of the nature you intend should be discussed at the Talk:Great Irish Famine first. Regards ( Sarah777 11:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Two I count. Three now. ( Sarah777 11:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Bastun, be aware of WP:3RR. I know you are just a friendly warning, as this is an edit dispute on Great Irish Famine. Ben W Bell talk 11:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)