User talk:Bastun/Jul - Dec 2008

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bastun. 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.

Bastun, Why did you delete my support vote for Vk at the AE ----while adding your own? Wars have started over less :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did I? Jebus,entirely unintentional. No idea how it happened. Sorry about that!

Hi Bastun, I'm Jadrian Miles, the author of a paper about adoption that you cited back in January in the "Reform & Reunion" section of the Adoption article. It's reference #65: [1]. I appreciate that someone out there read that paper, but it was a survey paper done for an undergraduate class, not a real research paper. I think future readers of the article would be better served by citations taken from among my references, rather than a citation of my paper itself. You seem to be very active in the life of the Adoption page; keep up the good work and thanks for looking! - 128.148.31.120 (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I need clarification on which version you're speaking of, as Lough Neagh has been changed 'back & forth' these last couple of days. PS- I feel all these BI disputes should be settled at BI dispute page. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The current version - which mentions BI. The "political correctness" of avoiding a geographical term because its unpopular with an unknown number of people, on an encyclopedic project, seems absurd. BTW, agree with you and Sarah 100% on mandatory registration - it'd be the one best thing WP could do. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What I think is absurd is letting the fact that there are 15 times more people in one country be the decisive factor in deciding what terms are to be used in Wiki articles about another country. And the decision? The political perspective and POV of the bigger country is imposed by sheer voting strength without consensus. Surprise, not. Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Its still a term in worldwide use, though, not just in Britain and Ireland. And a geographical term, at that. Anyway - hope you enjoyed your holiday, seems you brought some of the weather back. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hols were great thanks. No point in re-hashing the arguments about the validity of the term and in what contexts; my point stands - it is imposed on Wiki for the simple reason that those supporting a British Nationalist pov outnumber Irish editors who don't want such pov imposed on articles relating to Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Others see it as common usage supporters out-numbering Irish Nationalist POV pushers. Life would've been much easier, if the term British Isles had never been invented. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the fact that when votes are taken 80% of supporters of imposing BI are British and 80% of those opposing it are Irish speaks volumes and wouldn't support the "common usage" arguments which have been well debunked. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, Wiki-life would've been much easier, without the term BI. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Not my fault what the brand is. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just YouTubed it... Umm... each to their own? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But then you should pretty much complain about the admins/editors. Someone has to moderate them. We can support each other here. Lihaas (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want to bring your attention to this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronology_of_Continuity_IRA_actions&diff=227996486&oldid=227987549

Same person removed a sourced referenced saying its unsourced. Lihaas (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My friend,

I think this is grounds for an appeal. You should read the discussion part and the new comments. Spells out like flagrant censorship. And the 3RR rule has become 4 on his part. Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Talk:Terminology of the British Isles#British Isles Terminology Task force.

I have suggested an admin-made 'rollback' of Tharkuncoll's BI insertion in the Shannon article, so we can more easily proceed. Someone initially asked for its removal as a proviso for the task force, but it got me thinking. I think it would be a decent gesture of good faith, and means we can start the task force without the Shannon being 'locked' hanging over all of our heads. We can of course express that the rollback doesn't mean the term is not right for the Shannon, and that no precedent is being set. What do you think? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Sarah, go read WP:3RR. Reverting an anonymous IP who removes referenced material with edit summaries such as "rv British nationalist insertion" does not count as a revert under 3rr. As you can see above, however, you are currently on three reverts. Haven't you been warned before about your "everyone who disagrees with me is pushing a pro-British pov"? Please stop. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you part of wikiproject IR? I just created Irish Republican Liberation Army. Have you seen this? It could use some help in editing. So far 2 of us have worked on it, and got something up. But its not the best as youll see ;) Thanks Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, never heard of them. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Batsun, thanks for replying on the summary. I know that you've been involved here a lot longer than me, and you've also been involved in many many discussions on "Republic of Ireland". Given the constant recurring discussions on this topic, would you consider any other name to the article than "Republic of Ireland" in the interests of getting some peace on this article? I think it's clear that "Ireland" is not an option, but what about some form of name like "Ireland (state)" or "Ireland (Republic)"? I'd like to understand your thoughts/objections. I believe if this was changed, peace might actually break out on this topic, and might even effect other related topics like "British Isles". Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear HK, I take exception to your silly claim that "it's clear that "Ireland" is not an option". It may well be the only option. Sarah777 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if it really is black vs white by looking at the shades of grey... --HighKing (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, HighKing, I think the current situation is the best one. The issue is complicated by the fact of the island and state sharing the same name. In the circumstances, Ireland for the island and Republic of Ireland for the state is clear, unambiguous, and puts Ireland (the state) in the same boat as many other countries on WP, where official descriptions of states and/or their common names are used for their article titles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you believe the current situation is the best one. I don't, not based on my own preferences, but based on the evidence that this discussion crops up regularly with the same cyclical arguments. Would you consider/support a different title (in any circumstances), or are you firm that the article must be called "Republic of Ireland"? Is there a 2nd best solution, and a 3rd best, etc.... --HighKing (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ping --HighKing (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As of now, I'm firmly of the opinion that the article should be called "Republic of Ireland". That may change should I see sufficiently compelling arguments for changing the article name, but to date, I haven't seen any. The mock outrage at "our country's article should be at our country's official name ZOMG!!111!" that is so often evident just doesn't stand up - in actuality, many states end up at some other page name - viz United States, France, Italy and even United Kingdom. It just so happens Ireland happens to have an officially legislated description, Republic of Ireland, which serves as a very good name for the article seeing as Ireland is already taken. But like I say, I'm open to persuasion, should I see a compelling argument. To date, I haven't seen one. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bastun, and I don't mean to be a pain, but I already knew what your position is on the current names. This isn't what I'm asking. *If* we accept that this row trundles on and comes up regularly again and again, and *if* we accept that about 50% of current editors appear to disagree with the current title, I'm wondering ... what title will keep most people happy. Obviously the title "Ireland" will also result in >50% of people. But is there another title that you might agree to (with whatever qualifications, etc). I'm being careful to ensure that this isn't a crude "trap", or that you will be held to anything you say, etc. Just interested in your opinion on moving a little to get the %age of unhappy editors as low as possible so that we can avoid going round in circles all the time.... --HighKing (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Give the editor some peace. Djegan (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, mind your own business. I'm sure Bastun is very capable and very articulate. --HighKing (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why are you canvassing here? Djegan (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"But is there another title that you might agree to (with whatever qualifications, etc)." No. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - thanks. --HighKing (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to delete the Category Irish Roman Catholics that I added and say it wasn't relevant. This is an article about a singer as well as a biography. The singer performed at the Vatican in 1995. She is also a practicing Roman Catholic and was married in a Catholic Church. So is Pierce Brosnan (who was also married in a Catholic Church in Ireland), and he has that category on his page.

You can't just delete something because you don't like it. I will be adding some more information about that special performance on her page. Also, she has described herself as being a "devout Roman Catholic". I will be adding the link to the articles or interviews citing this. But, the singer's faith is already well known. You can be a Catholic and be a "new-age" musician. New Age doesn't just refer to pagans, etc. It has to do with her culture's history. Old earth religions are accepted as being aspects of One God.

This seems like it was deleted because someone has a problem with Roman Catholics or Catholicism in general.

Please stop deleting categories just because you don't want to accept a person's religion. This is a biography, and as such, a person's faith (if he or she has one) is included. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:

Dia Dhuit -Sorry, I meant to add this on the Enya page. You may feel free to remove it off your own page. Oh, and I've been to Ireland twice and am absolutely in love with your country.

I am learning some gaelic as well. I just have to say that the Irish are the warmest people I've met. Slán go foill!

I agree. Provided their religion is relevant - as in this case. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask anyone "Who is Enya?" - and they'll say "A singer." Same with Pierce Brosnan - an actor. Neither are famous or WP:notable because of their faith. The Category:Irish Catholics exists for people who are notable because of their faith - it includes clerics, missionaries, martyrs, politicians (where their faith was a pretty defining characteristic - e.g., Daniel O'Connell and so on - i.e., notable per their faith, as stated on that category's main page. If it was added to every Irish person who was a Catholic, there'd be thousands. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, a new section has been added to the Adoption page.Tobit2 (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Make that you, myself, Sarah777, Matt Lewis & Snowded in agreement. Registered Users unite. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding your recent edits to talk:Republic of Ireland: ranting on talk pages is more likely to work against you than the person you're ranting at. Regardless of Sarah777's attitude to the subject, the only productive thing to do is to follow the project's guidelines; that is, remain calm, be civil, and follow the usual dispute resolution process. It doesn't look like the page is going to be moved any time soon anyway, and I doubt yet another page move request will change that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An Arbitration case has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop. -- Evertype·✆ 20:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)