User talk:Bastun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Barnstar of Humour Hires.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For the classic line: "End the tryanny inflicted on the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya! Liberate the French Republic! Stop the oppression of the United Mexican States! Won't someone please think of the State of the City of the Vatican?!" That po-faced debate seriously needed lightening up. Keep up the good work. JonCTalk 21:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Purple Star The Purple Star
For weathering that ridiculous AN/I. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 12:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Irish topics
... you were recipient
no. 1575 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and three --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the news[edit]

Ambox current red Americas.svg

On 14 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mother and Baby Homes Commission of Investigation, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Gerda Arendt! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Tate article[edit]

I want to meet minds about what it means to be "raised as a [insert religious identity here]" versus "raised in [insert religion here]". To my mind, it is different to be "raised as a Christian" than to be "raised in Christianity". I was raised in Christianity but it never took because I viewed the god figure like I viewed Santa Claus, so I was never "a Christian". Whatever my parents were trying to raise me as, it didn't work; I was never raised "as a Christian", because the attempt failed. It seems to me that "raise as a ___" implies that the person did become indoctrinated with the religion through their upbringing. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was raised as a Christian but am now an atheist. I think most people would not see any difference in meaning between the two formulations, though the latter is a more awkward construction. But my talk page is not the place to discuss this; it should be discussed on the article talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious. What part of MOS:NICKNAME is unclear to you? We never structure first lines like this if someone is known by their initials and that name is used as the article title. Why on earth would it be necessary? Why should Ms Jemisin be an exception? It's not her pseudonym; it's merely her name. An obvious similar article would be J. R. R. Tolkien, who also wrote under his initials; we don't spell out his "pseudonym" because it wasn't a pseudonym. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The place to discuss this is at the N. K. Jemisin article, not my talk page. I opened a talk-page section there, which crossed over with your post here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • @Daniel Case: - it's not clear where the 3RR violation occurred, nor when. Can you point out where? Genuinely confused here - Alison talk 23:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alison: I have unblocked. The edit summary here led me to believe it was the same as the other reverts, but oddly the actual action has nothing to do with them. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um... @Daniel Case:, @Alison: - I can see I've apparently been issued a block in error (now lifted). Genuine mistake, no worries. However, can the record of that block be expunged, please? I have been editing here for over 15 years and have a clean block record that I'd like to keep, if at all possible. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure ... but an oversighter has to do it, I think. Never mind, I've RevDel'ed it. (But if you do want it to be invisible to admins, ask an oversighter. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Daniel Case: - the reason I took note in the first place, is that you blocked an established editor for 3RR without any warning whatsoever. No nothings. On top of that, you've marked a 15-year unblemished record and, as it turns out, done so in error. Yet you've not even apologized - c'mon. I suggest rather than Bastún try to deal with the OS folks, or the Devs or whoever, that you try to put this right and reach out to them - Alison talk 20:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been in contact with the OS team and they have informed me that not only can they not do this; the log entries cannot be RevDel'ed, either, so I will have to undo that.
This whole affair may sharpen your interest in this proposal at the Community Wishlist Survey, BTW. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have restored the long entries. Note that my summary for the unblock states that it was my mistake. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't say I'm happy about this, @Daniel Case:. Who can I talk to about this? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The oversight team, maybe, but they'd probably tell you the same thing. ArbCom is above them, but I don't know that they'd see it any differently. The opposes to that proposal at the Wishlist Survey suggest any argument on this has a very steep slope to climb. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case:, @Alison: - would it be usual for Oversight to just not respond to an email? I found their page four days ago and sent an email; received a copy from, but have heard nothing since, not even an acknowledgement. I know they're volunteers too, but that seems... slow? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're probably really busy so it's no harm to ping them again. I was one myself, so know the deal - Alison talk 17:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers, Allie, will do! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Adoption. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Sphilbrick: - thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have seen the mentioned phrase "see that page's history for attribution" around the place, now I know why - every day is a schoolday! I'll follow the advice there now. Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I have everything done now: edit summary (even got the date right the second time!) and text template added to the destination talk page. Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank-you. Interesting that you have seen the phrase, and may have wondered what prompted it. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christopher Palles[edit]

Hi, nice to talk to you again haha. Reading what you linked again I remember, but I'll copy and paste it here: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be verified reliable published sources that, by consensus, support the information and show that the description is appropriate. Religion is not heritable. Never categorize by a religion of any parents or other ancestors."

So this entirely fits with adding him as a Catholic. I know you think that he doesn't qualify but it even mentions him being Catholic twice in his wikipedia article, three times if you count a note in the sources, once it being notable that he was denied being a full "Scholar of the House" specifically because he was Catholic and that Catholics weren't allowed to be Scholars of the House at the time. In addition in other articles it mentions that he fought important political battles for Civil Rights for Catholics more or less.

You're the only one on wikipedia I've ever met who has this opinion of being this stringent of who should be qualified to be put into a religious category. There are literally hundreds, thousands of people on wikipedia who are less notable for being of their religion who are still put into that category and it seems accepted and even encouraged to categorize them like this.

Christopher Palles guy, March 18th 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the people who came to a consensus on WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R clearly agree with me, as do those who also remove inappropriate religious and no-religion categories where the person's notability doesn't derive from their religion, so there's that... 🤷‍♂ Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, it seems that the WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R clearly agree with me........ 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂ Cheers

- Christopher Palles guy

BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) 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. CAT/R: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. These are pretty unequivocal. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]