User talk:Bastun/2019

Fake revert

Please desist from making fake reverts, as you did at Karen Bradley. It is fine to re-add the material with refs, what is not fine is to pretend that you were reverting when actually you were adding sources. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. I hit 'undo' and added references in that edit. Is there something wrong with that? I didn't pretend or 'fake' anything. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes because it appears you reverted when actually you didn't. It's unhelpful for other editors. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny ref names

FYI, I asked at the Village Pump about those funny <ref name=":0"> things. The discussion is here. The bottom line is that we're stuck with them, for a whole lot of complicated reasons. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Computers, eh? More trouble than they're worth! ;-) Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terence Flanagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Woods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

British cats?

You should probably remove this cat's nationality too. It's one of Larry's "colleagues"... https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Palmerston_(cat)

All your base are belong to us. Hahaha. Nice.

Edit warring: Siobhan Fahey

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. 94.6.78.201 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

An anon IP issuing templated warnings? Why don't you log in, there, and use the one account... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring: Larry Sanger

Your recent editing history at Larry Sanger 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Two editors have identified problems with your changes. QuackGuru (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Irish Romanists

Hello, Bastun,

You tagged this empty category for deletion on CSD C1 grounds. However, it is also a category redirect and so it is not eligible for speedy deletion even though it is empty. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good Omens

Thanks for the request for page protection on Good Omens. I suspected that IP was evading a block, but didn’t have much to go by. Hopefully he/she will settle done now. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Do look up what a dynamic IP is while you're at it. I'll be back next week for the cast updates. Cheers. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

David Norris

Hi Bastun, I've replied on the talk page. Talk:David_Norris_(politician) Please reply. I want to reach a compromise. Tomás Tomás Deb (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed wrong signature

@Bastun:It was a wrong signature. Someone replaced the nominator by mistake. Check again, please. Here is the edit where the wrong signature was added by mistake, this created a wrong attribution for who actually started the original nomination. Can you restore to fix it, please? 207.239.48.242 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I understand we view things differently. I was attempting to create more appropriate sections. No need to use a disrespectful tone. I spent a lot of time doing that to see if it would work as a compromise. If it doesn't so be it but it wasn't to distract you. Don't take things so personally. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I'm not totally disagreeing with you but you are the only one who's wanted to remove the Lee, Ward reference. No one else has brought that up or tried to remove it other than you. Also the page doesn't contain OP. So, where I think you've made valid points and I can see the article needs to be trimmed does not mean you're individual vision of the page is completely the way to go, just as it's been pointed out mine isn't either. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I not only encouraged people who disagreed with me in my canvassing to join the conversation but also to help edit the page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I'm messaging you just to make sure you get this. If you'd like me to leave it on the talk page as well I can but I'm not sure it's necessary. I see your perspective on the article now and it makes more sense, although of course there are a couple of things I may disagree with but it's not a big deal. I appreciate you leaving some and hopefully seeing how it may be valuable to the page. However, as you've left some and deleted other content you've also accidentally deleted references to information you've left from paragraphs you've edited. I'm going to look at references as they're still on the page and hopefully I'll find the ones that are needed. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The comments I'm leaving on the talk page are glitching out. They're appearing in different sections. I just thought it didn't get posted. Thank you for noticing. I don't if it's possible for you to refer that section to my vote. It's about the title. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Weird bug. I'll move your comment down. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It is weird. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Niamh Ui Bhriain

You are deleting corrections to this page - https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Niamh_U%C3%AD_Bhriain

I'm not sure why you and your bots are doing this.

This page contains a serious libel about Niamh - one she has already sued Independent Newspapers for and won compensation and costs.

There are many other inaccuracies and incorrect statements in the piece.

I added some referenced information and it was removed.

Unless you stop deleting corrections I will advise her to go to law again.

BeanSean (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Disuss the article on its talk page, not here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You have threatened people correcting the Niamh Ui Bhriain page that they will be banned.

You don't seem to understand how libel works. You have repeated the libel made by Justine McCarthy in the Indo (it doesn't matter if you have referenced the libellous article or then say it a case was taken) and therefore you are opening Wikipedia up to a legal case. Wiki clearly says any libellous material must be removed.

Secondly, why is she being described as 'right-wing'. Who gets to decide that? You? Did you write the page? It's clearly biased and trying to be as negative as possible.

I see that someone else posted that she was also a musician and provided a reference but you removed that. Why?

Gaelach2019 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Disuss the article on its talk page, not here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)