Hi, welcome to my talk page!
|
Speedy deletion nomination of 2024 Masters (darts)
[edit]Hello Bastun,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2024 Masters (darts) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want 2024 Masters (darts) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
~ Tails Wx 19:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Leek RUFC
[edit]I see that you have requested the immediate deletion of my article about Leek RUFC.
It was widely established, and accepted, many years ago that any English rugby union club which plays, or has played, at level 5 or above is notable enough to have its own article. Leek is now playing at that level and this is why I created the article. Therefore I am not sure as to why you have asked for this article to be speedily deleted. Rillington (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Rillington, I replied at Talk:Leek RUFC. Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have replied. I hope you will accept that my reply is respectful and sticks to facts, and that it does not revert to displays of emotion/upset which, you will understand, does exist following this speedy deletion request.
- I also want to respectfully make two observations which I feel are better suited to your talk page. Wouldn't it have been much more positive to have spend a short period of time improving the article rather than engaging in this speedy deletion request. If you had done this then the already several hours of my time which I have spent trying to counteract your speedy deletion request would have been spent more productively elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, with hindsite, might it have been better to have left a note outlining your concerns on my talkpage rather than going for a speedy deletion? Rillington (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Rillington. We help the project where we can and where we have interest. So I edit articles of interest to me, and in my own case, I decided to help out doing some 'backroom' stuff. So, for context, I joined the Wikipedia:New pages patrol in the last couple of weeks. Checking WP's newly created pages involves following a somewhat convoluted procedure. After checking Leek RUFC against the standard 'General Notability Guidelines' (as teams don't have a specific notability one) I followed up by checking the specific guidelines for Rugby Union teams. As mentioned, Leek RUFC doesn't seem to meet those guidelines either, but if, as you say, there are already dozens of such articles, the logical thing to do would be to get that notability guideline changed on the Rugby Union project, as, as it stands, the article still doesn't appear to meet the GNG guidelines:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- Hi, Rillington. We help the project where we can and where we have interest. So I edit articles of interest to me, and in my own case, I decided to help out doing some 'backroom' stuff. So, for context, I joined the Wikipedia:New pages patrol in the last couple of weeks. Checking WP's newly created pages involves following a somewhat convoluted procedure. After checking Leek RUFC against the standard 'General Notability Guidelines' (as teams don't have a specific notability one) I followed up by checking the specific guidelines for Rugby Union teams. As mentioned, Leek RUFC doesn't seem to meet those guidelines either, but if, as you say, there are already dozens of such articles, the logical thing to do would be to get that notability guideline changed on the Rugby Union project, as, as it stands, the article still doesn't appear to meet the GNG guidelines:
- Likewise, no disrespect intended, but if you've spent several hours on the article since I tagged it, I'd expect it to be longer than two sentences and have some independent sources added. While I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion, it's quite possible somebody else will, and as it stands, it would not survive AfD. And no, I'm not a deletionist - the logs show I've tagged/patrolled 121 articles since 1st Jan, and nominated only 5 for deletion. One of those was in a foreign language, and one was about a family farm with no claim to notability or sources. Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your replies, and I am glad that you haven't taken any offence to my postings. Despite our disagreement, we remained respectful and civil and we should both be proud of this. Almost all of us have the same basic goal and that is to improve Wikipedia, and I know you share this goal with me.
- Even before you made your point about only nominating 5/121 patrolled articles for deletion, I had already concluded that you are not a deletionist, and only hinted at this because you used such a draconian tool on this occasion. Rillington (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/60px-Peacedove.svg.png)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience
[edit]I just wanted to say thank you for your patience and your contributions to Black Irish (folklore). As a subject, it's proving to be one of the most contentious I've ever had to engage in on Wikipedia, and I appreciate having someone knowledgable "in the room" for the conversations on the Talk page. I don't know about the immediate future, but maybe a year from now, I could envision the article becoming semi-protected or some other kind of lock if it continues to attract a certain kind of user who is overtly interested in pseudo-history/pseudo-science.
I appreciate your efforts, CeltBrowne (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome! I can't believe this... I hesitate to call it a "debate" has been ongoing for over a year now! :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Pfft
[edit]Hi Bastun. I don't follow rugby so I know very little about it. I didn't know the sport doesn't have "friendlies", so-called.
I see at the friendly match article that rugby friendlies (as I call them, in my ignorance) are never called exhibitions or friendlies "as they always have Test match status", according to the article. I have heard of test matches in cricket but without knowing what that means, because I don't follow cricket either.
Concerning rugby, the article continues, "National teams sometimes play exhibition matches" and "preseason matches". What wasn't clear to me was what these games are called in rugby, if not friendlies, so perhaps that article could use a lick of clarification from an eggball expert like you to rehabilitate an ingenue like me.
I see you opted for "Autumn Nations Series" – I can only bow to your greater wisdom.
My knowledge of sport extends from football to throwing boomerangs and frisbees, so I'm vulnerable to the odd eyerolling "pfft" when I stray beyond my competence :) Thanks for the edit fix. Spideog (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Spideog, my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I wrote that edit summary, and I really hope that managed to come across! I am no rugby expert, just a fan, and about 50% of the time I have no clue why a penalty has been called at the breakdown! But essentially, yes, all international games, except warm-up matches on a tour (against, say, a club or provincial side, like when Munster beat the All Blacks, or against a "scratch" team like the Barbarians) count as "test matches" for world ranking points. Which decides things like seedings and pools for the Rugby World Cup. I'll have a look at the article you mention later. In the meantime - happy first day of Sixmas! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- No offence taken! I saw your smileys and recognised my ignorance. Sixmas, huh? I thought it was The Day After Brigid's Day but, like rugby, I don't follow Christianity either, although I know the Old Testament contains six references to "pissing" which I was told was rude ;) Spideog (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of NEXT GIRLZ
[edit]Hello Bastun,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged NEXT GIRLZ for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want NEXT GIRLZ to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
CoconutOctopus talk 15:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Mailbutler page deletion
[edit]Hi Bastun, can you tell me what is the promotional part that you saw on Mailbutler's page? Can you check Mailbird Wikipedia page to compare it? Thanks Sekulov (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Sekulov, the whole page was essentially unambigious advertising or promotion. Articles on WP must be about notable topics, that meet the General Notability Guideline, i.e., "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - but please read the page for a better understanding. Prior to deletion, the article essentially listed a bunch of features, and plugins that the app works with, i.e., promotional/advertising with no indication of notability or significance. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Undraftifying Draft:Incomplete_database
[edit]Hello, I see you had draftified Draft:Incomplete_database which I had moved to mainspace. Following your feedback I have gone over the article to make it clearer. I think this article is now is a good enough space for main space. If you agree, could you move it back and recreate the redirects that you had deleted? Thanks! a3nm (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi A3nm, for a draftified article, you will need to submit the page for review, per WP:AFCREVIEW. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm confused because I see the following in WP:DRAFTOBJECT: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD." So I was thinking that, given my objection, you would undo the draftification and move back the article to mainspace. Could you do so? Thanks. a3nm (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I assumed that was a request, not an objection. That's done now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! a3nm (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I assumed that was a request, not an objection. That's done now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm confused because I see the following in WP:DRAFTOBJECT: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD." So I was thinking that, given my objection, you would undo the draftification and move back the article to mainspace. Could you do so? Thanks. a3nm (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
[edit]![]() |
Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
This award is given in recognition to Bastun for collecting more than 200 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award
[edit]![]() |
Geneva mechanism Award | |
This award is given in recognition to Bastun for collecting at least 25 points during each week of the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
Precious anniversary
[edit]![]() | |
Seven years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Aww! Thank you, Gerda, very much appreciated! <3 BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Your CSD nomination of Spice rack
[edit]Hi Bastun,
Just letting you know I removed your CSD tag on Spice rack. You had tagged it under G4, but the article previously deleted was a redirect to "spice" at the same title, not the article that is currently present. CoconutOctopus talk 11:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh! Thanks, CoconutOctopus, obviously my coffee hasn't kicked in yet! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! Easy enough mistake to make and no harm done! CoconutOctopus talk 11:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Cathal Ó Searcaigh again
[edit]Hi again Bastun,
I wasn't aware that I shouldn't link to drafts -- being very inexperienced, I was simply responding to the advice pages advice that drafts should not be left as 'orphans' by having no links to them from other related articles. I've completely misunderstood in that case. You have an eagle eye! Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, Dmhball~enwiki, the bio page is on my watchlist. Just to note, the bibliography article should be referring to Cathal as Ó Searcaigh, not by forename, in common with the rest of WP. Although references aren't strictly needed for a bibliography, ISBNs. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Global World Series
[edit]Hello Bastun, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Global World Series, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: G4: not remotely similar to deleted article, and deletion discussion was nearly 10 years ago. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Ivanvector. As I'm not an admin, I don't have visibility of deleted pages, but I can see the prior deletion discussion. What applied in that AfD seemed equally relevant to the current article. In fact, Spanneraol, who nominated the prior article for deletion, has also sent the re-created one to AfD. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ivanvector How can you say the new article is not "remotely similar to the deleted article"? It's about the exact same subject and the content is substantially the same. Spanneraol (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Bastun,
You draftified this article but didn't inform the article creator about this page move as you are supposed to have done. Either post a message yourself on their User Talk page letting them know where they can find their article or use a script like User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft that does it automatically for you. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Liz, Will do.Still learning! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Undraftifying Draft:Uncertain_database
[edit]Hi,
In January, you had draftified Draft:Uncertain database. I have just gone over the draft to improve it, and I'd like to object (gently) -- I think it is ready to move back to mainspace now. Would that be possible? Thanks! a3nm (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, A3nm - that's done. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
You didn't remove any of the CV text. That needs to be done before an admin can perform the RD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, UtherSRG, I'll do that now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, UtherSRG, the copyvio had already been removed following an AfC decline by Pythoncoder. I've updated the revdel template now to have correct diff. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! RD competed. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- My bad, UtherSRG, the copyvio had already been removed following an AfC decline by Pythoncoder. I've updated the revdel template now to have correct diff. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You draftified Cheerleader (Porter Robinson song) to draft without giving explicit reason for it. While checking th draft, there are reasonable number of sources for standalone or maybe short which can be expanded. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Otuọcha, I used the 'Move to draft' script, which leaves the reason in the edit summary (unless it's a custom reason, which this was), and which also fills in the full reason on the draftified page. Per WP:NSONG, trivial repeats of a press release announcing a new song do not count as significant coverage. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- That can be a case of TOOSOON. Well, under WP:NCOVER, Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. It's best it's redirected to the singer. I suggest you do that or I do. (Passionate appeal) All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, you aren't supposed to draftify articles more than once, as using draftspace is optional. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one was talking about draftifying twice. OP in some way. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Otuọcha: I was talking to Bastun, who draftified the page twice. There was no point in making a separate talkpage section. Sorry for the confusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Owh! Alright. Just to clear claims. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Otuọcha: I was talking to Bastun, who draftified the page twice. There was no point in making a separate talkpage section. Sorry for the confusion. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- No one was talking about draftifying twice. OP in some way. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Edelman Family Foundation
[edit]Hello @Bastun
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
[edit]Hello Bastun,
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/NPP_unreviewed_article_statistics_as_of_April_2%2C_2024.svg/400px-NPP_unreviewed_article_statistics_as_of_April_2%2C_2024.svg.png)
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/New_page_reviewer_of_the_year_cup.svg/74px-New_page_reviewer_of_the_year_cup.svg.png)
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
[edit]New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | ![]() |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 18
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Dublin riot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slovakian.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
[edit]![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Killone Abbey 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Kindly stop hijacking the page and adding non-encyclopedic statements Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BRD and stop trying to WP:OWN the article, Kelly. A restoration of referenced content and engagement on the article talk page is exactly what I am supposed to do. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Unbelievable that you're continuing to EDIT WAR on related pages!
[edit]![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Killone 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop your biased agenda. Further to consensus on Talk page of Killone Abbey page, non-encyclopaedic contentious statement (private) right of way was removed by other neutral editor @Asilvering, as without context or full explanation confuses readers and is unnecessary for an encyclopaedic article hence the confusion in the first place with someone calling it a public right of way and Talk page discussion. Users can read more about Guardianship of OPW on Killone Abbey page. This page is for Killone civil parish, it is not Killone Abbey page. For anyone reading this see Killone Abbey Talk page for what @Bastun is doing. Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kellycrak88, please don't template editors who obviously know what they're doing, and please don't call other editors biased when there is no evidence that they are not acting in good faith. It is ridiculous that you are being accused of trying to WP:OWN articles you did not create or substantially contribute to, but it's no less antagonistic to repeatedly hit another editor with warning templates about edit warring. I have suggested a way forward on my talk page in response to Bastun's comment there. The two of you can take it or leave it - it's only a suggestion and there are other ways to work through this - but continuing the argument via warning templates is not a good solution. -- asilvering (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Lowland Scot and English Protestant Settlers did not Speak Irish Gaelic
[edit]The Lowland Scot/Ulster Scot and Anglo-Irish communities in Ireland spoke Scots or English, not Irish, and still do. Their ancestors brought these languages to Ireland, and did not speak Irish Gaelic. A tiny minority of Ulster Scots from Galloway in SW Scotland spoke Galwegian Gaelic, which is Scots Gaelic, NOT Irish Gaelic. 65.95.157.102 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Read the message at the top of the page, please. This is not the place. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I started a discussion on the talk page, and the organization you linked to never claims that Irish Gaelic was historically ever a community, native or ethnic language of Protestant Scots and English settlers or descendant communities in Ireland (it wasn't). Protestantism's arrival in Ireland began the intense Anglicization of the country, and the settlement sought to sever Gaelic, Catholic Ulster from the Gaelic, Catholic Scottish Highlands.
- Also, the website you linked to confuses Scots Gaelic or Galwegian Gaelic with Ulster Irish Gaelic. They are different languages. Ulster Protestants and Ulster Scots were never native IRISH Gaelic speakers. 65.95.157.102 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
National Party
[edit]Please do not remove information in regards to their local elections, the electoral commission has allowed the Reynolds faction to run in the elections and it is important to highlight their policies post Barrett. Tim121212 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe I did remove anything like that? And no, we will not list their "11 principles" or whatever number it is now; we don't outline other parties' principles like that, they don't get to be an exception. Are you a member? You may need to declare a WP:COI if so. Lastly, see the notice at the top of my page? This isn't the place to discuss article content, that's for the article's Talk page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Van Snyder (DJ)
[edit]Hi,
Being Austria's most popular celebrity 2023 was not just an article on one single website. First of all the information is based on facts by a study/survey. After that the results of the study that has been made, has been published in the crown newspapers of Austria, Germany and Switzerland like "Kronen Zeitung (krone.at)", "Der Kurier (kurier.at)" "gala.de", Abendzeitung München, Schweizer Illustrierte and more. --Base-X (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
[edit]![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
This award is given in recognition to Bastun for accumulating at least 10 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
[edit]![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thanks for your work on NPP! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |
Notability
[edit]Wikipedia states that by Featuring with a notable musician makes you eligible for a wikipedia page right? Kemaricon (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, Kemaricon. No, not that I'm aware of. There are general notability guidelines - WP:GNG - that state "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and there are specific requirements for musicians, listed at WP:MUSICBIO. The artist known as 'Starlord' does not appear to have met any of the 12 criteria listed there. Note it's not enough to have just met one of the criteria - there still also needs to be significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources.
- If you want to create an article on this musician, I would strongly suggest creating it in WP:DRAFTSPACE rather than main article-space, or using the 'Articles for Creation' process, which means the article will be reviewed and you'll get feedback on it (though be aware, there is a backlog). Re-creating the same one- or two-sentence article with just a single reference and no claim to notability will just result in the article being deleted again, for the fourth time. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Article deletion
[edit]Hello,
I see you marked my article on the mickey joe trophy for deletion as it has now been actioned as the article is gone.
Would it be possible to confirm that all information is now fully and permanently deleted and that no record of the page exists in any ack up or other location that I cannot view in my account?
Regards
Eoin James Eoin James (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
About your reverts
[edit]Hi, @Bastun.
I don't want to make you uncomfortable or cause problems, but I would like to express some disagreement with your reversions. You said in the edit summary that the updates are not referenced. I understand that in the case of the added note. However, I find your words a bit incongruous because the above data itself are not literally mentioned in the references put on the list; In addition, in order to meet that criterion that you mentioned, it would be urgent to eliminate the article because, If we literally base ourselves on sources, it is impossible both to make a list of 30 channels and to keep it updated. Thanks for reading. If we literally base ourselves on sources, it is impossible both to make a list of 30 channels and to keep it updated. Thanks for reading. Santi (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)