User talk:Bastun/2020

Independent Left (Ireland)

I am by no means a supporter of them but my reason for starting that section relating to candidates was to disambiguate clearly between the politician operating on the left who is also from North Dublin by the same name - John Lyons. When googling the Wiki-worthy John Lyons a photo of the Independent Left John Lyons appears which will no doubt cause some confusion coming into election time. I also felt councillor John Lyons wasn't worthy of a page of his own!185.43.40.68 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that'd be confusing! As an elected councillor, the Independent Left's John Lyons might qualify for his own page, but absent that, a note on the Independent Left page where the local election is discussed could mention that this John Lyons is "... (not to be confused with former Dublin North-west TD also called John Lyons)" should suffice. The unsuccessful candidate and member(?) shouldn't be listed. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Next Irish general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catherine Murphy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Peter Casey

Hi Bastun,

George here (gmcallister1957). I received a message regarding content i removed. I am unsure why you put it back as I was removing on behalf of Peter Casey. Neither myself or Peter actually put those statements there so Peter wanted them taken out. What I have left is still accurate.

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmcallister1957 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gmcallister1957:, ah, right. Please read our policy on conflict of interest - specifically this linked section. In short, subjects of articles can't decide what an article says or doesn't say about them. As you have disclosed a conflict of interest, you shouldn't edit that page directly. You and/or Peter Casey are free to request changes to the article, as outlined at the second link above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Bastun. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 17:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Socialist party

Can you explain your reversion of my edit please? What does "already in subcat" mean? Which subcat? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Laurel Lodged. The Socialist Party (Ireland) article is already in the Category:Socialist Party (Ireland) category, which is a subcategory of Category:Trotskyist organisations in Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

WorldOMeter not Reliable source

I really thank you for bringing this up. WorldOMeter staff are intentionally putting their citations as free advertisement. You can see, WorldOMeter is a for-profit company that sells Live-counter licenses (https://www.worldometers.info/licensing/). It also relies on "USER INPUTS" as sources for their information which is unreliable to say the least. If you can replace WorldOMeter with more reputable source like Johns Hopkins coronavirus tracker, that would be great! Rwat128 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your contribution

Hi. I understand your contribution but would ask you please either to address the matter specifically (I.e. infoboxes for MMA fighters) or not at all. When we're trying to keep some form in regularly vandalised articles your contributions aren't helping.

It is not simply a case of finding sources. It's comparable to genres in film articles. It's agreed by discussion and consensus. If you would like to join WP:MMA and contribute, please do. Saying that you can put anything into an infobox isn't helpful.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

True, and I didn't say that. Discuss on the article talk page, not here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

If you would like to discuss, the correct place is the talk page to the WP:MMA project page, as this is where the guidance is set out.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Denoting missing data on Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data

Hi Bastun! Note that we use {{color|darkgray|–}} to denote missing data, not an empty cell. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Re [1], note that Current consensus is that the default column sort is by confirmed cases. Rows in the table must be sorted by case number. --MarioGom (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh - that's changed since the last time I checked the talk page. Thanks again! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, actually it has been the same criterion for weeks. However, it was explicitly added to the current consensus when some people proposed to change the default sorting key from cases to deaths. --MarioGom (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Clean slate?

Hi Bastun. I just wanted to say I think I get what led you to question my bona fides, but all I can tell you is I am a real person, not a sock puppet, and brand new to editing. I take your point about my excellent formatting as a delightful compliment, truly. Last week I had no idea how to do any of it. But I was laid off from work with a lot of time on my hands, and I sometimes get really into things I'm working on. And I have an unusual eye for mind-numbing detail. (IRL I'm an anti-corruption investigator. My unhealthy affection for detail is incredibly useful in that work.) I spent days on end in the vast warren that is Wikipedia, read policies and essays, and posted in the teahouse to ask for help, which is how I learned about third opinion. I taught myself to format by looking at existing examples, and a lot of trial and error (mostly error). Quite honestly, this is my first ever foray onto WP. Aside from 3 IP edits while I was figuring out how the site worked, I've never edited under any other user name. I'm having fun and learning a lot. Anyway, the actual point of my post here was to say I'm sorry if I reacted too strongly to your comments, and assure you I'm a real person with something to contribute. I genuinely would welcome your thoughts on the substance of my proposed edits. I see that you contribute a lot here, and I respect that. No hard feelings? Broom Bones (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

None at all. Broom Bones :-) Your explanation makes total sense (I've gone from knowing nothing about baking to making a decent sourdough loaf over the lockdown and hopefully will have a couple more skills in hand by the time it ends). I will come back to the Johnson bio tomorrow and will be proposing a compromise between your and Gleeanon409 drafts that meet somewhere in the middle. Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Mermaids

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mermaids (charity). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring Notice

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits and edit warring on the Graham Linehan page. When information is removed because the only available source is banned by Wikipedia as unreliable, please do not immediately put it back with no source attached. Either come up with a non-banned source, or the information cannot be used. In addition, you violated Wikipedia rules by making sarcastic personal remarks in the edit notes. Please do not do that again. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Lilipo25, WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. One revert and adding a 'citation needed' template is not edit warring, by any stretch of the imagination. A mildly sarcastic remark, given your repeated "It's so exhausting having to fight the SJWs!" remarks is not a personal attack. Cop on. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, I agree with you that it's not a personal attack, but it was an unnecessary personal comment. Given the level of tension in the on-going discussion, I hope you don't think it too much of an imposition for me to ask an experienced editor like yourself to avoid making remarks like that in edit summaries? Comment on content not contributor, etc... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Bastun Girth Summit Let me just point out that I have never used the phrase "Social Justice Warriors" (or the acronym for it) in my life, nor have I at any time implied anything about Bastun or anyone else being one, so I don't even know why that is being said. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's called paraphrasing. I was being satirical. The way glinner used to be when he did comedy. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Making something up out of whole cloth that has never been said or implied and claiming that someone else said it isn't what 'paraphrasing' means. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Then what, pray tell, is exhausting you? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It does not follow that if I have not said anything about "social justice warriors", you can make that up and call it "paraphrasing" because you don't know what else I might be referring to. I will answer your question despite the unnecessarily condescending "pray tell": My comment to NEDOCHAN about not being willing to be the one to fix the inflammatory and unnecessary quote from a musician that you added to the article because I am "exhausted" referred to interactions like this one. Lilipo25 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(after ec) Perhaps the SPA involved might then be asked to stop with their "OMG this is so exhausting" commentary in RfCs and elsewhere, as they continue on their crusade, Girth Summit? A more cynical person might almost think their comments were designed to draw comment from others that they could then run to teacher with... BTW, I see Lilipo's revert has been undone and two references are now supplied. Not really seeing what the problem with leaving a 'cn' template in place for a couple of hours would have been. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, perhaps, but on the other hand, I don't see the problem with waiting until a decent source is published before adding content to the article. NOTNEWS and all that - we don't need to report on stuff the moment it happens. I just don't see why you feel it will help to comment on contributors (which you're still doing with the crusade comment above, by the way). A more cynical person might almost think that your comments are designed to draw comment from Lilipo25 that could get them blocked - I'm not suggesting that's actually what you're doing, but that stuff cuts both ways. I'm just asking you to avoid making personal comments, they do nothing but increase the levels of tension, which doesn't help anyone. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In general, I'd agree. But when you have a SPA who has literally spent the last few months editing only in this area, to push a very obvious agenda, and who apparently can't be arsed looking through a whole two pages of talk page archive themselves to find what they're looking for - well, then reflexes sometimes kick in. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying Bastun, but I don't think that's a fair description of Lilipo25. Yes, this subject has been her sole area of editing in the last couple of months, but her account goes back further than this and she has done plenty of work elsewhere - she's not an SPA. Maybe I could persuade you to take the pledge? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit I'm sorry, we had an edit conflict and I was just posting this (below) at the same time you were - I do not know how Bastun came to the conclusion that this is my "sole area of editing". Lilipo25 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know what "SPA" meant but since you keep calling me that, I've looked it up. I am not a "single-purpose account" and I do not "edit only in this area"? Most of my edits from the past year have gone toward creating an article on a founder of Gay Pride, editing and re-writing the page of the British children's author who just won the Carnegie Medal, sourcing and cleaning up an article on the 1976 Chowchilla kidnapping of a bus load of schoolchildren, editing an article I created last year about a British amateur cricket team of authors, and completely re-writing an article on the 1755 Penn's Creek Massacre, which set off three years of Native American raids on Pennsylvania settlements during the French and Indian War. For that last article, I applied for and received Good Article status, after additional editing.

And as I told you several times, I HAVE looked through the talk page archives and simply cannot find anywhere that a consensus was reached on the heading "Anti-transgender activism" as you claim. That's why I have asked you repeatedly to show it to me, I am currently unable to locate the Wikipedia policy about making claims of existing material and then refusing to answer requests to show that material, but I saw it in the past few days. It is reasonable for me to ask you to show where this consensus was reached when you repeatedly make edits on the basis that they are the "consensus version". Lilipo25 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Nah, while you have edited outside this area in the past (congrats on the GA), for the past several weeks (since May anyway), you seem to be almost exclusively focused on transgender issues, and specifically on one side only of the various debates on at least three articles I can think of, plus an RfC on the BLP noticeboard.

"Anti-transgender activism" was introduced as a heading around 18 months ago, following a change from "Transphobia" and "Transgender rights", after amicable discussion here. It's really not hard to find. The content of the section - should it be included, what should be included, is debated several times after that on the page, quite often brought up by new accounts who know a lot about WP policy, and by IPs, but nobody proposes changing the section name from "Anti-transgender activism" until July, when a user with two edits does so here. They don't get consensus to change

Things stay quiet enough except for a brief discussion about the Dick of the Year until December last year, when an IP kicks off a section by looking for a stronger term to describe Linehan's activities. That doesn't get taken up, obviously, but you then look for the previously agreed consensus, rail at Wikiditm for not providing one, accuse Newimpartial of wikistalking you, reply to me with "Yes, I figured you'd be along to join in" when I participate in talk (though apparently it's ok for you to canvas!), but that discussion ends in April with - again - a consensus for the "Anti-trans activism" section heading. And here we are... Girth Summit, you'll forgive me if I decline to give Lilipo25 a pass for their behaviour. It's really hard to assume good faith here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

So we are only counting the last month, now? Because looking at your own contributions to Wikipedia, you appear to have edited nothing but the same issue: your edits are almost entirely to the Linehan page or JK Rowling's page or the Mermaids trans organization page, all focusing on people who are gender critical. Meanwhile, my edits in the last month include extensive work on the Fred Sargeant article I wrote, edits on the British children's author, and then mostly just me defending myself in the ANI that Wikiditm opened on me and participating in the RFC on Linehan's page. Sorry, but calling me an SPA is inaccurate..Lilipo25 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I was unable to find that, and I cannot help but wonder why you wouldn't show it to me any of the half-dozen times I asked in the past six months. But I appreciate seeing it now. It's clear that it has always been a contentious subject heading.Lilipo25 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RFC now and both Crossroads and, in particular, Autumnking have made excellent and detailed explanations of why "Anti-transgender activism" violates Wikipedia policies and regulations.Your own "behaviour" has been nothing to write home about. Frankly, I think it would be great if an uninvolved, neutral Admin like Girth Summit could take a look the RFC and get an idea of the issues on the Linehan page, which I think we can both agree is a bit of a trainwreck. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

1) If a month is seven weeks, sure. :eyeroll:

2) Because it's really easy to find? There are only two archived talk pages; one of those only discusses dick of the year; you participated on the other page, and there's a search function!!!

3) Yes. Perhaps if certain participants didn't continue to distract and deflect, as already pointed out there, we'd get somewhere. Dunno why you'd want an uninvolved admin to become involved. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

4) Further, my contributions over the same period as your own cover U.S. and Irish politics, current affairs, sport, historical biographies, historical investigations, religious figures, reports to AN/I, etc., so no, I've not been monofocussed on transgender issues/biographies. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good. Eyerolls. That's always conducive to discussion. I don't know why you wouldn't want an uninvolved admin to get involved at this point. It is clear that the two sides are at a complete impasse and hostility is worse than ever. The article is a trainwreck. It seems like our only chance to resolve anything. We aren't getting anywhere talking to each other and I think that, at least, is obvious to both of us. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Both: I believe you're both editing in good faith about a subject you're approaching from different positions. Exactly what proportion of your recent edits are to this subject doesn't seem that important. Can I ask each of you to treat the other with respect from here on out? Assuming good faith is, I would argue, particularly important when it's difficult - it's not something we abandon when we disagree strongly with someone, that's when it's most useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Gráinne

I'd go with Gráinne Mhaol too but I wasn't going to start this battle, and I'm not going to side track it with options - but I find that name more familiar of any. But for sure Gráinne over Grace. I don't particularly expect to 'win' this one either but it irks me that we talk about decolonising the internet and we have Irish men and women given anglicised names because their own names might be hard for other people to pronounce. But I suck at these discussions. I don't know why everyone doesn't just take my word for it and be done. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 10:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lol, I know, right? Someone's making a very good point on there about the need for central discussion on issues like this, because it is something that's coming to the fore more and more that was only starting to become a thing when when Wikipedia's policies were being developed. The "make it easy for English speakers from Texas" argument is annoying. Sure... but how will they cope with Fermanagh and Drogheda? Should we move "Taoiseach" to "Irish Prime Minister" and "Micheál Martin" to "Michael Martin"? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——Serial ^# 14:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Serial Number 54129. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ——Serial ^# 14:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No idea what they fuck that's about. You altered my comments. That's not allowed, per WP:TPOC. I reverted your change, and gave you the lowest level of warning about it. Now you're accusing me of vandalism?! Pull back your horns, dude. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that was meant to be a L1 {{uw-tempabuse}}, sorry about that. All the best, ——Serial ^# 15:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Important Notices

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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 articles about 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.

Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Shaggy

W.r.t. this, possibly you will find this amusing. --JBL (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi. I’ve notice that you are an experienced editor who appears to be interested in JK Rowling\Transgender related topics. May I ask you to take a look at JK's latest book article. I fear there might be some WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT issues going on. Thanks - Daveout(talk) 13:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to, but I'm travelling at the moment, so won't get a proper look until the weekend. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to categories information you posted on my talk page

Hey Bastun it's late where I am but real quick before I go to bed I'm going to send you a copy of what I wrote in response to what you sent me on my page, I made a mistake that I apologize for in it, Sorry this is repetetive lol but again it's late so it's not the most well written response or most coherent but again hope you are doing alright hope you're doing well "Hey Bastun the elections thing was a mistake I was tired and meant to add that to Christopher Palles' page as you saw later. I will quote what the relevant part of what you sent me ' For a dead person, there must be verified reliable published sources that, by consensus, support the information and show that the description is appropriate.' There are in fact reliable published sources taht show and support the information that Christopher Palles was Catholic but since it's not a huge deal I'll defer to you on that page. Anyway I apologize again for the elections one that was entirely a mistake that I had 0% intention of doing, sorry again it's late right now actually where I am as well." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.112.246.69 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I Would Like to Hear Your Opinion.

Hello, Bastun, as you know we've reached a consensus in the Talk:Conor_McGregor page. There's now a discussion going on in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to consider sherdog.com unreliable as an expansion of our previous consensus. I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks in advance.Lordpermaximum (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, replied at the noticeboard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I also requested for comment on the reliability of sherdog.com on the RSN. If you share a response on that too I would be really glad. Thanks again. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

False accusations

You mentioned that I don’t want to discuss? And haven’t made an effort to talk on the talk page . You are wrong , I already started a discussion and I am waiting for you and nedochan to join the discussion. You 2 have been reverting with not even talking and discussing . So who’s in the wrong here ? It’s very clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman122112 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

2020 in Ireland

Thank you. I've had my eye on those dead horses and other nobodies for a while, but did not make the time to gut the article of them. — O'Dea (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Conor McGregor ranking

Cassiopeia, see the notice at the top of my talk page? Discuss at the article page. Not here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Bastun, see McGregor talk page. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Irish Slaves Meme

Please, I'm not fond of wasting time or having my time wasted. I am making constructive edits, and additions. I moved my additions after rereading the article. You have now reverted my moves of my own material twice! This is just counter productive.

Also, come on... Irish nationalism is named explicitly in one article, Sinn Fein in the other... I doubt either of us want to play games here.

Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hesperian Nguyen, please see notice at the top of my talk page, thanks. I'll reply at the article talk page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I just hit edit and scrolled. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Tag removal

Please refrain from removing the tags I added to the Michael D. Higgins article. Contrary to what you seem to believe, tags should be removed as a rule only when the issue is resolved. The lack of a discussion is not a reason per se to remove the tag, especially not in cases where the issue is evident even without such a discussion. Your repeated removal of the tags comes dangerously close to vandalism, and is disruptive. Please be warned. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Debresser, please see the note at the top of my page. Discuss on the article talk page, not here. I have not repeatedly removed tags, and your accusation comes dangerously close to a personal attack. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right, you did it only once. However, the question when tags should be removed is not specific to that article, so I did the right thing coming to your talkpage, and not discussing it on the article talkpage. See Help:Maintenance template removal. In any case, the issue has become moot. Be well. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Error?

Hi. In this edit you changed far more than your edit summary suggests you intended to. Including removing all of the content relating to the subject's participation in the 2020 election. And restoring text which predated that election (including text which deals with that event as if it is still in the future. When, by now, it is some months in the past). If this was not an error, can you provide an explanation as to the intent? If it was an error/oversight, can you see how best to self-revert or self-correct? Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, balls. Yes, it's an error - and no idea how it happened. I may have had a couple of tabs opened and edited the wrong one, I guess? Thanks for flagging it, Guliolopez, I'll fix it now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Hi. My edit wasn't intended to be harsh. It was intended to be consistent. Based on the inclusion criteria proposed here, the "Dublin bands with significant international success" will need to be expanded to include B*Witched, The Nolans and quite a few others. Otherwise, if the measure of "significant international success" success isn't placement in international singles charts (and is extended to include international album charts and award nominations), the application of the criteria is not consistent. Fontaines D.C. are, otherwise, an outlier. Relative to the others listed. Guliolopez (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Guliolopez. I'd argue nomination for a major Grammy (Best Rock Album) is significant international success, and chart success in terms of singles charts, especially, is relatively meaningless these days, as the number of units sold now is miniscule compared to the past, and to streams on music services. I couldn't tell you the last time I bought a single, but I listen daily to Spotify. No objection if you want to revert, but I'd like to reinstate if and when they win the Grammy? Cheers, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bastun. I'm not arguing that a Grammy nomination isn't "significant international success". I'm noting that, if (for example) that's part of the inclusion/selection criteria, then its not consistently applied. (For example, The Chieftains and Samantha Mumba and perhaps some other Dublin Grammy nominees would need to be added too.) While there isn't currently a clear criteria for "significant international success" today, at least those that are currently listed all have "significant international chart placement" in common. Anyway, I'm happy to go with what you propose. And remove for now. With a view to re-adding (together with any others that might qualify under that criteria). In January(?) Guliolopez (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! (See what I did there?) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Gums Staph

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hasp Sneon. FDW777 (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I've not come across that one before. Looks like a good catch. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

And blocked. FDW777 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)