User talk:Bastun

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Murillo de Aragão

[edit]

Dear Bastun,

Greetings! Thank you for your review on my bio article about Murillo de Aragão. I am trying to locate the draft version of it so I can make the changes you suggested, but I am not managing to find it.

Could you help me, please? Bruno Furtado Vieira (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bruno Furtado Vieira, you'll find the draft at Draft:Murillo de Aragão. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bastun, greetings once again!
I tried to comply with your suggestions, but I am not sure if I managed. Please let me know how I can improve. Since I am new here, if you can lay out the details of how to fix the erros I would be very grateful. Bruno Furtado Vieira (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Awards for 2024

[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

This award is given in recognition to Bastun for conducting 484 article reviews in 2024. Thank you so much for all your excellent work. Keep it up! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Pro Volleyball vs Kansas City Pro Volleyball

[edit]

Hello,

You recently placed Draft:Dallas Pro Volleyball into the draftspace. Comparing it with the Kansas City Pro Volleyball page I see no difference. Both have local references, both start off in the same year. Shouldn't KC also be in the draftspace of both in the mainspace of Wikipedia? Explain the difference to me...Roberto221 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Roberto221. I draftified Dallas Pro Volleyball as it appeared on my New Pages Feed, required review, and met the criteria for moving to draft, as set out in the notice. Kansas City Pro Volleyball, on the other hand, was created in February 2024, and can't be draftified. It also fails to meet WP:NSPORTS, so can be nominated for deletion, or draftifying could be suggested as an alternative to deletion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malskinsfjørður

[edit]

May I ask why you tagged this page, Malskinsfjørður as reviewed? Seems to be a hoax. Fram (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fram, it's been deleted so I can't see it now. IIRC, it was referenced? I didn't check all the references but nothing struck me as out of place at the time. I'll try to be more diligent future. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It had one ref which didn't mention the place (logical, as it doesn't exist). No problem, shit happens. Fram (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that editor had also added related hoax material to List of airports by ICAO code, caught by Guliolopez. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And created another hoax, also deleted. If they resume similar editing in the future, they will get blocked (not by me obviously). Fram (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improper page tagging?

[edit]

How are you Bastun? Please don't tag articles with improper tags as you did to The Arrangements (short story), and others. I provided sources for many of them, and tagging with "notability" makes me worry whether you did a BEFORE before tagging, and so, you should have done, be it you are taking it [the articles] to AFD. Cheers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of the tags were improper? You must provide sources for all of them, and single sources for stub articles (as some had) is questionable. Re notability - please see WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Is there any significant, lasting coverage of any of these short stories? It may have served better to include a section in the author's own article or on her bibliogrpahy article on her short stories, rather than one-sentence stub articles that may very well be deleted. Additionally, you should note that notability is not inherited - yes, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is notable; not all of her stories are necessarily notable. As a new page patroller yourself, you should know this. Please also see WP:PAGEDECIDE. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Bastun for accumulating at least 25 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat, Gerda! Thank you, Gerda! Very much appreciated! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed

[edit]

I have undone [tag placement] on Claire Marin because there are at lease two newspapers of national record in those sources.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 22:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Harsh Patel

[edit]

Hi there, and thank you for your work with NPP! I want to let you know that I declined your G4 speedy deletion nomination of Harsh Patel. G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies of previously-deleted articles. Although you cannot see the previously deleted version, one of the things to look out for is the date of the late deletion and compare that with the information provided in the article. In this case, the AfD was in September 2015, and the new article included many sources published since then, indicating that the new article is sufficiently different. Therefore, the article isn't eligible for G4. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns on the matter. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, Significa liberdade - I'll watch out for things like that in future. Thanks, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)r[reply]

Invitation to participate in research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My new article

[edit]

Hello Bastun! I just created a new article, on the Surajpura Raj. Was wondering if you'd be kind enough to check it out, and point out the deficiencies, if any. Localproblem7110 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
: Done BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
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) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Revert O Comain

[edit]

I see you've just now reverted my page edit to the page I created at O Comain.

As you know, on the Talk page I posted earlier in the week explaining my intention and reasoning for refreshing the page with the Clan O Comain recognition, and to please post objections.

Your response "My advice, if you do proceed, would be to go slowly, use accurate edit summaries, and absolutely excellent sourcing."

The page edit I created has proceeded exactly as that. However, on reviewing your response again, you mention that you believe Irish clans should be on a Wordpress site and not represented on Wikipedia.

You are violating:

  1. Tone and Civility (WP:CIVIL) terms like "bolloxology" and the dismissive recommendation to use a Wordpress site
  2. Bias and NPOV (WP:NPOV) – Your comments reflect a clear bias against the inclusion of Irish clans on Wikipedia, despite their historical and cultural significance. Dismissing the relevance of Clans of Ireland without counter-evidence violates the core principle of neutrality.
  3. Assumption of Bad Faith (WP:AGF) – You assumed, without basis, that my intention was to promote unsourced or inappropriate content. In fact, my edits were based on verifiable information and clearly stated sources, as noted in the Talk page discussion.
  4. Ownership of Articles (WP:OWN) – It appears you have taken ownership of the article, reverting changes without reasonable cause or collaborative discussion. Wikipedia is a shared platform, and unilateral control over content is not acceptable.
  5. Reversion without Dialogue (WP:BRD) – You reverted the page without a meaningful attempt to discuss your concerns or engage in the collaborative process that Wikipedia relies upon.

I kindly request that you reconsider your approach to this matter, and if you have specific, fact-based concerns, I am more than willing to address them in good faith. Waiting for your reponse. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article's talk page, that's what it's for. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting here for transparency and for administrators if necessary. Kellycrak88 (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Bastun! Five laws broken, that's more than I managed back in the day. It reflects real life - we have 150,000 (wild guess) laws on the books in Ireland yet "ignorance of the law is no defence". I've always found that to be a daft concept! Albeit underpinning the income of the legal cabal. Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our legal profession is clearly beyond reproach - sure didn't the Troika leave them well alone! ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The only dictate of the Troika that we completely ignored. Austerity is for folks like you and me! (apologies if you're loaded) Sarah777 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

[edit]

Hello Bastun:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Jay

[edit]

Thank you for removing the slander directed against me on the Roy Jay talk page, the particular user doing it is rather annoying, making death-threats on my talk page (already removed) and making annoying little edits on the article. Could you look into it, perhaps request a block of that particular IP-address if that is possible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.3.64.239

--Not-Roy-Jay (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Not-Roy-Jay. I've just removed another threat made on that article talk page. Please also see Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm. I am emailing the address listed there, now, with diffs (links of the edits) of the threats made to you. The IP account will likely be blocked immediately, but if you receive further threats, the information on the linked page is the best advice to follow. I am not an admin and can only delete the threats; an admin can erase them from the page's history. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will do that. Not-Roy-Jay (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to resolve current draft issue

[edit]
NO ACTION
As it says at the top of the page: If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page. That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find. You can always ping me to draw my attention to a talk page discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@bastun I’m posting here directly, as the main thread is already long—and on your talk page keeps the discussion fully transparent for anyone who wishes to follow it.

It seems to be that—putting aside broader disagreements—the focused objection you’ve raised is the inclusion of the President of Ireland in the modern clan recognition section.

While I had hoped we could build consensus by handling the article section-by-section, starting with the historical background, I appreciate your input has stalled.

So, in the spirit of compromise and as an olive branch: I'm open to potentially removing the president. In return, I’d ask whether you’d be willing to review the updated historical section—based on Cotter and other secondary sources—for merger into the main article.

Then we can focus on the modern clan info separately.

I believe this would be a constructive way forward and a good-faith step on both sides.

Thanks for considering this. Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Progeny

[edit]

Priests not getting married is a relatively new thing. Look how many popes had children and heirs, etc. Kellycrak88 (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how are you?

[edit]

Hi batun, I hope you're doing well! After taking some time off, I’ve reflected on our previous interactions and feel we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. I’ve taken your feedback to heart and plan to contribute going forward with smaller, more focused edits to allow for thorough peer review. Looking forward to collaborating constructively! Kellycrak88 (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review for J. K. Rowling

[edit]

User:Adam Cuerden has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Destubathon

[edit]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locked Out

[edit]

Hi Bastun, I tried to do some regular updating of the IrlProject pages and got directed to this:

https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Ireland

Have you any idea what's going on? It worked fine for nearly the past 20 years! Sarah777 (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah777, sorry, no idea what's happening there. What's your bookmark that's now directing you there? I can see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment with no problems. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bastun. I applied the prevaricators solution - just do nothing, wait, and the problem will probably go away! It did. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or switching everything off and back on again... Cheers! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • July 9–15 - Call for candidates
  • July 18–22 - Discussion phase
  • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
  • The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the July 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • July 18–22 - Discussion phase (we are here)
  • July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • July 30–c. Aug 3 - Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Discussion phase.

On July 23, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last approximately four days, or perhaps a little longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home is under review

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EllaMinnowPea371 -- EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home has failed

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of EllaMinnowPea371 -- EllaMinnowPea371 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

[edit]
Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started and continues until July 29 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • July 23–29 – Voting phase
  • July 30–c. Aug 3 – Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for approximately four days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi Bastun, you added a tag to my article Coilodes castaneus stating that it might be a copyright violation. The source is CC BY 4.0, but after looking into it, I think I need to make that clear in the article. I hope the changes I made to the reference make it clear that it is not a copyvio... B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, per the CC-by-4.0 licence, you do need to attribute and link to the licence. All seems fine now. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me aware, I am not a senior editor yet, so I will need to learn stuff like this.B33tleMania12 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - every day is a schoolday, including for me! Cheers, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]