User talk:Bastin/Archive 8

This page is an archive of my talk page up to the 15th October 2009. If you wish to trawl something up from these discussions, please copy the relevant part and post it in the current talk page. Bastin

No content in Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Luxembourg by party

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Luxembourg by party, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Luxembourg by party has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Members of the Chamber of Deputies of Luxembourg by party, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations

In response to your comment here, I did not call you a vandal, nor did I intend to suggest that you were one. All I removed was the dates because they appeared to be unsourced and as the page is a FL, stuff should be sourced when it's added. If you can get a source, you can readd them whenever. Also, why did you remove the statement that Zimbabwe withdrew and say they were only suspended? Proof of their withdrawal is here and the Commonwealth website even mentions it [1]. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged Article

Hello! As a member of Wiki Project Objectivism would you please see my post on the excessive coverage of fictional technology, etc. in Atlas Shrugged and my proposal to replace it with more coverage of the meaning of the events in that novel. Thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism

I am clearing the participant list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism due to inactivity. Please add yourself again if you want to participate. --Karbinski (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GB Olympic team

How about "Great Britain is the name used by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympic Games..." then? Or perhaps even a move to Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the Olympics. The IAAF said we picked a team by that name and that would solve all sorts of problems... (commonly known as "Great Britain or Team GB"?) Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And I think this little link puts paid to it all. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 03:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair play. I'll back you up to make those changes. We all know that it's usually referred to as Great Britain or Team GB but this is the case for a million things in life. When did you ever hear anyone say that they are from "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or that they took the "automobile" to work, or that they are editing from their "personal computer"? Edison Arantes do Nascimento is no one's favourite player. I say - keep the article at GB at Olympics but use the source to state that "The Olympic team of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is commonly known as Great Britain or Team GB". Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realm

What is it with that guy and the term Commonwealth Realm??! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

List of national capitals

I don't understand why this edit was made, could you explain it please? I don't understand what is meant by "subnational 'capitals'" in the edit summary. Nev1 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lancaster

I note that you and User:Bbcbbcdddddd are engaged in an edit war over the Mark Lancaster article. Please go to Talk:Mark_Lancaster#Edit warring and three revert rule violations to argue your case in detail rather than using terse comments in the edit summary. That way we can reach a consensus version. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is why I referred you both to WP:Bio (though I suspect with your editing record you are more likely to be familiar with it). I note [from your personal statement] that there is a risk that you may be inclined to see any criticism of a member of your party as a character assassination. The acid test in this 'truth', in wikipedia terms, WP:Cite - and I note that you recognise that. Unless and until User:Bbcbbcdddddd produces the cite, your version should stand as far as I am concerned. But I did think that it was particularly important for your argument to be made on the talk page, if only to educate the newbies. So thank you for doing that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg legislative election

Would you mind adding any references to the page so it might meet the criteria to be ITN? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Team GB

You may be interested in reading what I have posted at Talk:Great Britain at the Olympics. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Commonwealth

From a policy standpoint, removing unsourced statements is considered less destructive than adding them. In the future, please try to avoid calling good faith attempts to clean pages up destructive (I did make several other changes, I can't help but notice that you reverted them too). The main reference no longer works, and it's not official and you've only added references for a handful of nations. I also think that specific dates aren't really necessary in this article, partially due to the fact that they aren't listed in the Secretiat. A user at the Commonwealth of Nations discussion said this: "those attempting to complete the table are insistent on putting a DATE in the specific column. The latter point is interesting as the Commonwealth Secretariat does not list a "joining date" for the UK, and most historians don't list one either, but the Wikipedia table has a date nonetheless. I get so tired of people simply taking information, then regurgitating it back into a Wikipedia article without thinking about it. Emporis is a much cited source, but I am constantly finding mistake errors on that site and have on many occasions had the editors revise them." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That statement is almost entirely wrong, from top to bottom. No, from a policy standpoint, it is not worse except for biographies of living persons; countries are not living people, cannot be libelled, hence the invention of the {{cite}} template, which you chose not to use (hence it being destructive). I've added references for a handful of select nations because they are the ones that joined after independence. Almost all the rest joined at independence, so it is academic to show their join date. I have added information above and beyond what is on the Commonwealth Secretariat's site because said site is not a repository for all the information in the world on the Commonweath; are we saving space s that the inane 'continent' field can be included? The last point, that the opinion of a single user constitutes a consensus, is a bizarre misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy - yet again.

I will also, finally, suggest that you (a) make better use of edit summaries, rather than claiming that deletion of what took me a long time to create in the first place is 'cleaning up'; and (b) read my edit summary before inferring that I intended to hurt your poor feelings - 'destructive' does not mean 'evil', but that some information has been lost, which was NOT conveyed in your obfuscatory edit summary. Bastin 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

" No, from a policy standpoint, it is not worse except for biographies of living persons; countries are not living people, cannot be libelled, hence the invention of the {{cite}} template, which you chose not to use (hence it being destructive)."

Not true, for several reasons. WP:VERIFY says that article facts need verification, especially in the case of featured content. As this is a FL, every statement should be probably sourced before it is added. Which is why I didn't use the fact tags.

"I've added references for a handful of select nations because they are the ones that joined after independence."

Where are the references for the rest of the rows? The sourced link doesn't work for me, so that leaves a large portion of that column unsourced.

I have added information above and beyond what is on the Commonwealth Secretariat's site because said site is not a repository for all the information in the world on the Commonweath

True, but you have to remember that as the official source on the article, what they write should be taken into consideration. Basically, I think the table looks better without specific dates and I don't know if they are entirely necessary here anyway. That kind of detail is best left to more specific pages and with the lack of a solid official source, leaving the dates out seems natural.

are we saving space s that the inane 'continent' field can be included?

If you think it's inane, why don't you remove it?

The last point, that the opinion of a single user constitutes a consensus, is a bizarre misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy - yet again.

Wait a second here, when did I ever say there was consensus? Don't put words in my mouth and then ridicule me for them. All I said was that a user expressed concern and I included his quote because I thought he made a good point. He said the dates might not have been the best thing to use, and I happened to agree with him, so I decided to be bold and make some changes I thought were necessary.

I will also, finally, suggest that you (a) make better use of edit summaries, rather than claiming that deletion of what took me a long time to create in the first place is 'cleaning up';

Now you see, that is the problem. When you see it as YOUR article and YOUR work being deleted, we run into problems. It's unfortunate, but hard work gets deleted all the time. By the way, that clean up took me a while to do too. It's just a fact of wiki editing that some of the things we work hard on get removed.

(b) read my edit summary before inferring that I intended to hurt your poor feelings - 'destructive' does not mean 'evil',

My aren't we nasty tonight? I'm not sure what is with the insults, all I did was what I thought was best for the article, and yet you are taking it as if it is a slap in the face. Either way, I suggest we try to work out a solution rather than sniping back and forth at eachother. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Luxembourg userbox

Hello, and happy Luxembourg national day. I have created a userbox for WikiProject Luxembourg that can be added to user pages. If you like it, you can place it on your user page by adding {{User WikiProject Luxembourg}}. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks!--Scotchorama (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

EU colors

Dear Bastin, thanks for cleaning up the SVG picture of the European Conservatives and Reformists. I am sure that you understand the formatting of SVG more than I do - it just happened that I learned how to fill things. ;-) But could you please distinguish the EU countries from the non-EU countries more visibly than by the very similar two levels of gray? I would disagree that your coloring is better in this respect. What about some kind of decent yellow for the EU? --Lumidek (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the two were relatively easy to differentiate. Whatever it is, it has to be a pretty neutral colour that doesn't clash with the blue. So either the grey, or a pale yellow or green, à la the national maps. Bastin 19:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

remove my addition to the commonwealth and the act will be reported

economic data relating to the nations, cannot be irrelevent. the relationships between commonwealth countries can be used to influence decisions like what happens in la francophonie.

Lobster (magazine)

I deprodded as it had been prodded and deprodded in 2006 - as I discovered on the talk page. See [2]. Fences&Windows 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Winston McKenzie

I have nominated Winston McKenzie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winston McKenzie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Liberal politicians

I have nominated Category:Liberal politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Thatcherism

There have been further reverts to the above template. If I were you, I'd check to see if they are agreeable. If not, I would suggest making changes you deem necessary, initiate discussion, somehow, on the template's talk page regarding what should be included, possibly through WP:RFC, and then going to WP:RPP to request protection until the dispute is resolved. Considering some might now call me "involved", I don't think I should do the protection myself. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to respond to the most recent comments on the template's talk page. John Carter (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that should this same editor continue in like manner, we may be best served by filing a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. That may be the only way to resolve this. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Luxembourg Timeline of Monarchs

Hi User Bastin. I noticed you were the one who created the timeline on List of Grand Dukes of Luxembourg. I've recently merged that article with the List of Counts and Dukes of Luxembourg to create List of monarchs of Luxembourg, and I was wondering if you could create a timeline for the counts, dukes, and grand dukes of Luxembourg; that is if you are not to busy or anything. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bonus Culture

Bonus culture is back, Bastin.Good times. Good times. Bonus culture is back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.121.170 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I think I deserve a bonus for putting up with anonymous puppet accounts sending my messages. Bastin 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)