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.
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.
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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:
Tone and Civility (WP:CIVIL) terms like "bolloxology" and the dismissive recommendation to use a Wordpress site
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
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?
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]
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.
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.
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]
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. Blofeld13:11, 15 June 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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
The RFC phase of the July 2025 administrator elections has started. There are 10 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFCs.
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.
Hello. Didn't really appreciate this comment of yours. Yes, I'm familiar SIGCOV, I've been participating at AFD for the last decade and a half. That was a weirdly aggressive comment to someone who was merely alluding to the existence of a source in the article that your vague nomination didn't acknowledge one way or another. And I didn't even leave a formal !vote.
Your comment to Doomsdayer seems equally misguided. His comment was alluding to someone who claimed it was "impossible" to review so many sources. Doomsdayer merely said they had the time to review them.
I don't really understand this? I thought my point was pretty clear - one source is not "significant coverage", by any stretch of the imagination! There's nothing "aggressive" about that, I was just slightly taken aback that someone would claim that. The AfD debate became moot yesterday, when the song was reported as charting. Now it satisfies WP:NSONG. On balance, I should have draftified it. (Though when I've done that in the past with films not yet released or that haven't commenced principal photography, and they therefore fail WP:NFF, I've seen them moved back to article space because "there are sources mentioning it so it must be notable.")
As regards Doomsdayer, good catch, I made a mistake on who had googled the 25 sources. (I stand over my point that many of those sources are only passing mentions or regurgitated press releases, though!) I will apologise to them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!23:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This award is given in recognition to Bastun for accumulating at least 50 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes(talk / cont)03:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Irish born people" because many were Anglo-Irish who are predominantly descendants of British colonial settlers in Ireland and usually would not have identified themselves with the common catholics of Ireland also saying "Irishmen" disregards the possibility that some Irish born women may have also had involvement with the slave trade in one way or another. "some individual merchants" suits better since the slave trade didn't benefit Ireland just a few individuals from Ireland benefited, and anyway if you think phrasing it this way means the same thing then why did you bother reverting it? Billybob the third1244 (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw your edit on Michael D. Higgins where you said that We don't do this in Ireland. Previously discussed, and consensus was to not start doing it on WP for Irish presidents, either. and I was wondering where this was discussed. I do not prefer one way or the other, but I do think it should be consistent. Currently, the 2025 Irish presidential election and Catherine Connolly articles both mention Connolly (or refer t the election as for) as the Tenth President of Ireland.
If you could get me started on where to find the consensus you referred to, I would appreciate that very much. Thank you in advance and happy editing,
Tagged as a MUSICBIO{{Notability}} concern since May 2024, but this time, WP:Library PQ should be of assistance here. (Library credentials required to view all but last story.)
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
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.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a 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.
On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close 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 typically lasts between a couple days and a week. 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 who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 55.0% support. 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.
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has 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 a few 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 non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. 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.
Hi Bastun, as a writer mostly on the Dutch version, I am not used to adding references here. Would you please check the page again? Best regards Paul Hermans (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
