User talk:Bastun/Jul - Dec 2007

As a conscientious editor ...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here - especially as you're one of the Saints rather than sinners and without some knowledgeable, level headed editors like yourself it may be doomed to failure...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 21:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Hi Bastun. I am trying to keep out of a certain editor's way as much as possible to protect what remains of my sanity, but as you were involved in the discussion above I'd be interested in your take on the usage "X was a Member/Volunteer..." which seems to have crept into a few articles. I would propose that the form volunteer would be more in keeping with the MedCab resolution (as I read it) and also with our MoS. Finally, I'd be interested in your take on this edit; my understanding obviously differs from that of this user's. It may seem like a fairly trivial stylistic matter, but I think it's a shame to go through all the good work that seems to have been done in MedCab only to have the result (apparently) misrepresented like this. Any light you can shed on this would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, --John 23:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The cabal consensus decision was pretty unambiguous - lower case 'v' (with a piped link as you suggest being absolutely fine. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what is refered to as incorrect. p.s. why would you ask Bastun?--Vintagekits 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I took part in the debate, why wouldn't he ask me? Can I remind you of the decision?

Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article. Please do not modify it. Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty clear. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Lower case "v" should be used for the time being" - clear as day!--Vintagekits 23:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The time being hasn't been finished, or finalised, or overturned by consensus. So lower case 'v' it is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually thats incorrect - you cab go to the talk page it you want to change that.--Vintagekits 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me where a timelimit was agreed, or where a decision was reached to change the cabal outcome? All I'm seeing on the talk page is 'closed - do not alter...' and the box on the project page says:

State: Closed

Comments: Concensus has been listed above.

That's pretty unequivocal... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why I am even discussing this with you - you've nothing to do with it - I'll let Tyrenius confirm the state of play as your opinion is insignificant in relation to this.--Vintagekits 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're discussing it with him because he is an interested editor, whose opinion is as valid as anyone else's. Rudeness is not required, so please cut it out as a habitual mode of communication with other editors. Tyrenius 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

See the end of Talk:Volunteer_(Irish_republican)#The_capital_.22V.22_or_little_.22v.22_debate. This puts Vk in the clear for his usage of V since on that article - no one responded to his final statement in that talk page section. However, it hasn't achieved a consensus as such which can be enforced, so it is open to further debate still. Tyrenius 12:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Volunteer (IRA). --John 14:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For repairing vandalism to my user page. --John 18:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for that.--Domer48 13:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why was Gold's edit reverted. I'm I gold too? Now there were five editors material removed and golds makes six, are they all me? Why is that not reverted? Why request a bolck with thoses editors material removed? --Domer48 18:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert anyone, so no point asking me :P As regards the "5 editors", that's stretching things a bit - I think some of them were minor enough edits, e.g., correcting typos? Its common practice to request a block when an edit war is underway (and indeed, more grounds for it with the ArbCom case). Which version is the one that gets locked is irrelevant (as is made clear by the template that gets put on the page). As far as I understand it, it'll be whatever one is there when/if an admin locks it, but that has no bearing on which is the "proper" one - that gets debated on the Talk page and consensus rules. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

RE. Blatantly Incorrect edit summary

Having received an explanation on the background to my first edit from User:sony-youth I have recognised where all the suspicion and accusations have come from but I just thought I should point out to you that in my eagerness to edit a page successfully, I took my time and copied and pasted the introduction from the page and essentially tinkered with the formatting, my contribution and previewed endlessly, several days in fact, before I posted my edit and was totally unaware that the page had moved on from what it had been when I started. As User:sony-youth pointed out to me in the above explanation I had reverted to a version of the page editted by User:Domer48 and so I have concluded through searching the history of the article that the version of the page I was working from was possibly this one and considering that from my view it is evident that I merely added some 400 bytes nowhere near the 70kb you suggested. However I can totally see how from your view the changes were substantial. Therefore I accept your view that my summary appeared incorrect, however I would also like you to accept that from my perspective it was a small contribution and my edit summary was in no way intended to deceive or misinform anyone on WP and please take WP:NEWBIES into consideration. Kind regards --Pappin76 04:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) PS besides the confusion was there anything else wrong with my edit any advice on my contribution would be welcome

Hi Pappin. Ah, that clears up a lot. As Sony has explained on your talk page and as you state above, you can see where we reached the conclusions we did. Apologies if my section heading 'Blatantly incorrect edit summary' came off as harsh or offensive, but I was going by the difference between the preceding entry and yours. I hope this "welcome" hasn't put you off Wikipedia and look forward to collaborating in the future. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlock on Article

Hello Bastun, I have agreed with Sony to remove a quote on the Famine article, could you request to have the article unlocked. Thanks--Domer48 13:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the article talk page. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On Tyrenius talk page

Why did you remove made edit here - I am seriously unimpressed with this.--Vintagekits 14:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Users are free to remove comments from their talk page at their own leisure. That said, it's considered very bad taste to remove portions of comments in a way that might be misleading. ugen64 14:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

But as the diff points out - it wasn't my talk page. Apologies, Vintagekits. I think what happened there was I meant to copy and paste part of your comment to use in my reply and ended up cutting and pasting instead. Not my intention. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept then that it was a genuine mistake.--Vintagekits 14:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

I think this needs your attention. Aatomic1 17:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland-United Kingdom border

Please stop adding the term County Londonderry after the listing of the city of Derry, like Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, Birmingham etc the count of a city is very listed after the city name in articles. Not only that you are adding oxygen to fire that is the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute. Currently there is little/no argument over this issue amongest established editors please edit within the consensus or establish a new one.--Vintagekits 09:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

None of Belfast, Manchester, Glasgow, or Birmingham are border towns. As with all other settlements listed in that section of the article, Derry has always had its county listed - you seem to be the only objector. As regards the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute, the WP:IMOS is quite clear - Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are edit warring and I am pretty damn sick of it to be honest. THe name of the city Derry is never followed by its county - you are dirupting wiki by adding Londonderry and know it will wind up other editors. Derry is NEVER followed by its county name just like all other main cities. Please self revert and stop edit warring against MOS and consensus.--Vintagekits 10:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It was there for months with no objection (apart from yourself). Not aware of that part of the MOS. Linky? As for the rest of it - the appropriate place to discuss it is the article's talk page, not here. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Famine Links

Doing this, I still prefer Great Famine (1845-1849). I think it's truer to the most used name. Is your take on this similar? GH 10:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gold. Hmm, yes - I think its better than 'Great Irish Famine' (although IIRC that's what I voted for at the time). Hindsight is great :-) If you're proposing a move, I'd support it. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Stargate Horizon

Hi. As you might gather, I personally could care less about the article. However, I'd like to encourage you not to "bite the newbie" since the user seems to be working on it in good faith and with serious wikifying effort. I don't know much about (or really want to!) fan fiction, but it is a category. Maybe you could explain to the user about the notability criteria for that category? Take care. HG | Talk 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Aye - wouldn't be too bothered about the article either if it was actually clear that its fanfic, and wasn't leading to articles like "Ascendant Empire", which give no clue at all. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Final humorous warning for jokes

This is your last warning.
Your continued joking is amusing and considered very funny, and you will be given awards without another warning if you continue. --John 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

You're a star, Bastun! I laughed so much that my drips pulled out!

May I nick this as my standard riposte in future:

Sorry, Brixton, I'm confused. When you say they became the IRA instead of being the Provisional IRA - does that mean they became the Official IRA? Or is there a group out there calling itself "The IRA (accept no substitutes!)"? Do you mean the

• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA? Or the
• IRA?
• Army of the Republic of Ireland? (And let's not even go near the Irish names and/or translations of all of the above).

Conclusion: Disambiguation and accuracy are good things. Moral: Always look on the bright side of life.

...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Famine

Hi Bastun, I entered a piece on the Great Famine page. It's about name change, again;-GH 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me!

My asking for a citation was not "pointy", the reference provided has no mention of criticism of Gerry Adams. Please check in future. Brixton Busters 10:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags immediately after a reply, it hasnt been fully discussed and could just encourage an edit war. regards--Vintagekits 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I could just as well say to BB not to insert tags when text is restored because he doesn't like it. Adams was widely criticised at the time - I remember it. When he removed the sentence earlier today as unreferenced, I added 5 sources before restoring! Welcome back, btw. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks foir the welcome back. Maybe we should all be a little less hasty to revert and talk things out fully before acting. ANyway you can be serious trying to argue that iraa is WP:RS.--Vintagekits 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Margainly less so then troopsoutmovement, relativesforjustice and Saoirse I would say :-) Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As this shows, you have a history of removing maintenance tags without addressing the reason for them being added, and making false accusations in the process. I strongly suggest you follow policy in future. Brixton Busters 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. You honestly don't remember the criticism at the time?! Or is it that any negativity towards Adams and the PIRA must be countered/removed? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply ask that it be sourced properly according to Wikipedia policy, something you have failed to do so far. Whether I remember something or not is neither here nor there, my own memory is not a verifiable source is it? Brixton Busters 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun that he was criticised (as well as praised) for carrying the coffin, and also I personally know a lot of information that could/should be put into wiki but that would be WP:OR therfore, it is not an unreasonable request that we do not engage in WP:OR and a source is provided to prove it. --Vintagekits 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine International Adoptions

Dear Bastun: I read comments that you made on the International adoption article talk page. You stated there that Ukraine has stopped international adoption. You provided a link to a report, but that report link no longer works. What did you base this upon. We know folks who have just recently adopted there and we trying to verify your comments.--Getaway 18:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Getaway. Response on your talk page. Also copied it to International adoption. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

M62 coach bombing

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Brixton Busters 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, as you well know. I added referenced information. On the contrary, it is you who is breaching WP policy, by removing referenced material on no other basis than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

W Frank

He is spamming that nonsense on loads of article talk pages, talk pages are intended for discussing matters relating to articles not for carrying out personal attacks on editors.--padraig 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't mean to butt in here but, Padraig why have you stopped using the talk pages we were trying to sort things out on? Conypiece 00:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I have told you before Conypiece this is not an instant message service, where editors will reply to you straight away, editors may be busy doing other things, so try to have patience.--padraig 01:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Spamming, could I draw your attention to Talk page guidelines. If editors have a problem, there are a number of channels they can use. Your edit summary here [1], re spamming is not helpful. Thanks --Domer48 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Domer. No doubt, of course, if I go to Padraig's page, I'll see a similar message about his PoV edit summary? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

flags

Hi Bastun

I really should explain myself first before changing stuff (sorry), but these darker colours are used extensively and are now the most predominant ones in use for the ireland flag, if you look at the new irish rugby jersey you will see the colour

i also uploaded a much more accurate ulster and connacht flagCaomhan27 00:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about the Ulster and Connacht ones, but I've restored the flag on Republic of Ireland to the official colours. The Department of the Taoiseach carries a bit more weight than an Asian sweatshop. Sports jerseys are entirely irrelvant. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Real IRA

Thanks for your message. Danielnez1 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits in which you may be interested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

*shakes fist*

And there was me about to add Category:Irish murder victims! ;) Thanks for the Pyrrhic correction, as far as I know either is used extensively, but it should be capitalised. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

-) Yeah, I checked before changing, and apparently pyrrhic (small p) refers to a Greek dance, whereas the capitalised Pyrrhic is 'pertaining to Pyrrhus'. You learn something new every day... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham pub bombings

The MEDCABAL case that I am mediating. I would like you to go to this page and using the previous formats used, give me your opinion. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Allright, please go to this page check it, and then, on my talk page, confirm that I have the basic gist of what was written. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 11:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Oih"

Bastun take it easy something is messing up when im loading the new Four provinces flag it is showing up on the list but not in the example I made the darn things you could offer help rather than going on about three revert rubbishCaomhan27 16:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know whats up i tried clearing the cache no luck, I was just seeing how the different versions might look, the different munster and connacht flags are there, but the fpf wont show, last time it happened i cleared the catagory stuff and it appeared so thats why i was doing that, i would have put it back after i got it to work. Are you sure about the that order is there some site saying that, if so i will fix itCaomhan27 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok bastun will use that template, thanks for helpCaomhan27 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

i did a current fpf version which is layed out like you requested however it is not appearing so i cant change it for the momentCaomhan27 12:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic isles

i created the article and nearly all the valid authored references on it and have explained why the additions are not valid in the context of term being discussed please do not alter the article unless you have discussed it and reached a consensusCaomhan27 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I will have to report to and adminastrator if you keep adding the text without discussion or consensusCaomhan27 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caomhan27 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! You can find a full list of them here. But note I have discussed and do have consensus. You may find you shoot yourself in the foot, as you've been removing referenced information and requests for references, inserting POV, and been breaching 3RR. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no - quick Google search, its a disambiguation page. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Archipelago

See this? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Last page

Please go here when you are finished putting your full information here, and in the first link, put only 5-7 sentences. I would like it concise. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Baldoyle

Could you please direct me to the Wiki policy that supports your comment So request citation, don't delete first when you reverted my removal of unreferenced suspect text? (Sarah777 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

WP:PROVEIT. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That's exactly what I thought. Do you have some evidence? Regards (Sarah777 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Will look for some. Adding the "cn" tag alerts people who have the article on their watchlist that an editor is looking for a fact check and gives them an opportunity to find a citation. Better than simply removing the material without warning. If none has been provided within a couple of weeks (or when a bot slaps on a maintenance date and it therefore pops up on your watchlist again), that's when you remove it. (As it happens, in this case, there probably is very little to be found as noone has been convicted of the Garda's murder and there are all sorts of unverifiable conspiracy theories floating about - but at least people have a chance to find a citation if there is one). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's 20+ pages on the whole saga in Gunrunners by Sean Boyne, but no mention of Baldoyle. A man from Finglas was extradited from the UK and acquitted, and two men (origins unknown) were also acquitted in 1972 but convicted of firearms possession. Did a quick online search for their names and can't find anything to connect them to Baldoyle. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Me neither (and Sarah, that means I'll be happy to delete that paragraph myself in a week or so) - but maybe whoever added it originally will see the 'cn' and can put one up. Or not. :P Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I deleted it on sight was that I strongly suspected it was some sort of "response" to the storey of the escapees helicopter landing in Baldoyle. Even if it turns out to be true it needs to be given a different context as the two events are unrelated. Maybe the alleged Republicans could be included as 'Notable residents'. If they aren't notable, after all, then they shouldn't be mentioned. I guess I can wait a few weeks to make them either notable or gone! (Sarah777 19:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC))

Great Irish Genocide?

Bastun, as you advised me on an identical issue re Baldoyle I noticed this revert in the Great Irish Famine article: 02:04, September 22, 2007 Abtract (Talk | contribs) (61,373 bytes) (I think we might need a citation for Irish Genocide) Based of your advise (and actions) Abstract's revert should be promptly reverted and the proper course of action pointed out to him. I wonder if you'd do it as I prefer not to get involved in that article because some editors are rather sensitive to ever nuance of my contributions and read all manner of things into them. Thanks (Sarah777 01:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Volunteer

You agreed to the consensus made on the 'Volunteer' mediation discussion earlier this year here. However, some editors believe that a new consensus has been established where "IRA volunteer" is used without the initial mention of "IRA member". Although no discussion has taken place, they feel that because articles were changed from the format of "IRA member (volunteer)" to simply "IRA volunteer" and were not subsequently reverted for several months (until noticed by myself and another user), that this therefore establishes it as the new consensus and that the mediation ruling is now defunct. You can see discussions of this here,here, here. As a party involved in this discussion previously, your commentis valuable, and so it would be apprreciated if you could make any comment you might have here if you have one. Regards. Logoistic 20:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Could I ask you to add a bit here [2] to move the process on ? Love & Kisses Aatomic1 13:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation 4

You can go to this page, and talk about it. Dreamy ^§ 19:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Something strange is going on at the Birmingham Pub mediation. Any ideas of next steps? Hughsheehy (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Way Forward Aatomic1 15:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Notification of page ban

Per the ruling of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Mentorship, and my warning here (noted also in the article history here), you are banned from editing the article Great Irish Famine for a period of ten days, starting immediately. This is for reverting the page and continuing the edit war.

I implore you to take part in the discussion at Talk:Great Irish Famine, as if a resolution agreeable to all can be found, the page ban will be lifted by myself at my expressed order to do so. For the record, I have reverted your version back to the one of my warning, because the page is essentially "protected" on the issue of the lead titles. If this action wasn't taken, it would only force people to "take the hit" to revert the page, which isn't an acceptable situation.

This notification is given to enforce the ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Please note that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you break the ten day ban. Thank you, Daniel 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page. Thanks, Daniel 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Willie Fleming

[3] - got a source for that or is it OR? regards--Vintagekits (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Its standard law enforcement procedure in most of the world to wait on forensics to arrive and photograph/preserve the scene, so hardly needs referencing. Irrelevant anyway, as its been owned. They leave him there, its a case of "left for five hours before being taken to hospital"; they move him and doubtless we'd be reading about tampering with the evidence... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As has to be pointed out to you on nearly EVERY article please reread WP:OR.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

O rly? Back atcha, Mr Bean. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got time for your nonsense - if you have evidence of breaches of OWN of NPOV please show them! Now back to the matter at hand, which is OR - have you got a reference to say that they were left there for forensic reason. Since we've gone through this Arbcom don't you think it is time everyone grew up and stopped being so childish. Provide a source within 24 hours or I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFL! Take your own advice, Vk. And please do pay attention, Bond... it got removed a couple of days ago. By the way - why are you bringing this up here. Keep it to the article talk page, that's what its for. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So have you a source or havent you? And why are you now removing sourced information to suit YOUR pov.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A) Why on earth would I bother putting in a source for something that's no longer there? B) The statement as it exists now is NPOV. If you want the details on how long the bodies were there to be in the article, then find an unbiased source. APRN doesn't count. And also state why they were left there. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

a) The only reason is not there any longer is because you just removed it as well as removing other information which was referenced. b) APRN is a perfectly acceptable source - if you dont like it, then that is your problem. You are really starting to piss me off, which I know is your aim.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reply since deleted from User talk:Vintagekits).