User talk:Bastun

Apples and oranges

I thought this was hilarious. Perhaps in days to come the "Vintagekits defence" will enter Wikipedia's annals in a comparable way to Bill Clinton's "but-I -didn't-inhale" defence against accusations of having used pot. In all seriousness, it should be obvious that the Vk defence is only available to poor downtrodden sons of Erin defending themselves against the scions of the brutal occupiers. It clearly would not therefore be available to R. fiend. Should we see what Giano thinks? Well done for standing up for Wikipedia's principles, and I do actually see progress from some participants in this area. Sadly not all though. --John (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You and your mates still hurtin? When someone lies Baby Jesus cries!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He's crying now, then? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually he's taken it with dignity, unlike say User:David Lauder. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the circumstances and it being his second proven sock/meatpuppet incident, I don't think he had a choice - but my comment above refers to "Baby Jesus"... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The mediator page

You know, if you had asked me on my talk page, I would have restored that page sooner (I stumbled across the response because I was checking up something, since Aatomic1's talk page isn't on my watch list, I would have missed your gripe normally) SirFozzie (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC) User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion‎ Done. SirFozzie (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:M62 coach bombing#Perpetrator(s) section

Your participation is invited as an interested editor. Tyrenius (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RTV

If a user returns, their talk page history should normally be restored, as they have no longer vanished, which was the only justification for deleting it. First port of call is the deleting admin, next WP:AN/I. They are probably entitled to retain deletion of their user page as sole or only major contributor. Tyrenius (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Hello Bastun. Nobody's prooven, that the Irish Republic controls the whole island. But, I'm too apolitical to get too deeply into the dispute there. Anways, I hope you guys get things settled. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When I say 'Irish Republic', I mean it as short-hand for 'Republic of Ireland'. I still think 'Republic of..' should be added, out of respect for Northern Ireland (which is a part of the United Kingdom). Just my opinon, though. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: But, it's hard to argue with the Republic's Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Talk:British Isles. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks Again

Please refrain from personal attacks. You have been warned before. You may be blocked from editing. Please comment on content, and not on other editors. Please read WP:NPA. Thank you. 78.19.5.160 (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With the what now? Where would this alleged attack be, anon? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was "Please be civil" judging by the anons edit in removing that part of your post.... *baffled* One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Bastun, I apologise if you thought I was attacking you on the British Isles talk page. I don't want to start off on the wrong foot and feel I might have done. I will try to be less emotional and more civil in future. Murphy71 (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Thanks for reverting Republic of Ireland postal addresses. I have already given [[User_talk:83.70.211.45}the anonIP editor]] a 3RR warning. You will see from comments he left on my talk page that not just is it advertising but WP:COI as he works for gpsireland. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, so I see. From the gpsireland site, it looks like they're developing some kind of unique address identifier tied in to GPS - so, not quite a postcode system, then. Having read the site, I hope the software is more accurate than their copyeditor... ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Slight correction to ww2c's point: the edit warrior doesn't just work for gpsIreland, he is the "director of GPS Ireland" (see the Irish Times article). I didn't get to read the site, because it was down when I looked, with see-control-panel message. Very impressive, that was! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha, found it in google cache. May be handy for satnav, but we'll have to wait and see how independent evaluations rate it for postal usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish PostCodes

At least have the decency to leave a message on yours or my talk to explain your reasoning for outright removal - there are now 4 persons undoing my content. In any other place this would be seen as bullying. Does Wiki rules allow you to oeparte as a pack??? I do not accept your judgement on this as it was only in place for less than a 1 minute and you could not have possibly come to a reasonable or measured decision in that time, not least the fact that it would be normal to offer suggestions for improvement rather than to jump to outright removal. This in istelf is edit warring not by one but now by 4 persons Garydubh (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bastun you have jumped into an ongoing dispute here and are not helping - also in your undo you have left a part paragraph that makes what is a poorly constucted piece into a patchwork! I agree with garydub - what is reported in the Irish Independent could not be a genuine proposal. As you know - everything that appears in Press is not necessarily true and very often the press is used for political feelers which may be the case in this instance. As some one who is obviously deeply involved in the Post Code development process he will be aware of the validity of that which is reported in the Independent. I do not know much about this but as a professional driver I can see the point that the facts as stated do not appear to be very workable. Anyway coffee break over - back on the road - Have a good Easter Baggywrinkle (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from his website and from what he's said is that he isn't "deeply involved in the Post Code development process" - he's developing an independent GPS system which might or might not be taken up by An Post. And there's nothing to suggest its even been offered to them yet. For what its worth - the system seems far more sensible at least for package system. How that would translate to individual houses each having an individual code, I don't know. As to the rest of it, see Ww2censor's reply on your own talk page and my reply to Garydubh on the article talk page. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Bastun I am struggling to understand how people who obviously know nothing about this, obvious from their comments, persist in holding the article ransom to their ignorance. You refer to our system as a GPS System. The code is not a GPS System it is a geographic code - it can be used on a GPS system as it can on a GIS system and routing systems - and , of course manually if you wish. The tools used do not define a system. The current Post Code system in use by An Post is an OCR based system but you would not call it an OCR code - it is their Post Coding system. Perhaps it may also be a revelation to you if I highlighted that An Post firstly does not want a Post Code system (Quoted in the Article) and secondly will no longer be the only Postal organisation in the country from next year onwards - so any "Post" Code system developed will not be for their use - although there is nothing stopping them from using it. So your comment relating to requiring An Post to adopt the system is not relevant at all and unfortunately highlights again the common mis-conceptions on the subject. Adoption of a Government backed system will be managed by ComReg and the system adopted may not be that recommended by consultants to the Government. There are several other systems recommended by private players such as mine (two others I am aware of) and to be absolutely correct none require backing of the Oireactais - all that is required is popular use!!

It also may shock you to understand that predictions show that 80% of all items delivered in Ireland will be packages and parcels in 20 years time and are already a significant proposrtion now - tahnks to E-Bay and Web Purchases. Therefore, the current quest is not to design a "Post" Code but rather a Post, Parcel, Goods etc Code. Difficult to get these all in one neat "package" so the word "Post" is still used for popular understanding but it would be a mistake in designing a MODERN code to take this litteraly. It may also surprise those who persist on blocking expansive consideration here, that any item delivered to any location in Ireland (post included) travels 95% of its journey by vehicle. Therefore the Code adopted must take this into account. The Postman on the ground has no need for the code -It will have done most of its work before the postman gets on to the street. In fact, with deregulation in 2009, the days of a Postman's "round" will gradually disappear due to dilution of services to many providers who will be hopping from one area to another to carry out their route - all being achieved directly from a vehicle. Therfore, in its widest sense;- Courier, document, parcel and delivery services all require the capabilitities of any adopted Code whatever it is called and 95% of its influence will be everything but to those on foot!! Essentially, therefore the role of a modern "Post" Code is a logistics and navigation one i.e. all deiveries in Ireland, mail or otherwise, thereby requiring routing calculations which are achieved on specialised software where geographic coordinates and road/street digital map detail is critical. Web based purchases comprise part of modern mail and many of these are done by couriers in vehicles. After the routing calculations the next part of the task is navigation - i.e. the driver finding the delivery location or property! The driver does not have a daily route on an exact set of streets/houses - it varies day to day and indeed the driver may never have been that way before. For this reason the final part of the delivery must be designed to improve fuel efficiencies, time economies - this is even more important with the competition generated by deregualtion, the rocketing cost of fuel and the need to minimise carbon emissions. For this reason SatNav/GPS is an eessential tool for the final delivery phase. Near 100% road mapping for Ireland on these devices is leading to a greater demand for a solution to non unique addressing. Furthermore, the nature of modern deliveries is such that nowadays in a growing number of cases, deliveries are made to non structures. A prominent Dairy COOP recently adopted GPS systems on delivery trucks for delivering Grain as this is delivered to Silos which may not be associated with a property and the client may not be around when the delivery is made. Consequently, they were experiencing signifacant additional costs when they delivered to the wrong silo by mistake and had to pump it out again. So Delivering anything is a logistic and navigation exercise for which GIS, Routing Software and GPS are now routinely used. All of these tools have two things in common - the need for digital mapping and geographic coordinates. Therefore, any so called "Post" code developed must take all these requirements in to account. Codes which focus only on the delivery of mail by the traditional Postman will be doomed from inception as, ultimately, there is a greater demand from vehicle based deliveries than foot based postmen. There are many proposals about - one only of which is being currently mentioned in the article on Postal Addresses In Ireland and even then this is being reported incorrectly as that which is reported is technically unworkable. The system I am proposing is designed with Logistics and Navigation in mind using my background in supporting vehicle management and my deep knowledge of Air, Marine and Land navigation (MSc Degree) and near 30 years practical, support and teaching experience. It has at its basis geographic coordinates, which are the primary need of any proposed Code. (My local postman wants to use it straight away on his SatNav in his van as he is new and has taken up to 11 hours to get around his route, not knowing the area!!)

You should also be aware that I was consulted as a stakeholder by the Post Code board more than 3 years ago and I provided seperate advice to a member of the board on matters GPS and and geographic coordinates, position etc.

So hopefully this will have widened the knowledge of all those who are persistant in theire "Undos" in this article and absolutely refutes your assertion that what I have designed is a GPS System and that I have not been involved in the "Post" Code development. Furthermore, the misconception that An Post will have to accept any adopted system should now be permanently dispeled. Perhaps now at least so called "all knowing editors" will not be so quick to write off by input in this area. 83.70.211.45 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)This was posted by me Garydubh but I was so long writing it by the time I saved the system has lost my Log In details - just in case I get reprimanded again! Garydubh (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

BI Talk

Bastun, there are 2 admins already on the Talk:British Isles page, Waggers & Ben Bell. No need to get any more admins involved, like Alison who is very busy already, and one of the finest admins on WP, may I add. 78.19.242.131 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Noted :-) I've a very poor memory for who is and isn't an admin. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)