User talk:Bastobasto

Hi Bastobasto! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:28, Saturday, November 23, 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of fatal dog attacks in Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Patrie. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you started a sandbox for the 50501 protests. I wanted to ask if you wanted to merge the work in the sandbox with the draft I am currently working on for the topic? Hopefully working on a draft together can allow us to make the quality article on the topic. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to say that the place where the most concurrent version of this article topic is being edited is now 50501 Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bastobasto. Thank you for your work on Jacques Martin de Bourgon. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this biography for a political and military figure; either of these activities justify notability. Another editor has marked the article for copy editing, which I agree with, to help with coherence and to simplify the use of English in places. There are only two sources, but I note that the French article isn't significantly better.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bastabasto. Thank you for adding this content. Since the information is nearly 135 years old, would you please lace this content into the articles' History sections instead? Typically, Demographics sections contain recent census information (like the past two censuses), not very old/early census information (unless there is a complete population history template as well). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Which page are we talking about? I've been modifying a few.

As you probably know, older census data in historical population boxes (hence their name!) typically go in the demographics section. To sample a few major Canadian cities; Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa all have these in the demographics section.

I think it would thus be logical to have what would otherwise be these boxes' content also be in the demographics section, even if in a fragmented form (meaning, historical population for a given year).

Eventually, I'll make actual historical population boxes for all the pages I'm editing. I'm manually adding population data from the censuses into localities' pages, and I'm going on a per census basis (and not per locality basis) to not miss any juicy bit of data. I'm on page 4 of ~101 of the 1891 Census. I realize the difficulties (especially considering the fickle nature of toponymy), but I'll eventually streamline the process further.Bastobasto (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I am referring to many on my watchlist. Comox, British Columbia is an example.

See the History and Demographics sections at Fox Creek, Alberta. The two most recent federal censuses are presented using prose in the latter starting with most recent (2021) followed by the previous (2016). A population history template is also posted there. It is a succinct table.

Then in the History section, the first two census population counts (1961 and 1966) are presented in prose in the second last paragraph. These are undoubtedly historical at this point and can be mentioned in the History section. The last thing we want in Demographics sections is a paragraph about every census result. That would become unwieldy.

Now look back at Comox. See the 13th paragraph under the "Nineteenth century: settlement" subsection. Continue reading you will find a third-last paragraph in the subsection about an event in 1891. This is the perfect location for you to move your recent edit to.

I will stop here for now. I don’t want to overwhelm. It is admirable the research you are doing. It resonates. We have much in common. More on that another time. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit is bang-on! Hwy43 (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone is searching for historical census data; he goes to the demographic section, as it's where it often is in the form of boxes. One shouldn't have to skim through the whole history section to find the quasi-haphazardly spread tidbits of information. There is a strong consensus for census data belongs to the demographics section; I'm not sure there is a strong enough consensus (or one at all) that it shouldn't in the case of in-text integration. Is there? Bastobasto (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

In my sixteen years editing here, I have seen Demographic sections generally contain only prose summarizing the most recent census data, not census data from the earliest census and all 20 censuses in between. Such would be bloat the article and give too much weight to one section over others. And as new census results are published, demographics from older census results get deleted as they are deemed stale. That is the consensus by convention that I have observed. I didn't like it when others starting deleting data from three censuses ago, but I ended up accepting the convention. The exception I have found is the same as you have found – the historical population templates, which are much more succinct in presenting all historical census results in a Demographics section compared to a paragraph on each.

I see you have continued the discussion on my talk page. I would prefer to discuss this in a single location so I intend to paste your message to me below so that we can consolidate and continue. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to be read - not to itch the editors' need for compartmentalization. Historical census data is usually presented in the demographics section. That is a very strong consensus. It ought to be followed.

As soon as more than two or three population data points, they can be put into table form. Alternatively, these data points can be used in a wider portion detailing demographic history. The text wouldn't be bloated. The rest of the article's insufficiencies shouldn't prohibit one from adding information to one section under the reasoning that it would thus "have too much weight".

There are many other exceptions, ex. Kaitangata, Gayles, Wormshill. I could list more. This wouldn't be the first case users editing Canadian articles ignored the rest of the website when it fits them; see the nationality of minorities (here, Québécois and Native American/Inuits) in the lead section for Canadian articles vs other articles.

I prefer my conversations to be clearly separated from one another, instead of being an amorphous balls of text. It's a separate discussion (although on the same pages and batch of edits), so please create a separate topic next time or keep it on your talk page, where it was started. Bastobasto (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been thousands of boundary changes throughout the years, some major - but these practically aren't taken into account on Wikipedia except for the occasional adjusted counts, including on pages using older census data. Boundary changes can (and perhaps should be) indicated in footnotes - but considering they normally aren't, this doesn't warrant a revert. There is still a continuity between these census subdivisions, which is what matters; they haven't been dissoluted, or, at the very least, they share name and general geographical location.

My edit summaries referencing boundary adjustments don't perfectly convey my intent. What I am concerned about is two or more different geographic divisions sharing the same name being presenting as if they are the same census subdivision over time. We don't know for sure if the "Rockwood sub-district" from 1891 is the precursor to the current-day "Rural Municipality (RM) of Rockwood" without finding evidence they are the same (or are likely the same). The Rockwood sub-district could have very well been three times geographically larger than current-day RM of Rockwood. Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

There is still geographical and toponymic continuity (to highly varying degrees). Ultimately, the old and new subdivisions should be separated into different articles when appropriate, but for the moment being, shouldn't they stay united? Doesn't the past of the current RM of Rockwood also encompass the Rockwood sub-district? Perhaps it should then be in the history section - but then we're entering into a level of detail which we've not entered in this already quasi-byzantine conversation.

As a side note, sorry if my replies may seem aggressive/snarky. Yours have been generally courteous and I haven't meant to be rude; I'm simply a very tense person! Bastobasto (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In fact, articles often include the history of the regions since the 19th century! If this continuity is acknowledged there, why wouldn't it be in the census data? The 1891 region is "apple to oranges" to the 2025 region for census data, but isn't for history? The region is defined geographically for census data, but administratively for the rest? Isn't the page about an administrative region, and not a geographical one?

See my reply from earlier this evening regarding the consensus by convention I have observed since I started editing. The best way to show historical continuity of census population results in the Demographics section is to do so using the succinct historical population template rather than adding a new paragraph for each historical census. Generally, census data from more than the two past censuses have been deleted by others because they have deemed the content to be stale and much less important that the most recent data. As mentioned, I've since accepted the consensus by convention that has been observed and began practicing the same. For example, see this edit in which I deleted the stale 2011 census paragraph when adding the latest 2021 census results. I will delete 2016 census content when the 2026 results are published in February 2027. Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The historical population template cannot be used for a single year - that's ridiculous. These prose passages are meant to be provisory, until more census data points are collected - I'm not sure why you've presumed otherwise as I've already said so (first answer, last paragraph). They could also be used in a more detailed historical demographics section.

Obviously, they shouldn't be separate paragraphs - historical census data can be given in a single sentence, with commas separating one census from another. Bastobasto (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument - but it seems like an arbitrary application of a debatable principle. It implies that we are able to know when a census subdivision stops being "the same" geographically speaking, in which case we're entering a ship of theseus-like situation and a philosophical discussion. It implies the population history should be given for a given geographical area and not for a given administrative region, census region or others - and yet, I've seen very different underlying "philosophies" of articles!

I do concede, though, that I've gone too far in adding district population for cities - that's just sloppy editing on my part, I'm in a quasi-incapacitated state so please pardon my myriad of errors. Bastobasto (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I see you reverted three of my reverts. I've since done some research. Turns out the RMs of Rockwood, St. Andrews, and St. Clements were all incorporated before 1891. This is the very evidence I needed to confirm that there are no apples to oranges comparisons for these three RMs. As a lover of census data, I am now happy to let those three edits stand! I will now paste this entire conversation back on your talk page so that everything can be consolidated in a single place. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian banknote issuers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Banque du Peuple.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bastobasto. Thank you for your work on Banque Ville-Marie. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please add more sources and establish WP:Note. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I will thank you to mind WP:CIV in your edit summaries going forward. The whole "Africans couldn't invent chairs" racist trope has been a significant cause of disruption on this page and I would hate to see that article be disrupted by such tropes again. I will review your sources with some care before deciding whether to revert again rather than getting into cyclical reverts but I'd suggest that keeping racist misinformation off random Wikipedia pages is not my "little edit war." Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There was no reason for your revert. I explained my reasoning in my edit summary, which is very simple and not really open to debate. This is nothing more than a revert reflex from an edit war, which for someone your experience is pretty surprising.

I'm the one who added that section. It's very well sourced. I added the sole source I've found that doesn't follow the consensus (Kyerematen; that chairs did not exist in Ghana before European contact). Someone came in and modified the section. No sources were added or removed; they just wrote bullshit, likely without consulting my sources. The content in that edit are not reflected in the sources. Thus this edit must be reverted.

Note that my section only refers to Ghana, not Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, I came to edit due to that edit war - but I simply wished to rectify a false statement. Because of the huge importance of stools in some of Ghana's cultures, there's a large corpus of scientific works on the subject of seating in Ghana, thus I was able to write something on the subject. However, because of the huge importance of stools, it's no surprise chairs aren't exactly the focus of these cultures, to the point that they did not develop them before European contact. Seriously, the symbolism and history of stools in Ghana's culture are quite complex and very interesting.

The history of the chair isn't exactly a prime subject of scholarly attention for other regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, and thus, it's hard to add sections for them. Sure, I've found pictures of thousand of years old chairs from modern-day Ethiopia for example, but they're not really given attention in the text. Bastobasto (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This is weakly sourced. The sources you added are both over a half-century old. Anthropology, as a field, has rather changed in that time. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

... it's still the best sources on the subject which haven't been contradicted by more recent sources - at least, for all you know by your own admission. You do the research, then you revert - not vice-versa when there's reliable sources for the section. That's a pitiful excuse for a revert. Bastobasto (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Is it good Wikipedia practice to repeatedly edit-war in a challenged edit with an opened discussion at article talk? Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't "repeatedly edit-war", I did it once with you and then once in reaction to 331dot - and in the latter case, he did the exact same thing.

I don't see this as an edit war. As I said, there's really no ground for your reverts - you've still not given a valid reason yet, and I doubt you can give one. I see it as reverting vandalism. I'd like to remind you that you reverted my valid version to some random person's vandalism - so yeah, essentially vandalism by proxy. Bastobasto (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Just go to article talk and make your case for why sources from the 1960s should be used here. The age of the sources is my principal concern. I think the rest, including whether you see removal of sources you prefer as vandalism is probably going to produce more heat than light and should probably be left in the past. If there is consensus to include I'll leave it alone. If there is consensus to exclude I'll ensure any removal is clean and free of any vandal edits. I'm very happy to extend that concession. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You reverted to vandalism by Developed it entirely. They changed the info without changing the source, in a way that the info isn't reflected in the sources - thus being vandalism.

There's no reason for sources from 1960s to be refused. If there was, then a good portion of Wikipedia would be stripped from its bone and thrown into oblivion. There's a source from 1905 on the page, for god's sake. You haven't read my sources, you don't know their content, and there's no good reason to refuse a source based on its age alone, especially when it's the only reliable source on the subject. It's referenced in the 2009 source, which also shows they are reliable.

The conclusion that Ghana did not have chairs before European contact results from a simple analysis of furniture and of historical records. It's agreed upon by most sources on the subject, both Ghananian and foreign - which happen to come from the 1970s. They aren't contradicted by newer sources. Except that you dislike their conclusion, there's no reason for these sources to be obligatorily submitted to the talk page. Bastobasto (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You disagreeing with an edit does not make it "vandalism". I urge you to change course now and be more collaborative. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

... it's vandalism because it was reverted to vandalism by Developed it entirely. They changed the info without changing the source, in a way that the info isn't reflected in the sources - thus being vandalism.

That's not hard to understand, and that was already discussed in my above comment. I'm starting to believe you're being deliberately clueless. Bastobasto (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

That actually isn't vandalism at all, but now that you've started in on personal attacks I'll just let you be. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be personal attacks if I said you were clueless, and not that you were being deliberately clueless - that's an accusation, not an attack. If you want to leave a conversation, leave; don't use excuses.

How isn't that vandalism?

"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

I put in bold the part in which it clearly constituted vandalism. And yes, before you claim otherwise, that was clearly deliberate and malicious. Bastobasto (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I gave you the full respect you deserve. You're breaking a myriad of policies, more than I am here, so I suggest also focusing on these. Bastobasto (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at History of the chair. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks, let's clarify that here. Rough words, tellling someone to fuck off, sure, but no personal attacks - nothing abusive that directly refered to Simon. Bastobasto (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at article talk. I suggest we all step back from unnecessarily sharp language and WP:FOC at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the second and fourth sentences apply. Keep it cool and civil, please. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

They don't apply. I did focus on the content, in an abusive manner (as in, "stop reverting", in an abusive manner). Thus no personal attacks, and no focusing over personal matters. Bastobasto (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

You're focusing on two abusive words that essentially express "stop reverting". Is that really productive use of your time? Did I really threaten the civility of Wikipedia? Was that really worth a personal attack talk page message? Bastobasto (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aimé Major is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimé Major until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ROY is WAR Talk! 23:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Bastobasto,

Thank you for creating William Weir (businessman).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

You need to be more careful to rephrase all text taken from another source

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Boynamedsue}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boynamedsue (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bastobasto! I have a quick question about your addition to the River Raid article here. I don't think the edit was a problem (thought I did change the URL to a more accessible version and expanded a bit on it.) I noticed you added it with the tag that the source was unreliable. Was that a mistake? I saw the guideline you pointed to but I didn't really understand what it was in reference too. I've cobbled down the source to say it nearly sold a million units as its unlikely the editor has access to every game or the best-selling games period, but I think the "near-million" is probably ok? Either way, I hope we can clarify what makes this better. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The source is a newspaper not specialized in gaming, and the info is given in a short introduction for an article written by a kid. The claim that it was one of the best-selling video game at the time was highly questionable, not only for the reasons you gave, but also because many games of which we do have the numbers surpass River Raid (See List of best-selling Atari 2600 video games page; around 14 games would have outsold River Raid, at least). It's still possible that it was one of the best-selling video game at the time (it could have been twentieth and it'd still be so), but that statement would have needed a better source.

The source still isn't that good, but proportionally to the claim (almost 1 million copies sold), it's alright. Bastobasto (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)