User talk:Astrotrain/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TALK | ARCHIVE1 | ARCHIVE2 | ARCHIVE3 | ARCHIVE4 | ARCHIVE5 | ARCHIVE6 | ARCHIVE7 | ARCHIVE8


Contents

[edit] Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi there Astrotrain, i invited you to particpate in the discussion above. maybe you could spare a minute on your views? i know you must be terribly busy... thanks alot, appreciate it. Antares911 29 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar Airport

Please don't just remove the category, put it into an appropriate category. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) June 28, 2005 19:25 (UTC)

  • You can create a one airport category Airports of Gibraltar and then place that category in the UK one. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) June 29, 2005 20:53 (UTC)

[edit] Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

[edit] Princess of Wales

I've created a template for Princess of Wales and added it into the Princess of Wales pages. Hope that is OK.

FearÉIREANNImage:Irish flag.gifImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

[edit] opinion sought

I have re-opened the issue of the royal stub at [2]. I think having it produce a noble link is farcical. Those who did it originally were no doubt well meaning but I don't think they really understood what they were doing. Nobility and royalty are not the same. Your opinions would be welcomed.

FearÉIREANNImage:Irish flag.gifImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 7 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

[edit] alert

You might want to keep an eye on User:71.36.220.38. He or she has attempted to remove the Princess of Wales template from Princesses of Wales and insert that damn succession box again. Hell, I've spent all of tonight just dealing with vandalism to royal articles. I've barely been able to do any real work. (All while being abused as the devil incarnate by Everyking - as usual!) *sigh* FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 23:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flags in {{canada}}

I have started a discussion on the talk page of template:Canada, please come and explain your reasons. Circeus 14:58, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Now that there is a clear consensus in favour of no flags instead of having flags of any size, will you accept that, or are you going to insist on having your way on this? Ground Zero 19:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop it

That is very aggressive behaviour. You know that the issue of putting the Commonwealth Realms template on the Canada page has already been discussed on the talk page, so why would you arbitrarily put it back up their without consulting other editors by re-opening the discussion on the talk page? Are you trying to incite a revert war? Especially after you repeatedly reverted changes to another template on that page that were supported by three other editors while you were the only one opposed to them. Revert wars are a waste of everyone's time, and will lead to action being taken against you. Please review the guidelines on wikipedia etiqutte, and particularly the page on revert wars. Ground Zero 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

(Removed from my user page)

Thanks for your comments. Of course edit wars can only occur if TWO people are reverting. So that includes you. Stop telling people what they can and can't do. I don't need to discuss on a talk page before I edit an article. You have already started edited wars against other editors for adding templates to the Canada page, which you seem to treat as your own personal page. Wikipedia is free to edit for a reason. And I am not adding false or contestable information here, so your reversions are just being childish and selfish. Astrotrain 19:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit my user page. if you want to leave a message for me, you can do so on my talk page like everybody else. Thank you.

I have removed templates from the Canada page before, and have always posted my reasons for doing so on the article's talk page. Issues such as these should be resolved there, and not through revert wars. You and a couple of other editors keep posted templates without providing explanations, and that's when we get into a revert war. I am not the only one who thinks that the Canada page should not be junked up with a bunch of cluttery templates, and you know that, so don't try to turn this into a personal thing. The Talk page and the edit history make it clear that I am not acting alone. I am also aware of the long-running dispute that you had with User:SimonP over the Commmonwealth template.

Of course Wikipedia is free to edit. The policy on revert wars is there to stop people from wasting time on storage space on futile exercises like revert wars. Again, that is why these things should be discussed. If you feel you are free to edit however you want, then you will have to expect that other people will just revert your edits. If that's the way you want it, then that is the way it will be. I think there is a better way, and that is resolving it on the Talk page.

The edit history of the Canada page shows clearly that it gets a lot of traffic from a lot of editors, including a lot of regular editors. That is proff that I do not "treat [it] as your own personal page". Please withdraw that remark. As you are aware, Wikipedia policy prohibits personal attacks. Also for "your reversions are just being childish and selfish." Out of respect for other editors, I have taken the time to explain why I have made the changes. I wish you would do the same. Ground Zero 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I note that over the weekend you made the same edits to Canada twice, and to Template:Canada once. In neither case did you provide any argument on the respective talk pages to convince other editors why your edits should be accepted. This, as I have pointed out, is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (This is not just me telling you what to do.) I encourage you for everyone's benefit -- and yours -- to review the Wikipedia articles on revert wars, editing etiquette and so on. Thank you. Ground Zero 02:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are some points for you to consider:

Wikipedia:Wikiquette says: "Don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate."

I don't think that you've been doing this. Circeus, Stormscape and I have tried to engage you in a discussio about this, and you have been repeating your only point that you think it looks better, without addressing any of our points.

Wikipedia:Edit war is another good article to read.

Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution says:

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

It also says:

Wikipedia works by building consensus.

So far, Circeus, Stormscape, SimonP and I are taking one side of this debate, and you are taking the other. I don't think that you have developed a consensus for your position. I am open to discussing what further steps we could take together to resolve this dispute and avoid an edit war. Ground Zero 12:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue of multiple templates as footers has also come up on the United Kingdom page. A creative compromise has been proposed there that provided links to all of the templates without creating a big clutter of them at the bottom of the page. Thiss compromise avoids all of the arguments over which template is more important. Please take a look. Ground Zero 17:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watch out

A user calling himself MoralHighGround this time is attempting to remove styles and move name details to something he calls TRIVIA at the bottom of pages. He has tried it before under different identities. Keep an eye out for his vandalism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IFD

Just a quick note to say I've replaced Image:RBS logo.gif with Image:RBS logo.PNG and listed the previous for deletion. The new upload shows the revised corporate logo and is also big enough to avoid the stretch which the previous version suffered in the Company Infobox. Regards Mark 18:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back again

User:MoralHighGround is back again. I have blocked him for his antics again. I'm sure there will be complaints from the usual individuals who complained when he was blocked as User:His Holiness. But going by his history of identities he is bound to get access through some other IP and create another new personality. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II renaming (round XXXIV)

You may have noticed *mega sigh* that yet another user has dragged up the lets rename Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom farce, only 9 days after the last vote ended. (What next? A vote every day on the issue next?) I have proposed instead this vote on Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom page:

That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this (goddamned) issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months.

Hopefully this will put this nonsense to bed for at least 6 months. Your (hopefully final) vote would be welcome. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Empress Alexandra Fedorovna

There is (again) a vote upon the heading of Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. At least I am against that "Alix" version. Do I recall correctly that you have supported "Alexandra of Hesse"?? 217.140.193.123 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Canada}}

As far as I can see, the consensus is clearly toward not having flags at all for reasons already explained, and thus youcan't really talk about a "compromise". Circeus 22:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've just been sticking my nose into this one, and it seems that you're being rather inflexible here. If that many people want the template to be flag-free, what's the problem? It's not as if the flags don't exist on the individual province pages... -Harmil 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain, please see: Wikipedia:Consensus. Quoting from the article, "In day-to-day Wikipedia practice, e.g. on VfD, consensus means something closer to supermajority, usually a two-thirds majority. In other polls, it has been defined as a 70% majority. In yet other cases, such as approving a request for a person to become an administrator, it is generally considered an 80% majority." Unanimity is not required to reach a consensus on Wikipedia. Kurieeto 23:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchy in Canada

Can you please look at the dispute at Monarchy in CanadaHomey 01:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RCAF Flag.gif

This flag comes from Graham Bartram's site. He does not allow commercial usage of his work. From his site, "Flag Drawings © Graham Bartram, portions © The Flag Institute & Mario Fabretto". You have uploaded a great deal of his material before and I believe I have asked you not do to so. If I have not please consider this a request to stop doing it. You are violating his copyright over the images by uploading them, as well as possibly the copyrights of the Flag Institute and Mario Fabretto. If you want a flag of that type, I would suggest you draw it yourself if at all possible. That's what I've done with things like the White Ensign and the RAF Ensign. It is perfectly possible to do things like that in a vector graphics program. I also know for a fact that there is a copyright-free vector version of the Canadian maple leaf out there on the internet at the Sodipoli clip art archive, so that isn't a problem. Once you've got the vector version export a bitmap. After that's done you then have a copyright OK file. It takes a bit of work, but it can be done. David Newton 18:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia images uploaded now MUST allow commercial usage if they are to be licensed. Otherwise the rather risky ground of fair use must be entered into. That's been the case for getting on for a year now. That's why I put it up as a copyvio, and that's why you should stop using the images. I don't necessarily agree with the policy, but it is an official Wikipedia policy. David Newton 19:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Earl Wessex.jpg

I have re-listed this image at WP:PUI because you have not given a source for the fair use claim nor justification, both of which are required to make that claim. Please read Wikipedia:Fair use. RedWolf 17:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Years Survey

Hi. To get everybody thinking, I've created a survey about Year pages here. I'm telling all the participants of WikiProject Years and everyone else who has shown an interest in year pages or participated in the discussion. If you could check it out it would be appreciated, and tell anyone you think may be interested. - Trevor macinnis 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen vs Head of State

what's it gonna be? we've had some disagreements it seems. --Stormscape 08:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I say we put it at Head of State, same with issues of Prince vs Head of State. This being that it is not the office of Queen, it is the office of Head of State, it just so happens that the possition is presently occupied by a Queen. Mac Domhnaill 23:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] styles

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 02:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the comments re-styles. I've proposed an alternative location for the infobox. The details are on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution.

FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] RCMP

Image:RCMP.jpg

Put the photo you uploaded on the RCMP page. If you have additional infor that could be added, that would be great.Glenlarson 21:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Monarchical Styles of
Queen Victoria
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Pope Paul VI
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Religious style {{{relstyle}}}
Posthumous style {{{deathstyle}}}


Monarchical styles of
Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Monarchical Styles of
James V
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Mary McAleese,
President of Ireland
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
spoken style {{{offstyle}}}
Alternative style {{{altstyle}}}
Styles of
Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
{{{image}}}
Reference style {{{dipstyle}}}
Spoken style {{{offstyle}}}


[edit] Duchess of Windsor

There seem to be things happening all the time in location of Wallis, Duchess of Windsor. And check also Talk:Wallis, Duchess of Windsor 217.140.193.123 01:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BA Industrial Action

As I said in the Talk page I had removed the section for now - meaning I sat it to the side to open a debate on it. Perhaps I should have have opened the debate on it first rather than remove it, as I still believe it rather irrelevant for the article. And at that it was poorly written with only a small amount of trivial detail rather than a full explanation of what the situation was (sympathy walk out rather than BA dispute). That's neither here nor there, however, as it could and was easliy brought back and I'm happy if that's what everyone else thinks. But must you be so aggressive in your tone?? I was simply setting out my point of view, using language where I could to state what I thought rather than being dictatorial. However, your spiel is entirely dictatorial and stomps over any personal point of view with "this is right and that's final", with a good dose of firm language. I don't care for being talked to like a school pupil, so please don't do so in future. --Ayrshire--77 07:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alexandra of Kent.jpg

Image deletion warning The image Image:Alexandra of Kent.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go to its page to provide the necessary information.

[edit] Flags, again

I am curious: on Template:Canada, you have put the provincial flags back on the template, even though in the discussion, ten editors stated their opposition to the flags, and only you were in favour. Yet you claim that I treat the Canada pages as my "own personal property". Can you not see the hypocrisy there?

My second question is, why do you think now that you will be able to get away with imposing your preference on this template, when you know that there are so many people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that you will be just wasting more time for all concerned? Ground Zero 21:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canada infobox

Cheers, Astro. It is nice to know that we can agree on some things. Regards, Ground Zero 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Victoria Surname

This dialog has been moved to a separate discussion page: Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom/Surname. --StanZegel 18:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SANDF template

I noticed your decision to revert the template back to the flag format, but to be honest I can't agree with you on the choice. I changed the design from the flags to the emblems after seeing your Military of New Zealand template (which looked a lot nicer), and after I realised the flags themselves (especially the SA Army flag) did not quite render nicely at such small scales. It is mostly because of this that I'm curious as to your statement that the flags are clearer - to me the emblem format seems both clearer and more asthetic. In any case, I have modified it slightly to replace the SA Navy flag with an emblem in the same style as the others. Please tell me what you think, and what specific problems you have with this format. Impi 14:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Great! Glad we could reach agreement. I agree that it didn't quite look that great with the mix, and I'm actually slightly embarrassed at the fact that I initially forgot about the SA Navy emblem (despite being the person who uploaded it). Nice work on creating the template in the first place, btw. Impi 14:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Regarding your 3RR violation report on Queen's Privy Council for Canada: you do realize that you, as the reporting party, are required to list the individual diffs (using the template at the bottom of the 3RR page) before an admin will act? --Calton | Talk 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship

You opposed my adminship saying I haven't been here long enough, but I have actually been here for a very long time. I have been using Wikipedia since 2002 before User:Rambot and have edited anonymously for a long time before registering. See my user page. I have also noticed you supported User:Hall Monitor, who had an account for only two days longer than me. NSR (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think you should give me a fair chance. I have been a hard working editor, I have dony many difficult tasks in the past. I have a large number edits, which represent a lot of work. You are welcome to go deeper into my contribution history for a look at any potential problems. I have a lot of expeience, so I would hate to see my nomination fail. NSR (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HappyCamper's RFA - Thanks for your support! :-)

Hi Astrotrain! Thanks for supporting me during my recent RFA! I'm now an administrator, and I appreciated the sincerity of your comments - thanks for taking the time to vote! I hope in the future we'll have a chance to work on a collaboration, whether it be writing an article, or otherwise. I just want to let you know you're always welcome on my talk page. Thanks again for your support, and I'll see you around the Wiki! --HappyCamper 17:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scimitar's RfA

Hey, a fellow British Columbian! Anyhow, thanks for taking the time to express your comments at my adminship application, and please believe that I'm very conscious of my relative inexperience. If, in the future, I take any action, (regardless of whether or not I become an admin) that you have problems with, please let me know. Thanks for your time, and all the best.--Scimitar parley 15:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for supporting! I wasn't actually trying to change your vote- I just didn't want people annoyed at me for applying so soon. Yeah, it's a pretty cool flag, and it almost makes up for how funny the politics is in this province. C'ya around the 'pedia.--Scimitar parley 14:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Chinese flags

Hello. Thanks so much for compiling the list. I've put up some questions I have in mind regarding the list at the talk page. :-D — Instantnood 18:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence

Thanks for your message. I'm glad that I don't seem to have stepped on anyone's toes. I hesitated a bit about removing the boxes, but I found it so confusing going from one page to another (Camilla, Sophie, Alexandra, etc.), and finding conflicting statements about who was next. Ann Heneghan (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Duke coronation.JPG

The image you uploaded, Image:Duke coronation.JPG, claims fair use without a source or rationale. If you do not include a source and a rationale with your fair use claim, then it will be deleted just the same as if it was untagged.

By the way, with your request, Please don't add notices regarding image copyright here... where am I supposed to put the notices? --Matjlav(talk) 00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Victoria, Princess Royal or Victoria Adelaide of the United Kingdom

Can you make out how these duplicate articles came to be in existence. I found the former at Victoria of the United Kingdom (German Empress) which was clearly wrong, so I restored it to a page where it appeared to have come from, pending discussion. However, on further investigation I saw that the latter article also seems to have been at the former title at some stage, and again to have been moved without any consensus. Furthermore, when I moved the article back, the talk page that had alerted me to the problem did not move to Talk:Princess Victoria, Princess Royal as it should have done. I notice that you feature on the history of both articles. Any idea what's going on? Deb 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your response, because that's what I felt, but I don't really see how it can be achieved without losing a lot of the history. Any thoughts? Deb 19:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not delete items from your talk page

Wikipedia:Talk Page: "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings."--Mais oui! 23:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I removed a 3R rule template placed by a user, given I did not break the 3R rule, it is not necessary for it to be here. And it is really nothing to do with you. Astrotrain 23:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hour block

This concerns your recent changes to the Scotland article. You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Regards, Nandesuka 03:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. As you can probably guess, I disagree with your assessment. The amount of time I have been an admin is not particularly germane. The issue at hand was your constant and aggressive reversion of the image of the coat of arms. The fact that you sprinkled some other edits in with that revert is completely immaterial. Please review WP:3RR, and note that it contains no exceptions for "but I was right" or "but my changes were very high quality." Next time, please expend more effort to reach consensus with your fellow editors before engaging in this sort of revert war. Kind regards, Nandesuka 15:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that you believe I abused my admin powers in blocking you for your violation of WP:3RR is noted. I publically announced the fact that I blocked you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Astrotrain. So far, no one there has questioned my interpretation. WP:3RR says:

Note that historically, public denunciation of the blocking admin has tended not to gain sympathy. You can, however, report cases of egregious misapplication of this rule to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR; for more serious cases, to the "use of administrator privileges" section in Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Feel free to avail yourself of these remedies if you believe that my reading of your edits as violating the three revert rule was an abuse of admin powers. Good day, Nandesuka 15:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Good day indeed. LMFAO. You got nuked by the BFH #2 Nandenuker. LMFAO, she tries to sound so polite with weasely departures, but is in fact one of the most caustic, arrogant and rude admins around. The newly found powers have clearly taken hold of her behaviour. Good luck Astro. --81.79.225.101 21:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electress Sophia

I moved the Electress Sophia information to 'History of British nationality law' and to the section on 'other categories of British nationality' in the main British nationality law page. Electress Sophia descent doesn't generally give rise to a claim to full British citizenship, so I'd have thought this would be a more appropriate place to include the information JAJ 13:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In reply...

I replied to your oppose vote on my RFA. No need to reply if you don't want to, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michaëlle Jean's Arms

  • Great minds indeed! Well one of the two images needs to get deleted. Sorry, but yours will have to get deleted! Before reciving your message I had already added my image to two other articles, Canadian Heraldic Authority, and Governor General of Canada, so It would take time to replace and why bother?. To make things simpler I also replaced your image with mine on the Michaëlle Jean page. So now my image links to three pages, while your image doesen't link anywhere. I'll list yours on images for deletion, if you don't mind. --Mb1000 16:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK then! Astrotrain 17:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. As Donald Trump says, "It's nothing personal, it's just business." :) --Mb1000 17:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Belvedere

Hi Astrotrain. My name is Danny, and I work with Jimbo Wales at the Wikimedia Foundation. Can you please contact me asap at danny AT wikia.com or danny AT wikimediafoundation.org. Thanks, Danny 17:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi. A Toronto-based magazine asked about using one of the images you posted (Fort Belvedere). I responded to them that it is a copyrighted image, which we are using as fair use, and they asked if we could provide them with the source, so that they can contact the copyright owner and include it in its publication. Please let me know if you have that information. Thanks. Danny 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your vote in my RfA. I'll do my best to live up to the wiki standards and be a good admin!

--Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Chess Championship

Why do you keep deleting Veselin Topalov winning the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 from the 2005 page? This strikes me as a fairly important event, certainly as important as a lot of other events on this page. It would be better if you discussed this under 2005. PatGallacher 16:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Fort Belvedere.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fort Belvedere.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Alr 22:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Births in 2005 - Leah Isadora Behn

Hi, I just came across this edit. I was wondering what you based your decision on? As far as I can tell, that girl really exists and was born on that day, but perhaps I am mistaken. Regards, --JoanneB 15:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realise that. You're right, and she shouldn't be on that list. Thanks! --JoanneB 15:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image source/licensing for Image:British Royal Family.jpg

The image you uploaded, Image:British Royal Family.jpg, has no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Although you voted oppose in my RfA, I appreciate the time that you took to vote. I am assuming the opposition is related to length of time of heavy activity or the faux pas of self-voting--though it wasn't done in a malicious way. In the end, it appears that I was able to gain a consensus from those who voted and I promise to do a good job using the keys to the janitor's closet. If you find that I am exercising administrative responsibilities incorrectly, please do let me know. Best regards, >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cyberjunkie's RfA

WikiThanks!

Hi Astrotrain! Just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. I hope I will be able to live up to the confidence placed in me. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Air Force

I appreciate the work that you have done on this article. I've been feeling that it needed to be redone for a long time, I just never got the energy to do it. Muj0 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are 3 USAF ranks designated as "First Sergeant"? Imagine three of them, each a different grade,each a First Sergeant trying to pull rank on each other. Some of my kin were in the USAF, and have seen officers,etc. that LOVE to pull rank.Martial Law 02:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three Revert Rule: Bank of Scotland

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Mais oui! 05:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] seen the USAF rank designations

I'm NOT saying the info. is wrong, just confusing, especially if the three NCOs that have the SAME rank, different grades LOVE to "pull rank" on lower ranked personnel,each other. Imagine YOU are in the military and some officer pulls rank on YOU.Martial Law 21:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC) :)

[edit] WP:RFA/SV

Thank you very much for your support at my RFA. Indeed, despite what others have claimed, I strongly feel the case hinged entirely on the improper 3RR block, and that claims of my "abusive tendencies" were "greatly exaggerated." Thanks again. -St|eve 04:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your vote on my RFA

Now that the voting has officially closed, I would like to thank you very much for supporting my candidacy for adminstrator and as of 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) I am an administrator. I will make sure to use the additional power judiciously and I welcome any comments you may have. --Reflex Reaction 19:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dvyost's RfA thanks

Thanks for your support on my RfA! Rest assured that I'll do my best to wield the mop with honor and righteousness. Cheers! --Dave 14:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA for Johntex

Hello, I want to thank you for your support of my RfA. The one button rollback feature is very useful, and I've already been able to close a couple of deletions. Best, Johntex\talk 00:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FTSE 250

Thanks for updating the list, but could you please go back and state what date the new list applied on and your source? You left the statement that it is the June 2004 list in place. CalJW 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Goodgood. However - the borders in the other European countries are still anachronistic.  ;) Morwen - Talk 17:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Edward, Duke of Kent

Hi Astrotrain, I was wondering if you had a problem with the Duke of Kent being Grand Master of the UGLE or even with him being a Freemason? Twice you have removed the succession box from the article without reason and I was just wondering why? Craigy (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry we both feel differently on this issue, but if your main reason is because you want to stick with peerage and succession boxes only, then I suggest you moot through the hundreds of other peers who held governmental and parliamentary offices that are shown by way of the succession box and remove those as well. Craigy (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My user name

I tried to get it to be just Mongo but that one was apparently taken, or it wouldn't let me use it at that time for some reason, not sure why. You're the first person I know of who has made the remark that my username is offensive. While I respect your vote of course I'm sorry if you find the username offensive as that is not my intention. I have thought about having it changed but I was told when I last asked that I had too many edits and it would be very difficult.--MONGO 14:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Royal Template

Stop Changing it, what you have said about it being in order of precedence not generation is true and untrue. The other Royal templates are also indented, and with one as large as the British one it makes it much easier to read. And in the context as the British one, when it was indented it was still correctly in order of precedence and showed who was descended from who. Please leave it, as I understand what you are saying, but most people who see it will not be as knowlidgeable on the subject as you or I. By leaving it indented it was in order of precedence, and showed gernerationMac Domhnaill 00:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] might interest you

You might be interested in a sort-of edit war at Royalty and urban legends, Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories and Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. The first article deals the nature of myths and legends surrounding royalty. DreamGuy is peed off that it dares to touch on his own beloved Jack the Ripper article. So he continually deletes links to the royalty article in the Prince Albert Victor article. He also put a merge link in, which sat there for months and was completely ignored by everyone, much to his annoyance.

I removed the merge notice as it has been there, unheeded by anyone, for months and reinserted the link to both articles. He is going ballistic over it and keeps reinserting his unused merge notice and deleting any mention of the royalty article in pages to do with Albert Victor. As an expert writer on royal affairs I'd welcome your observations.

BTW I agree 100% that deceased consorts should be at maiden name. But every time I have tried to get that through the same group of individuals go beserck over it. I agree too that it is wrong to call Camilla Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. It has bugged me for months, but after the mauling for daring to suggest the use of maiden name (getting Princess Grace to Grace Kelly and the Queen Mum to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was enough hassle to be getting on with) dared not propose it. Slán FearÉIREANN 20:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

Astro, please refrain from critizing my grammar in such a way. It is not very polite to refer to my grammar as poor (see WP:EQ) and it really makes me feel bad. Never mind the fact that I disagree with your assessment about the malformation of the sentence, but please show some mercy on your colleagues who grew up speaking a different language and make an effort to be proficient in yours.

Thanks!

Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Then I shall take as a compliment the fact that you didn't notice. :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

At Template talk:Australian Flags you commented: "There is no infringement of copyright for the use of a flag." What is the basis for your assertion? The copyright status of the Aboriginal flag was subject to a 1997 Federal court case, after it had been proclaimed a flag of Australia in 1995.--A Y Arktos 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote "I am not sure of the details of the court case you mention, but I doubt it was about displaying the flag and expect there must be some sort of commerical element involved. The question of copyright over a flag rests on it usage. If this Aboriginal Flag is used as a national flag, and is widely flown in Australia, then it is doubtful that any copyright is enforceable (at least for display purposes). Making a flag subject to copyright defeats the purpose of having a flag." The court case was not merely about commercial elements, though these certainly come into it (see Australian Aboriginal flag for some info and links to court case reports[3]). The flag is not used as a national flag, but a specific purpose flag recognised in Australian law. The copyright is enforceable for the design and I understand that only fair use provisions can be applied in having its image on wikipedia. Under wikipedia guidelines, fair use means using the image in the article discussing the image and not elsewhere, specifically not in templates. --A Y Arktos 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New(ish) template

Hi Astrotrain. I just wanted to say nice work on Template:Order of Succession, it makes each article look a whole lot smarter! Keep up the good work. Craigy (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent

Please act quickly, or this picture of yours will be deleted.

[edit] My RfA

Astrotrain, thanks for your support on my RfA. The final count was 46/0/0. I hope I'll live up to your faith in me in my use of the mop and bucket. Please accept this wikithanks as a token of my gratitude ;) --bainer (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early RFA thanks

Hi Astrotrain/archive2,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. It has done very well and is currently at 67/0/2. As such, I am posting this in advance of its closure. If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know. Thank you once again! – NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Articles

Thanks, just trying to do my best. Prsgoddess187 17:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 21:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)