User talk:Astrotrain/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Template:Military of Pakistan

Hi, just looking through the Military of Pakistan article and it's daughter articles, I noticed there were two templates in use of which you created one in August 2005. A new larger template is now being used which includes the links to the daughter articles. Would you be bothered if I ask for your template to be deleted? Green Giant 05:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003

Still trying to work out the best way to categorise acts like this. After a discussion with User:Mais oui! yesterday we thought that that UK acts that apply only to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should go into the subcategories. I thought to begin with that an act like this could go in both Scottish and British categories, but he tells me articles should not go in a category and its subcategory. What do you think? Kurando | ^_^ 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One solution would be to create a new category, called something like Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland, and make it a subcat of both Category:British laws and Category:Scottish laws. Although the current system is OK, it would perhaps be better to differentiate between pre-Union Scottish laws, British laws for Scotland, and devolved Scottish laws (at the moment they are all just lumped in together, which will become more and more messy as more articles are started and entered in the cat).
Although I regret the catty nature of Astrotrain's comment left on your Talk page yesterday, he does have a reasonable point in wanting British laws to be correctly labelled as such, even when they are only applicable to Scotland.
All of the above goes for Eng, Wales and NI too.
Finally, I think that an article actually listing all the UK parliament legislation only applicable to Scotland would be an excellent tool, helping to give structure to the new subcat. Same obviously for Eng, Wales and NI.
Oh, another "finally": you really, really ought to try very hard indeed not to enter an article in both a subcat and the parent cat (although occasional exceptions do exist, this isn't one of them). It is just standard good practice, widely observed throughout Wikipedia.--Mais oui! 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.

Better to have:

  • For UK Parliament since 1707- British laws
  • For Scottish Parliament since 1999- Scottish laws

Astrotrain 21:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The follwing text is copied from Kurando's Talk page: please keep this debate in one place, otherwise it is going to become impossible to follow.

In response to your query: articles should not be included in both a subcategory and a supercategory.--Mais oui! 11:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.--Mais oui! 11:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't bother with what Mais_oui! thinks in regards to categories. He has a history of removing all the British categories from various articles, and changing British to English, Scottish etc. If a law is passed by the UK Parliament it is a British law- not a Scottish law. Astrotrain 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I have left a response to your query at User talk:Astrotrain.--Mais oui! 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as you say with regards to creating categories such as Category:British laws (Scotland) or Category:British laws which apply only to Scotland. Although British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland, they do sometimes contain measures to amend laws that apply to the rest of the UK. For instance, the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 which you have changed to Scottish laws contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales.

Better to have:

  • For UK Parliament since 1707- British laws
  • For Scottish Parliament since 1999- Scottish laws Astrotrain 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being a bit thick here, but I genuinely do not understand. You say:
  • "British laws with (Scotland) in the title only have legal effect in Scotland". That is in line with my understanding, and is crystal clear, and easily categorisable.
  • "contains only amendments to certain sections of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that previously only applied in England and Wales". Navigating through the tortuous phraseology, what I think you are saying is that that law extended what was previously only an E & W law into Scotland? Is that right? Whatever, the fact is that the terms of that Act apply solely to Scotland: it is a Scottish law.
I really do think that we ought to take the most sensible, and above all useful, approach to this. It is utterly undeniable that every single Westminster statute with "(Scotland)" in the title has a special status in Scottish law: therefore all such articles really must be included in Category:Scottish laws. Whether this is via direct entry, or as a subcat, is open to debate. As I said earlier, subcats are the most obvious solution.
By the way, you missed out a third, crucial, category of Scottish law: Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, prior to the Union.
Finally, I consider it singularly unhelpful that you have "archived" a discussion strand on your Talk page that was only started today.--Mais oui! 21:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I moved archived material back, shortly after the post above.
The Employment Rights Act 1996 was originally a law that applied throughout the UK, though a few sections only applied in E&W. The 2003 Act amended these sections to apply also in Scotland. No new law was created, just an extension of existing law from E&W to include Scotland. To say "Scottish law", implies that it is a unique law for Scotland- when in fact it is exactly the same law as England and Wales. Astrotrain 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"No new law was created". This may be stating the blindingly ovious, but a new law most certainly was created! No less than statute law. The new law even has a title, a date, a text, an archived debate and parliamentary vote (and a Wikipedia article): Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003.
The Act called the Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is a unique law for Scotland: it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on England, Northern Ireland or Wales: it is a Scottish law. I think that you really are being a little obscurantist here. Category:Scottish laws is exactly what it says on the tin.--Mais oui! 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely unhelpful for Astrotrain to keep flipping this discussion between three different Talk pages. Can we at least agree to keep this conversation in one place?--Mais oui! 22:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see your point. However laws passed by the UK parliament should be kept seperate from laws passed by the Scottish Parliament to avoid confusion. Astrotrain 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I was agreeing with you on that point: Category:Scottish laws should have (at least) three subcats, with names something like:
I'm not sure that that wording is best, not least because I'm not sure if Statutory Instruments are meant to be getting included too, but you get my drift.--Mais oui! 23:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003 is actually more complex than that. Although the purpose of the Act is to make a change that relates to Scotland, the Act itself does not have an "extent" provision (normally found in the last few sections) and therefore applies UK-wide. It does therefore amend English law. While many Acts with "(Scotland)" in the title do indeed extend only to Scotland, this is not always the case - for example some provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 applied to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Act included a provision relating to the Channel Islands. The moral of this story is that the presence or absence of "(Scotland)" from the short title of an Act is not a foolproof guide. We had much debate when the Scottish Parliament was established about whether its Acts needed to have "(Scotland)" or some other indicator of their Scottishness in the title.--George Burgess 14:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, very interesting comments. In that case, I would say that all acts passed by Westminster should be British laws category as there is no guarantee that they only apply to Scotland. Astrotrain 14:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
They are already in that category: in a subcategory. --Mais oui! 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am in favour of new subcategories per mais oui!'s suggestion as most of the exisiting categories are rather overloaded anyway. If we kept British laws, Scottish laws and English laws, and then had

  1. 'UK acts' which contained all acts passed by UK
  2. 'Scot acts' passed by Scot parl
  3. Laws passed by UK which apply to Scot would go in UK acts AND Scot laws, but not Scot acts

which would make a somewhat more complex categorisation scheme, but I think less ambiguos as it would not contain double entries. Anyway, i think I will try it out when I think of some suitable category names. Kurando | ^_^ 09:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I note now that a new comment has been left under the relevant notice at Wikipedia Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. I had hoped that we could keep this discussion in one place. I would therefore like to recommend that we stop discussing this on personal Talk pages: I am going to copy the entire discussion thus far to:

Please do not leave any new comments on this topic here at User talk:Astrotrain.--Mais oui! 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Garrison HQ, Dhekelia.jpg

Hi. Given that you are an experienced editor I didn't want to patronise you with the standard nosource template. I was just wondering if you could provide source info for the above image so that its CC status can be verified. Thanks Mark83 12:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Source added 13:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The CC template is very poorly worded and I'm pressing to have it changed. It appears to suggest that Crown Copyright = available for use free of charge in any format or medium provided. In fact each government website has its own copyright notice some of which allow use under these terms but some of which expressly prohibit any non-personal use without specific permission. A partial list is available at Template talk:CrownCopyright regarding useable/non-useable websites. The British Army does not allow use on Wikipedia:
The material featured on this site is subject to Crown copyright unless otherwise stated. All material may be downloaded to file or printer for the purposes of private research and study. Any other proposed use of the material may be subject to a copyright licence. Licences are issued in accordance with the HM Treasury guidelines for the re-use of government information.
As such I've listed the image for deletion.Mark83 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't blame you for getting it wrong, as I said the template suggests all CC material is OK. I'd love to change it but it's protected. Thanks for getting back to me. Mark83 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal abuse

Personal abuse is likely to be removed immediately, especially from User pages. Please try in future to resist the temptation to resort to personal abuse.--Mais oui! 19:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conduct of User:Mais oui!

Alas, I am experiencing the same sort of problems with User:Mais oui! as you. He seems either unable or unwilling to engage in meaninfgul discussion about article edits, preferring instead to unilaterally revert to his versions, even if amendments have been discussed and agreed on the discussion pages. Normalmouth 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand Permanent Air Force

hi, you amalgamated this article with Royal New Zealand Air Force, presumably on the understandable grounds the RNZAF article covered NZPAF history. In medium long term I was thinking of recreating a separate NZPAF article. Any particular objections? Winstonwolfe 08:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

havn't really looked at the RNZAF article for a while, but I see the history section has been vastly expanded and approved. If you are planning on adding more then it would make sense to have it in a seperate article. I was thinking that it would also maybe be a good idea to create a general History of the Royal New Zealand Air Force page, and move the history section here, and leave a summary in the main RNZAF page? What do you think? Astrotrain 19:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - perhaps we should leave something on teh discussion page and user pages of those who have edited it recently seeking their views?Winstonwolfe 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your new blood brother

I was delighted when you made your 3rr pact with your new blood-brother yesterday. Please gallop to his assistence forthwith: he is having great difficulty trying to vandalise an article, and I am sure that you would not refuse a damsel in distress after your gallant blood-bond ceremony:

You really ought to commit to long term relationships after much more contemplation: they can very quickly become an embarassing burden.--Mais oui! 13:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falkland Islands

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. We already have the Spainish name Islas Malvinas in the intro. The only times we put another language in the first line is if it is a native language of the country- and only English is native in the Falklands. Also the image size has to be 250px so that the template can scroll across the page. Astrotrain 20:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea? --VsA 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Scottish laws

Probably most of what is currently contained in that category needs to be moved into more precise subcategories i.e. Acts of the Scottish Parliament and Acts of the Parliament of Scotland. However, Category:Scottish laws will probably stay as a parent category. Whether it should contain any UK acts that apply to Scotland specifically I think is probably best decided on case-by-case basis. Kurando | ^_^ 09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands' names

Hello Astrotrain. The Spanish translation of Falkland Islands is Islas Malvinas. The only country in the whole Spanish-speaking world that calls them Islas Falkland is Chile. Also many pages include a number of related names in other languages, such as Kuala Lumpur, Lower Styria, Pula, and Adriatic Sea. Please stop reverting changes, you violated the 3RR rule several times and I'll personally request AIAV if you continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)

Chile is a Spanish speaking nation, therefore if they call them Islas Falkland, then that is the Spanish transalation! Islas Malvinas is a Spanish translation of the original French name for the Islands. Offically the islands are administered by the UK, therefore they are called the Falkland Islands. We mention in the intro that the Argentines call the Islands the Islas Malvinas anyway, so I don't see what the fuss is about. Astrotrain 18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't see "what the fuss is about" then don't revert changes. Look at this, we're in an edit war between admins, regular wikipedians, and even dinamic IPs, THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING STOP REVERTING OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED FOR VIOLATION OF THE 3RR RULE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)
You're clearly a vandal. I'll request AIAV immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.45.28 (talk • contribs)


[edit] Reverts

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. Astrotrain 15:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the 3RR rule, and I am also aware that you have reverted the Falklands page at least as many times recently. The poll is currently running in favor of keeping the historical names in the lead. Jonathunder 15:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Constitutional laws of the United Kingdom

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I do not share your opinion, nor do I care about it. You have made crystal clear that you hold me in contempt, therefore I am very surprised that you would condescend to comment on the Talk page of one of the great unwashed. I will not be entering into dialogue with you. --Mais oui! 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland-Royal Arms

Hey,

I thought I had on the issue. Maybe it was on the same issue on another page. If I spot it I will cut and paste my comments over. If you spot them, feel free to do the same. You have my full support. I fail to understand Mai Oui's attitude. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland: the UK arms, not the Scottish arms

Please desist frrom your long, on-going campaign to try to claim that the UK arms are somehow the "Scottish" arms. I would have taken this to the relevant Talk page, but in your very odd page move, you managed to abandon the old Talk page in the ether. --Mais oui! 13:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mediterranean

What is wrong with you? -- tasc talkdeeds 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of Malta

In Queen of Malta you wrote:

" The day of independence became known as Republic Day "

Some history:

Malta became independant on 21st September 1964 Malta became a republic on 13th December 1974 Malta became a free country following the closure of the British Base on 31st March 1979.

What would be a suitable word instead of independence in this case, which is evidently incorrect? Maltesedog 20:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falklands

[ removed my useless intervention. -Argentino (talk/cont.) 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC) ]

[edit] Image:Alexandra independence.jpg

Howdy! I've recently listed an image you uploaded, Image:Alexandra independence.jpg, as a Possibly unfree image. The reason I did this was the terms of the Crown Copyright license of the National Archives requires that a fee be paid to reproduce any of its images [1]. Please note that my nomination was not meant as a personal attack upon yourself or anyone interested in the topic described by the image. If you disagree with my decision, or can provide an alternative acceptable source for the image, feel free to leave a comment at its entry under May 5. If youhave any queries, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page. Happy editing! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Years in Wales

Hi. I'd like to know why I'm not allowed to have years in Wales in the "Year in Topic" template, when I have spent so many months creating them. Deb 11:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Deb 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom

Morning Astrotrain,

I hope you enjoyed your break. Nice and relaxing...

I was wondering if you could take a look at this discussion.

Thanks and have a great day,

Prsgoddess187 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sources

Can this bot please stop asking me about sources when they are clearly provided. Arghhh! Astrotrain 23:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What image is it notifying you about that you think it shouldn't? --Carnildo 02:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

I was just wonderings, how did you create maps like this one image:Tristan_da_Cunha_location.JPG thanks.....Coasttocoast 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Im trying to get a map for another island but I don't know how to do the box in the corner or anything. Someone else said a bot does it?

the Pitcairn Islands...Coasttocoast 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Hong Kong handover.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hong Kong handover.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 00:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Troops_Falklands.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Troops_Falklands.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bank of ireland logo.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Bank of ireland logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

—Рэдхот 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:WIKIBREAK

[edit] SS Canberra

Canberra's official stamp, 1984
Canberra's official stamp, 1984

I am just advising you I have moved the article RMS Canberra to SS Canberra. I worked on the Canberra and have not been able to verify that she ever had a Royal Mail contract, or that she was ever known as RMS- I even contacted the P&O Historian/Archivist and he was unable to find any evidence that she was called RMS, and stated that P&O ships often had mail contracts and were called RMS pre World War 2, but this was not the case after the war. She was most commonly known as SS Canberra, more technically TEV Canberra (turbo electric vessel) or just plain Canberra.

--Dashers 10:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please desist

While I am sure that you find it tremendously amusing to defacaTE UPON "LESSER" PEOPLES, MAY i Advise you thast ion the modern world we look upon Natiuonalists with a very sdim viues

[edit] I'm not a vandal!

Why did you revert my edit to Kate Middleton, and label me a vandal? That was completely uncalled for as it was a legit edit (general clean-up, removal of rumours etc.) and I am not a vandal. 70.53.2.230 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Thanks for informing me that I have a poor command of English. I will sign up to a language school right away.--Burgas00 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Nazi Windsors.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nazi Windsors.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Princess_Margaret.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Princess_Margaret.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Duke of Edinburgh standard.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Duke of Edinburgh standard.gif. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Prince_William_of_Wales_standard.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Prince_William_of_Wales_standard.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject British Royalty

British Royalty Astrotrain/archive4, WikiProject British Royalty wants you!
WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
DBD 11:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Richard Duke of Gloucester.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Richard Duke of Gloucester.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ed g2s • talk 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking Mais oui!

I am nominating Mais oui! for blocking. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at: Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by Mais oui! (Please also pass this message on to anyone else you think might be interested in contributing.) Thanks, Mallimak 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Royal Arms 1837.PNG

Image:Royal Arms 1837.PNG is tagged with {{coatofarms}}. The use of this template essentially creates an unlicensed condition. Under this situation, the presumed use must be under terms of {{fair use}}, and use of it is per terms of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9. If you can clarify the precise copyright status of the image and how it may be used, then please do so and use a different tag for the image. If the tag is not a fair use tag, but a free license tag of some kind, then feel free to add it back to the template. Otherwise, it needs to remain off the template until its status is clarified. --Durin 15:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Scottish Bank Notes.JPG)

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish Bank Notes.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Durin 15:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of Living Royals

  • Thanks for the tip regarding living royals, i will adhere to policy in future. Cristien ZIGBRYWG 12:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I GIVE UP!

I have tried to contribute articles on topics about which I have knowledge, such as Orkney, but the articles have been subjected to constant destructive editing, and I have been subjected to repeated harassment, mainly by Mais oui!, that I see no point in continuing.

I have now joined the ever-growing category of disillusioned Wikipedians. Mallimak 01:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Georgia entry in Territories and Nations yet to send teams to the Commonwealth Games

Can I refer you to the discussion page in the article Territories and Nations yet to send teams to the Commonwealth Games. I have given reasons why South Georgia should be included in the article. If you disagree lets have a discussion, rather than just reversing each others edits. (the last reverse you did removed references for entries for Yemen, Palestine and Rwanda) Rhyddfrydol 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edinburgh

Thanks for supporting the addition. I can't think of a single NPOV reason for excluding it from the article. Normalmouth 08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, it is wrong and misleading, the edit on Edinburgh. I will continue to revert worng and inaccurate material as proven via talk. Don't threaten me because it doesn't fit in with your point of view. Thanks Globaltraveller 14:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for supporting the edit, and for your advice on reversions. Normalmouth 15:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it the other user received the same warning? I thought not, please be aware of WP:Point, which is what this is. I have now gone with the majority opinion and conceded that it should be in the article, in the demographics section. I think that is extremely fair and generous especially given the evidence I have provided against its inclusion. Thanks Globaltraveller 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monarchs of England and Great Britain

Hi Astrotrain, I would appreciate your comments at this article. User:TharkunColl is making a mess here. After several cut-and-paste moves that I reverted, he eventually moved List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England to Monarchs of England and Great Britain. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See also my RFC at Talk:List of monarchs in the British Isles. The current situation is just too disorderly (King of England is now a double redirect!). --JW1805 (Talk) 19:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do we differentiate between spam and references to published works?

Hi Astronian, I hope that this method of communication works for us.

I thought that aggressive editing may happen but I was a bit surprised at the actions you have taken without replying to my email to clear it with me first; this would not have been a problem if I was in the wrong and we could agree an alternative. Maybe your actions are within the guidelines for the community. So perhaps I need to get this clear in writing with you to avoid future misunderstandings on either part.

Removal of links are understood, where perhaps they are worded inappropriately. My book Trafalgar 200 Through the Lens is a serious document and the pictures within are of historic value (whether you believe this or not) and I feel that the pictures have a right to be seen in the appropriate wikipedia articles. This is supported by the academic interest the book is achieving and its excellent reviews from UK maritime institutions.

Can you advise what you feel would be an acceptable way to present the images, whilst making it clear that I am accredited as the author of the work, not least for copyright purposes? Not showing the work would be akin the censoring it.

I notice that pictures you have presented on the site have links to external sites. Referencing books could always be considered to be spam and this would be a problem if there were thousands of photographic books on Traflagar 200, but mine is the only one in the world.

I am a mature if not elderly person, willing to be flexible and work within the wikipedia guidelines, if you will let me. So your friendly advice will be appreciated.

DP Kilfeather

Hi again Astronian,

Am about to undertake another attempt with the Princess Royal page. This time following the process that all other images on this site seem to adopt and no reference to any book.

DP Kilfeather


Hello Astrotrain. See Desk1 discussion for a proposal on a way forward re Elizabeth II. Thanks, Des Kilfeather Desk1 13:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrotrain, placed here also to ensure you get it:

Astrotrain, you have not had any input to USS Saipan before now therefore it is not appropriate for you to make deletions to other peoples work on that article. Please revert back my contribution. If you have a problem with using my images on the grounds you state I suggest you make a formal complaint to Wikipedia. Of course I will be happy to comply with whatever they suggest. In the meantime I will consider any more of your "non constructive" edits to my work to be vandalism; constructive edits of course are welcomed. The images are not commercial. DP Kilfeather Desk1 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Augusta Patron

Astrotrain, I see you are disputing the fact that Princess Augusta was a Patron of L.Bertolotto's flea circus on Regent Street.

Can I refer you to the photograph at the NYPL library, in very small print on the right hand side flyer is a reference to Princess Augusta. I've see a copy of this at the V&A archive at Olympia.

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=716616&imageID=806487&word=Fleas&s=3&notword=&d=&c=&f=2&lWord=&lField=&sScope=&sLevel=&sLabel=&total=11&num=0&imgs=12&pNum=&pos=5#

I suppose I should have put my reference in the editing comment not the page but otherwise it's a valid comment.

Regards,

Andy Clark

aka. FleaCircusDirector.

P.S. I'd previously been posting anonymously from the office (212.125.73.242) but so my collegues also post on other topics and I don't necessarily want to be attribulted to them.

[edit] ==

Augusta was born in 1822- whereas this image dates from 1820 according to the page, so she cannot be patron two years before her birth! Perhaps it is Princess Augusta Sophia of the United Kingdom, daughter of King George III, that the flyer refers to? Astrotrain 14:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

I too had speculated for some time over which Princess was the likely patron.

The photo library's dating information for the flyer is under question. According to a chap at Crown Estates, Regent Street was not created till after 1823 and other dating evidence seems to support (newspapers, the business address of the printers and other references) that the shows were run around 1830 to 1850. I was also thinking that it's more likely that a young princess would visit a side show than an old lady?

http://www.fleacircus.co.uk/HistoryBertolotto.htm (that's my web page btw)

However, my speciality is Flea Circuses not Royals so I am willing to bow to your greater knowlege in this area if you know for sure. --FleaCircusDirector 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Thus far in our Wikipedia careers we have had an utterly appalling relationship. I have no idea how the situation will improve in the future (it is hard to imagine it could get any worse), but it will only do so if we both make a conscious effort. As a first step in that direction, I just want to copy you in on a notice I am distributing today. I sincerely hope that you will at least consider joining up to both the notice board and the new Project, and that we can start to behave a bit more civilly towards each other. These things depend on teamwork, and if two key Scotland-interested editors are always at each others' throats then it detracts from the overall aim: to improve the coverage and quality of Wikipedia.

Notice follows:

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half. While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool. Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

--Mais oui! 10:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Regards. --Mais oui! 13:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Mais oui. Accidentally placed in your area, then moved to new item below. Des.

[edit] Vandalising Newbie Work

Hi Astrotrain™, you are back to reverting stuff. Without justification. All links have been removed from my images pending a firm ruling by Wikipedia mediator to ensure there can be no question of promo. You are Vandalising. Last time you reverted User:ALR changes, perhaps you checked with that user first?

I am a little surprised that you are still using the Astrotrain™ trade mark and have not yet Transformed your Wikipedia existence to a new user name. I hope you have checked the legal status of the trade name and that Wikipedia is not exposed in any way.

I have respected your concerns and voluntarily removed links pending a licencing decision from Wikipedia. You now must justify your actions and motivation and how your actions benefit Wikipedia. Desk1 10:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom)

You removed the entire section on Trafalgar 200 citing it as promotional spam. Please see WP:SPAM for the correct definitions. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page, and ask you to contribute to this discussion rather than removing whole sections. It woudl be more approproate to have any subsequent dialogue there where it is associated with the article than on either of our own talk pages. Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)