User talk:Astrotrain/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Princess Augusta and the Flea Circus

Further details from [1] may imply that we got the wrong Princess as it mentions "Princess Augusta of Prussia" --Flea Circus Director 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queens

Good evening,

I notice that you reverted at least two of my edits and called them 'nonsense'. Two of my edits were to conform the openings of the Queen Mary (consort of George V) and Queen Elizabeth (consort of George VI) to that of Queen Alexandra (consort of Edward VII), the latter of which seemed to exhibit an intelligent template for articles about Queens consort of the UK (though I did not create it). My other edit was to insert 'Queen' (but not 'Her Majesty') before the name of 'Elizabeth II', and amend the misrepresentation of 'Windsor' as her surname. Merely having 'Elizabeth II' for an article entry in a conventional paper encyclopaedia is sensical in order to maintain the easy flow of alphabetical order, but Wikipedia fortunately need not concern itself with that issue. I am keen to understand your reasoning behind these reversions. Lord Charlton 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queens, Part II

Hello,

I am still awaiting a response from you. In the meantime I see you've reverted another of my edits with the explanation of 'rv-consensus'. How is consensus formed, and where may I see proof of it? I will give you another opportunity to respond before reverting the articles back to my previous edits.

Sincerely,

Lord Charlton 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Standard

The above article is not just about UK flags; it is about Royal Standard's in general; thus the UK flag template should not be there. Brian | (Talk) 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[2] made on September 29, 2006 to ARA San Luis

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.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 08:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfair treatment of 3RR block by William C discussion

If the user who blocked me for 3RR would look at the 4th edit specified, they would see that this edit was a compromise attempt- and was not a revert back to the previous version

The third-to-fourth edit which is the one in question is here. The comparison shows that this user has a point, and this should be dealt with as soon as possible.

The first, second and third comparisons are linked here. 1 2 3

"The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions...within a 24 hour period." -WP:3RR (emphasis mine) Daniel.Bryant 09:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All 4 edits delte the word "Malvinas" which is the point at issue. Reverts do not have to be word for word identical William M. Connolley 10:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not a good enough reason to block me for 24 hours. I was expanding the article to address the concerns of the user as listed on the talk page (and noted in my edit summary). The 4th edit is clearly not a revert to the third version. Note that other 3RR guidlines have not been followed- for example there was no 3RR warning posted on my talk page- and the other user never raised any further concerns with my edit- leading me to assume he agreed with the change. I strongly ask for this to be reconsidered. Astrotrain 10:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue was what looks like a good faith attempt at a compromise, can we not just ignore all rules and let Astrotrain get on with editing? It won't set a precedent because these things never do. The Malvinas/Falknads issue is solved (0.9 pro0bability) now anyway. Fiddle Faddle 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't defer to your idea of what consitutes a revert. But AT can be unblocked in the standard way... if he promises to leave the article alone for the duration of his block, and to adhere to (strict) 3RR in future. William M. Connolley 10:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to edit the article as the issue has been solved- as it were (the aim in the first place of course). And I always edit in line with policies. Astrotrain 10:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, sorry, not quite good enough. In *your* view you always edit in line with policies... but you wouldn't have been blocked if that was true in my view. Please avoid the equivocation William M. Connolley 11:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I will not bother any more with the issue. I am clearly wasting my time trying to engage with you. It is a shame to be treated to so harshly for such a minor issue. Astrotrain 11:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You know, eating a little bit of humble pie does no harm on occasions like this. We can all make mistakes. Fiddle Faddle 11:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for your help Tim- it has been appreicated. However, I do not intend to beg William Connolley to unblock me- not in my nature. Astrotrain 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. I guess I am more an "apologise, note what went wrong and move forward" kind of guy. But if we were not all different the world would be a sad place :) Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Its up to you. You can, like anyone else, be unblocked if you'll make an unqualified promise as asked. I know is a bit irritating; if you don't want to, then the alternative is to sit out the block. Its also a shame to break 3RR over such a minor issue, and you aren't being treated harshly William M. Connolley 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've denied your unblock request, as you definitely did violate the 3RR. Keep in mind, the 3RR exists only to lay down a specific maximum beyond which anyone violating it should be blocked. But revert-warring (which is what you were doing: changing the article back to your preferred version) is very harmful to Wikipedia: after someone reverts your change you should discuss the issue, and you have to accept that the state of the article may be in your non-preferred version for some time. It's just a 24 hour block; once it's over feel free to resume editing, but don't get into revert wars! Mangojuice^talk 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the admins decided to continue my block- harsh and unjust in my opinion- but I suppose these poeple need something to do- probably never occured to them that actually editing articles and contributing material would be useful rather than ban long standing users acting within the constraints of Wiki rule. Astrotrain 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on my user page

Why are you placing text/having discussions on my user page? Please see my user page for details.

--IRelayer 01:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone seems to be spamming me about Gatwick Airport or something...--IRelayer 01:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RBS

Read Talk:Royal Bank of Scotland; the bank does have an official Gaelic name. Is this just an anti-Gaelic thing or what? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the Gaelic name is used by the company. It is therefore official. They are a Scottish bank! And who are you to dismiss it is a marketing ploy? Seriously, why would you say that? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that in Gaelic? Cause if it's not, I don't see the relevance. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, since the reverting seems to be confined to me and you only, I will revert myself and take out the two mentions of the Gaelic name if you promise not to revert if a third party restores it; likewise I will not revert if someone other than yourself (anons not counted) reverts the restoration of the third party. That way I propose that both you and myself take ourselves out of this revert war. If no-one elses bothers, then we can leave it at that. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warnings

I noticed that you reverted Statistical (talk ·  contribs) removing a {{spam}} message. This isn't really the done thing any more as you can see at the AN archives. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] our encyclopedia

learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

Who is our? 84.135.197.20 14:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copright reverts

Some quite persistent copyright violations keep being reintroduced. Please refrain from using or reverting to Copright images. Tauex 01:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Copyright violations seem to be your thing. Stop it.Tauex 12:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iberia

Yeah its all set for 16th December 2006 see the details on my user page. they are claiming its a 'domestic flight' :)

--Gibnews 15:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murrayfield

Thanks Astrotrain, I thought it was really random that it was removed, but I just thought you did it by mistake or something. Thanks for clearing that up. :) Narrasawa 14:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BA Connect operations being retained by BA

BA Connect currently operate the JFK to MAN service on behalf of BA with a dedicated B767. This will be absorbed into the mainline fleet in 2007.

BA Connect also operate European Services from LCY. As I type this services from MAD (BA8754); FRA (BA8735) and MXP(BA8744) are due to land in the next few hours. Stewart 16:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the warm message!

Hey, how's it going? Hope you've had a good day. Thanks for the message on my talk page. Sorry, as it was blatant trolling, I had to revert it; but I will at least hang on to the diff. Anyways, have a good night. All the best, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RBS

So much for compromising on keeping Gaelic in the text, but out of the infobox. Difficult to come to a consensus on the question when you're set on having your own way. I'll repeat my earlier suggestion: split the article in two. One on the RBS, one on RBS Group. End of problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Today (or yesterday rather) it's Calgacus. But Mais oui! has done the same, and MacRusgail commented in favour of Gaelic on the talk page, An Siarach wasn't exactly thrilled by your attitude either. It's verifiably the case that the RBS's retial banking arm trades under the name Banca Rìoghail na h-Alba, as well as Royal Bank of Scotland. If you don't want to mention Banca Rìoghail na h-Alba in the intro, and you don't want to split the article, then the very least you can do is to mention it under Retail Banking. Would I be right in thinking that this has now spread to Banca Dhail Chluaidh, and that it's only a matter of time until Bhanca na h-Alba suffers too ? You'll have noticed that the dubious use of warning tags has a way of taking a life of its own. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, experience tells me that Mais oui! is not given to compromise. So let me make yet another suggestion. Redo the intro something like this:

The Royal Bank of Scotland Scottish Gaelic: Banca Rìoghail na h-Alba can trace its origins to 1727 when it was founded by royal charter of King George I. Today the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (LSE: RBS) is a banking and insurance holding company based in Edinburgh, Scotland. It is the largest banking and insurance group in Scotland, the second largest in the UK and Europe, and the fifth largest in the world by market capitalisation. Its shares have a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC is the group's Scottish clearing bank and the second oldest bank in Scotland after the Bank of Scotland. The registered head office of the group and the clearing bank is located at St Andrew Square. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth II opened the bank's new head office building in Gogarburn, Edinburgh.

Would that be acceptable ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If not, how about:

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC (LSE: RBS) is the successor to the Royal Bank of Scotland Scottish Gaelic: Banca Rìoghail na h-Alba, founded in 1727 by royal charter of King George I. It is a banking and insurance holding company based in Edinburgh, Scotland. It is the largest banking and insurance group in Scotland, the second largest in the UK and Europe, and the fifth largest in the world by market capitalisation. Its shares have a primary listing on the London Stock Exchange.

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC is the group's Scottish clearing bank and the second oldest bank in Scotland after the Bank of Scotland. The registered head office of the group and the clearing bank is located at St Andrew Square. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth II opened the bank's new head office building in Gogarburn, Edinburgh.

Would that do ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harp

The harp was also used as a symbol by the Old English of Ireland, hence its connection with modern Irish nationalsim. But the harp, or Clarsach, is also Scottish, and can be found in (Pictish) Scotland earlier than in any other European country. "Harper" was a common Anglophone Scottish surname of later medieval Scotland (compare Piper). King James I of Scotland, one of the most Anglicized Scottish kings, was nevertheless famous throughout Scotland, England and Ireland as a harper, and harpers were maintained at the Scottish court from at least the 13th century until the end of the Scottish kingdom. The same is not true for the bagpipes, which only became common in Scotland rather late and was not Scottish. I sense your hostility to the harp comes from your hostility to Gaelic, but the two are connected by no more necessity than Gaelic and the kingdom of the Scots itself. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltar topics template

This seems to have been screwed up or deleted, you might want to investigate, it was cool ! --Gibnews 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland article

Thank-you for your proposed amendment to this page, which has been reverted. There are ongoing discussions about the difficulties of maintaining the integrity of the Scotland article. If you wish to add new material please refer the matter to the Talk page for suitable discussion. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Astrotrain, you can indeed make any changes to this article as you wish. The corollary is that I can communicate with you to indicate what I believe to be the unhelpful nature of your edits - as is also the nature of Wikipedia. I have no wish to add to your embarrassment and I shall therefore refrain from adding future such message if you prefer. I shall however continue to encourage those who have a serious interest in improving the article to revert edits which have not been previously referred to the Talk page Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britishinsurance.com

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Britishinsurance.com, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. Scoutersig 18:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I find your accusion of spam very rude. As a Wikipedian of 4 years, I am hardly adding spam by this article. Astrotrain 00:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in no way trying to be rude; since I came across that way, I apologize. I just saw an article I felt was basically promotion of a company and tagged it as such. I have since looked at your other edits, which are universally positive; thank you for those. I just disagree on this one. Scoutersig 08:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alba

Your POV pushing is becoming ridiculous now. Alba, besides being the native name for the kingdom (incidentally used in the native language of most of those kings on that list), is also used in English, e.g. Driscoll, Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland AD 800-1124 (The Making of Scotland), Woolf From Pictland to Alba. "Scotland" is only a term used by as an exonym from the late 11th century, and then only as Scotia. "Scotland" is not used in any Scottish source until the 14th century, whereas Alba refers to the Kingdom, either "Pictland" or "Scotland", from the dark ages until the present. To quote myself, "the term "Scotland" is much later than the earliest kings of "Scotland", and Alba was the name for both Pictland and Scotland, and remains to this day the Gaelic name for the country". So you're going to have grave difficulties POV-pushing on this particular issue. Why don't you go to Selkirk and help the anon remove the Gaelic name there. ;) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Mais oui! 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin Scotland lobby

Dear Astrotrain,

I have followed some of your disputes, for example those on the naming of Scottish banks, and see that you are up against the same problem as some of us Orcadian contributors, namely a "Spin Scotland" lobby determined to push its POV and promote its own image of the country regardless of what the facts are.

Take a look at the current discussion here: Talk:Scottish_national_identity

(You will note that most of the Orcadian contributors who can still be bothered to get involved (or who have not been blocked) now just contribute via their IP addresses. This is mainly because they found they were be tracked by user:Mais oui! and having their contributions instantly reverted by him.)

It is a sad state of affairs, very sad, but I am at a loss to know what can be done about it.

81.153.151.191 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree that there is some POV pushing by some of the Scottish editors, but I would say, on large that they do contribute good work to the Wiki.
• What I would suggest doing, is create a user account, and contribute on a open basis. If your contributions are good, and and can be backed up with reputable sources, there is bound to be a place somewhere for them. If you do find other users reverting your work, there are ways to deal with it- discussion, involving others etc. I would also suggest not focusing on only one area- and widen contirbutions outwith Orkeny related articles.
• If you need any more help, you can contact me or any other user on the talk pages- or by the "email this user" link on the right. Astrotrain 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User:81.153.151.191 already has a user account. It is located here: User:Mallimak. Quit the campaign of personal attacks Mallimak. --Mais oui! 09:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If Mallimak, or any other Orcadian contributer wishes to contribute in a positive manner, it should be encouraged. If User:81.153.151.191 is Mallimak, then obviously it would be preferrable for him/her to contribute under their username. If User:81.153.151.191 is someone else (which is possible), then I would again encourage them to start a user account. Whatever the case is, positive contributions are welcome here. Astrotrain 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am user:Orkadian, who was blocked after repeated sock puppet allegations by user:Mais oui! ! I only ever contributed in a positive manner. I cannot speak for other Orcadian contributors, but I understand their frustration. 81.158.163.124 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am reluctant to widen my contributions outwith Orkney, for it is Orkney that I am knowledgable about - although this would not be accepted by the likes of Mais oui!. You seem to have had your own brushes with him. He is an arch-POV-pusher who will delete facts to suit his own agenda. I only wish the administrators would recognise him for what he is. It would not surprise me if User:Mallimak were contributing using IP addresses, and it seems from the above comment that User:Orkadian has no choice but to. Other Orkney contributors such as myself dare not do otherwise, having witnessed (or been told about) the tactics of Mais oui!. Mais oui! seems to think that "Mallimak sockpuppet" is grounds for reverting any Orcadian contribution he does not like (does he like any?). I fail to see why this behaviour is condoned. 81.129.246.100 17:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mais-Oui! can be a difficult user to deal with, however he does make some good contributions which are to be encouraged. I also know he/she has suffered from vandalism on his user and talk pages from anon IP addresses- and this may explain some hostility.

At the end of the day, you have to move on from these things and engage in the Wiki community if you wish to continue contributing. Again I would suggest registering a user account, and contributing openly to the project, and if you encounter problems resolving them by involving others etc. Astrotrain 11:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not condone vandalism, I can understand some contributors' reactions to Mais oui!. It never pays to make enemies, and Mais oui! seems to go out of his/her way to create them. Tracking a user's contributions and immediately reverting every one they make (vandalism, surely) is hardly a good way to make friends. I know this behaviour has put some off contributing at all - all to the detriment of the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia - and others are probably so frustrated by Mais oui's behaviour that they have to find some outlet to vent their frustration - again, to the detriment of the Wikipedia project. I just wish the adminstrators would keep a tight rein on Mais oui! and not let him get away with this damaging behaviour. 81.155.38.76 13:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. I am not a "Mallimak sockpuppet". As far as I know Mallimak has given up on Wikipedia and is trying to set up some sort of independent encyclopaedic site.

How predictable! Look at User:81.155.38.76, and you will see that since I wrote the above, Mais oui! has accused me of being "a sock puppet or impersonator of Mallimak". Do you see the problem? What hope is there as long as s/he is allowed to carry on like this? 81.155.38.76 16:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The succession crisis

I really admire your efforts to find more information to bulk up the article on Elizabeth. We'll see if you can change anyone's mind.

On a slightly related note, the succession crisis occasioned by Charlotte Augusta's death might deserve an article of its own. It was a major event at the time, and I love how it got 3 princes to all get married in 1818. Anyway, some of the details about Elizabeth's importance can be elaborated on in such an article. I made a draft of what it might be like (User:Tocharianne/Succession crisis). The text right now is copied from British royalty and urban legends so it's spare on details. Tell me what you think. Tocharianne 03:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I like the diagrams- however it does not mean Elizabeth should be denied her own article. As a Princess in the direct line of sucession and that she would have became Queen if she had lived, together with the other facts listed on her page- she deserves her own article. Astrotrain 12:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you done making changes to Elizabeth's article? If so, I'll put a note on the talk page to have people look at it and vote again on the merge. Tocharianne 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms_of_South_Georgia.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alexandra of Kent.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexandra of Kent.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 02:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Scottish_executive_arms.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish_executive_arms.gif. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable

Hi. "Replaceability" is defined by Wikipedia as an image that could be replaced by a free image. It does not mean that the image has to exists freely yet, or that I, the tagger, have to present an image to replace the current one. I'm sorry you consider these messages spam, but I am being courteous in notifying you that the image you uploaded could be deleted and allowing you to possibly find an image to replace it. I realize it is frustrating because your efforts could be deleted, but it's just application of Wikipedia policy, it's nothing personal and doesn't reflect upon you as an editor. Please don't take it personally. --MECU≈talk 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Precedence

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Precedence. You are in breach of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule which you have also broken previously. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. The Ulster Banner has not been the official flag of Northern Ireland since 1972 Thank you.

No revert over 3 within 24 hours occured, therefore feeble attempt was rejected. Try counting before referring in future. Thanks. Astrotrain 15:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] xfd contributions

Hi Astrotrain, just wanted to drop off a friendly reminder that xfD discussions aren't a vote... the action to be taken on an item nominated for deletion is based on the positions and opinions put forth by the contributors to the discussion, not by simple vote-counting. To that end, simple statements of "Keep" and "Delete" don't really help inform the discussion, and are likely to be discounted by the closing admin. If you could provide some insight as to your reason for your opinion, that will really help, even if you're just agreeing with the nominator. Thanks, and happy editing! -/- Warren 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N Ireland non-flag

The flag you are insisting on using in templates has no legal standing, it was the standard of the governor geneneral of N ireland a post that ceased to exist when the british government closed the northern Ireland house of commons in 1972.--padraig3uk 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the infobox on the Northern Ireland article it clearly states the flag is the former flag of the state, and is now unoffical, as for your claim that certain government bodies use the flag that is incorrect as they are covered by the GFA.--padraig3uk 02:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of terrorist attacks on the London Underground

Why did you change the name of this article without discussing it - a consensus had been come to on the name of the page and was changed to that. If you do not change it back then you will be reported.--Vintagekits 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Anne, Princess Royal.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Anne, Princess Royal.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 23:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Argentina Falklands sign.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Argentina Falklands sign.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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. MECU≈talk 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivory Coast move

Since you participated in previous discussions on Ivory Coast, you might be interested in the requested move at Talk:Côte_d'Ivoire#...Requested_move. —  AjaxSmack  08:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of 3RR violation

Can you provide any evidence for this claim?--Vintagekits 13:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vintage puppetter tag

I tried to tag him, but he kept removing it. He has also removed other warning messages from his talk page. I tried restoring them, but he reverts me and has now "banned" me from his talk page (I don't know if he can actually do that or not...). I have reported him for investigation, here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation#Vintagekits_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29), so hopefully we'll get some kind of decision. But any input from you into the case regarding his reverts from you would be beneficial.

PS That link he gave you does NOT say that you can't put the tag on. Logoistic 14:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer tags may be removed at will by unblocked users. Repeated placement of the tags on the user pages of users who are not blocked my be considered harassment. Jefferson Anderson 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be the case that this user is using sockpuppets to navigate around 3RR rules or other vandalism given his aggressive editing stance and the number of edit wars he is involved in with different users. In my opinion the tag should stand. He has already used a sockpuppet to advance his own POV. Astrotrain 16:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The term Pot and Kettle springs to mind!--Vintagekits 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about you, not him. This is a personal attack. You must not address other Wikipedians in this way. Logoistic 00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Try that again as I didnt understand--Vintagekits 00:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth of Clarence

I don't understand why you say we don't have consensus, four people wanted to move her, you were the only one to oppose it (Talk:William IV of the United Kingdom#merging). (If you think the references are important you can add them to Elizabeth's section in William's article.) Tocharianne 16:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Begley Article

While I may agree with you that the article should be deleted as he doesn't seem that notable, if you wish for his article to be deleted and redirected to the bombing article, you will need to submit an AFD. If you do, please let me know in my talk page. Yonatanh 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP REDIRECTING ARTICLES WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT!

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Vintagekits 21:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paddy Quinn (Irish republican)

You have attempted to redirect this page without discussing it. If you wish to redirect the page discuss or else risk being banned--Vintagekits 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catriona Grant

This was put up for deletion within minutes of me recreating it, then deleted with no discussion. Please discuss articles prior to deletion or put on AfL page so that there can be other user input. I will recreate when I have time and alert you so that a proper dispute resolution process can be gone through Ms medusa 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now recreated this article again. I have nominated it for deletion to try to head off the speedy deletes which you seem to favour in order that more editors can have an input into whether this is a suitable article for inclusion.Ms medusa 15:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating articles for deletion

you are supposed to let the originator of the article know first!--Vintagekits 21:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I would suggest when nominating articles for deletion to not use the word "terrorist" like you have in the nominations for Martin McGartland and Charles Breslin. It definitly be seen as not being Npov. Makes you look like you have an agenda. Thanks--Tainter 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He does!--Vintagekits 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland

My post, copied from the above AfD, FYI:

When nominated this article was a stub. I did a google search, which quickly revealed an abundance of sources with significant mentions, including national press, TV documentary, questions in parliament and references by politicians. I have added this information to the article and greatly increased it, but I find it extraordinary that the nom either didn't do a google search, or, if he did, didn't see these results, or, if he did see them, failed to recognise their value. Badly researched AfD nominations not only waste community time, but stand to deprive the encyclopedia of worthwhile articles. I note the nominator has also proposed "a number of similar pages for AfD", and I trust he will check carefully to ensure that that is the right course of action for them. It could otherwise look very much like bad faith noms, which is a form of vandalism.

Tyrenius 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 17 December 1983 Harrods bombing

You recently made a number of undiscussed changes to this page. Can you explain the following please.

1. you reverted my edit stating that you considered is POV and vandalism, can you please explain both of those ascertions please.
2. As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer as from all the reports that I have read on the issue the store and not the shoppers were the target and this was confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate.
3. Your reverted the article from showing that is was a PIRA attack to state that was an IRA - what is your reasoning behind this?
4. You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why did you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV. can you explain these statements?
5. The article previously stated the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then you deleted, can you please explain this.
6. you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit. regards

• I would like to resolve this issue and look forward to your reply.--Vintagekits 13:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I restored the article to the version by User:El chulito, which was the previous best version- obviously the items above would have been changes at this point. Astrotrain 13:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I understand that you reverted it, the question is why did you revert that information?--Vintagekits 13:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You still have not responded to this.--Vintagekits 19:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• You have once again reverted this article and refuse to enter into a discussion regarding the elemants that you are changing. Can you please response giving your reason that you consider the above can to be good edits.--Vintagekits 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss the content of the article on the article talk page, as you've been asked to do. You've been editing long enough to know that it is necessary to achieve consensus on article content. This is a policy requirement. Tyrenius 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting to the consensus version- as I noted on the edit summary and above. Astrotrain 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus version. There is no consensus on the talk page, only a question. You need to work to reach a consensus, or else don't edit that article and don't just revert it again. Tyrenius 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You were not reverting to the concensus version and you couldnt even explain why you were changing the details within the artile (and still havent). IN my opinion it is obvious you were reverting because of the editor not the edit.--Vintagekits 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an opinion we can do without thanks. It is conjecture. Tyrenius 00:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so Tyrenius, but I carefully listed out the changes from the revert and the answer lead me to believe that he wasnt focused on the chages more on the changing. I will wipe the slate on that, stick to the facts and ask again.

1. you reverted my edit stating that you considered is POV and vandalism, can you please explain both of those ascertions please. Astorian - can you explain the following changes the you considered POV.-
2. As the target of the attack you stated "Christmas shoppers at Harrods" - can you clarify this answer as from all the reports that I have read on the issue the store and not the shoppers were the target and this was confirmed by the prior phoned warning to evacuate.
3. Your reverted the article from showing that is was a PIRA attack to state that was an IRA - what is your reasoning behind this?
4. You deleted the time of the explosion and replaced it with "Unfortunately they did not have time to defuse it" - a. why did you delete the time and b. "Unfortunately" may be correct but it is POV. can you explain these statements?
5. The article previously stated the line "Three officers and three civilians (including one citizen of the United States) were killed." but then you deleted, can you please explain this.
6. you removed the line "It stated that a bomb was placed the C&A deptartment store on the east side of Oxford Street, London." and replaced it with "They claimed a bomb had been placed in the heart of Oxford Street. It was said to be at the C&A store on the east side of the shopping street." the later sounds messy and POV can you explain the edit.--Vintagekits 01:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the above section to Talk:17 December 1983 Harrods bombing. Please continue it there, so that other users can participate in the right place and it is on record with the article for the benefit of future users. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment of my talk page is not the way to go about things- you have already been warned about this by Zoe and were blocked recently also for the same thing. Anyway- as I stated previosly- I reverted to the best previous version established by another editor and that is why those items were changed. Astrotrain 07:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it that was aimed at Vintagekits and not me. He is not harrassing you. He is asking you perfectly reasonably to discuss changes that you wish to make. It is not sufficient to state that you have "reverted to the best previous version established by another editor" because obviously there is disagreement over this. I can certainly see aspects which are not the "best" option. If you would kindly read my last post, you will see I have asked for this to be continued on the article talk page. That is the proper place for such debate. Tyrenius 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is disagreement, he can take it up with the user who made the original edit. I have explained my position enough. Astrotrain 22:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Richard, Duke of gloucester.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Richard, Duke of gloucester.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 March 2001 BBC bombing

You recently made a number of undiscussed changes to this page. Can you explain the following please.

1. you reverted my edit stating that the attack was on the news centre, however, the attack was on the Television Centre - is there any source that makes you believe otherwise?--Vintagekits 13:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Source added. Astrotrain 13:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Queen bombings visit.jpg

Wikiccol 13:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't upload any more images taken from content providers, such as the BBC, that are not intended to be used in the article about that provider. Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria, we cannot be replacing the original market role for the work. Jkelly 21:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANVAS

A discussion is underway at administrators noticeboard regarding your recent actions at this afd and related actions on user talk pages. Regards, Navou ^banter 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:203301 queen and menem shake hands300.jpg

Wikiccol 15:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs

It is sad, is it not, that Wikipedia has this apparent clique of IRA supporters, intent on glorifying them, using whatever Wikipedia rules and regulations they can to run up bio articles on them. It is deplorable. David Lauder 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Astrotrain, thought I'd drop by and offer some moral support to your AfDs. Keep up the good work.--Major Bonkers 09:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRA terrorists

This message was left on User:David Lauder's Talk page for you: :Nobody likes lies, thats the third time you have said that and you know its not true and the sources were proven 1. here is the proof, 2. The Daily Mail article was written about a long time before I ever even joined wiki, and 3. next time you state that I am going to report you for a breach of of WP:NPA, regards--Vintagekits 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: the preceding text including and under the heading was posted on this page by David Lauder, not by Vintagekits. Tyrenius 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments here, which concern you. Tyrenius 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that- perhaps you should remove V's "lies" claim above- I assume that violates WP:BLP also then? Astrotrain 22:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not in a very strong position. You made a statement about him which was derogatory and not true. The article and AfD weren't deleted because of "libelous statements". I know why they were deleted, because of course I deleted them. I was not in a position to know whether they were libelous or not. Wiki does not require that stringency. We remove statements if they are merely derogatory or insulting. They were certanly some extreme comments made, which could have been libel, but whether they were or not depends on whether they were true or not — or in wiki terms we accept as truth something from "reliable" secondary sources. There were sources, but there was some uncertainty about them and it is incumbent on me to play safe, which is what I did. Unfortunately, you didn't. It's an easy mistake to make in the circumstances, but you must expect a reaction. Repeating it as you did apparently three times begins to look like making a POINT. Let's move on and learn. It's your talk page. It's easy enough to archive (preferably) or delete. Tyrenius 22:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the article because the claims were unsafe, which was of course correct. We cannot tolerate statements in Wikipedia that are are deflamatory. Wikipedia is not the place to debate whether someone was in a terrorist organisation, or whether someone committed a crime. The moment that articles on non notable terror members or suspects appear, the danger of libelous statements being made increases. I have already seen many dubious statements in these articles, some of them linked to unreliable and POV websites or forums, others with no source. I was not repeating the cicumstances of the deletion of the said article to embarras Vint- merely to point out the danger in having such articles on non notable persons creates. And per WP:LIBEL "all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory"." Astrotrain 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was removed because at the time the Daily Mail article which was quoted on the page could not be found in the archives. I did not add the reference to the Daily Mail article it was there long before I ever found wiki and was on other pages also. The said article and numerous others (8 in total confirmed according to one editor) were found - 4 of which were forwarded to me - if you email me from my user page I will forward them to you. Also Davidson and McCormick were brought to trail for it and that is all over the web.--Vintagekits 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not quite correct Vintagekits, because there was also questioning as to whether that paper on its own, even if found, would be sufficient, so it was a much more complex situation, and basically one that needed to be resolved cautiously before words like "murderer" started being attached to the names of living personages. That still remains the case, and, with that in mind, I mostly agree with Astrotrain's most recent post above. However, there do need to be certain qualifications. Wiki is not the place to "debate" these things, but it is very often the place where it is necessary to establish the truth of these things, but only be referring to reliable sources that we can feel confident about. These matters still do have to be addressed, but cautiously, not like a bull in a china shop. However, they can't just be brushed under the carpet either. Dubious statements about living people? Zap them! I will assume good faith, Astrotrain, as regards the intent of your comments relating to Vintagekits, but these things can very easily start to make someone feel oppressed, harrassed, intimidated, ganged-up on and ridiculed, so care must be taken to make plain what is intended. The best articles over contentious subjects can only happen when two "sides" find common ground - which is writing wikipedia. Other hats, leave in the hall on the way in please. Tyrenius 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I dont think the wiki page ever said he murdered him, it said we has on the scene and left with security tapes. Als oit was allegedly published in the Dail Mail twice, the Mail on Sundy and the Daily Mirror. As for the McCormick and Davidson claims - they are indisputable as it went to court.--Vintagekits 23:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Camilla bombings visit.jpg

[edit] bbc copyright

no you are using the tags wrong please read this WP:Fairuse#Counterexamples number 5 thanks Wikiccol 09:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• How would you know? You've only just joined Wikipedia- I suspect you are either a sockpupper or just a disruptive vandal. Astrotrain 09:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact the BBC don't even own the copyright to that image- it was posted on the royal.gov.uk website also- its prob PA and is allowed under fair use for the London bombings article. Astrotrain 09:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That is for an admin to decide not you thanks Wikiccol 09:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Royal Arms 1837.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Royal Arms 1837.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bank of Saint Helena logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bank of Saint Helena logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. 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. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. Show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. Leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you. --Vintagekits 22:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not an IRA memorial site

You've used this argument before and now you've used it again. I wish you wouldn't. It is a bad argument and Chewbacca in nature. We know wikipedia isn't an IRA memorial site. No one to my knowledge has ever suggested it is, so saying that it isn't just detracts from the real matter which must be addressed, namely wikipedia policies and guidelines, for example considerations of notability. Such rhetoric comes across as prejudiced, lacks credibility and only damages the case, appearing to put your POV first and wikipedia second. Tyrenius 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would stop attacking people who are contributing to AFD discussions. It is a perfectly valid argument to use for deleting these types of article. If a small group of users are creating articles on non notable IRA members killed while up to no good, and written in a way as if glorifying their lifes, then I can only conclude that they are trying to create some sort of memorial for terrorists. Astrotrain 12:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have my support, Astrotrain. I feel sure that you are, as am I, putting Wikipedia first. David Lauder 13:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between challenging edits and opinions and attacking people. It is as well to discriminate between them. AfD is a debate and it is perfectly valid to comment. Your conclusion fails to WP:AGF which is a guideline. Let us say that these people are creating the articles with just as much will to improve wikipedia as you say you have. It is just that you have different ideas about how to do that. Tyrenius 04:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF- Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith. Astrotrain 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me a perfectly valid argument to make. I feel that certain editors won't stop until every IRA member has their own article, complete with 'disputed account of death'. --Major Bonkers 12:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvassing

I noticed that you have resumed canvassing in an attempt to stack AfD discussions. It is time for you to stop, or you will be blocked for disruption. You may participate in those discussions, but recruiting other users to those discussions is off limits. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Rubbish- I contacted the main participants in the other similar AFD discussion- both sides were represented which is allowed. Astrotrain 08:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not "allowed." Do it again, and you'll be blocked, simple as that. You can make all the silly claims you want about partisanship, but abusing the AfD process is forbidden. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly just another ruse to silence opposition.David Lauder 09:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be an abuse of admin powers to block a user just because he disagrees with an AFD comment- especially if he is involved himself in the dispute. It is perfectly reasonable to draw attention to similar AFD debates- especially when you are not being partisan. Astrotrain 09:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and one can't help noticing that the WP:IRA editors have just popped up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McCaughey - go on, have a go at them, Mr Darcy!--Major Bonkers 12:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps reading WP:CANVAS may convince you this is general policy applied to all, and not just some partisan picking on you. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that I don't see it being applied to all.--Major Bonkers 16:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already replied to this issue in AN/I. The next time that this is done you will be blocked. You have been adequately warned.--Jersey Devil 17:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not- have you even read WP:CANVAS and reviewed against my posts- probably not.... Block me if you like, it would only confirm my suspicisions on this matter. Astrotrain 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closed AfD

I've closed your AfD on Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) under Wikipedia:Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination. This is your final warning: Any further attempts to use the AfD process to push your POV will lead to a block. That includes canvassing as well as nominating clearly valid articles. If you feel the articles are too POV, then work on them to establish a neutral tone, but you need to stop abusing the AfD process now. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was not disruptive, your behaviour here is appalling. I will not raise another AFD , although I really hope someone else does! Also, I will continue to nominate articles for deletion that meet the relevant Wikipeida- and this includes nn IRA members and their entourages. I will not allow your threats to force me off editing. Thanks Astrotrain 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask here, in response to Mr Darcy, what if an editor feels the entire concept of the article in question is POV; that it is wrong for Wikipedia to carry it for a whole range of legitimate reasons? Or are you just threatening those who oppose the promotion of the IRA in Wikipedia? David Lauder 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The only legitimate reasons are those in line with wikipedia policy. The argument that wiki should not include articles on IRA members per se, because it glorifies them, is not in line with wikipedia policy. Mass nomination of articles on a particular subject is, to say the least, suspect. When some of these nominations are then met with almost unanimous keeps, the nominator is clearly doing something wrong. Continuation of this behaviour is disruption. Tyrenius 19:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you, Tyrenius, you put that very well. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the articles I nominated, one was deleted, the rest were no consensus- so I am vindicated. The only article to be kept was this one, due to Darcy's POV decision to close- harrassment of my so called "canvassing" meant I was reluctant to raise more awarness of this AFD. I am sure many other people would have voted to delete it- now we will never know. Astrotrain 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. The fact that you nominated a number of articles (was it 20?) for deletion and only one achieved a consensus to delete shows how inappropriate the nominations were. This reeks of POV-pushing. I trust you will take note of the fact that your views are out of line with community consensus and adjust your interpretation of deletion criteria accordingly so we don't have a repeat of this. Tyrenius 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a complete lie- I did not nominate 20 articles! No consensus to delete mean there was roughly the same amount of people nominating to delete as to keep- so hardly a ringing endorssement. I note you yourself nominated a similar article for deletion... Astrotrain 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lie, because it's not even a statement - it's a question! I've struck it anyway because it's unnecessary. It's not a ringing endorsement but it's not a consensus to delete either, and some of your noms were virtually unanimous keeps. This is history, so let's move on. The best procedure is to nominate one article to gauge community response, and then re-assess accordingly. Let us be judicious in discriminating between articles which do and don't meet requirements. Tyrenius 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Continuation of this behaviour is disruption": no-one has engaged in anything other than constructive debate. You have no right whatsoever on Wikipedia to make such open and unjustifiable threats just because you don't agree with those engaged in discussion. If you continue with these threats I shall make a complaint on the Incident page. You have too high an opinion of yourself. Your personal opinions are no more sacrosanct than ours. David Lauder 10:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

They are known as warnings, and are common practice on wikipedia. You have either wilfully misinterpreted my words or not seen their intended meaning. I've given the warning so that actions can be brought into line with policy and good practice. This has been endorsed by another admin, MrDarcy. Tyrenius 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I might interrupt here, in an effort to broker a peace. Mr. Darcy: personally, I think that you are acting a little heavy-handedly. The article in question looks pretty undistinguished to me and I cannot see what would have been lost by letting the AfD process continue. It gets up people's noses if they are the subjects of arbitrary actions. I can see your argument, but threatening people isn't the way to go about things. Astrotrain: I share your concern about the plethora of mediocre, POV-pushing IRA-related articles. May I suggest, subject to Mr Darcy's approval, that you firstly list all the ones that you identify on this Talk page, in the next day or so, with a brief description and we can take it forward from there.--Major Bonkers 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your not the only one to take this view MB on that article. I am actually away nexy week so won't have time to monitor the IRA articles or nominate deletions. Personally I think several more of them require to be deleted/merged. Keeping so many of these non notable stubs is akin to setting up an IRA memorial- completely inappropiate for Wikipedia. Astrotrain 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think he is being massively soft. Kitty, Astro and others have been canvassing on a number of AfD's over the past weeks and no offical action has been taken which I think it a very unusual and it makes a mockery of the whole AfD process.--Vintagekits 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of British flags

Either you are going to put all the editorial comment in that section or none, you cant just have your comment. In my opinion all the editorial comment should be removed and only be in the Flag of Northern Ireland article.--Vintagekits 23:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• OK- I will change it back to Flag of Northern Ireland (unoffical)- and leave all the editoral to that article. Thanks Astrotrain 09:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But thats not the name of the flag. There seems to be a concensus regarding the wording and you seem to the the lone editor who is changing it.--Vintagekits 09:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You just reverted my edit and stated in the edit summary "POV vandal" - can you explain what was POV or vandalism?--Vintagekits 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

removal of referenced material to suit an Irish Republican agenda. You have made these views quite clear. Stick to terrorist articles I would say. Astrotrain 11:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please you please explain how and why my edit was POV and vandalism.--Vintagekits 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You have continued you edit this page but you have not answered this question. You reverted my edit and stated in the edit summary "POV vandal" - can you explain what was POV or vandalism? And can you explain your edit baring in mind the information in the Northern Ireland flags issue and Flag of Northern Ireland articles.--Vintagekits 11:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

I wonder whether you have seen this? [3] --Major Bonkers 12:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes- very interesting- could be used to add some more info on the WW2 expedition. Astrotrain 11:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Duchess of Kent.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Duchess of Kent.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 02:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VegaDark's Request for Adminship

Astrotrain/archive5