User talk:Astrotrain/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by for ignoring the warning that was given to you about Disruptively Editing and the attack you posted on your user page.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. This block is only for 24 hours. With your history of incivility, disruptively editing and personal attacks, it could have been longer. Have a good holiday, and come back ready to edit under Wikipedia's rules, please. SirFozzie 16:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

I'm sure that you must be aware of the attempt to take some of the sting out of Anglo-Irish edit wars, so...

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up here. If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations and Gibraltar

Welcome back from your Wikibreak. Please don't edit-war; try to find compromise, as I have done in these two instances. Best wishes, --John 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster flag

Hello, Astrotrain. As I am sure you are aware, there is (finally) a movement to restore some sanity to the issue of Anglo-Irish articles with recent events - particularly the banning of Vintagekits and the Potato Famine ArbCom - serving to concentrate minds.

You can see, on my Talk page and related threads, that I'm trying to take the opportunity to open channels of communication and resolve some of the more intractable issues. I have previously been in touch with Padraig (see my Talk page discussion), and he has asked me to try to mediate and find a consensus. You'll see from my contribution here that I regard the flag issue as one of the bones of contention between the British and Irish sides.

You'll be aware that I'm not an Admin, and I have no authority to require you to engage. I also realise that it's quite a difficult issue, but I'd like to try to clear it up in an effort to remove some of the ill-will that has arisen. When you get back editing, please can you drop by my Talk page and let me know what you think and see if we can't find a way forward.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster Banner

There is no concensus, so stop edit warring insertion of the Ulster Banner in that manner is WP:POV and WP:OR and will be removed. --padraig 09:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page of Northern Ireland article- there is consensus to use this flag. It would be better than constant edit warring. Thanks Astrotrain 10:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus and consensus cannot be reached to include false information this is a encylopedia, it is supposed to present the facts on issues, it is not a soapbox for your political views, so either present sources to support your arguement, failing to do so makes your edits WP:OR and WP:POV you should aslo read WP:Flagcruft. Considering the British Government and the Northern Ireland Assemly and its government the Northern Ireland Executive don't recognise the Ulster Banner or permit it use on Government Buildings in Northern Ireland you have no case.--padraig 10:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is to use the flag, and we will use Wikpedia rules rather than internal British government guidlines. Please stop edit warring- perhaps you are too close to this subject and should back off for a while to cool down. Thanks. Astrotrain 10:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP rules prevent the insertion of WP:OR and WP:POV, also you fail to understand what a encyclopedia is it is to present facts not the political POV of certain editors trying to use wikipedia as a soapbox.--padraig 11:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Bush_response_bombings.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bush_response_bombings.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. 06:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help.

Wikipedia is still alien to me. Basic editing is my limit really. Biofoundationsoflanguage 11:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem- always happy to help! Astrotrain 14:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the poor wording. I won't do it again.Quick Reference 15:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: List of British flags

Ah! I didn't realise you were an expert on this. I should've looked at your user page! Sadly your edits have already been modified for your inconvenience. I'll give you a hand where I can. Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tables are a bit beyond me! I usually just nick someone else's and change the stuff in it.

I had no idea that so many of the articles I've been using for reference are your work, particularly the ones on the Overseas Territories. Well done! Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain nothing has been agree on Talk:Northern Ireland and the discussion there has nothing to do with this article as I have already explained on the article talk page. The Ulster Banner is not a current National flag and shouldn't be included in that section, also their is no source to support the claim of de facto status, so can provide one before including that claim in the article as you are aware that unsources material can be removed.--padraig 16:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Queen Duke Canadian Portrait.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Queen Duke Canadian Portrait.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. Jkelly 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

I see that certain users have requested that List of British flags and Template: Northern Ireland cities be protected so as to avoid having to try and justify their attempts at ignoring consensus, grammar and reality. I've noted my objection to it on WP:RFPP, though that was probably the wrong place to put it? I'm not sure I really care if it was, but if it's detrimental to the cause then I will remove it? Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the Talk:Northern Ireland nor does that discussion relate to any other article or template in WP, the discussion is solely related to the Infobox on that article. Yourself and Astrotrain are clearly working very closely together in a number of editwars I am beginning to think one of yous is a sockpuppet.--padraig 16:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your input on Vintagekits' page

Vintagekits is confined to his talkpage, and has requested you don't post there. (See especially edit summary here.) Please respect this from now on. Note especially SirFozzie's appeal for users to not come to the page and "attempt to wind up VK any further." Bishonen | talk 11:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] convicted criminals who committed suicide

I would be conscious of the attempts you are making to satisfy an opinion. I would remind you though, that Jesus Christ was a convicted criminal, who offered up His life. Should we include your category convicted criminals who committed suicide, on His Article? Could He also have prevented His Own death? --Domer48 12:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunger Strikers

OH come on are you saying they commited mass suicide if I put in murdered by Margaret Thatcher would you remove it as POV surely you would, so using loaded language like suicide or murdered should be avoided.--BigDunc 12:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I might say the same the intention of the hunger strikers was NOT to kill themselves there death was an outcome of the strike not the reason for the strike.--BigDunc 15:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

All the departments have a similar logo [1]] but the Assembly logo still represents the Northern Ireland Assembly [2].--padraig 14:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring on Scotland. When you return please remember not to edit-war. There are always better ways to improve the article. --John 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:RAF

Template:RAF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Greenshed 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template:United Kingdom constituents and affiliations

Split out? Despite being your alleged sockpuppet(!), I don't really understand. I'm quite bad at understanding templates.

Are you asking me if I think it should be included in the template? Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah! *feels thick*. It has different status to the other Overseas Territories, so it makes sense if it was recognised as such in the template. I'll see what I can do! Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Biofoundationsoflanguage 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

absentis pro unus. bonus fortuna. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ARA Santa Fe

Any particular reason why you removed the Spanish name for the conflict? Justin A Kuntz 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Andrew Lauder, 5th Baronet

Please note that you incorrectly reverted the previous edit.[3] Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names, point 4:

Baronets, as they hold hereditary titles, often for a large part of their lives, follow the same practice as hereditary peers and should have their title noted in the beginning of the article. The format is Sir John Smith, 17th Baronet. For the article title, this format should only be used when disambiguation is necessary; otherwise, the article should be located at John Smith. John Smith, 17th Baronet should never be used with the postfix and without the prefix.

You might like to change your edit back. Please make sure you don't change similar articles to the incorrect title in future. It will be disruptive editing to do so. If you think the convention is incorrect, then by all means open a discussion on the naming convention talk page to change it.

Tyrenius 07:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a guidline and it was moved without discussion. Astrotrain 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has already taken place on the guideline page and should be followed (or amended there first):

This page is considered a naming convention on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. [my bold]

The case in question is not an occasional exception: it is precisely the case addressed by the relevant part of the guideline. Tyrenius 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Given your previous incorrect interpretations of policy- I will take anything you say with a pinch of salt Astrotrain 16:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhodri Morgan.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:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
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 fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _talk _contrib 08:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster Banner in templates

Astrotrain, in your edit summaries (I note not in talk pages) you refer to the mediation cabal giving you the OK to put in the Ulster Banner onto templates. I have been to that cabal and the mediator is saying that your assumption in completely incorrect. Can you please disengage from edit warring and explain exactly why you and doing that and why you have come to this assumption. regards--Vintagekits 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you posting here? When you deleted my comments from your talk page when discussing your indef block? Astrotrain 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Astrotrain, can you answer that question.--padraig 12:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What question?

Your claiming that this gives you the right to use a defunct flag in templates representing Northern Ireland today, when the decision in fact says the opposite.--padraig 12:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It stated that templates and flagicons can be used- and the flag issue is not a matter for them to decide on (or in other templates) Astrotrain 13:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but your claiming that gives you the right to add the Ulster Banner, which is false, so please stop making this claim and edit warring on these templates. The UB dosen't represent Northern Ireland today and unless you can provide evidence that it does then your claim is WP:OR.--padraig 13:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the flagicon or NIR template which generates an Ulster Banner as this is the agreed flag used to represent Northern Ireland (much like FIFA do on their website [4]). Astrotrain 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It stated a flag OR symbol could be used - no where did it say the Ulster Banner should be used. p.s. you are welcome on my talk page if you can go there to discuss edits and articles in a rational manner but not to use it as an attack page. Let hope we can actual discuss things instead of edit wars and having admin and mediation to sort everything out.--Vintagekits 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See previous response Astrotrain 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that your attempt at resolving this issue?--Vintagekits 13:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is debating its use in some sports, but it isn't used to represent Northern Ireland as a state or country today and that is the issue here, your attempts to use it in this context is WP:OR as both the British Government and the Northern Ireland Executive don't recognise this flags, nor does it represent them or the area over which they govern.--padraig 13:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Flag represents NI- that is why it is in the flagicon and NIR templates and at Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg Astrotrain 13:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel dizzy! It represents NI in football (by FIFA and UEFA) and the commonwealth game - but not as Heritage sites, airports, as a region or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty as you are trying to claim. If you can provide a source to the contrary then I would love to see it.--Vintagekits 13:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ulster Banner is used as the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 13:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Source?--Vintagekits 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Only by sporting bodies is the flag used it is not the official flag of NI if you can provide a source that it is could you please post it for editors to see. BigDunc 13:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was the official flag- but it is the unofficial flag. Are you saying there is another flag which is the unofficial flag? Astrotrain 13:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So why should a un-official flag be used in an encyclopedia and presented to convey that it is official, which is the impression readers of wikipedia get if they see it used in templates representing Northen Ireland today.--padraig 13:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't conveyed as official. Astrotrain 14:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you show it in templates without explanation or clarification then it could be seen as official - you conceed it isnt - so therefore it should not be used. Additonally there is no concensus to use it on the Northern Ireland article per the talk page.--Vintagekits 14:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Its very use in a template gives the impression that it is an official flag, to claim otherwise is niave.--padraig 14:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Templates use images as representation- and this image represents Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 14:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, source!!?--Vintagekits 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And Images convey messages, using this image conveys that this is an official flag which it isn't, and you know that. It dosen't represent the Northern Ireland of today or since 1973.--padraig 14:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is the flagicon of Northern Ireland as it represents in flag terms Northern Ireland- the flag is still used all around the world to represent Northern Ireland- for instance it is raised when Northern Irish athletes win at the Commonwealth Games, and it can be seen flying outside UEFA headquarters. When people see the flag they think "Northern Ireland" and thus it is used in templates. Astrotrain 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing its use in some sporting context - sport dont not equal NI!--Vintagekits 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We are not disputing its use in sport, but a template on Northern Ireland cities and towns, etc has nothing to do with sport.--~~

I am sure the republicans in NI would claim the Irish Tri Colour as there flag as this is not official and following your logic it can be used because as you said the Ulster Banner is unofficial and you want to use that.BigDunc 15:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Tricolour is not used as a flag of Northern Ireland and does not represent Northern Ireland as an entity. Is there any examples of the Tricolour flag being used to represent Northern Ireland? The Tricolour only represents the Republic of IrelandAstrotrain 15:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We are going round is circles and in my opinion you are not listening to any reasonable argument so I am going to disengage now. regards--Vintagekits 16:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You are missing my point but if you drive down the falls road in Belfast you will see a community using an "unofficial" flag they claim it as there own its not an official flag so we dont use it in WP the same as the Ulster Banner its not official so we dont use its simple really. BigDunc 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are saying. Can you perhaps explain more clearly? Astrotrain 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

On the Template:United Kingdom regions you said that there is concensus to use the UB - that is not true, how do you make that out.--Vintagekits 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

You have just blankly reverted all of my extensive (over 15 individual) edits to the above article. Can you please explain each and every one of them. Let me start be helping you with the first - assasination is in breach of WP:NPOV, what is more neutral is that he was killed and then an explanation of how he was killed. Now only fourteen more to explain.--Vintagekits 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think assassinated is more relevant for a great grandson of Queen Victoria (I explained this in the edit summary?). Looking at the talk page- it was Padraig who added that? Astrotrain 23:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Assassinated in POV, now what about the rst of your revert. --Vintagekits 23:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a term used in the John F. Kennedy article Astrotrain 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in this article not that. Mountbatten was a military target. Now what about the rest of your revert, do you stand by that?--Vintagekits 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It matters not what kind of "target" he was (whatever that is supposed to mean). He was one of the most famous British people alive at that time- and a great grandson of Queen Victoria to boot (remember that he held the title of Prince and style Serene Highness before his father renounced them)- and that is the correct term for killing a famous person. Astrotrain 23:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What about the rest of your revert - please explain that.--Vintagekits 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So you concede that it is an appropiate term? Astrotrain 23:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No I do not, you reverted and major edit because you disliked one word, are you standing by that?--Vintagekits 23:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Could your perhaps explain your position then> Why would assasinate be appropiate for a President of the United States but not the Earl of Burma? Astrotrain 23:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I will sort that word out later, why did you revert ALL the edit because you didnt like ONE word?--Vintagekits 23:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me that didn't like the word- it was me that added it back? Astrotrain 23:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astrotrain for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Evil Spartan 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I remain to be convinced [5]. I thought you lived in Scotland or is that my mistake?

[edit] Template:United Kingdom regions

Please state your rationale on the talk page of the above template for your continued revert-warring around the issue of flags. It's a contentious issue and I would appreciate you discuss it there first rather than simply reverting as you are when you perceive it is okay to do so again. May I point you to WP:3RR, specifically the points which say; "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day" and "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive" - thank you - Alison ☺ 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in your zeal to revert-war, you reverted to a version which contained a subst'd template, rather than a transcluded one. I repaired this damage yesterday but you saw fit to run right over that in your haste - Alison ☺ 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made my position perfectly clear on the flags issue- I notice you havn't discussed on the talk page why you removed it. Astrotrain 19:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have, actually. And the current reversion was primarily to repair template damage (not to mention the fact that "your" template specifies full protection). Transcluding the correct template is the proper thing to do here. Bear that in mind next time you revert there, which I don't suppose will be too long in coming - Alison ☺ 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You stated on the talk page you didn't want any flags, but then reverted to the non consensus version. I wonder why that was? Astrotrain 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because you severely damaged the template in your revert. I've just commented on the talk page there to that effect. Don't do it again - Alison ☺ 19:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final warning for edit-warring

I noticed your recent edits to Template:United Kingdom regions and Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Edit warring is seriously frowned upon here, as you know very well. Especially on contentious issues like these, discussion towards consensus is vital. Repeatedly changing an article to your preferred version will only create annoyance and is unlikely to result in the changes you wish being adopted. The very next time I see you edit-warring, I will block you. Please take my advice in the spirit intended, and discuss rather than reverting. Thanks, --John 19:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately it seems you were both at fault. I have blocked you for 31 hours as promised above. On your return please adopt other strategies towards improving articles. Edit-warring annoys others, mucks up the article history, and is therefore generally frowned upon. Best wishes, --John 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So yet again the cabal can edit war to impose their Republican POV on Wikipedia and others are punished. Astrotrain 14:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain, I dont have a "republican agenda". I'm from britian for crying out loud! I just recognise the use of the Ulster banner to represent N Ireland as a political entity as wrong. Fennessy 15:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You dont have to be republican just not agree with certain editors and as soon as you do you are a provo pushing biggot.BigDunc 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)