User talk:Astrotrain/archive7

I'm back

I've just spent a week in the Lake District and am now back. I stepped foot in Scotland for the first time in my life too! Gretna is not a particularly inspriing place, but I was expecting to be greeted by Scottish Negative Party propaganda and wasn't, which was nice. The comment I left you in pseudo-latin (yes, I cheated using an online translator) was pretentious of me, but I didn't want to give the other side cause to celebrate knowing that I was going away for a week. Alas, not much has happened. I've seen you've had a bit of trouble with absurd accusations made against you. It wouldn't surprise me if those IP addresses were deliberate sabbotage against the yes vote. The poll was flawed anyway. Many of those who voted no did so simply because they wanted the flag as part of a package. Our friend also took it upon himself to advertise the poll on inappropriate wikiproject pages too. Time for us to be "bold" I think. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:QM foot and mouth.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:QM foot and mouth.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| ^da: 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Well, it's come to this. You've been repeatedly warned and warned and warned about your disruptive editing by a number of admins now. You have now been blocked for revert-warring on the 'flags' issue. Choose your article; there are a number. You do not get to go to your 3R limit day after day on multiple articles. That's the very definintion of disruption. Furthermore, you refuse to dialog constructively on the issue.

From Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, "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. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system". This is you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 18:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well why the hell have you not blocked Padraig who is also edit warring? Astrotrain 18:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be other blocks, don't you worry. This flags nonsense has to stop - Alison ☺ 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it was VintageKits who reported you. I've indefinitely blocked him on a separate issue - Alison ☺ 19:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say the flag war must end, but don't make any recommendations as to exactly how we do that. God knows we've tried! Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure myself but I can assure you of this; revert-warring day in and day out is not the way to do it. Dialog and compromise/consensus is the only way forward - Alison ☺ 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you have been blocked. Provocation is just so easy to react to on WP. Yet the provocateurs seem to get away with it and those who have responded are blocked. Justice is elusive. eh? David Lauder 19:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am sorry you have been blocked". Would you all dry your bledin eyes he is blocked for edit warring simple as. BigDunc 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the others in the edit war have been blocked also, yes? No? David Lauder 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fellow member of the block club!

Well, my completely disproportionate block by a trigger-happy admin has just lapsed. When yours does too, you may like to comment on [1] which is under threat by the "there's no such thing as Northern Irish" brigade. How petty eh? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether anyone considers themselves Northern Irish or not, but at the very least it is an adjective to describe things from that area? Astrotrain 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea. Padraig seems to confuse nationality (of which Northern Irish people have a choice) and an adjective to describe something from an area. At least assuming ignorance is giving the benefit of the doubt. Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same admin is not 'trigger happy', thank you very much. Astrotrain was way out of order and earned his block. I'd ignored him numerous times up to this. And besides, it looks like he's cruising for another one - this time it's some other "trigger happy" admin. Plus ca changes .... - Alison ☺ 21:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

I have filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giano II's attack page

You should probably be aware that Giano II is using 303's and Brixton Buster's (effective) technique of removing inconvenient material from user space:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGiano%2Fsome_thoughts&diff=153430452&oldid=153428848

One would have thought that he could have stuck to policy and guidelines at least while an ArbCom was pending84.13.10.123 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, W. Frank, how exactly is that an "attack page"? Which policy and guidelines are being violated here? - Alison ☺ 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring again...

Astrotrain, please cease and desist with the editwarring on the template of British Flags as well as any others that I may have missed. 3RR is an absolute limit, not an entitlement and you will be blocked if you continue. (and before you start, I'm about to give the same warning to Padraig). SirFozzie 21:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Derry

When you changed "British Army" to "Army" in the Free Derry article you were probably unaware that I provided a justification for "British Army" on the talk page. It's not at the bottom, but at Talk:Free Derry#Massively Important. I hope that explains it for you. Scolaire 08:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a courtesy

Since you were involved with the edit war with padraig, I am letting you know that I have listed you as a possible person in a Checkuser sock puppet report, where an IP address was used to continue the ongoing edit war. While I think it's POSSIBLE for it to have been you, I do not think it PROBABLE (there's some clues, like exact reverts to a preferred version, that points at another editor in this edit conflict), I still felt that I needed to inform you so you can be aware. SirFozzie 20:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like I was wrong. [2]. This CheckUser came back as a Possible for you. Let me make things clear. Do NOT use IP addresses to continue your edit wars with Padraig, if you do, you will be blocked. I will let it slide on the basis you could have just forgotten you were not logged in (not that edit warring is exactly a great thing anyway, but I will give the benefit of the doubt. SirFozzie 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry West

Would appreciate your attention on this article, he's edit warring again. Harry West Conypiece 23:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't. Just don't. Or you'll also be blocked - Alison ☺ 00:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't leave threats here- I am entitled to edit any unprotected article here. Thanks Astrotrain 20:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, you are allowed to edit any article you wish. However, you are not allowed to disruptively edit Wikipedia, becoming an account primarily here to edit war with Irish editors (just as they are not allowed to edit war with you). You already have six blocks for editwarring and personal attacks in the last five months. If you continue, even if the Arbitration Committee themselves doesn't decide to revoke your editing privileges, it is very likely that you will face escalating blocks from other administrators. Look, you have made some good contributions to Wikipedia (as you yourself note, over 300 articles created). That may be the reason why you are still here. However, there has to be a point, as I said in the ArbCom case, where your edit warring tendencies will be too much to tolerate. SirFozzie 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have only edited this page once, so I can hardly be accussed of edit warring on it. Astrotrain 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit war going on and you decided to participate in the middle of it. This is bound to add to the inflammation, as I'm sure you're well aware, and does not help towards a resolution. Continuing the talk or following WP:DISPUTE is the responsible thing to do. However, granted that yours was a minor unhelpful contribution. Tyrenius 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Template:UK subdivisions, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Northern_Ireland_flag_usage

Not sure if your aware of this but as a named party in this you are required to indicate if you agree or disagree to this going forward.--padraig 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's already said he's aware and is willing to sign up. He's also said he's away for a few days. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back now and have signed up. Thanks Astrotrain 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It now looks like this may be brought into the main arbcom process as SirFozzie has pointed out Here. So we will have to wait and see what the mediator says.--padraig 11:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up to him what happens- the block of Vintagekits has nothing to do with the flags issue. Astrotrain 11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom isn't now just looking into his block but the whole area of disputes by Anglo and Irish editors on articles relating to the troubles, etc, look at the list of involved parties. So it is possible this will come under that review as well, we will have to wait and see.--padraig 12:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation should continue regardless of the suicide arbcom as the issue needs to be resolved. Astrotrain 12:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the sucide arbcom - not aware of that one - but this Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.--padraig 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I will post some stuff later in the week- away to Paris. Astrotrain 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage

Yeah I'll make one later on today. Probably be at around 8.00. Thanks for reminding me. Derry Boi 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Banner

You say that both these University of Essex and University of Warwick use the UB could you show me where they use it please thanks. BigDunc 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:BOS logo.jpg

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BOS logo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing

4 tildes, not 5! [3] Tyrenius 04:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just too keen these days Astrotrain 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Tyrenius 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life is full of little surprises....

Well well, I never thought that I'd hear myself saying this to you, of all people, but..... God bless your little cotton socks! --Mais oui! 09:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol- Well being a Scottish monarchist and all, I have to protect the national interest. Astrotrain 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your critique of Flags of the United States

Astrotrain, although I assume your edits were made in good faith, I don't think the brief justifications you provided in the edit summaries are commensurate with the amount of material you removed from the page. So I reverted the edits, and invite you to discuss your ideas for improvement at Talk:Flags of the United States. --ScottMainwaring 01:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Companies

Hi Astrotrain, As you can probably tell I'm new to Wikipedia. I was interested to find a page on Scottish companies and on seeing the request to add new companies to an incomplete list I did just that. You have chosen to remove my entry for reasons that do not appear to be apparent on the page. I am confused as to why my company does not qualify. Your last reason for removal appears judgemental and inconsistent with other entries that appear on the page. I request that you enlighten me as to how my small company may be entered without your deleting it. Thanks, Hourston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourston (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish companies

Hi Astrotrain, Hopefully we've established that the entry for Kangaroo self storage was not spam. As to the other merits for entry, self storage is the fastest growing segment of the UK property sector. The service attracts both domestic customers and many well known businesses; indeed 2 members of the list for Scottish companies currently store with us. Perhaps more importantly many small businesses and start-ups operate from self storage centres because of the flexible nature of the service. The business is fully incorporated in Scotland as mentioned before. Our business is currently valued at £10m and will be expanding rapidly. I would like to include it in the list of Scottish companies for these reasons and the others mentioned before. Will you continue to have objections and if so how can they be resolved? Hourston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourston (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]