User talk:Astrotrain/archive8

Dominion on Canada page (again)

I'd like this settled one way or another. Click here to comment. Thanks. --Soulscanner 09:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hurrah!

Well done! I thought it was a bit queer that the article didn't exist when its counterpart for Tristan da Cunha did, but never quite got round to creating it myself. I'll try to expand it, but collecting information is a problem.

I've just tried expanding Andrew George (governor). That was difficult enough because I had to trawl the internet for information, what little there was.

red links are starting to be a problem. There should be articles on all Government Houses. I'll happily volunteer to go and take piccies of them all! Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good- I could have taken one in Bermuda a while back but was too busy in the office! Astrotrain 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ooh. Off-shore banker eh? [/noseyness] Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Lol- not quite, but I do have some interests in offshore financing! Astrotrain 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal residences

So, hang on, why has Hillsboro' been removed? D B D 12:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Buckingham Palace [1], who say its not a royal residence but an official government residence. Astrotrain 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ryanair Flight 296

Ryanair Flight 296, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Ryanair Flight 296 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 296 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ryanair Flight 296 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Russavia 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British flags

Note: same message posted to User:Padraig.

Please don't start this nonsense again. Further reverting on this article will result in protection, plus - given the history - blocks for disruption would not be harsh. ELIMINATORJR 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

On the mediation page the page history shows you made a response but I can't see them showing on the page, might be a problem with lag, but can you see your edits,--Padraig 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok there showing now.--Padraig 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag mediation

Hello Astrotrain! Thanks ever so much for the contact.

I should say that I really admire your efforts on the mediation page; I believe you've stayed calm, polite and proffessional and raised many valid points. You've kept your cool and done well to stay engaged with the issue at hand.

I understand that you may be very (sick?) tired of the subject, but I would hope you don't loose faith, as you've worked so hard. I'm certainly in agreement with alot of your points, especially that the Ulster Banner is included as you've suggested on the United Kingdom and List of British flags articles, with generous context. Simillarly I don't think it should be hidden from other articles, like the Red Hand of Ulster, with context. I do however personally think, having reviewed the debate, one should conceed that the Northern Ireland article infobox gets no flag, and simillarly navigation templates try to avoid its use - that's just my opinion.

I've made a suggestion at the mediation page that you make a compromise suggestion to Padraig and see how he responds. If he responds favourably then we have a result. If he does not, then at least you can present that you have made an offer of a workable compromise and then take that further. I think it's worth an extra few days of negotiation. What do you think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotain, thanks for dropping by with a message on my user talk page. I think you're doing exactly the right thing by tackling the articles one by one, and I thought your proposal (the one that Padraig keeps removing) was quite a reasonable starting point. I expect it will need to be changed a bit before anything can be agreed on, but it's a good start. If Padraig won't even discuss it, that hardly reflects well on him, and I hope he will reconsider once he's had a little while to reflect on it.

As I understand your comments on the mediation page, you are happy to accept its removal on all of the navigation templates (except the British Flags one). Is that correct? If so, it might help if you repeated that explicitly on the mediation page. — ras52 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bank of Scotland Coat of Arms.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bank of Scotland Coat of Arms.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 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scottish Bank Notes.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scottish Bank Notes.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PW arms.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:PW arms.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Just thought I'd give you a heads up that I nominated a bunch of royal flags at List of British flags for speedy deletion because you were named in some of the file descriptions. A lot of them came straight from http://flags.net/UNKG02.htm, and even the ones that have been converted to SVG are still copyright violations, because the design didn't really change. There were some where the Scottish corner wasn't the same, but I don't think it matters. I think most of them are tagged as public domain, and that's about as far away from the truth as it can get. I'm not sure where in the process you got involved, but I thought I'd give you a heads up. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Copyright

I remeber you stating a legal case that allows someone to recreate crown copyright images and release them into public domain do you have any more information on this so that we can have as accurate as possible images such as the Royal Standard (United Kingdom), thanks --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:QEQM 100th birthday.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:QEQM 100th birthday.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. Ρх₥α 18:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year page formatting of multiple events

Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wessex Children

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde

A tag has been placed on Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your attempt failed. Perhaps it is you that should look at the "criteria" and not me. Astrotrain (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you?

You haven't posted or contributed to Wikipedia since December 3rd, 2007. Are you taking a 'Wikibreak'? GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on a long holiday, as well as a busy work project in December- this is the first time I have logged on this year! Thanks Astrotrain (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burma again

Talk:Burma#Survey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.189.89 (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wallis Simpson

I'm unable to charge the image of wallis simpson in the Time magazine cover that appears in the english version on the italian page, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.141.38.253 (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that image is on the Wiki Commons site as it is copyrighted presumbly- it would need uploaded to the Italian site for inclusion there. Astrotrain (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

I was wondering where you were (I even thought about contacting 'Megatron'). Anyways, welcome back. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It does seem like ages I was last on here. Astrotrain (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed!! Greetings! Regards, David Lauder (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. A few months to go till my 5th Wikipedia birthday! Astrotrain (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA warning

This post is completely unacceptable.[2] Do it again and you'll be blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL It didn't take you long to stick your oar in! Anyway, the point I was making, is that I do not believe Alison should have access to the checkuser tool, and she certainly shouldn't have been involved in this case. She has already expressed a negative opinion on Lauder, and the Arbcom case did raise issues of bias. Astrotrain (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would the results of the checkuser be any different if someone else did the checkuser?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well VK, as someone with several confirmed sock and meat puppet accounts, I am sure you know more than me about the process. What I do know is that Alison is not neutral in this matter and should not have been involved. Astrotrain (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get into a slagging match with you, I would prefer to keep it civil and deal with the issues at hand. If another admin who you approve of confirms the evidence from the checkuser would you be happy to accept it then? --Vintagekits (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about getting an admin I "approve" of, as the case does not involve me. I was drawing attention to the conflict of interest in the original checkuser enquiry. Astrotrain (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That why you've taken to posting it all over Wikipedia Review? Next time, try getting your facts right. And to VK, no - another checkuser is highly unlikely to turn up anything different and for the third time now, I openly welcome another checkuser to re-run the check and publish their findings. As for me, anyone can feel free to report me to either ArbCom or to the Ombudsman commission. I've absolutely no problem with that whatsoever - Alison ^❤ 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear your original actions will have prejudiced any further checks that are done. Astrotrain (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the case was now re-evaluated and it seems the other checkuser wasn't nearly as lenient as I was. If you have a problem or have evidence of misuse take it to the ombudsman and have my checkuser bit removed, rather than casting unfounded aspersions upon my own character - Alison ^❤ 13:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the re-evaluation, and I think DL should be unblocked to allow him to respond to these accusations. You unblocked VK when he was accussed of making threats of violence and revealling personal information, so I can't see why you would refuse. Astrotrain (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, VK wasn't caught by checkuser abusing the system, socking and votestacking on Giano's ArbCom attempt. That was vile in the extreme. I notice that User:Christchurch has now been mentioned, too. I'd let that one slide. Secondly, while I was the blocking admin in VK's case, I'm not in DL's case. In fact, as checkuser, I deliberately didn't block any of the accounts. I'm certainly not going to wheel-war with Foz on the matter either. Besides, I think someone who was as abusive as David Lauder can quite frankly stay blocked - Alison ^❤ 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that VK was caught votestacking and socking in another checkuser case, as well as all his other doings.... Yes, the blocking admin was Foz and not you, but again it is someone from your entourage. So thats the prosecutor, judge and axe-man all from Camp Alison. No to mention what is being discussed in off-wiki emails.... Astrotrain (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol - "Camp Alison" indeed. Get a grip, please! I wasn't even checkuser when VK's case was ran and to be honest, I'd nothing to do with the guy. "My entourage" indeed!! Found any evidence against me yet?? - Alison ^❤ 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (off to bed now. G'night!)[reply]

Alison, you seem to conduct all your business off-wiki with your gang, and Foz has already said he is emailing other people about the case with other evidence. Astrotrain (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the information falls under BLP, Let's put it this way, Astro.. if I was posting this information about Mr Lauder's identity online, you would be charging me with harassing people. But you never let facts get in the way of a good "irish kicking", even when at least one of the folks in question isn't irish, do you? SirFozzie (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not said anything false here. I have called into question the validity of the original checkuser request as I believed Alison was biased (not for being Irish, rather her connection to the requester). I have also questioned why off-wiki correspondance is being used, and what right people like you have to personal information (presumbly gained via confidential log files) and then share it with whoever you wish to infulence. Some editors on the Irish Republican side have expressed very dodgy opinions on murder and violence on this site and elsewhere, and goodness knows who they are in real life. It is only right we are concerned about our personal information, and correspondance made outwith this site. Astrotrain (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was more like "This is the history of the article on "a certain person". This is what the person in question told the Foundation about how his friends didn't know about (piece of information that was in his article) and he was afraid his life was going to be ruined.". Then it was "a certain person" is dying, and requests that his article (that he had started), be deleted because it was torturing a dying man to see it in print. BTW, I'm being a LOT more circumspect about Mr Lauder's real life identity as determined by ArbCom and his own legal threats then I need to be. (no, not a threat, I'm just trying to show you the truth). The funny thing is, some folks who participated during the ArbCom from the other side, shall we say, have come to me privately when they needed on-wiki help, and I helped them as well.. but oh well, some folks can't change their views. SirFozzie (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly have not contacted you off wiki for help. Although if you are trying to protect this identity, it may be too late from what I have seen.... Astrotrain (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astro: it was long since revealed. However, I am just trying to be polite. This person has stated that he doesn't want his name out on Wikipedia, and while there are things that I can't control (the solicitor's letter, the ArbCom devision)... I'm just trying to honor his wishes in this. That's all. SirFozzie (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Astrotrain, you are completely barking up the wrong tree. Alison was adamantly against the unblocking of Vintagekits, and only did so with great reluctance because several editors (including me) urged her to do so for the purposes of ArbCom. SirFozzie did not communicate anything to me that was not perfectly legitimate and wiki-relevant. There were no "personal details", which had not already been made available online here and I was already familiar with those. I suggest you stop attacking people in order to defend David Lauder, because it's only having the opposite effect. I think there is a case for strict probation so that he can continue in the areas where he makes worthwhile contributions, but he's not helping his case much either with his attacks on other people, who are acting quite properly. Checkuser isn't affected by personal bias (and I don't see that there is any evidence that it exists in this case anyway) because it is based on numbers. They either match or they don't. Tyrenius (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defending DL, although I suggested he be unblocked to answer the charges against him (just as VK was). I think checkuser can be affected by personal bias, and it is a dangerous tool when all the people involved are connected. That is why it is correct that the second check was undertaken (and this has been done). Astrotrain (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]