User talk:Astrotrain

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

Template:British flags

Both of you; nothing on the talk page, so that's just edit-warring pure and simple. Any more and I'll invoke probation. Black Kite 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Astrotrain stop edit warring on the Ulster Banner issue as you are on Portal:Northern Ireland/Intro and other articles. You have failed to provide WP:RS when ask on numerous occassions to support your claims, failure to do so means your edits are WP:OR.--Padraig (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag

This addition is pretty provocative and inconsistent with any other article in the series. The really isn't any encyclopaedic need for it, as already made clear by BHG. Please don't re-add it. Rockpocket 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through your recent contributions, I have come to the conclusion that there is justifiable concerns being expressed about your focus on adding the Union Flag and Ulster Banner to a number of articles. These flags are contentious and thus we should ask ourselves what do our readers gain from having a flag on an article vs the inevitable disruption and bad feeling that their presence can invoke. I just don't see much benefit here. The flag is not official, therefore its representative value to us is minimal.

There is a rapidly decreased tolerance for this sort of edit-warring since the ArbCom. You, I know from your comments elsewhere, are aware of what has happened to other editors who have pushed their luck. Please don't put yourself in that situations, since if you continue with these sorts of edits without getting consensus you will be placed on probation. The chances are this will be the last warning you will get. Please heed it. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Padraig's complaint's are just the latest in a longstanding campaign of harrassement. He constantly reverts any articles on flags to suit his own POV, and rejected any attempt at the last mediation to reach a compromise. He has worn down every other editor who has tried to reach a solution on this issue. The flag may be contentious, but it still exists and should not be avoided in case we offend, Wikipedia is not censored.Astrotrain (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not censored, but neither is it a battleground or a indiscriminate collection of information. The question is not about your right to add a neutral flag or his right to remove it as a POV, but to ask what value does a flag add to an article. Unless an article is about a flag, the encyclopaedic value of adding one is negligible at best. Add in the sensitivity of that flag and there is often less than zero value.

You may well have a valid argument on some articles, but that gets lost among edits like this. I don't see any consensus for your additions and (while there may or may not be consensus for the alternate position either) there is at least few different editors reverting your edits. So, in the current climate you have a predicament, but also few options. If you continue revert-warring with Padraig et al, then you will probably find yourself on probation. Alternatively, you find a way of coming to some sort of compromise, one article at a time. That requires editors to work together. If you come up with reasonable proposals without edit-warring and they are all rebuffed by Padraig, then come back and I will see what can be done to precipitate progress. Rockpocket 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am rather busy the rest of this week, but I will come back with a list of proposals without edit warring per your offer. Thanks Astrotrain (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Probation

Based on your recent edits I am placing you on probation under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. You are limited to one revert per week on pages (including articles, templates and other project pages) related to Irish history and The Troubles, broadly interpreted. The 1 revert per week limit will be enforced by blocking, if necessary. [1] Thatcher 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of British Insurance

A tag has been placed on British Insurance, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

== correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Block

File:Shell logo from petrol station.jpg You are blocked 31 hours for violating The Troubles probation. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Astrotrain. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon returning from this block, you again performed multiple reverts and are now blocked for 72 hours. Please understand that when you return you will need to limit yourself to one revert per week or face escalating sanctions. Shell ^babelfish 18:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Go Fuck yourself Shell, I couldn't care less what a fucked up waste of space like you thinks. Since when could an editor not edit articles on Wikipedia? It seems you need to kiss a lot of arseholes to make a difference here now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs)

How about you take a week off for that gross attack upon Shell. I already warned you for similar the other day. Nobody deserves that kind of nastiness - Alison ^❤ 19:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour on Vintagekit's talk page

[2] No, I am *not* wrapping Vintagekits in cotton wool; however, your insistence on publishing your personal political positions on the page of another editor, and your personal attacks against other editors[3] is unacceptable no matter where it happens on Wikipedia. Your opinions don't particularly bother me, and if they were posted all over your user pages I wouldn't lift a finger or raise an eyebrow about them. Posting them on the talk page of another editor who you know full well holds opposing views, and is also unable to respond to your posts without being blocked, is harassment and can get you blocked. If you wish to add your opinions about any disciplinary action involving Vintagekits, take it to WP:AE where it is being discussed on a page read and overseen by the community as a whole. Thank you. Risker (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that editors should not be allowed to post messages of support for terrorism and bigotry on Wikipedia, which is hardly an unacceptable viewpoint, or one that any reasonable editor should oppose. VK has a history of such posts, sometimes posting very offensive messages. I am not sure what your position is, or why you would have a problem with that. Astrotrain (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing other's messages

Hello Astrotrain. While, on your talk page you have significant leeway to do as you wish, it is generally not permitted to edit the posts of others. Adding images to other's signatures is not a good idea (not least because one of them is under copyright) and may misrepresent them. I have reverted the last two additions. Please do not add them back without the permission of the editor in question. Thanks Rockpocket 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not change any text. Astrotrain (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No you did not, but you did add images within the text of others, which would imply that they were part of the other editors comments. If you choose to illustrate your talk page, please do so outside other's comments. Rockpocket 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Scotland and Coat of Arms

You seem to be in a revert war over the appropriate coat of arms. Rather than endless to-and-fro (roughly the last thing that page needs), can you please take it to Talk Scotland, along with proof citations for your side of the case. (Message also being copied to the other participants) AllyD (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You recently added the Arms of what you described as Queen of Scotland. The Royal coat of arms is listed at top of Scotland page, but if you add a copy with supporters it seems correct to add the proper arms thereto. The Arms you are placing are described as "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom", Not I believe as "the Arms of the Queen of Scotland". I think that the the current Queen is Queen of The United Kingdom not Queen of Scotland. I think this tittle was abandoned by the act of the union. As I understand it, the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist on 1 May 1707, following passage of the Acts of Union, which merged Scotland with England thereby creating the Kingdom of Great Britain. If you want to add the picture that you are insisting on you should perhaps add "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland" [other editors may well question this, I do not see the point], not "The Royal Coat of Arms of the Queen in Scotland". For the designation "The Royal Coat of Arms of the Queen in Scotland" you should perhaps add Kingdom_of_scotland_royal_arms.svg. I noted that your correction stated "these are the Royal Arms of the Queen in Scotland", maybe, BUT they are not the Royal Arms of the Queen of Scotland. yours Czar Brodie (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you not read, it says the Arms of the Queen IN Scotland. Astrotrain (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My thinking is that the arms you are advancing should have "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland" as label. Of/In remain unclear in my mind. Can you please direct me to your reference "the agreed compromise". my apologies for not seeing this compromise prior to my editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Brodie (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They are the Queen's Royal Arms, and they were linked to the relevant page. You can find the compromise agreement in the archives of the Scotland talk page- given you find enough time to edit war and argue with people, you willhave no problem taking the trouble to locate it. Now kindly revert back to the agreed position. Astrotrain (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer to your directing me to the archives, for which I thank you. I found various edits from September 2005 [see]. the matter was signed off by you stating: At no point did I break the "3 revert rule". Since this dispute is getting really ugly, I will not be wasting my time on this article. Let the abusive arrogance of Mais Oui and the amateur heralidic authority of Doops decide what is the coat of arms. Astrotrain 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC). I also noted that the only compromise was to not include the Great Britain arms. Accordingly, I withdraw my suggestion to label the arms "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland". My suggestion, based on the material in the archived, is to not add the arms of the United Kingdom regardless of their label. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up.

The bot removing your image from your user page was NOT vandalism. Wikipedia's policies on non-free images prohibit them from being used on anything but articles. I've removed it again, but commented out the resulting image, so your whole user page isn't that big warning. I'd read Wikipedia's policies on non-free images before doing that again, please. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Further to the heads up

Hi Astrotrain. You'll notice that I have removed the link to the image mentioned above by SirFozzie. I did some research today to figure out what the situation was with heraldic symbols and why this one in particular was problematic. The answer is that the one you had on your user page is taken directly from www.royal.gov.uk and they hold copyright on anything on the site. The heraldic description itself is generally considered public domain, but each artist who draws the coat of arms or other heraldic symbol based on that description holds his or her own copyright to the drawing. We have public domain images of the badge of the Prince of Wales (Image:Badge of the Prince of Wales.svg, Image:Walia.jpg), and a GFDL one of the coat of arms of the Duchess of Cornwall (Image:Duchess of Cornwall Arms.svg) available that you could put on your page, if you are interested. I didn't want to assume which you would prefer, but was pretty sure you didn't want your username to show up as a redlink, so I just typed in your username until you make your own decision.

Now...about the edit warring on Scotland. I see that you went over 3RR on that page yesterday, but I'm not one to block on stale info and edit wars that are already resolved. I strongly encourage you to take such discussions to the talk page after the first revert, and resolve the questions consensually with other editors, rather than edit war. You're already on 1RR/week for articles etc. related to The Troubles and it would be unfortunate to find yourself in the same boat when editing other articles as well. Just something to keep in mind. Risker (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked 72 hours for Disruptive Editing on numerous articles. You do not get to ignore a merge result AfD without discussion, or a DRV. I am considering an AE request to put you on a 1RR limit on all articles, or perhaps 0RR even, because all you do is show up, edit war all your targets to YOUR preferred version without discussion, disappear for a few days and come back, repeat ad nauseum. SirFozzie (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Might have guessed you would stick up for your friends. I can recreate an article and build up it up with sources, that is allowed. Astrotrain (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Astrotrain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sir Fozzie is a known friend of the editors I was in dispute with. Given he is never on Wikipedia other than being a proxy admin for the Republican terrorist editors, he should not be allowed to block British people. All I was doing was building up the Royal articles on the Chatto family, when editors that normally stick to articles on Irish terrorism began reverting my work, supported by Sir Fozzie, who never edits here other than tormenting his opponents.

Decline reason:

Your request is declined without review on the merits, because it includes egregious attacks on other editors. For these reasons, the duration of your block is also extended to a week. Before you make any more unblock requests, please read WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It is because the admin Sir Fozzie was contacted outwith Wiki by these editors, who are likely the same person given their edit habbits. Fozzie is busy right now trying to block me forever elsewhere, even tho all I am doing is working on my own specific area that I excel in. Why is it only the British editors that are persecuted? Astrotrain (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir Fozzie in real life, hater of British people