User talk:Astrotrain: Difference between revisions

Please see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Universities in the United Kingdom navigational templates. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 00:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony John Bailey - Kittybrewster 02:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really know anything about this person I am afraid. Is it not up for deletion anyway? Astrotrain 15:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since your name has been dragged into this (not by me), it seems only fair to ask if you would like to comment on this; and you have a pretty good idea of the background. As you and I are not exactly bosum buddies, you may be able to apply a more objective perspective to this ugly situation:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:81.155.34.127_reported_by_User:Mais_oui.21_.28Result:.29

--Mais oui! 17:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not keen on being quoted there, as I have never called for you to be banned or blocked. The quote is taken out of context. It also seems that the topic has diverted off the 3RR breach that was reported. It is unfortuante that some users are hijacking the 3RR process to attack you though- and the other users who have responded to this trolling should really know better. I am also experiencing problems with an abusive editor (also with his own proven sockpuppet)- and have a false 3RR report against me just below your one. I would advise to not respond to the baiting on that page and hope that admin action is taken the Orcadian IPs- such an IP posted on here a while ago to rant- but he/she/they did not seem to take my advice. Although we have had editing differences in the past (and probably will do again no doubt!), I am not willing to be part of any vendetta. Astrotrain 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have noticed that our encounters have been more constructive of late.

It is all pretty academic now, as that IP address has been blocked anyway; although it is typical of the pattern that within an hour he just switches to a new IP address, to comment at the 3RR!?! Ah, the rich irony...

I'll eat my hat if we see any timely, constructive Admin action out of this frankly surreal farce. I am not aware of any similar tolerance of rampant IP abuse anywhere else on Wikipedia. Why? --Mais oui! 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning about certain behaviour which is uncivil. You were asked a question by Vintagekits and instead of answering it, you archived the talk.[1] When it was reposted with a correct request not to archive open discussions, you archived it again,[2] and again. [3] You were asked a legitimate question, namely why you had labelled an edit (for which a rationale was given in the edit summary) as "rv POV vandal".[4] This edit summary in itself is a breach of etiquette and should not be used against good faith edits, even if they are ones you disagree with. Continuation of this attitude will result in being blocked. Tyrenius 03:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've blocked Astrotrain 48 hours for this. Astrotrain, if you wish to continue editing here, you're going to have to start following Wikipedia's policies a lot more closely than you have been. Incidentally, this is your fourth block, which is why I went for 48h instead of 24h. I'm hoping that you take this time to cool down, and that when you return, you mind WP:CIVIL as well as WP:POV. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a toss up for me between another warning and a block, so I endorse your action. Tyrenius 05:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Astrotrain will be surprised by this block which was IMHO an excessive unexpected response without warning. The warning WAS appropriate. The way I read it, Astrotrain was trying to reduce the temperature which was being raise by the persistent boring relentlessness of another editor. I think the block should be revoked. - Kittybrewster 10:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Havent you been warned about your breaches on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from this in future.--Vintagekits 11:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not following this at the time, but after reviewing the records, it seems pretty clear to me that a block is excessive. I too support its removal. --Mais oui! 10:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventative, not punative. The purpose of a block is not to punish you for using an inappropriate edit summary or engaging in incivil behavior, but to correct the issue. If you are asking that a preventative block be removed, then I would think there would at least need to be some recognition that your edit summary was wrong and a willingness to discuss the issue rather than to declare that those with whom you disagree are vandals. --BigDT 14:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of referenced material to suit an agenda is vandalism in my opinion. If trolling and harrassment are to be tolerated in this case then I am not going to bother. It is a shame that good editors are being hounded off Wikipedia by POV vandals and their admin allies. Astrotrain 14:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:MrDarcy and User:Vintagekits apear to see blocks as punitive. Quote by the latter - I want Kitty punished for stirring up this trouble. - Kittybrewster 14:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its pathetic the way Darcy and Tyrenius are behaving. They should really be stripped of their admin status for the mess they are creating. Harrassment of other editors is not the way an admin should be behaving. They are only encouraging the trolls who have been stalking us. Astrotrain 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here here Jonto 19:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because I was going through Category:Requests for unblock. I have no interest in the matter and, that I can recall, have never edited any article on this subject, nor interacted with any of those involved in this issue. I took a look at the diffs provided and upheld the block. Regardless of motivation, calling someone a vandal who is editing in good faith - even if you believe them to be in error - is not being civil. It is important to discuss contentious issues on the talk page, rather than reverting and holding the discussion in edit summaries. If there is an issue that is not going to be resolved, you can make a request on WP:RFP for the page to be protected in order that discussion may be facilitated. --BigDT 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that you can describe an undoubted POV vandal such as User:Vintagekits as 'editing in good faith'. Just ignore these stupid Admins Jonto 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Jonto 24 hours for that completely unprovoked personal attack. Any other user who drops in here to make personal attacks against anyone involved in this debate (regardless of their "side") will be blocked as well. The sniping must stop immediately. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol!! Jonto 19:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good action. Editors are entitled to participate in creating an encyclopedia without this kind of harassment. Tyrenius 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no reason given for the block- archiving talk pages is within my discretion and I am not obliged to respond to trolling and harrasment by a user with a history of vandalism and sockpuppet actions. Darcy only blocked me because he has been harrassing me for weeks, supported by Tyrenius, and couldn't wait for the chance. Blocking me for 48 hours is a complete disgrace. There is nothing in the blocking policy to support this action. Astrotrain 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is yet more harrassment. I am not going to respond to this matter further- I have better things to do that argue with these people. Astrotrain 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flag_of_the_Governor_General_of_Australia.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Iamunknown 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While browsing AfD today, I noticed that the vast majority of your AfD arguments have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, and have a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Furthermore, your comment that it is "important to know what the barbaric regime in Iran is banning", in addition to not being a valid AfD argument, doesn't reflect the kind of NPOV professionalism that is expected of Wikipedia editors. If everyone used AfD (to say nothing of Wikipedia in general) as their personal viewpoint soapbox, nothing would get done here. A Train ^{take the} 16:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response below copied from my talk page A Train ^{take the} 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of how to vote in an AFD- and my comments are perfectly valid in that context. Astrotrain 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for disagreeing, but I don't think that Keep- midly interesting [5] is a valid rationale. I would absolutely discount it were I to close out that AfD. I have no bone to pick with you, I'm only advising your to hew closer to WP policy citations and further from personal opinion when joining the discussion at AfD, lest you end up wasting your time and energy on votes that will be ultimately discounted. A Train ^{take the} 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked from Wikipedia for a period of one week due to repeated incivility. Please see WP:CIVIL and this ANI thread. You may contest this block with {{unblock|your reason here}}. Sandstein 21:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at WP:ANI has determined that the above block was inappropriate, so I'm unblocking you. However, please do remember to remain civil at all times. This also includes keeping our editing environment free of offtopic and inflammatory comments. Consider that, as we are working on a global project that unites people of all faiths and ideologies, we must not have such things distract us unnecessarily from our job to build an encyclopedia. Sandstein 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is also true on Islam-related articles, where a general crackdown on trollish and inflammatory comments may be in the works. Obviously you meant no harm with your remarks about Christianity, but we saw how they were taken.

Per your comments on Talk:Muhammad, I thought I'd inform you that mediation on this very issue is underway.[6].Proabivouac 06:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help reference and add information on the Federal Commonwealth Society? --Couter-revolutionary 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, images are necessary- it is not as if the image depicts him in an offensive way or anything

Disagree, the images dont do anything to the page or the info. It is just an image and Im just making a simple request for a warning for people at the top of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ssd175 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Could you possibly what you meant by "resign from project - doesn't appear to be happening"? I've been working on the setup of the project over the last few days, so it definitely is happening - see my post at [7] for a summary of developments. -- ChrisO 17:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be going anywhere- and appears to be causing arguments. Astrotrain 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean Gibnews' objections, frankly I don't know what his problem is. He's the only person to have objected to it. I'm guessing it's a "ownership" issue, as he appears to have a problem with collaborating on article development and the concept of WikiProjects in general. You're welcome to rejoin at any time if you wish. In the meantime, you may find this new public watchlist to be of use in monitoring changes to the Gibraltar-related articles (see [8] to view it in action). -- ChrisO 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me by seconds at the Falklands war talk page! SqueakBox 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go challening the recent changes to the G8 please read [9], a massive week long discussion regarding this change. I dont want to hear this hasent been discussed or consensus has not been forged. Several very involved editors spent hours finding sources with arguments and counter-arguments. ALl parties remained calm (partially because the article was protected). I just un-protected the article to allow the inclusion of the Eu in the manner specified as discussed on the talk page. Please do not edit war over this. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am telling you is we already had this discussion! Please read the entire thing before complaing about it. We have had already had a loooooong discussion regarding this. All the g8 sources show that the Eu should be included but listed spereratly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 01:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Astrotrain,

(rv back to more tidy version)

Please let me know what you found untidy about the previous version, so in future I may bear it in mind. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looked untidy in the layout. I think centre alignment works best for these types of template. Astrotrain 10:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood; thanks for the feedback. Have tried to enhance center-alignment as described in recent edit summary (and move template's apparent center-of-gravity nearer to its vertical center). I've left the flag, but wonder if the template might look more balanced without it – perhaps make it an icon preceding the title...?  Yours, David (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey that looks much better- I think a flag would be appropiate given the subject matter. Thanks Astrotrain 09:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your citation of Vintagekits about British people making his skin crawl, and Scottish monarchists, which must breach just about every Wikipedia convention. My suggestion is that you lift that paragraph and place it on the Administrator's Noticeboard. It is clear from other things he so often says that these comments are sincerely held by him. How are we supposed to do academic and intelligent work when people who are so biased are in the wings waiting to attack it? David Lauder 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very unfortunate remark to make- it is clearly offensive to all British editors on Wikipedia. I placed it on Tyrenius' talk page for him to review first- he has warned him in the past for offensive remarks and NPA violations and I thought it more appropiate to raise here. I was hoping he would retract the remark but he hasn't yet. Astrotrain 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did he say that? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Talk:Celtic F.C. [10]- did you miss it? Astrotrain 22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's just saying he doesn't like the term in relation to Celtic. It may or may not relate to his feelings about British people, but you can't get that information from that sentence. He says nothing about "British people making his skin crawl". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be insulted by this business, and poo poo it, but I am prepared to take it much further if necessary. What he said, exactly, is this: "Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl". Whateve context you may think he was using such a statement does not excuse the severity of it. The man clearly has a serious chip on his shoulder against the British. It and other remarks he has made about monarchists and the aristocracy questions his ability to be a constructive and unbiased editor who others feel they can work with. David Lauder 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's from either northern Ireland or Rep. Ireland; the relationship with "British" is not one of one people versus another, but of a person rejecting a term of identity. He's perfectly entitled to do that without being labled "racist"; I've heard, for instance, lots of Scots express revulsion at the concept of "Britishness", and it's never occurred to me that this might be racism. Identities are sensitive matters, and people will react if you try to impose one on them they don't want. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. the image Image:US_Embassy_Iran.gif [11] is up for deletion. Can you please provide the source where you found the image on the image page so it won't get deleted? Thank you. --Arad 16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that was right. She was explicitly denied an HRH. I don't know that she was explicitly denied a princess-ship, but that was surely the implication. She should at least be asterixed, but probably removed and only discussed in a footnote. john k 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted this image as a copyvio from here. If you have uploaded other images from private collections, please tag them for deletion. Jkelly 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:QM standard.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. DrKiernan 09:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Im sorry about the delay, but I only just noticed how much the project participants section has grown since I last checked. Anyway I just wanted to say welcome to the project on behalf of everyone at wikiproject Transformers. Its always cool to meet a fellow TF fan (and a fellow Scot into the bargain). Best Regards. SMegatron 20:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I will stick to making racist remarks, or perhaps adding the name of a terrorist organisation to my signature, or maybe I should stick to deleting referenced material to suit a POV republican viewpoint, or glorifying murder.... but saying someone is "inexperienced" is clearly wrong and I accept that.

You may wish to know that anonymous IP81.132.173.25 replaced your page with:

'This user has died- he killed himself. Parties will be taking place throughout the land to celebrate this wonderful news. Burn in hell!'

I will allow you to decide what action, if any, is taken, but he seems to have done things like this a lot. SplingyRanger 14:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not dead yet- the champagne will have to stay on ice. Astrotrain 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My normal Wikipedia sign-on is Burgh House but I am, for my day-job, managing director of the Bank of St. Helena.

I am grateful for the creation of the bank's page, but am now happy to take over the load of maintaining the page.

Regards, John Turner Managing Director Bank of St. Helena Jamestown Island of St. Helena www.sainthelenabank.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burgh House (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]