Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 6 July 2008

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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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

You are blocked 31 hours for violating The Troubles probation. See Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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

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 is unacceptable no matter where it happens on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)