Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Astrotrain

message: This was inserted as a threaded post under outside view by Kittybrewster. Threaded posts are not allowed in RfC, only statements and endorsements. Tyrenius 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to bring balance to articles on Irish republicanism as many of these articles can be very unbalanced, additionally I have reported ONLY ever reported editors for breach of policy not their views.--Vintagekits 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from project page

message: With regard to multiple points by User:Kittybrewster:
The claim of me stalking is incorrect. Anyone is welcome to check through my contributions and see that I have added  to the talk pages of many, many Irish Republicanism articles, and I watchlisted them at the same time.
The Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation, which is what IRA referred to.  Had my signature been PIRA that would have been an entirely different situation altogether, but multiple editors failed to assume good faith. I offered to remove my signature within minutes of the matter being raised on ANI, and was told there was no immediate requirement to remove it.  Despite this I removed the signature as a gesture of good faith while discussion was ongoing.  I do not consider the 1916 signature to be contentious, and other editors agreed.  I do not consider the use of 1916 in a signature to be a violation of WP:POINT (and certainly not WP:CIVIL or WP:NPOV), and it is curious that supporters of Astrotrain single out my signature while ignoring the multiple WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV violations Astrotrain has committed.
As for 303 referring to rifling, you are a long way off the mark.  My username is a song, and 303 refers to the Roland TB-303 which is used in the production of the song.
Myself and Vintagekits are not acting in consort with each other, as this discussion adequately demonstrates.
With regards to me having different views to Astrotrain on notability, quite possibly yes.  I tend to use Wikipedia guidelines on notability to determine what is notable and what is not, whereas based on the evidence provided Astotrain clearly does not. One Night In Hackney303 23:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may well be the case ONIH. However, you can see how one might just as easily jump to the conclusion that someone who is interested in concentrating specifically on articles about the IRA, might have either bias or an agenda. You will note that my statement specifically included the words: "it might be just as easily suggested that those editors are engaged in pushing an "anti-Irish" POV". I could claim also for example, that your faux pas in suggesting that anyone who may be anti-Republican is automatically anti-Irish suggests a definate POV on your part. -- Mal 08:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that, but it makes me feel slightly damned if I do and damned if I don't. People complain (and sometimes rightly so) about the quality of various articles, but most of the time I've had nothing to do with them and I'd say well over 90% of them pre-date the Wikiproject as well. How do you eat an elephant?  One slice at a time. I've been working on and off one a Brian Nelson article for the last couple of days, which I started planning for over a week ago. When I was looking for some information on the boxing gymn Billy Reid attended I came across Gerry Storey and figured he was worth creating an article for. Perhaps if I didn't waste time reverting vandalism on Unionist related articles I could get more done? One Night In Hackney303 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is essential that editors AGF. Good editors add to articles to improve them, regardless of their own personal opinions. Tyrenius 04:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from One Night In Hackney

message: He says "I do believe that Astrotrain edits from too strong a POV, one that is at least anti-IRA and that is arguably anti-Ireland/pro-England." There is no evidence whatever for this. I believe Astrotrain is indeed anti-terrorist as are right-thinking people all over the world including England, USA, Ireland (and the government of Ireland). I think MrDarcy should justify his statement or withdraw it. Tyrenius goes on to say that problems have only arisen recently (which is true) and  my own view is that others have stoked up this stouchie (Scottish: a minor row) by writing articles about relatively obscure terrorists. I will be intrigued to see what happens when somebody writes articles about criminals on the other side of the sectarian divide. - Kittybrewster 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to MrDarcy