User talk:AlisonW/Archive 5

AlisonW talkpage archive 5

Personal attacks

Comment removed as it implied there were personal attacks on my userpage, which there clearly are not. --AlisonW (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labelling those who suggested deleting your article as trolls, homophobes and ... deletionists is a personal attack on those editors. --Stephen 22:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish! (a) I do not identify any specific editors, (b) I note you left out 'sockpuppets' (why?), (c) the truth is an absolute defence, and (d) :such a statement about an article does not contravene either the policy nor the guideline you referenced. --AlisonW (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left out 'sockpuppets' because you just added it in, you previously had 'other' in the diff I copied. I'll seek a 2nd opinion on WP:AN. --Stephen 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, wasn't 'just' added, but you of course welcome to talk with others should you wish. --AlisonW (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to weigh in on the AN thread at some point, specifically concerning your wishes regarding RtV and the issue of the userpage. Avruch^T 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role edits

Per the statement on your userpage ("Alison Wheeler is Chair of Wiki Educational Resources Ltd, the legal name of the Wikimedia UK chapter. This means that sometimes she makes 'role' edits on a more official basis in addition to her 'personal' edits.") could you please elaborate on what "role" edits you're actually allowed to make? It's my understanding (and many others) that being the chair of a chapter gives you no official role within the foundation. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, as (I believe) other members of the Foundation have already told you. I have removed that statement plus the blatant personal attacks per the consensus on AN. I would hope that, as an administrator, you would have the decorum and common sense to respect the consensus of the community here. I will be exceedingly disappointed if you abuse your rollback tool again to re-revert in both a misleading claim to official editing status as well as personal attacks. Daniel (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: comment you removed on March 4

I had no involvement in the AfD of your article, nor any personal opinions regarding it's deletion. I was simply repairing incoming links to Alison Wheeler following a fairly routine page move, and made a simple, polite request on your talk page. I'm sorry if you have been receiving personal attacks from others, but I feel that the comment you made towards me was a little uncalled for. PC78 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernista!

Hi - just want to say message received on the blocking of the Modernista user account. I replaced it with a contact to me personally. I'm not sure whether this is allowed or not - maybe I should look into hosting this discussion elsewhere? TimBlount (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

Hello Alison,

I am from Wikimedia Sister project Wikinews (en.wikinews.org) and I am currently interviewing the chairs of multiple Wikimedia chapters for the site. As you are the chair of the Wikimedia UK chapter I would like to request a short interview with you via IRC. If you are happy with this please contact me at my talk page so I can arrange a time to carry out the interview.

Thanks for your time,

--Smaalbig (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing. Next week or later would be fine. --Smaalbig (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your not busy it would be great if I could interview you today. The interview will probably take 5-10 minutes. if you are OK with having the interview today please indicate on my talk page. Don't worry if you can't. --Smaalbig (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review:Catherine de' Medici

I know you are interested in this article, and I wondered if you'd be prepared to peer review it. I've not forgotten this [1] comment of yours, and, in a nice way, it has motivated me to come back to you now. It's taken several months, about twenty books, and the diversion of a number of "main" articles, but I've finally reached a point where I think the article's not too shabby. I'd very much appreciate a review from you; but if you can't spare the time, I understand. qp10qp (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Femi Oguns

Hi Alison,

Thank you for your message. Whilst I do disagree with you, I do not feel the article is of significant importance to enter into a flame war, or likewise, over it. I'm certainly not a sock puppet - and nor is Bibiqueen a sock puppet of my creation. You point that the vandalism was in fact coming from myself is an interesting one, and although I can see where you're coming from, it is clear from previous edits which Femi Oguns had undertaken himself that he was desiring to wipe the page clean, rather than correct or discuss the article and for these reasons I thought to protect the page.

If Femi is desirous to make the page more favorable to himself (which is understandable, although not really the domain of WP) there are of course better ways than wiping an article or decimating it almost entirely, which on most occasions left nonsense text.

Thank you for your sensible attitude towards the issue though, even if we do not agree on this occasion!

Tamsin jones (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding banning of User:Femi Oguns

Alison, I'm a little puzzled by your comments on User:Femi Oguns page. Maybe you could help me understand since I'm not very involved in BLP issues. I see that User:Bibiqueen is an SPA that created the article Femi Oguns. This edit, which is among those you changed, would appear to have BLP issues, but changing the others regarding sourced reviews of plays rather than the playwright, seems a little overcautious and maybe unwarranted. User:Femi Oguns and an IP blanked the article several times and removed sections without ever leaving any edit summary. Although I can see that both User:Bibiqueen and User:Tamsin jones are certainly SPAs, information is pretty limited with which to accuse them of sockpuppetry and they certainly don't appear to me to meet the definition of vandalism. Certainly the claim that they have solely attacked the article on this actor/playwright is not justified - Bibiqueen created the article and there have been no substantial edits by anyone else, if it were soley an attack article it should be deleted. I'm sure you know that User:Femi Oguns is not banned and that you can unblock the user. Not being much involved with BLP issues, and having come upon this only because of a misdirected WP:RFPP, I will leave that to you.--Doug.^(talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine. I thought from your comments that all of your changes were based on WP:BLP concerns. Thanks. If you want to unblock the user, go ahead. I would rather not do so unless there is an actual request from the user, though I'll gladly do so if a formal request is posted.--Doug.^(talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert @ Modernista!

Why undo my deletion of the template/logo/tag/whatever you call it.

1. It contains misinformation:

"The website for this company obscures our logo with their own, and may lead the viewer to believe that Wikipedia serves as their homepage provider. This is not correct. Wikipedia has no affiliation with Modernista and has requested that Modernista cease this use of our website."

Correct would be: "This website uses the last visited site as its background, please be aware of this when clicking on the link" (NOTE: This is already posted 2-3 times elsewhere in the article but we can go "full american" and plaster the page with disclaimers... fine by me.)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written from a neutral point of view and does not endorse nor condemn Modernista, but is opposed to being used as a promotional mechanism in this manner for any third party.

Wikipedia might need to look a tad bit beyond its own navel. It is actual a novel concept of going "site-less" It is most definitly not using Wikipedia to promote itself (that might actually be counterproductive to some audiences)

2. Its highly annoying.

3. The icon used is misleading and "!" would be more appropriate, this isn't a "stop" warning, just a "pay attention"

I will not bother fixing it again. I did, you undid, I will now direct ppl over there that need a laugh :)

Have a nice day 195.216.82.210 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Modernista!/Notice

Modernista!/Notice, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Modernista!/Notice and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Modernista!/Notice during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetup - April 13th

Hi Alison. London Wikipedia Meetup number 8 is happening next Sunday lunchtime (April 13th 1pm) in Holborn. Come along!

I enjoyed your talk at London Wiki Wednesday in December. It would be interesting to chat with you again.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As it happens, the 13th is my birthday, so it is likely I shall be elsewhere! --AlisonW (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS question

Alison, I saw this Wikipedia:AN#Call_for_help and wondered if there is anything I can do to help, realizing that I'm a new admin. I thought maybe if there is a way to help you might be able to suggest something. Thanks. --Doug.^(talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modernista! Discussion

Will you please allow me to remove my own posts from the discussion page at Talk:Modernista!? TimBlount (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the discussion system on WP works. I refer you to [[[Wikipedia:Talk#Own_comments]]. --AlisonW (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you think it's necessary that the thread I started remains in the discussion? As far as I'm concerned it is inconsequential to the article. The response from an IP user doesn't really add anything.TimBlount (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding London Overground

I know that you're an Admin person who regularly contributes to articles about public transport.

I'm not sure if you're aware but the "argument" on London Overground over non-free content has flared up once more, again over the use of artist's impressions of the new stock that will be brought into use over the next few years. I've been threatened with a banning by the editor who insists that they can't be used, even though the issue seemed to have been resolved a few months ago.

Any chance of some help to try and sort it out once and for all? D-Notice (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're aware, but the editor has been banned temporarily. D-Notice (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument has flared up again. Any chance of trying to sort it out once & for all? D-Notice (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's a fair statement to make. The failure of the image to meet either interpretation of NFCC#8 is not in doubt. Repeatedly re-adding the image constitutes vandalism, and there is no policy against reverting it. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Central Line

Well I was the one who converted it to BS7-2 but others chipped in: but if I thank you on behalf of all I'm sure they won't mind. Having worked on the line as a guard in 1980 gave me a bit of a head start here. While you're here would it be possible for you to make available the icon for UK motorway/road bridges where the motorway is vertical and the rail line horizontal, as given that I could work some specific improvements to the east end of this template? Thank You. Britmax (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Meetups - Sunday May 11th

We're hoping to have regular meetups in London. The next one is on May 11th Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9. Another Sunday lunch in Holborn. Come along! -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

Quite a while back you should you would be OK with an IRC interview with Wikinews. If you still want to go ahead with this it would be great of you could specify at time for the IRC interview (virtually any time between 4 and 10 PM BST on weekdays would be great) --Smallbig (Anonymous101 on Wikinews) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove

Is it possiblt to remove the discussion page of article "Hi" or at least make the talk page only for non unknown users?Mooncrest (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked an Impersonator

Just wanted to let you know that I blocked a possible impersonator of you earlier: AlissonW (talk · contribs)

Cheers,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chelsea-Hackney Line

...looks fabulous. Thank you! — Hex (❝?!❞) 04:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

I am trying to find a wikipedia administrator who would readily do an interview for a research project I am conducting from the perspective of a wikipedia insider. If you'd like to do this, please email me at goat77 (AT) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goat77 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do a great deal of WP admin currently si I suggest you find someone else who is willing to help you. --AlisonW (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icon request

Would you be able to generate the icon so that the red crossing on {{IND Sixth Avenue Line}} can be turned blue? Marc Shepherd (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		THANK YOU for all your hard work for your Rail Icons! They are some of the neatest things I have seen in a long time and you deserve this. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas MacArthur Elementary School

I know you are kind of aganist deleting arctitles, but please check this one. You'll find it has no sources, not notable, and a blatant self-promotion.

Thank you for your deletion. You did it very quickly too. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 17:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Star (character)

I wish to have your opinion on this: there was a page called "Patrick Star (character)" but User:Bill redirected it to the list of SpongeBob SquarePants characters because "notibility not asserted". I disagree, he's a popular enough character to have a page. If what Bill says is true, then why so characters like Maggie Simpson have a page?--Degenerate-Y (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Administrative sock puppets

Hi, I just spotted the reference to you at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Administrative sock puppets and thought that in view of recent developments, you might want to ensure that that gets changed at an appropriate time.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up there; I released the second admin-powered account a long time ago now so that page has been updated to that effect. --AlisonW (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:BSR3

A tag has been placed on Template:BSR3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry Parental Controls

Hi, courtesy heads up about this AfD following our discussion on the talk. There's still no evidence it's notable software so I've taken it to the community. I welcome your input. Thanks! TravellingCari 20:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NLL

Well, thanks for the comment on the edit, and for finding uHACCl. I'd put Stratford LL with the best mix of HUB lines I could devise to mark it off from the HL part but as you fancy or whatever the rules are.--SilasW (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was surprised that the horizontal termini weren't available to I just made the eight of them! Yes, not really sure how to deal with the high and low level. In this case, like with Willesden Junction, they have a combined entrance and non-gated transfer between so effectively the same station (imho) --AlisonW (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tobin

Could you help me understand why full deletion - see my comments at Talk:Peter Tobin tia --Trödel 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stratford stations

O AlisonW! I looked at Template:Stratford stations, which I think you started, to see if the gently curved, grossly umlauted BS track icons might make an entangled template more elegant. "Stratford stations" has some "O#="s but one {{BS8 seems to have "U#="s instead of "O#="s (¿ a remnant of Über spelt Ueber?): if overing was intended it has not happened. Please advise.--SilasW (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a way of storing a possible edit? Of course if U became a second level of O then what weird maps could be drawn!--SilasW (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the remnants of my trying to use HUB icons to enclose all of Stratford Regional, and failing due to only having one layer of overlays. As there was only the high-level I just deleted them. Second levels might be 'fun' but would be too complicated for most people to understand I reckon(!) and because the Stratford area rail system is so complicated - even though simplified here and trying to not create a BS9 - this was a simple as I could make it and still be accurate. --AlisonW (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark minor edits by ticking the box in the edit summary

The changes you have been making to templates are minor and as such I like to be able to filter them out of my watchlist. Your failure to mark these edits as minor is irritating and irresponsible. Ludgate (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, however I do not consider them 'minor' as they couldn't be automated and the effect of each is not minor (adds three links, for example). Each requires close inspection and also includes correcting other markup and content errors at the same time. And I suggest you moderate your tone. --AlisonW (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By an reasonable definition the edits are minor as you are no significantly changing anything important on the templates, and by that I mean the content. The issue of whether the edits can be automated or not is irrelevant. By your actions you have now added significantly to the number of articles that appear on editors watchlists (not merely my own). Editors like yourself should be more considerate. Ludgate (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would politely suggest you choose which pages you have on your watchlist and act accordingly. --AlisonW (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (delayed by edit conflict)[reply]

In fact I am going to raise it at the UK trains talkpage so that others can judge your actions. Ludgate (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you (re-?) read Help:Minor edit properly first. Thankyou. --AlisonW (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue raised here [2]. Ludgate (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Minor edit states that "Adding and correcting wiki links" is considered a minor edit, and this is precisely what you have been doing. Ludgate (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the advice is "It may be worth communicating any disagreement about what is minor via Talk or a message to the contributor, being careful to avoid a flame war ("I thought your change was a bit more than minor—maybe I am being over-sensitive?"). There is a grey area, and many contributors will appreciate feedback on whether they've got it right". I suspect that this whole conversation could go better if there had been a more gentle start to it.

Template changes (where the changes being discusses include template chages) have a far reaching effect. I tend to think that even a trivial change to a template has a more than minor effect. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Headers in Route Templates

I added the links to make it easier to get back to an article when in the template. This is even more useful since you have added the vde link to the templates. Previously there were links from template to article - there is ONLY the link the other way (i.e. from article to template). These links are most definitely not redundant and have proved very useful. Can you please put them back. --Stewart^(talk | edits) 06:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this and can't reach a conclusion that everyone would be happy with. It is pretty much standard practice that titles shouldn't also be links, plus the templates are likely to be used on more than one article page, so just clicking 'what links here' would take the editor to whichever page they actually want (as opposed to your saying it is the only link, which it wouldn't be). otoh it would undeniably be quite a useful thing too. Maybe adding the link into the noinclude section would be the right way to go. --AlisonW (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canal route maps

Hi. Is there any chance you can add the 'vde' links to the canal route maps too? (Please!) -- EdJogg (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lost Hide

Alison, You added vde to Template:Clapham Junction lines after I edited it. I have redrawn it and have by guessing got vde back but the Hide button seems lost. Could you explain or fix?--SilasW (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin chat

Hi AlisonW, just so this action can be ratified as proper, I've asked here for admin feedback, as this new sort of practice (Wikipedia not being beholden to local legalities) getting ratified can strengthen BLP. rootology (C)(T) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For defence of decency.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, could you please take a look at my query about what the WMF lawyer has advised you and respond on WP:AN? Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the apparent balance of views on AN, I've recreated this article as a placeholder stub, pending further discussion. Hopefully this compromise will be OK with both sides in this discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Current_legal_cases. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, I hope you're not getting flak for this. I know you acted it good faith, and that you are an important part of the community and the work being done here. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure she isn't, I know I'd probably have done exactly the same in her position. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no connection with the case, other than growing up in Scotland and being of a similar age to Vicky Hamilton, but thank you for taking your stand for temporary deletion. If this court case had been thrown out because of the specific article on Tobin (as communicated to you), I would have been so disgusted with Wikipedia, I'd never have edited another article.--ML5 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of BSicons

Hi Alison,

you just reverted my edit on your page (and you have every right to do so), but I'd to know why you did that. The border/bridge combinations e.g. there is a full set of icons "GRENZE+BRÜCKE" and "GRENZE+WBRÜCKE", and the order of the name is not facultative – it's a border on a bridge, e(x)GRENZE+BRÜCKE is an erstwhile border on a bridge, not an erstwhile bridge on a border (which is meant by e(x)BRÜCKE+GRENZE).

And the WASSER icons are fixed by now in German and English WP! WASSER runs straight, WASSERq across, HWASSER is obsolete. Axpde (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the inherent complexity in the icon tables I revert all changes made by others, especially where they also delete icon series, as you did. That some series may be obsolete does not change the fact that the codes are still extant and icons still exist at those codes. My tables include all the icon series I can find and, as such, will remain in the tables on that basis for reference purposes. --AlisonW (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BSicon BRÜCKE+GRENZE.svg is just a redirect to Image:BSicon GRENZE+BRÜCKE.svg. I checked and fixed any occurrence of the redirect on every project (except for talk and user-pages), so there should be no need to list this redirect in your lists. Cheers Axpde (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: All Image:BSicon WBRÜCKE+GRENZE.svg icons are replaced with [:Image:BSicon GRENZE+WBRÜCKE.svg]] as well! Cheers Axpde (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BSicon HWBRÜCKE.svg and Image:BSicon exHWBRÜCKE.svg have been changed to the appropriate named icon worldwide, please delete it from your lists (already nominated for speed delete). Greets Axpde (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BSicon HBRÜCKE.svg and Image:BSicon exHBRÜCKE.svg have been changed to the appropriate named icon worldwide, please delete it from your lists (already nominated for speed delete). Greets Axpde (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted images drop out automatically (thanks to css they are not shown just like those which have never existed). There are two paired-line versions on the B+G so that code needs to remain.