User talk:AlisonW/Archive 2

Treasure Valley Rollergirls
Please replace the Treasure Valley Rollergirls article. Not only is it a tyro bona fide Division Three roller derby league, there's a brand-new citation in the local media, namely Thrive. I put to you that the TVR is indeed significant as a) a DIY, grass roots effort which is one part of b) the current roller derby revival.
 * That article was tagged for 'speedy deletion' by another editor on the grounds that the subject - Treasure Valley Rollergirls - isn't that notable. I looked at the article and agreed with the editor who tagged it and so I deleted it as, basically, it was one line of information and a list of people. It didn't meet our standards for notability, basically, although the basic information about the team (ie excluding the names) would certainly be relevant on an article about the roller derby league it is difficult to see that individual articles on each division or every team would become important enough in their own right. --AlisonW 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I suspect that this shall change as derby's popularity increases.  I have redirected "TVR" and "Treasure Valley Rollergirls" to Wiki's "List of roller derby leagues"; people can still dig out the information they want.  Kencf 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Business conference
I fail to see how this link describes how to organize a business conference. --WikiCats 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you might be right with that one. Useful information but the current tag isn't as accurate as it might once have been. --AlisonW 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The links are spam and have no useful content that describes business conferences. --WikiCats 11:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lakeport Brewing company image
Hi, you deleted the image used in the Lakeport Brewing Company article recently and I'm still sort of unclear on the reasoning. It's been suggested to me that a free alternative exists in the fair use criteria actually means it is possible for someone to create a free alternative but this is hard for me to read into Publicity photos or reconcile it with Category:Promotional images which is filled (for example) with images of specific car brands, athletes, actos, what have you all of which seem to be essentially identical in circumstance to the one I was trying to use in the Lakeport article. If you have time, I was hoping you could clear this up for me. Thanks WilyD 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, the image you were using isn't a 'free' image for Wikipedia. It can't be reused elsewhere in the same way all our GFDL text and the majority of other images can be because it is a publicity image supplied by Lakeport and has restrictions on what can be done with it. In order that Wikipedia can meet its intention of providing free and open content that anyone can use then it needs to be replaced by an image that lets us continue to do that. The easiest way being to buy three bottles similar to those previously pictured, and take a photo yourself of them! You are also welcome to drink the contents, of course ;-P --AlisonW 13:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but can you be less "basic" than that? Fair use images are used all the time, for things one could easily take a picture of. There are an uncountably large number of such photos in use - are they all inappropriate?  To pick an example where I don't get the difference, the article on Aaron Hill (baseball player) uses a publicitiy photo, where anyone could just go to a Blue Jays game and snap a photo - is that use inappropriate?  What is it about the Lakeport image that made its use inappropriate while tons of other publicty photos are used?  Or are they all inappropriate? Given the existence of Category:Promotional images that seems unlikely to me, but I may be mistaken.  WilyD 14:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * While Fair use images are used all the time is true it is also a serious problem. "Fair use" doesn't apply outside the USA and also requires a number of legal tests to be passed. Wikipedia needs to remove - eventually - as many fair use images as possible and yes, publicity department-supplied pictures of baseball players amongst them. That category is currently being used as the basis for finding the images we need to most urgently replace. For more about how Wikipedia sees this problem refer to Fair use. --AlisonW 14:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use
I'm pretty confused by this new update about FU for living people. See for instance - there is a disclaimer at the website which seems to imply that it is copyrighted, but non-profit distribution/use which is not misused for pornopgraphy/obscenity, etc against the US Olympic Committee is  allowed - does that make it "free" for non-profit promotion purposes, or does this need to be deleted. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it isn't usable by WP projects in the long term *because* there are limitations on the use. Wikipedia is around to let people everywhere have access and that means that we don't want to have content that can't be reused elsewhere. An image that can *only* be used on Wikipedia might be fine for someone reading us online on Wikipedia, but isn't acceptable for the other uses people make for our content - on CDs, DVDs, course materials, etc. Ideally someone will have a camera around when Ryan is next 'doing his thing' and supply a photo that can be freely used. --AlisonW 09:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Pending issue
Hi, AlisonW. The September 9 Fair use clarifications generated a lot of heat discussions, with some editors claiming that it was more of a policy change than a simply clarification of an already existing (but often misinterpreted) policy. Some users complained that you were acting on your own while "changing" the policy, rather than expressing Jimbo's view on the matter.

The user Crzrussian, in a (imho) very sensible move, left a message to Jimbo Wales asking for a confirmation of your statements in regard of your IRC conversation with Jimbo that led to the policy clarifications. After this move, the discussions somewhat coolled, as if everybody silently agreed that to wait for Jimbo's word was the best thing to do.

It has been some few days since Crzrussian's message and no word from Jimbo. I know his a busy person, and so are you, but.. can you, in some way, ask him to drop a note about the issue? It's doesn't need to be more that "Yes, AlisonW is right" or "No way.". Thanks in advance. Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've no idea which country he is in, and although I'll probably have an IRC log of his confirmation that the new paragraphs (which I note have been extensively edited since) are good copying IRC logs is generally not permitted! I'll see if I can track him down. --AlisonW 09:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion has just been automatically archived from his talk page, without a word from him about the matter :( --Abu Badali 10:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe he has been travelling a lot (as per usual, really!) so quite possibly never saw the comment in his talk page, though I did mention it to the office. Looking at FU's talkpage things seem to have settled down (somewhat) but if this is still an issue I'll chase it up further. --AlisonW 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe things have settled down exaclty because, after the message was left to Jimbo, a "truce" has been silently declared and images are not being nominated for deletion based on the new clarification. I know of whole categories of images that should be deleted if that wording is confirmed, but I can forsee the hot waters one would put himsself into while trying to enforce the policy as it is explained now.
 * I highly appreciate you efforts in this issue so far, and if it's really not an abuse of your dedication, I'd like to accept your proposal to chase it further. And let me know if I could be of any help on this matter. Best regards, --Abu Badali 01:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use images
Greetings. I understand you are interested in, and knowlegeable about, Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. As I understand it, "reproduceable" non-free images are not allowed on Wikipedia. For some time, there has existed a Fair use replace which was designed to fix the problem. Unfortunately, the tag is simply ignored 99% of the time. The tag also says that violating images should be replaced "as soon as possible", but allows the images to exist on Wikipedia until then. But as I understand it, these images are not allowed on Wikipedia at all, and should be deleted (rather than kept until a replacement is found, if one ever is). With that in mind, I created a new template that tags offending images as violation WP:FUC #1, and says they may be deleted in seven days if no one contests the assertion that the image is "replaceable". Discussion is ongoing here, and I would appreciate your input. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mywikibiz sockpuppets
Hi. Apparently, the blog of mywikibiz identifies you as their archennemy, I thought you might have some info to add to this sockpuppetry case I opened against various usernames used to edit in favor of their clients. Suspected sock puppets/Bborn (edit by User:Pascal.Tesson


 * Oh my. I don't think I've been one of them before and I've no idea why I might be public enemy #1 in his eyes. Thanks for the update though! --AlisonW 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Adapted Image of logo (extinct institution) - ok? (opinion)
Alison, I see you've contributed on copyright issues etc. I'd be most grateful if you could have a glance at (image removed) which I've just added. I hope this type of graphic adaptation is ok; - I'd value your comments. Thanks, Wikityke 16:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos
I've noticed you are a graphic designer and have a big say here on wikipedia, you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Village_pump_(proposals) and on my talk page. Thanks!FrummerThanThou 05:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record - reply
Hi Alison - thanks for the heads-up. Yes, the article was by me - hope it didn't offend. Tomandlu 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Boateng
I have reverted additional information on his son a few times. I see you have done so too. Should there be any additional measures as it does not seem like this reversion war is going to stop anytime soon.--Natsubee 11:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your response appreciated.--Natsubee 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Leicester University Law Society
Hey Alison, I am not quite sure as to whether you can help me: however, I saw your name on the list of admins, as I need to contact one of you on a matter regarding the page given above. In addition, I also felt it would be appropriate since you have experienced student politics at Open University.

Apparently, contrary to real facts, the name of the 2005-06 President "Prashant Sabharwal" is being changed to "Rick Line" or "Richard Line", which happens to be wrong. I am a Leicester student and know that the latter was not involved in the presidency. I have reverted this several times, with clear reasoning given. However, my corrections and requests have been ignored by a certain user who keeps replacing the name.

To make matters easier for you, if need be, I could provide you with the email addresses of Faculty members who will be able to confirm my assertions. May I ask you to protect the article in the version that acknowledges Prashant as the 2005-06 President and also ask any users (including the creator of the page, who erroneously put the other name as well) to refrain from changing this version. I'd appreciate a brief response (maybe on my talk page?), as well as your willingness to read this query of mine. Let me know what the best course of action might be in such a case. Thanks a lot, it's really appreciated! Leicchaucer 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium
Or however you spell it. Right now, you've wheel-warred to get the article deleted, and that's problematic in itself. Beyond that, on a more meta level, we have an open AfD for the article and an open DRV for your deletion. You'd probably save a lot of hassle on all fronts if you could undelete the article so the AfD could run through and we can reach a resolution. Do you think that's possible? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (posted here in case anyone else follows this thread, but also copied to your talkpage). You are out of date and should check as to who last deleted it. No wheel-warring from my POV btw, as the reinstatement was out of process, but that is now by-the-by. --AlisonW 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I noticed your comment on the Archimedes Plutonium talk page. It was pretty well spot-on. It may be helpful if you left something similar at Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_1. Thanks. FNMF 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was reversed to not continue the wheel warring you had begun. Ah well, hoped you might be able to help.  Sorry if you get bit in the ass for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason not to undelete this, with all the significant content hidden in the history, and the actual article stubbed (as it was in the last revision before you re-deleted) while the AfD is pending? It is very hard for there to be a useful AfD discussion when people cannot see the article. Note that I asked User:Herostratus who most recently deleted it, and he said that he had been accused of wheel-warring for undoing your delete. I therefore am asking you to reverse your own action and undelete, for the sole purpose of allowing non-admins to see the article they are supposed to be discussing at the currently ongoing AfD. DES (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alison, your deletion of this article was wheel warring. My own desire to not wheel war made me quickly reverse my undeletion, but left me at a disadvantage. It is an an odd situation and I don't see the harm of undeleting it until the AfD is done so that people can see what the article they are being asked to comment on. Herostratus 23:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

LondonGazette
Hi, Alison, thanks for your question. The reason I have changed all the page numbers in the references that use the template is that I have modified the way the template works and that these are indeed the page numbers used by the Gazette.

When I first created the template, I linked it to the current London Gazette search page at http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/generalArchive.asp?webType=0. This search engine generates a URL which refers to the physical page (sheet) in the actual issue starting at 1 in each issue. It appears, however, that the London Gazette numbers its pages sequentially with page numbers continuing from one issue to the next so that one issue may end on page 2000 and the next start at 2001. For example:
 * shows the last page as 8956
 * shows the first page as 8957.

Presumably, this is so that when bound into annual or quarterly volumes the numbers are continuous. I have not had time to investigate yet, but I suspect that the numbering restarts at the beginning of each year.

The London Gazette has a new beta test site with a better search engine at http://beta.gazettes-online.co.uk/AdvancedSearch.aspx. This engine generates the URL in a different format to the first engine and uses the number that appears at the top of each sheet in its URL. As the beta engine will eventually replace the current engine, I have changed the template to employ its format and changed all of the pages in the effected references, so that when the old site is taken down the links are not broken. The old site also occasionally fails to display a page even when the URL is correctly formatted.

There appears to be no way of using the physical page number in the new URL rather than the sequential number. At the moment, I am the only person who has used the template so I wanted to make the change before it came into more widespread use. I'm glad to see you had noticed its existence - there are centuries of records in the database and it is a fantastic source of reference material on all sorts of governmental, royal, official and personal business.--DavidCane 19:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Amount or number
Hi. With regard to your recent edit to The Moral Dimension, Ask Oxford defines 'amount' as meaning "the total number, size, value, or extent of something" or "a quantity". Although there's nothing wrong with 'number', I can't see how you can regard an 'amount' as only referring to something that is weighed, given the definition. Chris 42 22:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Amount" is used where there might be an indeterminate portion. As people don't tend to stay alive if there is only a portion of them around then you only ever have a 'number' of people (ie you can count them, though it may take some time). --AlisonW 10:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Election Expenses
Thank you for your message. I have responded on my talk page. B1atv 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alison ;) just a quick query here, regarding the above account. You've placed the banned template on the page User:Rivenburg, but I can't actually find any discussion leading to the ban. Could you help me out here? Cheers, Anthøny 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied by private email. --AlisonW 14:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)