User talk:AlisonW/Archive 4

Personal website
I am not using Wikipedia as a personal website. It is true that I have many subpages, but many are necessary for my userspace to be fully functional. I will not delete at least 65 subpages, as I believe that is an outrageously ridiculous answer. I will gladly delete defunct subpages for you, however. Those "personal" subpages you have referenced include an essay regarding Wikipedia, a secret page which I will refuse to delete, a navigation box, and a template for an inquiry form, which will be used if another user needs help. I am willing to reach a compromise between you and me, but I simply believe it is too outrageous to demand that I delete over 92% of my subpages. Please message me back, as I would like us to keep conversing about this. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  04:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As you may feel that way, I have deleted all of the subpages that were unnecessary. I now only have under 50 subpages. I don't know how I can delete more, and I doubt I'm able to. Please do not be hostile towards me, as I feel pressured to snap back at you, and I'm trying my hardest right now not to. I will take another look at it, and I will keep deleting subpages that are unnecessary. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just remembered a way I can delete more subpages yet keep it looking nice. In the end, all I'm asking is for a little more kindness. Your replies to me are very hostile, and should you keep it up, I may complain about you. This is not a threat, by the way. — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the change in tone. It's a nice positive start. I fixed what you asked, and I created a new box-header in my userspace (if you don't mind, because that's the only way I can do it), and it doesn't include the "edit" tab. For all sections that are applicable for the "edit" tab being there, like my secret page and my guestbook signatures, then I will leave it as the standard header with the "edit" tab. Also, thank you for noticing the positive things I've done instead of the negative. It means a lot. :) — Cuyler  91093  -  Contributions  18:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mixed lines
A suggestion for mixed line icon prefixes:

Some comments on the existing codes (See also User_talk:AlisonW/Archive 3 above):
 * Just one icon does not conform to the table above Image:BSicon vuxABZ3lg.svg, should be vue then.
 * vx - should not be used for mixed lines; the prefix should include an "u". This prefix is used only once, I've copied the icon Image:BSicon vxKBFe.svg -> Image:BSicon vueKBFe.svg according to the table above. The prefix vx may be needed for the dual lines feature, it contains some quite complex icons (the ÜST group), also, the xv prefix is allready used here.
 * I think this icon group has no need for different prefixes for line and line feature because these icons always designates a change of operations mode. A railway line e.g. will service railway stations, not metro stations. I think it is desirable to keep the number of different prefixes low.

regards, BjørnN (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am all too aware that that whole section is a mess, and also fails to include a code for where both the 'heavy rail' and 'light rail' are currently still in use (which I've needed lately but put off!). In essence it will need the 'feature' option available, though this might be one set of icons which are best accomplished by using multi-pictogram overlays. I haven't looked yet to see whether other projects have produced a workable solution already ... --AlisonW (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * btw, personally I would like to see the "v" in those mixed codes dropped entirely because of the possibility to mis-read a code as being a parallel lines one. "b" might be workable but I haven't seen yet how many places those many times the available pictograms are presently used. And yes, "u" should be there too but not as the first character. --AlisonW (talk)
 * There are 9 pictograms in question, being used 4 times in articles (besides the pictogram catalog), so an amendment isn't much work.
 * I agree that the "v" is confusing, maybe "mu" - mixed operation with underground (german: Mischbetrieb mit U-Bahn, most of the codes are extracted from the german language) would be obvious. BjørnN (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
There will be examples where the feature (eg a station) at the point of join could be open or closed and heavy or metro, as such we do need to 'break apart' the codes. Although you can't have an open station on a fully closed line (usually, anyway: I can think of examples in the UK though, annoyingly) then I think the following could work: ie. m-for-main (followed by 'e' if closed) then u-for-unter (again followed by 'e' if closed) and @ being an 'x' signifying the feature is closed( not required if both tail types closed) There is also a possible need for a 't' / tunnel addition too. There might also on some icons be the issue of which is 'on top' but hopefully that will be in the suffix codes ok. --AlisonW (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequent realisation. it is only now I've moved the pre-existing icons and added to the full listing that I realise that I've used the same code ('mux') twice. Doh ;-0 thinking... ::drops second usage in favour of 'meue' --AlisonW (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rail Icons redux
I have no problem if you wish to re-code the few mixed-mode icons that I have created for special purposes. I initially chose "v" for variant as the prefix but any other letter is acceptable to me. Well done for all the effort in pulling together such a comprehensive list of icons. --DavidCane (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Morden Map
I did consider at one point changing the map mock-up to show Morden as North Morden. but I thought it best to retain the actual current names of the station rather than a proposed but unused alternative. Following the principle seen elsewhere on the Underground, if Morden had been North Morden, Morden South would most probably been South Morden and changing both would have probably been confusing. --DavidCane (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rail pictograms
Thanks for reminding me. I feel really sorry, as i haven't notice that the information box should be changed too. I will correct them now, for those icons created by any others. I apologise for my negligence again. – PeterCX &amp;Talk 09:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And for 'why you thought the codes were incorrect', I guess you know more than me. There is an one-to-one correspondance for e- and ue- prefix, and ex- and uex- prefix. Scanning your icon table horizontally you should know how to name new icons. I am also quite curious why you have chosen those inconsistent names for those icons.

There is only one name for each icon, and unlike other pictures on the commons, which they can be uploaded using other names, the only method for BSicons is to move them and reupload them. Hope you can accept this explanation, and, mind your tone. – PeterCX &amp;Talk 10:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This time I would like to notify that I have edited nearly all of the dashed GRENZE series icons, including your 4 newly added icons. Please don't think that I am aiming at doing what you have just contributed; in fact I was unifying to a standard dash width, length, position and space size. The new standard code for the dash is  , in case you need it when working on mixed lines. =) – PeterCX &amp;Talk 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OT
True, true ... :-) 90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Valley Lines
Sorry to bother you again with this matter, but I'm having some trouble again with 90.203.45.168 who keeps reverting my logical edits on Valley Lines without giving reasons and has also just broken the 3 Revert Rule. Could you help sort thsi matter out please? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see WL is back to their usual manner of representing situations to fit their own ends again. The edit is not logical.  WL has been asked to justify their formatting changes, and has repeatedly refused to do so.  I really don't want to end up down the same road as we've already been, but, as I put to you previously, it is clear that WL has an agenda to increase the prominence of Cardiff everywhere, not content to allow the facts to speak for themselves.  90.203.45.168 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find my reasons on the talk page of Valley Lines. Where are yours? Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow
Hi, I noticed that you updated the infobox for Glasgow. However, as the article is about the city and not the "conurbation", I am inclined to think you should consider semi-reverting yourself, or at least taking it to the discussion page. I feel that the city population should be comparable with similar articles on cities; what do you think? --John (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel sure that your intentions were good, but it looks a little OR-y to me. The figures have been the subject of much debate on the article, and it would be better to achieve consensus in talk I think. --John (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed in your response, and I'm raising it in talk. Good day to you. --John (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram codes - tUKRZu and tUKRZo
Hi again. You're correct these are miscoded. I put them together for a request on the icons talk page and didn't think the logic of the codes through properly. Taking tKRZt as a starting point, I think the codes should be instead: tKRZtZu and tKRZtZo. --DavidCane (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern City Line
Thanks for correcting the routemap on this page. When I added the extra detail (disused Finsbury Park station platform in tunnel) the appropriate icon was not available. Inevitably I forgot about it... EdJogg (talk) 10:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at regarding. I noticed this and could see no evidence that you were informed, as you should have been, that a centralised discussion on your behaviour was taking place. I still have some concerns about your tone here, and it seems that others may share my concern. Whether this merits admin action seems doubtful, but it seems only fair to let you know that your tone can come across as being a little abrasive sometimes. Your edit here introduced an error into the article; we can all make mistakes but perhaps you should be more careful about assuming bad faith from other editors in future. Best, --John (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Central Line RDT
Could i ask you to look over the Central Line? Simply south (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It puts many things in context (although not to scale) and i have a feeling Wood Lane is actually between the two tunnels.


 * I created based on the many RDTs on the standard national rail lines that i and others have created and edited. This is the first time i have done a metro line (or one for the LU). Simply south (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And the new Wood Lane on H&C, but overground.


 * It took me ages to do the template. I wonder how the old Wood Lane could be represented and also the right-side-running between Shepherd's Bush and East Acton. Simply south (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: User categories
You may be interested in participating in the discussion at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia
Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk  19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikia is not...
Alison, what are the grounds for this template? It seems completely un-neutral and COI. Just because the Foundation has a communication problem, does not mean that articles can be changed to promote that message, any more than if, say Microsoft had a communications problem. This is editorial integrity. Rich Farmbrough, 20:59 5 February 2008 (GMT).
 * Yes, I've seen your comment and, I have to say, was extremely surprised at how wrong it was. The grounds for this are the long-term stability or Wikipedia and the other WMF projects. To raise money and keep them advert-free we rely on donations, indeed we just finished a recent drive last month. Trouble is the press (be it written, spoken or visual) keep getting us (WMF projects like Wikipedia which are charitable, non-profit, a foundation) muddled up with Wikia (commercial, incorporated profit-making public company) and think that somehow Wikia is our 'commercial arm' and pays lots of money to Wikipedia. This error - which sadly keeps getting repeated all too frequently - will make it harder and harder to keep Wikipedia and the other projects we all know and love going in their present state and *everything* that can be done to try to ensure people realise that though Jimmy started the ball rolling on both he neither owns nor controls either, nor are the two legally connected. Every little that helps message get out helps us raise money to keep Wikipedia going. --AlisonW (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand that there's a line between the activities of the editorial staff and the promotional staff (in this case, between the activities of individuals when acting in those separate capacities). This is not the Wikipedia: namespace. There is also a difference between truth and verifiability. Wikipedians, of all people, should know that. If you believe this is a matter of material interest to readers, find references that support it (both the confusion and the rebuttal) and add them to the article. Making bald statements of fact that are not backed up by anything just makes it look like we're not following our own policy - because we're not. GreenReaper (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen your comment and, I have to say, was extremely surprised at how wrong it was. I think the outcome of the TFD shows that the community has a pretty good idea of what was "wrong" and it wasn't removing the template or questioning it's presence. Maybe something to think about when considering how you engage with the community? --87.113.0.131 (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

User:CordeliaHenrietta
Alison, I don't have a fixed opinion on whether we should keep and use Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia‎; both sides have their merits. I think, however, that your threat of a block was coming on strong in this context. Unless I'm missing something, CordeliaHenrietta looks like an established editor, not a vandal. --A. B. (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In that there is a direct statement on the template to *not* remove it from articles, then yes CordeliaHenrietta's deletion of it from Wikia does meet the definition of vandalism so far as I am concerned. That and trolling, given that immediately afterwards the template got put up for deletion by that same user. The matter will be dealt with internally. --AlisonW (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the TfD nomination is trolling and I note that other editors (not myself) also agree with her point of view. As for your comment, "The matter will be dealt with internally" -- yikes, that sounds sort of ominous. --A. B. (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I notice that the template page itself has a notice about not removing the template, but editors don't see that unless they go back to Template:Wikia is not Wikipedia. If they just read the Wikia is not Wikipedia notice at the top of the Wikia page, they don't get that message. Perhaps it would help to leave the same comment hidden directly under the template on the Wikia page using  --A. B. (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea; I shall do so now. Thanks. --AlisonW (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And that direct statement would be issued upon whose authority, exactly? I'm sure I could think of plenty of situations where it'd be just fantastic to be able to impose rules upon others. "This edit is *not* to be removed"? Achromatic (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * TfD is as good as palce as any to get a wider range of people commenting on the issue rather than an obscure template takl palk page that not many people are likely to find. "Dealth with internally"? Thanks, but no thanks, I'm not sticking around to have my punishment dealt out for me. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk  23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also note that there is no command within the template not to remove it; I removed the template before I visited the template page. I don't know if you've been around for long, but you might like to familiarise yourself with policies like WP:AGF. CordeliaHenrietta ↔ Talk  23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning on use of admin tools
I would urge you to remove your threat of admin actions. You are not allowed to use your admin tools in any dispute you are presently involved in. Note my response here. Thank you. Lawrence § t/e 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alison, admins aren't empowered to block people over content disputes they're involved in. If this is so critical that you believe people removing the template should be blocked immediately as vandals, then as I understand our policies, you need to get this added to the WP:OFFICE list.


 * As a practical matter, I think taking a hard line here will just fuel pro-deletion sentiment at the TfD. It may blow up in your face, too, with Arbcoms, RfCs, and general wikidrama. There's rising righteous indignation in the air and that's often a bad sign. --A. B. (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be quite clear, if you are to block Lawrence over this, I would be willing to unblock. This is not designated as an office requirement, he is well within his rights to remove content he believes to be inappropriate. Your indirect characterization of that as vandalism is highly inappropriate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia look really bad
Your behavior surrounding this template about Wikia is having exactly the opposite effect than you intended. -- Man On The Scene (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NDT for why we don't do this. —Random832 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you actually read that page: I quote ...''"For the purpose of this guideline, disclaimers are templates ... that duplicates the information at one of the five official disclaimer pages:

* General disclaimer * Use Wikipedia at your own risk * Wikipedia does not give medical advice * Wikipedia does not give legal opinions * Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable Templates that provide content warnings but do not duplicate these disclaimers, such as current, disputed, or POV are permitted." ie a template indicating that 'Wikia is not Wikipedia' is completely permitted. --AlisonW (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Thomas article
hello -- wondering if you're willing to take a peek at the ongoing edit war involving Rivenburg and several others re: the inventor of the TV dinner. This fellow Rivenburg is back at it defending his prior controversial work as a reporter at the LA Times -- ironically involving another deceased man named Thomas whom he went after as an octogenarian and again immediately after the man died. 32.157.82.218 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking
Hi Alison, Do you know if Wikipedia has a policy on users stalking other users, ie. a certain user checking what another user is editing and then editing such articles in a way contradicting the victim user? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See Harassment. Prodego  talk 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Alison Wheeler at AfD
Another editor has listed an article that you have been involved in editing, Alison Wheeler, at Articles for deletion/Alison Wheeler (2nd nomination). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sappho (organisation)
Another editor has added the  template to the article Sappho (organisation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Northern Line map
Re your edit comment on this template. There are other reasons than compression to use two the column format: having some names on the other side of the line improves clarity, and a horizontal line with a station can have a label at each end. I thought the central area would look too busy compressed but it's a close run thing. While I'm here could you possibly add the icons for a motorway where the road is vertical and the line is horizontal, in red and blue. This would help me make specific improvements to the eastern end of the Central Line template. Thanks! Britmax (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)