User talk:AlisonW/Archive 6

This is an archive page. It is a record of past discussions. Do not edit or add here.

Multi-generational Ponzi scheme

I think you have been recently involved in some related edits--you might be interested what i said on the talk p. DGG (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing that piece of POV **** to my attention. --AlisonW (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon Staff Halt

Your not-express icon seems better than my HST. Should it be there? An online 2007 reference quotes the timetable for trains using it. It is visible from passing trains, not so long ago it had a station name sign. So it is/was a little grander than the scattering of disused walkways for carriage cleaners.--SilasW (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WLL. And BS#s

Well thanks for reinstating my WLL. As for BS-numbers: - when tarting up an existing template (and initially taking its data as true) it's always useful to go for a high number from the start (eg change all BS5 to BS8|||) for there's no telling what other details will then come out of the woodwork or later need modifying. I think the "old" WLL template was a mixture of several numbers. After just about finishing WLL I re-centered it in its BS8s to allow for expansion on both sides.--SilasW (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Rail Icons

I have created two new icons which I needed for the template Wymondham to Wells branch. I have inserted File:BSicon euABZdrl3.svg into Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/junctions#3-way branches and junctions but I don't quite know where to put File:BSicon euKBFe.svg on Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/stations, or even if the first one is in the right place. It's a bit tricky because it involves a "light railway" built on the disused track of a standard gauge line.

Since starting to write this message I have found File:BSicon meuKBFa.svg which is a 180-degree rotated version of File:BSicon euKBFe.svg. Should mine be deleted and re-uploaded as File:BSicon meuKBFe.svg? I have a nasty feeling File:BSicon euABZdrl3.svg should probably be File:BSicon meuABZdrr.svg - A v. confused -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name File:BSicon euKBFe.svg is wrong since we have a mixed heavy/light rail icon, should be File:BSicon uxmKBFe.svg (u must be in front to render BSu-template working! x instead of e since the station is still in use!) axp_de ^Hello! 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: File:BSicon meuKBFa.svg is wrong as well, should be File:BSicon uxmKBFa.svg for the same reason! axp_de ^Hello! 16:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Hide/Show problem

When I expanded Template:North London Line and included a collapsing Hide/Show for notes of what was happening south of Stratford then hitting that Hide/Show caused the displayed map to get broken. Sameboat fixed the problem but in the last few days the trouble has re-appeared though the circumstances that cause it are not clear, sometimes hitting the Hide/Show of the template itself has allowed the embedded Show/Hide to work, sometimes not. Sameboat changed some of the BSs in my sandbox (which otherwise is a copy of Template:North London Line) and that worked temporarily, but not now. Sameboat and I have corresponded via our talk pages, every time I think I have found that the problem has gone away or can be cured by this or that ritual it later reappears. Sameboat's latest thought seems to be that someone with higher authority may have changed something. I hope it is not disrespectful to you or him to ask if you can suggest a fix.--SilasW (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need an admin thoughts on this

Yesterday i was looking up on the Human article and went into its talk page. What i saw on the Conservation status bit, it looked to me like editors having a general discussions as if was a forum and went off topic from what the section was orginally about and i thought maybe remind them that articles talk pages are about improving articles not about having a general discussion then all i know is i think one of em implied it was a consensus, i would like your input to see if it really is a general discussion and not about improving the article or if its the otherway around (which doesnt look like it to me) thanks. Pro66 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images at West Ealing

Can i just make sure i'm not the only one seeing this? When you went to or go to the West Ealing station article, do yo see a blurred London Underground logo as well as a blurred man in the gallery? Simply south not SS, sorry 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um ... er ... nope, neither. I even looked at the four images and still see neither. Take a break from the screen, you're getting retina burn-in! --AlisonW (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I refereshed the page after going back a few times and it returned to normal. Never mind. Simply south not SS, sorry 18:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands Light Railway

Hi, I noticed that you had reverted all my DLR edits about the Woolwich Arsenal Extension. When the 10th January arrived, you could have at least put my edits back. Eg. London City Airport DLR station, Pontoon Dock DLR station and others. Thanks. Lunchscale ^Talk! ^Contrib! 19:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your fan!

Could you please take a look at the work of Renxu350 and give them some advice. All the user pages were originally in the main namespace with Alison Wheeler ... titles! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

obsolete icons

Hi Alison, please delete File:BSicon SBHF1.svg and File:BSicon uSBHF1.svg from your list, I checked and changed any occurance of those icons worldwide, now they aren't used anymore aside on your list. Thank you! axp_de ^Hello! 12:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this previously, but my pages only pick up icons which *exist*. If it doesn't exist it won't be displayed (thanks to css) so, in the case of the first of those, it is already not displayed. When the other is deleted it too will disappear though I do note there doesn't presently appear to be a direct replacement. Is there a replacement code? --AlisonW (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSicon uS+BHF.svg is supposed to be the replacement for the second one, it's already in your list, and it also fixed the color problem (heavy rail station on a light rail track?!?).

The problem on commons was an admin declined to delete the picture because it is "in scope" (i.e. in your list), and you want to list it as long as it isn't deleted. I'd call that a stalemate situation ...

uSBHF1 is the last icon using that old name, if you cancel the corresponding line noone will notice, but the icon can safely be deleted! Greets axp_de ^Hello! 18:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent and East Sussex Railway diagram

The {{Kent and East Sussex Railway}} diagram needs tweaking. Robertsbridge should show as a cross-platform interchange. I've looked, but can't find the correct symbols to show this. Maybe you would be kind enough to create them? Mjroots (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I noticed you've protected sections of the Rail Icons list in your userspace. Sorry if I was the cause of this - As those pages are 'marketed' as the complete list of all BSicons, I genuinely didn't think it was an issue to add extra lines where icons were missing. Then again, perhaps I just didn't think. Out of interest, why revert the addition of helpful information like that? Finally, the link you provided to WP:PPOL basically says user pages should only ever be semi-protected, not fully protected... I'm slightly confused... --Peeky44 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you first clicked edit you will have not had any choice but to see a warning about editing those pages and the risk it presents, hence why all edits to my *userspace* pages are reverted without fail in order that I can easily confirm their status by knowing that the last (and ideally all) edit is by me. When someone doesn't do as requested (ie. doesn't comment on the overall or the specific talkpage) I revert then inspect what they may have been trying to do. In this case whilst you added one dual-line set you didn't add the associated one in the opposite sense (and one I had it was clear some icons have been created since that pageset were last checked). Yes, I attempt to maintain it as an 'as near as I can make it' complete list of BSicons, but it is in user-space because it relies on CSS to suppress missing elements. The control of safety makes that the best way to maintain accuracy for everyone to have access to. I'm sure you meant well, but that is the way I'm managing the service, thanks. ps. All the pages used to be full security for ages but there was an issue with deletion of superceded icons; I meant to reinstate it a while back but had forgotten. Quoting WP:PPOL was just a quick way to mark them as I went through them all. --AlisonW (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I don't recall seeing a warning on clicking 'edit' - I don't know if that's because it didn't show up or (more likely) I just wanted to get on and add the icons I'd created so other people and articles can use them. It never occurred to me to check a list of icon's talk page, I don't know why but I suppose it was a misapplication of WP:BOLD. I'll list the icons on the relevant talk pages. Thank you for having this list, it's served us all very well.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		AlisonW, I award you this Barnstar for your brilliant idea of having BSicons in one (well, 2/4 now) central place. I don't know how rail route templates managed before you. Peeky44 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually there are currently two 'consolidation pages' and 13 'icon group' pages at the moment, plus two more covering related stuff. The request to not edit is at the top of each page as an html comment, btw. --AlisonW (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page to award you a similar barnstar for this work, so I'll just add a metaphorical bar to the one above. Thank you from another grateful user of your rail icon summaries, which have allowed me to devote several hours to improving Wikipedia rather than finding icons. Certes (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help

A user (quickwash) keep promoting himself as the inventor or developer of Secure SMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSMS). That page was originally directed I added a 'original research' tag to that page but he removed it. I look forward fr your response. Thanks. Shayan.mashatian (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at both this and the related article it appears that both of you are using Wikipedia as a location to have an argument between either yourselves or your respective employers - I can't quite work out which. For the moment I will not take action but I will continue to monitor and, should I feel it the appropriate action, stop the pair of you from mis-using the wikipedia editing facility. --AlisonW (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icon request

Could you create a tweaked version of File:BSicon vexBHF-BHF.svg please? The tweak I would like is to remove the continuation at top right. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also need two more icons created. eABZ3rf with half a HST on the right of it, and eABZ3lf with half a HST on the left. Need these for use on the diagram for the Ipswich to Ely Line to enable Waterbeach to be shown. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template modification

O AlisonW!
Sameboat, to whom I have sent a like message, shortened the long catalog of rail map icons by moving most into lists by type with links in the shortened article, and in those lists, to the new lists.
Now a template ("X") in all route maps calls up the original list, but that has been cut down, and so to find particular icons needs further scrolling and clicking. It might be more convenient if template(X) were altered (or replaced by another) to show the links for the sub-lists (and similar icon lists) directly.
Fading memory and all the current left-is-right, right-is-wrong, ~~---~~ is -H, ~~---~~ is -q, what-is-3, I-am-right, U-R-wrong chaos means one often has to consult a list.
A very imperfect try at showing my thought is here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasW (talk • contribs) , 14:43, 2. Mai 2009

Help with railway template

Hi, I am translating a large no. of railway articles from German to English Wikipedia. In most cases the templates come across okay now, but the Template:BS-daten one has been half-translated, so that the images don't work unless you translate the field names each time. The rest of the fields have been left in German. I've tried to add the German fields so that the template works with e.g. "IMAGE" as well as "BILDPFAD_FOTO", but it messed up. Can you help? --Bermicourt (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the bold step of converting it back to the German fieldnames and losing the English ones. Funny old thing, some of my articles now sport images! But I need to check I haven't messed up any that used the English names. I'd still like it to handle both though! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: socionics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright & fair-use rationale of SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of Stirling

Hi - could you please have a look here and perhaps say something about why it was considered necessary to delete the paragraph in question even though it was properly sourced. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the correspondence concerned and whilst I concur that the paragraph should remain absent for the moment I believe this is likely to be a short-term measure whilst clarifications are sought. --AlisonW (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find icons

Hi, I'm drawing a map for the layout at Wantage Road - see the "Wantage Tramway at Wantage Road" heading in my sandbox. I can't finish it because I can't find a particular icon for CPIC. The situation is that Wantage Road station on the main line was on the western side of the road bridge (present A338), whereas the tramway station was on the eastern side of the same road. The two were connected by a pedestrian footway, which passed through an additional arch in the road bridge. I want to represent this footway by means of CPIC. I have two alternatives.

Consider first the left-hand diagram. I've used icon uexSTRlf as a placeholder for the icon that I 'really want - a similarly-shaped curve but in the grey of CPIC, in order to connect the eCPICa to the exCPICra.

Failing that, see the right-hand diagram. Here I have used a plain exKBHFa to represent the missing icon - possibly described as "interchange Line start left bottom (large)" - essentially a exKBHFa plus a grey CPIC connection going out of the top.

My preferred method would be the first - I want a lateral displacement, because the A338 passes between the sites of the two stations. I've popped some references in there in case you wish to examine a map. Or, have I misunderstood CPIC entirely - in which case I'll omit all CPIC representation. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need now, Sameboat - 同舟 has provided a solution. Thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry icon label

Hi, I noticed that the label for the ferry icon in table 13 on Rail Icons Page 2 is missing a "y" - it says "Ferr" instead of "Ferry", just thought I'd let you know as I can't fix it myself. Hope this helps! Huangcjz (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Cute

(diatribe and threat removed. Nobody tells me what to do, and that includes you)

Missing prefix for mixed type

Hello. I have been trying to make a rail map including both light and heavy rail, and found that there are discrepancies in how images are named. After looking at your rail legend, I noticed the reason for the incorrect images - there is a missing prefix. Considering there are 2 elements to an image, each element could be light or heavy, and in use or not in use, there should be 8 prefixes (2*2*2). However, there are currently only 7 (mu, mux, mue, muex, meu, meux, and meue) in use. Although the legend tries to define the prefixes, they do not define the elements as primary vs. secondary. That, with the missing prefix, causes people to not know where to put the images, so some have been named incorrectly. You can see this problem clearly via the ABZ codes at User:AlisonW/Rail Icons2#2-way branches and junctions. There needs to be another prefix added - meuex seems logical. Once the prefix is established, the legend should be updated and clarified, and finally the images can be properly placed. Here's a table showing the prefixes, how they are used, the documentation in the legend, and comments about what is wrong.

prefix	primary element	secondary element	legend documentation	comments
mu	light open	heavy open	Open(H) & Open(L)	consistent
mux	heavy open	light open	Open(H) & Open(L)	consistent
mue	heavy open	light closed	Open(H) & Closed(L)	inconsistent - ABZlg & ABZ3_lg wrong
muex	light closed	heavy open	Open(H) & Closed(L)	inconsistent - ABZlg & ABZgf wrong
meu	heavy closed	light open	Closed(H) & Open(L)	consistent
meux	light open	heavy closed	Closed(H) & Open(L)	inconsistent - ABZrg wrong
meue	heavy closed	light closed	Closed(H) & Closed(L)	inconsistent - ABZlg wrong
meuex	light closed	heavy closed	-	new

As you can see, there are only a few in the ABZ codes that are improperly named. I'm not sure what the original intention was with the prefix schema, but there doesn't seem to be a pattern in how it was implemented. Since there has been a mostly consistent pattern of how they were used, adding the new prefix meuex as I have defined it above seems easiest. If you would add the prefix to your tables, I could clarify and update the legend and move the images to their proper names. Thanks. --Scott Alter 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but all those icons starting with "m..." are all incorrect, especially those "meue" and "meuex" prefixes. The system is rather simple, have a look:

prefix	code	main track	add. track
m	mKRZ	heavy open	light open
em	mKRZ	heavy open	light close
xm	mKRZ	heavy closed	light open
exm	mKRZ	heavy closed	light closed
um	mKRZ	light open	heavy open
uem	mKRZ	light open	heavy closed
uxm	mKRZ	light close	heavy open
uexm	mKRZ	light closed	heavy closed

prefix	track	feature
(no u or m)	heavy	heavy
u	light	light
m	heavy	light
u…m	light	heavy

prefix	track	feature
(no e or x)	open	open
e	open	closed
x	closed	open
ex	closed	closed

Most important:

no double meaning as in mue(x) ↔ meu(x),
no double character 'e' as in meue(x)"!

Greets! axp_de ^Hello! 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that you fixed this a few months ago in the legend at Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms, but it is still incorrect at User:AlisonW/Rail Icons and commons:User:AlisonW/Rail Icons. Why are there multiple copies of the same legend? One would figure that a template would be used to prevent this type of confusion - or just have one in one place and link to it. If the prefixes you mentioned are the correct ones and there are many images with incorrect prefixes, hasn't anyone come across this problem before? Has no one bothered to try and use the correct names of the images, only to find that they do not work? How about we fix all of the legends, the tables of User:AlisonW/Rail Icons & commons:User:AlisonW/Rail Icons, and start standardizing the images? It seems like most of the images in commons:Category:Icons for railway descriptions/mixed are incorrect. They should probably be depreciated and the correct images should be put in commons:Category:Icons for railway descriptions/set mixed. I don't think there needs to be two categories for mixed icons. --Scott Alter 01:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is: The original german system was quite small arranged, due to the large numbers of needed icons mixtures were objectionable. Other projects wanted to expand the german system but hence they were either impotent to understand the prefix system or too vain to ask (or both?), the invented wierd new prefixes ... sorry, have to stop here, later more! axp_de ^Hello! 20:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help! York Road brainache!

Hi again Alison (we have met before here years ago with different hats on!): I am still having terrible, chronic brainache about York Road and convexity, your () diagram having been the only thing that got through to me. Please see Talk:York_Road_tube_station#Convex_complexity_-_help.21 and join in an exciting journey to the depths of my confusion! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Apropos of nothing much, looking further up that talk page (something I have not done for many a long year) I was amused to re-encounter this: I took some photos but then people inside started shouting at me so I ran away. Possibly one of the most wonderful talk page comments ever! :) DBaK (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms#Template for builders of templates

Please, look it.--Andrey! 22:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin powers

Hi Alison

If you disagreed with my move of M4 motorway to M4 motorway (Great Britain), you were quite entitled to move it back per WP:BRD.

However, you should not have:

Called this vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND). Please retract that allegation
Protected the page. You should not use your admin powers to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Please unprotect it
Deleted the redirect M4 motorway (Great Britain) (it's a perfectly valid redirect, no grounds to delete)
Salted the redirect M4 motorway (Great Britain) (another abuse of admin power)
Mass reverted a whole series of my edits without prior discussion

Please undo these steps, and stop abusing your admin tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um. It is vandalism when it is done (a) without warning, (b) without the agreement of other editors. The page is only protected from being moved again, not the content, and as stated it is - hopefully - a temporary measure whilst these series of moves of motorway articles without general acceptance of those moves is happening. The mass revert was, quite simply, a concomitant reverse of that move. I would suggest that your move and subsequent changes were, in and of themselves, completely against policy and an abusive behaviour by an admin. ps. I've salted nothing! --AlisonW (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Alison, please stop blindly mass-reverting my edits. this revert of yours clearly didn't even involve checking my edit, which was to clean up an existing dablink per WP:DAB. I have restored my edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is vandalism when it is done (a) without warning, (b) without the agreement of other editors. completely wrong - good faith actions are not vandalism and the policy specifically splits out vandalism from page move disputes. So it's a dispute it is not vandalism. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me - and apologies if I am wrong - this move appears closely related to the move of other UK Motorways which have happened in the last few days. As such - and I operate on the basis that someone making such a move would at least first look at the title naming scheme used for similar articles and thus be aware of the recent discussions. As such I stand by my earlier statement. --AlisonW (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison,

please stop and read WP:VAND ... and then tell me which of my actions is covered by that document.
You are a party to a content dispute. Please lift the protection, and take it to WP:RFPP if you feel it should be protected
I was wrong one one point -- you hadn't actually salted the redirect, just deleted it (which is an admin function). That was unnecessary
The mass reversal of my disambiguation work was un-needed. The page could have been restored and all the redirects would have worked pending further discussion

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a party to any content dispute; I reverted a page move of a major article not publicised nor agreed. Where it goes from here is up to the editors of WP through the proper channels. The delete of the disambig was a side-effect of the reversal of that move and because you had created a new disambig I was unable to recover the previous one, so had to re-create it (which I am annoyed about and if you can locate a pre-mess copy with history please return it). On the final point, as with all unauthorised moves it is easier to reverse concomitant changes immediately. It is precisely as easy to re-amend them at a future date should discussions conclude that the article should be moved. --AlisonW (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison,

you haven't been checking what you are doing: e.g. in this edit, you undisambiguated two links. That's what happens when you blindly revert -- so please fix that page.
I had not created a new disambig -- I had moved it. You could have moved it back, but instead you deleted it. That was unnecessary, and entirely your fault. You recreated it, but not properly -- it contains a piped link, and omits one entry.
see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD -- prior authorisation is NOT required for page moves.
You still haven't retracted your vandalism allegation, and you still haven't unprotected. Do you want me to go to ANI and post all the diffs to where you show that you are not a neutral admin on this matter?
If you wanted to move the article back to M4 motorway, there was no need to undo all the other edits which linked there via a redirect. They all worked, and mass-reverting was not needed (and when it's blind-reversion, it introduces other damage, as above). You apparently presume that the consensus would be against a move, which demonstrates agfain that you are partisan and should not be using your admin tools here

Finally, are you going to have the manners to retract the false allegation of vandalism? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you have lifted the protection. Pity you still withdraw the vandalism charge.

Anyway, please take note that since you are partisan, any use of your admin powers in these matters is abuse of those powers. If you do it again and I'll take it to straight to ANI without further warning. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BHG - And also please note that I'll take it straight to ANI if you move another blatantly controversial page. Jeni ^(talk) 22:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection

Hey AlisonW, would you consider move protecting the majority of motorway articles until the Irish figure out they need to gain consensus before making controversial page moves? It will help solve a lot of problems! :) Jeni ^(talk) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, if you try anything of the sort I'll go straight to ANI. Jeni, take it to WP:RFPP if you want pre-emptive protection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Whilst I believe a good case could be made for move-protecting possibly relevant articles, given recent events on multiple articles, it is not normal WP practice to do so except in rare cases. At present I believe - hope - that that isn't required. I will, however, monitor the situation. --AlisonW (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (ps. BrownHairedGirl - you should know better than to make threats on WP)[reply]

Just knowing that a reasonable responsible admin is monitoring the situation is good enough for me :). For the benefit of BHG, if she attempts any move on motorway articles again without consensus, she will also find herself at ANI. She knows too well that they are controversial moves and require a WP:RM discussion first, personally I'd expect better from an admin, but I guess you always get rogues. Jeni ^(talk) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, you blindly reverted my edits to break links, so I'll not take your threats very seriosuly.

Alison refuses to read WP:VAND's clear statement that "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism", and her latest reply about pre-emptive protection makes it clear that she hasn't read protection policy either -- see WP:NO-PREEMPT.

Note too that WP:MOVP says that "As with full protection, administrators should avoid favoring one name over another"' ... yet Alison didn't just protect to stop further moves, she moved the page first ... and that's not the first time. This page move [1] came after her comments opposing the move proposal [2][3] show that she is a partisan in the question of motorway article names. So she she's using her admin powers to further her views in an issue where she's partisan, and if that's your idea of a "reasonable responsible admin", you're welcome to take it to ANI, but Alison won't thank you for the outcome.

And don't think you have a right to impose some sort of blanket ban on moves of motorway articles. Each one has to be assessed on its merits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

"And don't think you have a right to impose some sort of blanket ban on moves of motorway articles. Each one has to be assessed on its merits" - Finally, you talk sense! Maybe you will practice what you preach one day. Jeni ^(talk) 21:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeni, that's exactly what I am doing, as you'd notice if you bothered to pay attention. I assessed and then moved some articles; in some cases the move was reverted, I discuss: that's how it works. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude in print

There's a book about London Underground about to be printed for a showcase and these templates completely ruin the output. Try the "Create PDF" and see for yourself. If you insist about keeping them in print, I'll just pick another book to showever instead, but I'd rather have the London Underground one. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point here is that templates should only be excluded on three grounds, and the route maps don't meet any of those grounds. As such, adding the exclude is completely in error. --AlisonW (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to use rail icons?

Am I allowed to use these rail icons on a wiki site about Thomas the Tank Engine? --BoCo D2 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the icons you will see that each icon has its reuse rights already set. These are usually a share-alike type licence or PD - public domain - where the creator has fully released them for anyone to use. --AlisonW (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invocation of My Demon Brother

I have created (or am in the process of creating) an article about the Kenneth Anger film Invocation of My Demon Brother but I noticed that you had previously deleted a page of the same name. I am assuming that the page created previously was nonsense, and as this is not a nonsense page I assume everything will be fine but I thought I should let you know. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the previous content was effectively graffiti --AlisonW (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Station Names

I understand and I apologise. I will remove them as of now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryguy93 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Ali

Whatever. I have started to fill out a case against you at WP:ANI, but i'll just drop it. Sooner or later you will loose your status as an administrator anyway. POV always shows, that cuts for both sides. --87.185.89.3 (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC) (RCS (talk · contribs))[reply]

Template:LUL stations

Hi, with this edit you seem to have overlooked the documentation. I shall fix now. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I hadn't. There will need to be further changes on the 13th so the change I made so far on that table was to enable other interim changes to be made. The table and documentation will get fully amended then. --AlisonW (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS-overlap2

Template:BS-overlap2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Platform Layouts

Well! Chuffed at having a "heavy" on my side! They are pointless, utterly uninformative - which way is NSEorW? In which direction do the trains run? and so on. Ruth has just been abandoned!--SilasW (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Station layouts

Well! Chuffed at having a "heavy" on my side! They are pointless, utterly uninformative - which way is NSEorW? In which direction do the trains run? and so on. Ruth has just been abandoned!--SilasW (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the pointer shows on map icons

Alison. I hope this does not get covered by your "Don't email me". Recently moving the pointer over an icon in a rail map has brought up for a few simple icons not the name of the icon but a plain English description, e.g."Straight track" on STR and "Stop" on HST, in fact those may be the only ones described, others bring up "Unknown route-map component "eHST" " (or whatever the icon is) and in the case of an overlay "Unknown route-map component AAA + Unknown route-map component BBB " where AAA and BBB are the icons' names. Can you explain the change?.--SilasW (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol, no it is fine (that is because some &^%*& think I am interested in things I've had nothing to do with in the past!). Personally, I find it easier to develop / maintain RDTs when the mouse-over info gives me the name of the icon but I recall recent discussion on one of the route talkpages about how had this was for screen-readers, etc. and that 'spoken language' information would be better. It may well be that you have found early testing of such. --AlisonW (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is known as "alternative text for images", or simply "alt text". Please see WP:ALT regarding this. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Cross St. Pancras tube station

Hi. I do think this directions thing needs discussing on the talk page. I honestly don't think that either solution is obviously correct and that the article would benefit from discussing it, or maybe in a broader forum since it must surely be a wider problem than in this one article? As far as I recall it was stable with the previous directions for some time and I really though it would need talking over rather than sudden change. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see there is any logic in the alternative. Euston is, with no doubt whatsoever, to the *west* of Kings Cross, etc. These can all be seen on a good map (OpenStreetmap or proprietary alternative). That a tube diagram shows otherwise doesn't detract from this. We would be at fault were we to suggest to readers of WP that the truth is a variable. --AlisonW (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the points (no pun intended). And I'm sorry about the snarkiness of my edit summary ... as usual, taking the wrong things out in the wrong places! I hope you enjoyed your drink, or two. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Solomon

Yep, I'm doing just about everybody.

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Lawrence Solomon, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 11:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

Hi Alison, regarding [4], you are quite correct; I failed to notice that you added the reference to the Wikipedia criticism section, and not to its present placement as the source establishing him as an environmentalist. I scanned the diffs too quickly; please accept my apologies. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S-Bahn icons

AlisonW,
I find that even the splitting of lists of icons which Sameboat did leaves the search for just that odd icon that would do the trick fiddly (the more so as the current rage for imperfect alt text descriptions hides icon names) so I wondered if some lists might be reduced, as a start whether German S-Bahn icons could go into a separate list.

I have copied all S-Bahn icons from en.WP lists into this with shorter descriptions to fit on one line so the tables are more compact (at least to me). Although my article says the S-Bahn icons have been moved I have left them in their original lists until I hear if there is a terrible screaming.

What do you think of my idea? If it is an improvement, {{bsicon}} could be altered.--SilasW (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]