Jump to content

User talk:AlisonW/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive #3

London Overground

London Overground services may be operated by TfL, but they operate on the National Rail network, on lines owned and maintained by Network Rail. Hammersfan, 21/11/07, 16.38 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I would also add that some disctrict line services operate on non-'underground' lines, but they are still listed as such." The reason for this is because those routes are part of the District Line, or the Bakerloo Line, or whichever other line operates on Network Rail maintained track. I suggest you participate in the UK Railways project before taking on such tasks. Hammersfan 21/11/07, 16.56 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
London Overground is still part of the National Rail network. It is incorrect to say that it isn't. It still appears in the National Rail Timetable [1] (tables 59, 60, 62 and 66), services appear on the National Rail online journey planner, and National Rail tickets are issued to travel on it. (Oyster Cards are accepted in the same manner as they always have been on certain other National Rail services.) The distinction is that TfL are reponsible for managing it, deciding on service levels and awarding the franchise. (Merseyrail is handled similarly.) This is quite different from the way that certain London Underground lines use Network Rail-owned tracks for part of their routes.
I would recommend discussing this matter at WT:RAIL, rather than using the rollback button. --RFBailey (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just because TfL are distancing themselves from National Rail in their press releases (by ignoring them completely) doesn't mean that my above points are irrelevant. The ownership of hardware is not the issue here.
I'll start from the beginning. "National Rail" is the brand name used by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC, http://www.atoc.org) for the services that were formerly operated by British Rail. "Network Rail" is the organisation that owns the physical track, stations, and other infrastructure (there's nothing "esoteric" about it), and do not decide what services to run. ATOC is responsible for running the National Rail website and National Rail Enquiries telephone services. London Overground are members of ATOC [2], so it is quite correct to describe their operations as part of the National Rail system, even if they do have a rather different status from the other franchise operators (such as South West Trains or GNER).
Does that help? --RFBailey (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Subway

Thank you for reverting Template:Glasgow Subway to properly retain tunnel icons. In fact the previous edit that you reverted to also eliminated similar symbols for the low level tunnel of the North Clyde Line. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LO and icons

This might clear some things. If you still want to discuss this i would recommend both WT:LT and WT:Rail and raise concerns there for a broader discussion and consensus.

Also, have you been to WP:RDT/C? This explains about the different icons and can help decide. Simply south (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Template:Railway line legend Simply south (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be generally taken to mean metro as in suburban\commuter service, not metro as in like the LU or DLR. Simply south (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could be better though. It looks slightly wrong on one of the station articles. Maybe without the silver. If one was created, do you think it would be subject to copyright? Simply south (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably not be .svg but does that matter? Simply south (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on previous/next station boxes at WT:RAIL

Alison, there has been considerable discussion about the use of the succession boxes on National Rail station articles, at WT:RAIL, both recently and in the past. I would strongly recommend that you join in, or at least read, these.

While there has been no real conclusion to these discussions, the consensus seems to be towards using the keeping them as simple as possible, demonstrating geographical information rather than service patterns. This is to keep the whole thing under control, otherwise we'll end up with one like this one, which is awful. Thus, on the Thameslink route for instance, it's better just to say that (for example) at Kings Cross Thameslink, the previous station is Farringdon and the next is Kentish Town. Otherwise we'll get drawn into "well, most of the fast services go straight to St Albans and most of the stopping trains call at Kentish Town, but in the rush hour there are some fast trains to Mill Hill Broadway, and in the evenings lots of the fast trains call at West Hampstead, and ....."

Related to this are the two different systems for creating these boxes, namely the {{rail line}} and {{s-rail}} systems. Now, while s-rail has technical advantages for ease of maintenance, it hasn't yet been demonstrated (in my mind at least) that it is properly suited to be used for National Rail as a whole. This is being worked on and hopefully we should be able to start implementing it sooner rather than later.

I agree that Hammersfan's blind reverting was unhelpful and disruptive, but I disagree that it is "wrong" that London Overground is not part of National Rail (as I explained above), or that the edits were necessarily making things less accurate (e.g. the Luton Airport Parkway diff). --RFBailey (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you in part, and completely agree in another! If we are permitting the existence of 'London Underground' route boxes then 'London Overground' is an entirely accurate and logical extension of that practice; we *are* depicting services/routes in both cases. Where I agree with you is that splitting all the clearly national (ie not a part of TfL or similar body - eg. Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow underground, etc Metro services) to their constituent operating organisations is not necessarily the best way to go, though the use of the s-rail tamplate system provides for a far easier maintenance and less 'code' within each page having a route box. We're here to provide information to the general reader imho. --AlisonW (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts exactly do you disagree with? (Let's be clear about this.)
I'm actually not bothered as to whether or not the "London Overground" gets its own header in the succession boxes: my objection was your misbelief that London Overground is not part of National Rail. However, its special status in the National Rail network could (possibly) provide justification for separating it. I honestly don't care too much about that. I'd be happy with either your version or Hammersfan's version of, say, Hampstead Heath railway station. But I'm not fond of administrators using the rollback button in content diputes--it should primarily be for fixing vandalism.
Also, given my points above about stopping patterns, it's not clear to me that this is necessarily an improvement, or more accurate. I'm not talking about how it is coded (the casual reader doesn't look at, or care about, the source code), I'm talking about the potential proliferation of service patterns in the template.
Of course, we're supposed to be providing information to the general reader (something which often seems lost on contributors to railway articles.....), but we have to stop somewhere (after all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --RFBailey (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apols for sailing close to the wind on the reverting, but at least there is now discussion taking place, so hopefully we now all move on with that. On reflection, whilst I can see and understand the intent behind the Luton Parkway and other Thameslink service changes I'm probably agreeing with you that, whilst useful, it could also be misleading as, as indeed has just happened, the TOC concerned with a route/service may change. This isn't something that will apply to TfL's services though (Underground or Overground) which, I think, makes it easier to consider separately. The additional information in that revision though does have merit ... --AlisonW (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit "has merit"? The splitting of the Thameslink services into "fast" and "slow"? Aside from the fact that the {{s-rail}} wasn't coded properly, it's precisely that kind of splitting, to show stopping patterns, that I'm trying to avoid. --RFBailey (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would generally agree that stopping patterns will over-complicate matters, however the maps posted inside the carriages and elsewhere of the Thameslink service actually show the 'fast' and 'slow' services as separate routes, hence some "merit" thereof. --AlisonW (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may have a small amount of merit, but not much, and it also technically incorrect (see my West Hampstead comment earlier, for instance). I'm not the only person who thinks this particular implementation is a bad idea: see this edit to St Albans City railway station by another editor. --RFBailey (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen your post at WT:RAIL, just to make something else clear: I'm specifically talking about the succession boxes at the bottom of station articles, not the route maps on line articles. --RFBailey (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified my meaning at that discussion, but yes so am I. --AlisonW (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

s-rail-next

no problem. i was looking for a way to make it cleaner for the articles i was editing too. couldnt find any that suits currently so decided to create one :)  - oahiyeel talk 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{London-overground-stub}}

Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North London Line

Hi. The line is part of the national rail network that London Overground happen to run trains on. Identifying it soley as part of the London Overground network (like tube lines) is simply incorrect. --82.45.163.4 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Alison, wasn't logged in this morning. I understand your intention, but it just doesn't reflect reality. As stated earlier, "North London Line" is the name of an actual physical railway line used by a variety of services. There's some scope for an article named eg Richmond to Stratford (London Overground service), but I'd say it's adequately covered by the various existing articles. I'm going to have another go at correcting the article. --Mr Thant (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To describe the North London Line as a "passenger railway line" is quite wrong--it is a very significant freight route, with a large number of container trains using it to reach ports such as Felixstowe and Tilbury. (Although I do think that an article named Richmond to Stratford (London Overground service) would be unwieldy and unnecessary.) --RFBailey (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion taken to Talk:North_London_Line#Article_split.3F‎ --AlisonW (talk) 23
25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rail Route Diagrams

Thank you for your comments on the formatting of route diagrams at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms‎#Colour and Style usage. I have been working on the Scottish Historic lines for quite some time now. If you look at my work list page you will get a measure of how this is progressing. The layout has been developing as work progresses. Template:Shields Junction shows how I envisage the historic templates will eventually look. Your thoughts, etc would be most useful. --Stewart (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-rail junctions

Hi AlisonW, just a quick note that I updated Hayes and Harlington railway station to show the actual junction of the line. Best, Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous/Next on the WCML

I don't understand why you have been changing some (but not all) the directions of the previous/next. Orginally Previous was southbound and Next was northbound. Now some articles have them one way and others have them the other. Was was wrong with the way they were? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of admins

Hi AlisonW. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rail icons

The expanded tables of rail template icons are a good idea and very useful. There are a few icons which are not being picked up at the moment which I created for on an as necessary basis for the "u" light rail set and for instances where main line and light rail integrate. I have tried to follow the existing naming conventions and have used "v" for variant where main line and light rail meet. The prefixes for these are:

There also seems to be a couple of problems with the table:

  • The "exd" icons are appearing in the "tex" column
  • All of the icons to the right of the "vex" column are shifted one column to the left

--DavidCane (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for other readers, all the above now added/sorted ;-P AlisonW (talk) 20
55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Embankments

Just a quick query. Are lines on embankments what you would call elevated? And happy new year. Simply south (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the East London Line will mainly be on embankments between Dalston Junction and just to the south of Hoxton, with no elevated sections in that sense except between Whitechapel and Hoxton and possbly Dalston Junction to the NLL. Simply south (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(What does sfaiaa mean? I am going to guess "so far as i assume...something") Anyway, according to satellite imagery, the original line is on embankments and parts. Here is the site of Hoxton station and keep going north. However i have a strange feeling i may to eat my words. Simply south (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm still learning Internet slang, well i was close) It seems to use a mixture and actually going north from Dalston Junction it will be in a series of short tunnels to the NLL. Simply south (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst on the subject of this, do you think Shoreditch and surrounding parts are going to be elevated or in tunnels, especially getting over the GEML and WAML...? Simply south (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So i suppose we'll watch this space. Simply south (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hill on the Heath!

I've put up "proper" merge tags and started a discussion at Talk:Hampstead_Heath#Merge_Parliament_Hill which you might like to join. It is, of course, acceptable, encouraged and "proper" to do a merge of a stub into a parent article without tagging it first if the editor in good faith felt the merge wouldn't be controversial. What you did is also proper - though perhaps not everyone would have used the same wording as you in the summary. Happy New Year. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mudchute layout

I have done a solution but i think the other symbol looked odd, showing a line to nowhere, with it not being easy to distinguish if the line ends. It also looked like there was a spare in-use piece of track. Simply south (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of want to take back what i said above a bit or maybe you could combine icons. It is also possible to switch the icons around so


Here is what i looked like before: 

{{BS-map|title=Docklands Light Railway|map=
{{BS4|uABZlf|uSTRlg|uSTR|||}}
{{BS4|ueHSTe|uHST|uSTR|||[[Mudchute DLR station|Mudchute]] <small>(relocated 1999)</small>}}
{{BS4|ueELEVa|uTUNNELa|uSTR|||}}
}}

Here is what it looks like now: 

{{BS-map|title=Docklands Light Railway|map=
{{BS4|uABZlf|uSTRlg|uSTR|||}}
{{BS4|uxENDEe|uSTR|uSTR|||}}
{{BS4|uexHST|uHST|uSTR|||[[Mudchute DLR station|Mudchute]] <small>(relocated 1999)</small>}}
{{BS4|ueELEVa|uTUNNELa|uSTR|||}}
}}

Here is what it could look like: 

{{BS-map|title=Docklands Light Railway|map=
{{BS4|uABZlf|uSTRlg|uSTR|||}}
{{BS4|ueHST|uHST|uSTR|||[[Mudchute DLR station|Mudchute]] <small>(relocated 1999)</small>}}
{{BS4|uxENDEe|uTUNNELa|uSTR|||}}
{{BS4|ueELEVa|utSTR|uSTR|||}}
}}

I think this third one could possibly work. Simply south (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.check-icon class in MediaWiki:Common.css

First, I want to make it clear that I'm not objecting to this edit of yours, but I'm slightly interested in the comment you added to the code, mentioning that it couldn't be done with ParserFunctions. Are you aware of the #ifexist:Media: syntax? {{#ifexist:Media:Www.wikipedia.org screenshot.png|true|false}} returns true, even though the image is hosted by Commons, not here. (This is reasonably new syntax, by the way; Image: just checks the local wiki for an image description page, as before.) Does this also accomplish the task for which you wanted the CSS change? --ais523 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the .check-icon class in MediaWiki:Common.css and while I hadn't previously been aware that it would now work where there was a commons-but-no-local image I am also aware that there is a test limit of, iirc, 100 uses per page. The page concerned (User:AlisonW/Rail Icons - kept in userspace because it can't be used by screen readers or non-CSS browsers) would presently have 7,740 calls to the function and would - clearly - be a far too heavy load on the servers. I tried testing many other methods before taking the decisions to copy the style across from meta but would welcome practical and sensible alteratives. --AlisonW (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I think the style's the best way, especially because the servers handle it more efficiently than they do #ifexist once there are at least two such links on a page, and parser functions definitely wouldn't work in this situation due to the huge number of links that exist. I've been thinking somewhat myself about making a redlink-hiding class to try to reduce the #ifexist count on some pages. --ais523 20:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the real advantage of using a css class of course is that it produces *no* comparatively low load on the servers, solely on the user's browser (which is close to zero too). I recoded the meta version to a name specific to the planned use as I'd noted a discussion in December regarding a hidden-redlink class that didn't go anywhere. The issue boils down to screen readers and non-CSS capable browsers. --AlisonW (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be possible to rename "check-icon" to something more generic, like "redlinks-hide"?
A comment that specifically mentions the #ifexist issue might also be useful. You might also consider adding speak:none;. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some more icons

Your table is great and helpful, and there are some missing I would like to tell you. File:BSicon teBHF.svg File:BSicon teHST.svg --Maxima m (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. third response! I've looked carefully and these *are* coded slightly wrong, or at least they are coded *differently* to the other "closed station on closed line in tunnel" icons, or rather some of them are, and some are a missing code entirely! I'll work out the best way around to do things. Thanks for the heads-up --AlisonW (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should all be "te". Will check and change. --AlisonW (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now I find them in your table and use with proper names. --Maxima m (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railway route icons

Hi, I've just noticed that you made some changes to Template:LIRR Main Line and Template:IND Eighth Avenue Line, but they look exactly the same to me as they did before. I'm just curious what the difference is. Was it simply a matter of semantics? Larry V (talk | e-mail) 02:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to Template:LIRR Main Line and Template:IND Eighth Avenue Line (and elsewhere) were because some icons had been coded with a "d" at the start instead of (usually) a "v". "d" icons are supposed to all be half-width ("d" is from the German 'dünne' meaning 'thin') and as part of my consolidation attempt for all rail icons (see User:AlisonW/Rail Icons) I've found a number of icons, including those mentioned, that are mis-coded so I am going around correcting them (and creating lots of missing ones too) --AlisonW (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I've actually been somewhat hesitant to make icons precisely because I don't really know what to call them. In fact, the couple I that I have made are probably wrong. :) Larry V (talk | e-mail) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BSicon vSTR-BHF.svg

FYI, this pictogram exists, but is not shown in your master table. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surely not! you mean after all that lot I have ... er ... oh yes, so there is! Now added (alongside another batch of entirely new ones) Thanks ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of things that come on sticks

This article doesn't meet A7 criteria of CSD, which states: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves." The article need not necessarily assert significance itself either, it just needs to have apparent significance even when it meets the above stated criteria. -70.21.14.41 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed re A7; that was a slip which over-wrote my actual 'reason for deletion' text. which was that it was a nonsense article. --AlisonW (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I wasn't here to see it before it deleted, but I read this post and the person there says that it had a prod on it (it was intiially deleted, then resorted to allow the community to decide) and another pasted the old content. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like 'patent nonsense,' as the list does make sense and has a specific purpose. -70.21.14.41 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because my ears were burning.
For what it's worth, the article was not long for this world, whether it strictly satisfied any CSD or not. And anyway, I think maybe WP:IAR and a touch of common sense is enough to justify deletion here. --Popplewick (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this cold winter weather, I'm glad I could help ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the IP user that was posting before. Aside from many people consider IAR rather dubious, it's really intended to avoid red tape, not to delete articles that you personally don't think should exist, especially when it's clear that Wikipedians are contesting its deletion.
AllisonW, what lead you believe that this is patent nonsese? I think it is obvious that this doesn't meet patent nonsense criterion, either. The title and the content of the article are both totally coherent. At worst it is simply an article that contains errors or it is not properly named. In regard to the former situation, having factual errors, even if the constituted 100% of the article, is never criteria for deletion. In the latter situation, the article stated that it's a list of both sticks and things that come on sticks, making a rename suitable.
Popplewick, under what criteria do you think this article does not belong on Wikipedia? Your statement thus far simply indicates that you personally don't like the article's subject matter. As you can note in the post that you made on LiveJournal (which I linked to), people clearly disagree about this. In a situation like this, you have to provide a substantive justification; saying "it's common sense" and using the catch-all of IAR don't qualify.
It's all verifiable (only Wikipedia articles are linked), NPOV (it lists everything that meets the criteria; no selective inclusion) and is not OR (it's just a list). This list is cultural in nature, by giving an idea of what kinds of things different cultures like on sticks (especially foods--which can be prepared many ways). I'm not married to the article or anything, I just don't think it violates any Wikipedia policies/guidelines. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My my, methinks you doth protest way too much (and on the LJ entry which, I see, has quite sensibly been removed because people were just getting *way* too silly about this. I'm not going to waste the effort of dealing with each point you attempt to make, but I will just quite one item from what you've just written: "it's just a list". If you *really* think that there is a valid article hiding somewhere then go to it, otherwise I rest my case. --AlisonW (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are calling it silly simply because you disagree. So far you've reverted the decisions of TWO different admins, perhaps you should consider that I'm not the one getting silly about this. You you haven't responded to any of my points at all, it's disingenuous to state that. How can I "go to it" if you will keep deleting it? That doesn't make sense. You specified two clearly invalid criterion for speedy deletion. Do you really want to get into an undeletion/deletion war with another admin because you can't come up with valid speedy deletion criteria? -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of things that come on sticks

I noticed you deleted this as WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Technically this criterion applies only to real people, organizations, and web content. I restored the article in case someone wants to contest the prod (let's hope not) and send it to AfD. --Ginkgo100talk 23:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talkpage and re-deleted. See discussion above. --AlisonW (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the commentary above. I should have known that since the article was made notorious on LJ, there would be lots of people paying attention! I disagree that it fits the definition of patent nonsense but in the interest of sanity I won't push process, since deletion is surely its ultimate fate regardless. Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a post in a relatively small LiveJournal community, so it's not really notorious (basically about 6 people have seen it and I'm only one of two to respond here). As stated in my comment on your talk page, they have reverted two admin decision. I can see why you won't want to get involved, but I don't think it's a good idea to encourage bad behavior by an admin to appease them. Originally the article was proded, leaving it open to discussion, but for whatever reason, AlisonW is closed to discussion. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can't help myself. I wasn't going to respond again, but I must correct you about LJ. You have *no* idea how many people may have seen the LJ posting in question (I certainly did) and it will have been way more than 6. There are 506 members of that community for a start! Secondly, 'prod'ing isn't an excuse to leave a nonsense article in existence just for the sake of it. Wp is about creating a meaningful, sensible *encyclopaedia*, not about policy wonks enjoying themselves. --AlisonW (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ignore a prod and delete the article just because you personally don't like it. The fact that a prod exists is irrelevant anyway, because there was no other valid criteria to delete it beyond the prod itself. What you did is against both the policy and spirit of Wikipedia, which is consensus driven. Both reasons specified for speedy deletion are clearly invalid and one of the two admins who's decisions you contradicted explicitly agreed with me on this. I think you are well aware that there is no policy or guideline that supports what you've done, so you are hoping that by simplying raising a big stink that people just won't get involved (as Gingko100 has done). You are setting a very bad example regarding admin behavior.
I have been a member of that community for a long time and I know for a fact that very few people respond to posts, often it's the same people and even then posts are only occassional at best. I know of a variety of community with many members that are DEAD, because no one reads them. Your assertion that "way more than 6" is pure speculation and is contradicted by the fact that very few people ever comment in that community, and that only ONE person (myself) other the person who created the post actually responded on Wikipedia. There is no way that this has been made "notorious" given that only one person responded to the issue that previously didn't know about it. Furthermore, the people who do read the posts rarely ever respond on Wikipedia in regard to the post's content. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really can't stop, can you. I'm not going to descend into some 'he said, she said' as you already have options available to you without writing reams on my talkpage. You are also factually in error suggesting that only you and the original poster discussed the matter on that LJ post (I copied parts of the responses whilst looking at the article concerned). The function of blogging is that far more people read (LJ) posts than comment on them. Enough. --AlisonW (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (ps. "whose" not "who's")[reply]
That's not what I said; I said "actually responded on Wikipedia." What I said was, that only me and the person made the post discussed the issue ON WIKIPEDIA. In other words, in spite of this allegedly being 'notorious,' only one person that was not previously aware of the issue responded on Wikipedia about it. The fact that you insist on correct a typo, perhaps in an attempt to feed your ego, when you clearly completely misread what I said, is peculiar.
I write "reams" in large part to avoid people misunderstanding me and to make my point clear, but you've made it evident that you're not interested in the facts of the case, nor what was said. Please admit to your factual error, both in regard to misreading what I said and to suggesting that it is true that this talk page, written on by only one person who was made aware of it via LJ, is somehow 'notorious.' I find it odd that you insist that because a blog exists, that it is necessarily true that far more people read it than comment to it. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war Welshleprechaun/90.203.45.168

I agree totally with you that the user has been chasing me, such as on the Heart of Wales line, on which I had never made an edit before and conviniently the user made edits soon after me. Could you perhaps be specific as to which of my edits you are unhappy with. As for 90.203.45.168, I have warned him/her several times about behaviour and have had no positive response. It seems that the user has anti-Cardiff views and therefore not obeying Wikipedia's neutral POV policy. The user claims the same about me but they are editing out Cardiff related material that is neutral and that's what I am reverting. Also just for the record, I left a message on the users talk page asking to be specific as to what is wrong with my edits but the only answer I get is POV. ThanksWelshleprechaun (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In one sense I would write that you both seem to be as bad as each other and should *talk* first on the article discussion pages concerned, indeed although it is some years since I lived in Cardiff I can see that you both represent the same issues differently. Might I suggest that you *both* discuss these matters before *either* of you edit this group of articles again? otherwise the repercussions might be more serious. --AlisonW (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I tried to do (see the user's talk page). Then see the response the user left on my talk page. I have to naturally disagree with you that we are as bad as each other. It's not that I'm introducing deliberate errors into articles, the user is editing out factual information! Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well can you suggest what to do, seeing as the user is not interested in negotiation? Thanks Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a last-ditch attempt at assuming good faith. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AlisonW/Archive_3&oldid=1186230362"