User talk:Amgine

Hello, welcome, and thanks for editing! Please have a look at Wikivoyage's Manual of style and linked pages at your leisure. Also, since you quite reasonably would like to introduce some inline links to Wiktionary, please read and participate in a discussion about the possibility of changing Wikivoyage's current policy, which is not to allow such links. Thanks a lot, and please keep editing!

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My reading of that policy, and your implementation of it, are clearly different. Never mind, I shan't contribute in the slightest in the future. - Amgine (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why go off in a huff over this instead of making an argument? Besides, this is a Wiki site. Everybody, but everybody's work is subjected to reversion and change here, as on every other Wiki. If you feel a need to have none of your work ever reverted or changed, you should restrict yourself to writing a blog, but it's a shame to give up so quickly on collective authorship, on the basis of an enforcement of current policy and a request for you to participate on an ongoing discussion about whether or how to change it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Draft policy ("not in effect") which states, in part, Wikivoyage encourages the linking to sister projects when there is a logical connection between the two projects and it will serve to benefit the traveller.

I certainly haven't an issue with being reverted, especially when dipping toes in another project. However, I feel very strongly that Foundation projects exist to support readers - not to be self-oriented closed communities. I have no wish to contribute to such a project (which is one of the reasons I so rarely contribute to en.WP.) - Amgine (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The fundamental purpose of this Wiki is to serve the traveller. Any case in which you believe we're not doing that is a good situation in which to make an argument for a change of policy. Draft policies, as you cite, are not in effect, and if you like the proposed policy, you could help travellers and prospective travellers by arguing for it. Basically, what I'm doing is enforcing existing policy while inviting you to choose to be part of our community and make good arguments for changing an existing policy that may not be a good one. You have every right to just give up without trying, but I continue to think that's unfortunate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that I have some experience in developing (and enforcing) policy. However, I was here because for the next 12 months I will be traveling. And while I could be contributing what I am learning - about my destinations, the current situation on the ground when I get there, etc. - I will not because I do not have time or interest in debating.

I have to admit I tend to find 'shall not' much less successful in generating content/attracting contributors than 'shall'. - Amgine (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. And no-one will pay attention to your opinions if you decline to participate - to help achieve, as in the link you provided for me, a consensus for a new policy. Enjoy your travels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, that is not quite true. But even if it were, how does that harm me? (as opposed to the proud man's contumely^1,2.) - Amgine (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)