User talk:AndreCarrotflower

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the archives:

Happy 2019, Wikivoyagers! Another new year begins. Talk page messages for me should be left here, or else please see the archives (right) for older discussions.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You recently blocked User: for vandalism. None of the IP's edits met that description, so what's the issue, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparent crosswiki vandal. Posted a request for unblock here, using an invalid template and despite the fact that he was not in fact blocked from editing (as evidenced by the fact that he placed the unblock request in mainspace, not on his user talk page per policy), and subsequently engaged in an edit war with a user who reverted him. (Current user block was instituted only after these activities.) Apparently pulled the same routine on several other WMF sites as well. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's keep talking

Hi Andre. If you delete parts of my userspace in future (hopefully it won't be necessary again), would you mind filling me in afterwards to on what you've done and why? If the explanation itself is too sensitive for public view, my email is always open, and even a single sentence of heads up would have saved me a confused quarter of an hour just now.

Aside from that, apologies if my (in)action damaged the project in any way. All best wishes, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, TT. You're right, I should have given you a heads-up. It's gotten to the point where even I have lost track of which vandal has which MO (especially since they seem to have started cribbing from each other's playbooks), so no need to apologize or second-guess yourself. But I'm pretty confident that, even if the vandal discussed on your userpage was not one of the ones we've already seen, the behavior patterns warranted the more stringent course of action regardless. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Good to know the confusion isn't just me! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit deletion

I'm not sure I agree with this one. Discussion about the results of blocking common words seems legitimate. I understand why you deleted the edits, but how do you think the new user is reacting? Maybe if you reach out to them and give an explanation of some kind it might be good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek - I was planning to do just that after I got done further explaining to TT my rationale for deleting his edits. See the notes section of filter 37. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk)
I agree the discussion seems legitimate. I understand the desire to keep the edit filters as secret as possible, but this is a wiki – public discussions are the way things are supposed to work. I think perhaps the anti-vandal revision deletion has gone too far. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I think keeping the filters as such secret is the normal way to do. The question is just how detailed a general discussion on the issue can be. Discussing the results is of course legitimate, that is about what kind of community we want to have, and that is not something for administrators to decide in secret. But which individual words might trigger a filter is a technical detail and that discussion can be had among admins. --LPfi (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit literally said "the word that tripped the filter is (x)". By comparison with all the other maybe-a-little-too-creative ways that revision-deletion has been used on this site lately, revealing the actual, precise words and phrases that an edit filter specifically designed not to be publicly visible is supposed to catch ought to be among the least controversial. It defeats the entire purpose of having the filters in the first place. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
And to be blunt, I'm sick and tired of hearing "this isn't how wikis are supposed to work". Wikis, like any system, sometimes need to adapt to changing circumstances. The U.S. Constitution is another example, which has had to be amended 27 times over the years because from time to time "the way it worked" wasn't sufficient to address various situations that its creators had not foreseen. Anyone who doesn't like the revision deletions, I'd love to hear them come up with a better idea for solving the vandalism problem, but until then, the obstructionism is unhelpful. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
And the U.S. Constitution should be amended further. In any event, I'm satisfied. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe my comment was unclear. I'm concerned that all the secret discussions and revision-deleted comments are making our community appear exclusionary and difficult to participate in. I hope this won't have significant effects on editor retention, but I've raised the issue because I don't know think we know for sure.
In this case, one thing that might help is to redact the individual word instead of removing the whole comment, so that other participants can still figure out what's going on. But I'm more concerned about the broader trend than this individual instance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I wish I could wave a magic wand and make the vandalism stop for good. But I can't, and so for the time being we unfortunately have to choose between a Wikivoyage where contributors are put off by lots of revision deletions in the Recent Changes log or one where contributors are put off by racist hate speech, vicious personal attacks on contributors, and silly nonsense about fuerdai on wheels and so forth. Again, if anyone can think of a viable third option, I'm all ears, but until then this is the best (or least bad) solution we've got. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@AndreCarrotflower: I agree. And while I understand the concerns raised by Granger, I haven't seen that being an issue — have any (new) editors been troubled by the revision deletions? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You do not know whether new editors are troubled: they do not tell, but decide for them selves whether the community seems nice and either become users or turn away. So, yes, I think we should do what we can to keep the welcoming and open atmosphere. In this case a third option was in fact suggested above by Mx. Granger: just remove the offending part. Something like "The word [removed], by the looks of it. ...". --LPfi (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Redacting a single word would have been a viable option in this particular instance, but that tactic would not have prevented the revision deletions; they would still have been required as otherwise anyone who wanted to know the word could have simply gone into the page history and found it. Moreover, Granger said she was "more concerned about the broader trend than this individual instance". The vast majority of the revdels you see on Recent Changes are vandalism per se, not sidebar conversations among trusted users about vandalism, as this one was. So in actuality it is a pretty stark choice - either offensive usernames, personal attacks, racist and Islamophobic hate speech, etc. are visible or they are not - and the question is which puts readers off more, that kind of stuff or revision deletions? I think the answer to that is pretty self-evident. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
True. I think those that watch Resent Changes and page histories are not the ones turned away most easily. They are seasoned WV or WP users. In this particular case there was already an answer, so having a second answer deleted was not that big an issue, especially as the issue was resolved in less than a day. Too strict an abuse filter or reverts of "touting" by well intentioned travellers have higher potential to turn newbies away. --LPfi (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
On this occasion, a partial deletion of my (with hindsight, foolish) remark could have been a better solution, but it's done now. Something to bear in mind in future, perhaps.
I am also of the opinion that revision deletion is a regrettable necessity, at least for the time being in response to some not very pleasant individuals. Reasonable customers at my workplace are happy to submit to fraud-prevention measures on the understanding that they are just as much at risk of falling prey to criminals as the business is, so reasonable Wikivoyagers new and old should be able to accept some minor inconveniences in exchange for maintaining our reputation as a friendly and welcoming wiki where hate speech and bullying are not tolerated. I know some of us are getting uneasy about it, but as a community we agreed to try WV:Deny recognition for a few months to see the outcome, and I think we need to see it through to the end.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Added text on the dotm page

I added the text to give attribution for where the code came from. If that's unnecessary, then there are no issues. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree about this edit

The problem here is that basically all jazz rhythms are African-derived. So saying that Latin rhythms are African-derived doesn't really mean much in the context of the article. Afro-Cuban is, for this reason, more relevant. But I'm sure there's a better word to use. My point is, "Afro-Cuban" isn't a mistake, and if it is a mistake, the change doesn't solve the problem.

The point is, the author (probably either IK or I) never made a connection between the paragraph's first sentence and the second sentence; therefore, combing the first two sentences of the paragraph to say that Afro-Cuban rhythms created Bossa Nova is an incorrect interpretation of the facts originally laid out.

I have made a partial revert and adjusted to make the point clearer in the original, which of course you can see. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Urggh. You're right, of course, and that was a pretty boneheaded oversight on my part. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was not that Cuban music is at the root of bossa nova, but that the various strains of Latin jazz are influenced by many different Latin music traditions, and singling out Cuban music in particular is somewhat misleading. I would welcome whatever wording you can come up with that best reflects that (and I agree, the edit of mine that you reverted only compounds the problem). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've adjusted it since then, and I think it makes things a little clearer. I actually agree with your above comment—use your wording, singling out Cuban music is somewhat misleading. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffalo map

Hi Andre, I was looking at the map request in the Pub and the proposed district reorg. The Allentown/Delaware split seems pretty straightforward, but the other two I'll need some help on:

  • For the minor boundary changes, is it all of the ones you identified in the proposed reorg (e.g., moving the Medical Corridor and parts of Delaware District to Buffalo/East, etc.)?
  • What are the streets or other landmarks that define Blackrock-Riverside?

Like I said in the Pub, the map looks like it will be an easy one to edit. The hardest part will be getting the new boundaries right and finding colours that work with the existing scheme. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference map
Shaundd - Thank you again for your help on this. Here's a reference map for your use that should answer all questions of this nature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, that map will be a big help. I want to work on the Swaziland/Eswatini maps first and then I'll make the changes for Buffalo next. -Shaundd (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Shaundd - Great. Again, there's no rush on this. I did want to bring your attention to the fact that I've made another slight modification to the reference map since your last message, as there was an additional proposed boundary change that I'd forgotten to add. Just in case you'd downloaded it for your own use in the interim. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andre, I'm starting work on the map. Do you need an interim version with one or two of the changes implemented, or just the whole thing at once? -Shaundd (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Shaundd. I'd say don't bother with the interim maps, and just get back to me when the whole thing is completed. And feel free to pace yourself - I've got a bit to do yet before I get around to the redistricting, so the new map probably won't be in place on the Buffalo page for a few months to a year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)