User talk:AndreCarrotflower

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the archives:


Happy 2018, Wikivoyagers! Talk page messages for me should be left here, or else please see the archives (right) for older discussions.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words. With over 10 months remaining in this calendar year, are you sure you want to preemptively hand me the "rookie of the year" award already? :P OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Maria's Italian Gifts, Buffalo/North Buffalo

If this is still open, you may want to report an error on Google maps. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Will do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Swapping of Political Platforms

I read your RV comment that the swapping of platforms did not occur postwar. I know my understanding is somewhat shallow, but I thought that Barry Goldwater was the main reason why black people switched from the Republicans to the Democrats. It was, after all, the Republicans that emancipated the slaves, but my understanding was that when you got to the 1960's, the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, and Barry Goldwater led the Republicans to oppose it, which many black people saw as a betrayal by the Republican Party. Of course, I know it's not a complete swap; you still have black Republicans today, while there were no black Democrats during Lincoln's time, but you get the idea. The dog2 (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

At the outset, the Democrats' shift to the left was for purely economic reasons, rather than having anything to do with civil rights. It began with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, at the depths of the Great Depression when the nation had had enough of Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover's laissez-faire approach. The massive (and extremely popular) social welfare programs and interventionist policies he created to combat the Depression were unprecedented not only for the Democratic Party, but in all of American political history up to that time. The racial element began in 1947 when Roosevelt's successor, Harry Truman (also a Democrat), desegregated the armed forces - at the time it was for purely practical reasons, as the previous policy of avoiding spending time and money training black troops left the U.S. military with a shortage of personnel at an extremely inopportune time, at the dawn of the occupation of Europe and Japan. One can therefore see the Civil Rights Movement in a cynical light, as in order to stay competitive, the Democrats needed to replace the white racist Southerners who were starting to defect from the ranks with new groups of voters (not only blacks but also liberal-minded young whites, especially students and hippies - q.v. Eugene McCarthy in '68 and George McGovern in '72, and also the 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18). The 1960s, with Goldwater and (much more so) Nixon, were only the final act of the play - the latter's "Southern Strategy" was a more-or-less overt ploy by Nixon to attract those disaffected former Democrats to the Republican Party. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1912 election also killed the progressive wing of the Republican Party. Maybe not outright and maybe not visible at the time, but had Roosevelt won the GOP nomination back then or the election (maybe Wilson getting a visible stroke during the campaign?) there would have been a progressive wing of the GOP for far longer and it would have been far stronger. Plus 1920s foreign policy would not have gotten bogged down in needless interventions in places like Nicaragua that gave the US nothing but grief and that go back to a Wilsonite understanding of foreign policy. But economic populism entered Democrat politics even earlier with William Jennings Bryan, who managed to combine economic views that seem rather unorthodox even by today's lens with fundamentalist Christianity. I think from the time the Radical Republicans lost control of the GOP up until the rise of the Roosevelts it would be wrong to see either party as subscribing to any sort of coherent ideology. They were rather machines to organize local influence and power and to nominate somebody for the presidency. It is only a very recent thing that the geographic origin of a politician is less predictive of his or her views than her or his party. As early as the 1840s some votes went across party lines but followed sectional lines. Goldwater's nomination was mostly backed by a Western faction of the GOP and mostly opposed by a Northeastern faction. It might thus be remarkable that Nixon was Californian (born and raised) and Reagan had at least spent most of his adult life and his political career there. In fact when the Northeastern Wing got back in the game in the GOP it had to pretend - twice - to actually be Texan. Neither Bush was actually from Texas in any sense except having made a political name in Texas politics to some extent... Anyway, rambling over. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Re: the Bushes, that's true of George H. W. but not so of George W., who was born in Connecticut but lived in Texas from, in fact, an earlier age than Reagan lived in California. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I guess that makes sense. I just found it interesting that the parties would actually end up swapping platforms and thought there might be a good place to include it apart from the bloated main article, because you don't see this happening very much in other countries. In the UK, Labour has been left-wing from the onset, while the Conservatives have been right-wing from the onset. The only change that happened was that Labour replaced the Liberals (and its modern successor, the Liberal Democrats) as the main left-wing party, but both parties are still left-wing. And in Canada, it would be unthinkable for the Conservatives and Liberals to swap platforms, and likewise with Labor and the Coalition in Australia. Of course, things are different now overall; even the modern Republican party does not campaign on an explicitly racist manifesto. The dog2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
well Portugal has a conservative party called the social democratic party. There's probably an interesting story there that I know nothing about. And the FDP in Germany has had eras of tilting left and eras of tilting right. Currently they tilt Lindner Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And Canada's Progressive Conservative Party (the backwards-forwards party) was the party of economic nationalism in the 1969s, and brought in the Canada-US free trade agreement in the 1980s, signed by Ronald Reagan for the US. The Liberals opposed both policies, and are now fighting to protect free trade from a "Republican" "president". (Yes, double scare quotes.) Ground Zero (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The dog2, your understanding of Republican perspectives in the 60s is incorrect. Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen was indispensable to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and in fact his substitute bill (co-sponsored by both another Republican and two Democrats), which was endorsed by the NAACP among other organizations, is what became law. From Wikipedia:Everett Dirksen:
At that cloture vote, Dirksen said: "Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment: 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."
Why was a cloture vote needed? Because segregationist Southern Democratic Senators had filibustered the bill for 54 days! Without the support of Northern Republicans, it would have never passed.
And in the 1980s, anti-racist Republicans remained quite politically important, as 8 of them voted with Democrats to override Ronald Reagan's veto of legislation to divest the U.S. from Apartheid South Africa. Notable among them was Senator John Danforth of Missouri. I'd add that when Bob Dole ran for President in 1996, his running mate was Representative Jack Kemp, former quarterback of the Buffalo Bills, who cared deeply about black people and hoped to stanch poverty in ghettos by making them "Enterprise Zones" - areas in which investment would be incentivized with tax breaks. I considered him deeply wrongheaded, but I don't think there's any doubt that he was entirely sincere, opposed to racism, hopeful of getting support from black as well as white voters, and a truly good person.
So the sum total of all of this is that the switch you describe was nothing like an "on/off" switch, but rather, a process that took quite a long time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I guess it's too complicated to be summarised succintly on WV then. But yeah, unlike Singapore, you guys have complicated political histories. Singapore has only had one party in government since independence, which most of you would probably classify as a right-wing party, even though some of their policies (eg. anti-racism, pro-immigration) are very much on the left. The dog2 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

what did switch and mostly in the 1960s though the process took decades to materialize is the alignment of white southerners. Until Goldwater they had always voted democratic or for a racist southern splinter faction of the Democratic party. After Clinton only those southern states that have significant politically active minorities and/or some "cross-border" factors (federal employees in Virginia) have been in play for Democrats. Al Gore lost a state that had elected him to the Senate in his failed 2000 bid - Tennessee. The first republican governor of Texas in a long time was elected in 1994 - George W Bush. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Virginia also has quite a substantial black population and increasing Asian-American and Hispanic populations, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, many of the "purpler" Southern states - Virginia was already mentioned; North Carolina and arguably Georgia fall into this category too - contain substantial populations of retirees and other "transplants" originally from the North. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It has been said that if Texas Latin@s behaved like Latin@s in other states, Texas would be purple or blue. However, Latin@s are not and have never been a monolithic bloc and there is no real reason other than the specter of political racism to make them all vote similar ways... In fact Bush actually won the Latino vote. he didn't but he significantly increased his Hispanic vote share from 2000 to 2004. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As he did among nearly all demographic categories. 9/11 was still fairly fresh in our minds in 2004, and John Kerry was as weak and uninspiring a candidate as Hillary Clinton was in 2016. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
According to Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, for 2016, the white working class voters in the rust belt were angry at being largely ignored by establishment in New York and Washington and wanted to vote in a populist president no matter what. If Bernie Sanders had been sent instead of Hillary Clinton, it would have been a much closer fight as you would have a left-wing populist against a right-wing populist. Instead, the Democrats sent Hillary Clinton who was probably the most establishment candidate you could think of, and when presented with an establishment an a populist candidate, of course they would vote for the populist which in this case was Donald Trump. I don't know what you guys think, but supposedly the only way the Democrats could have won given the political climate was if they provided a populist option on the left to counter the populist option on the right, but they didn't. AndreCarrotflower, since you are from Buffalo, which was one of the great industrial cities that is now very much a part of the rust belt, perhaps you will have more insight than me about this. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hillary won more votes and there were serval rather closer run states. Myriad Tony things could have flipped the election the other way - including more bearish polling in September or October which might have induced more vigorous campaigning. I also don't think many Trump voters would have voted for Bernie Sanders. He might have picked up some Jill Stein or non-voters though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote because she won by huge margins in California and New York, and these two states both have huge populations. But what swang the vote in Trump's favour were largely the rust belt states. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa all previously voted for Obama but swang to Trump, while Minnesota just barely managed to stay blue. Of course, there's Florida as well, but what Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa have in common are that there are huge white working class populations that used to work in the mines and factories, but are now unemployed either because of globalisation or advances in technology. The dog2 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The states that provided Trump's electoral college victory all went for him by less than 1%. There are a lot of conceivable scenarios in which Trump loses those states and very few in which he wins them in more convincing fashion. In short it was the x wot won it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your planned Spain / Catalonia trip

I've seen you intend to go to Spain. I have this far been to catalonia and airports but I must say Girona is worth a day trip or spending several days. It's also served by the AVE so getting there shouldn't be a problem. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And if you're going to Bordeaux, it's a short train ride to Arcachon to see the Dune du Pilat, which is amazing on a sunny day. Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! We're still very early in the planning stages, my wife and I, but I'll keep both of those suggestions in mind. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Map on Singapore/Riverside

Hi there,

I saw that you removed a static map from Singapore/Riverside. I reverted this, and wanted to explain why.

This static map is up to date as of late last year, I personally monitor this article and make sure that the map is kept updated. If you want to remove the static map in this specific case, there is actually a discussion on that topic on the talk page where we should come to a consensus on this first.

Also I tried to find any rules or definitive policies specifically banning having two maps in one article and failed to find any. Maybe you can point me in the right direction on this?

Cheers Drat70 (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

A Barncompass for you

Barncompass.png The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018!

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

For me it was really no different from any other month, but thanks all the same! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018/Participants

Would you mind unprotect it? There are still a number of users I haven't gone through to verify and I can't edit the table. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: I had forgotten you weren't an admin! Sorry about that. You should be good to go now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
That list should be complete now and reflects what's truly edited (so those who signed up but didn't make any changes were not on the list, while those who didn't add their complete list of articles even though they signed up were filled in manually by myself). I can run some analysis a few days later to get some "quotable" results. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually I just realized I have some unfinished business left (for my own entry) on the page so it will be appreciated if you can lift the full-protect on the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you unprotect the page please? I need to make some corrections to my own entry. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Care to comment?

I think Metro Cebu might make a good DotM with not too much work. Discussion at Talk:Metro_Cebu#Guide?_DotM? & Wikivoyage:Collaboration_of_the_month#Metro_Cebu. Pashley (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It is now CotM & judging by the progress made in the first few days, might be ready for a DotM nomination by the end of the month. Pashley (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Gentrification

Just as another point to add on your edits about gentrification, I wonder if we should mention non-white gentrification. At least in Chicago, parts of Bronzeville are still predominantly black despite being gentrified. Similarly, Pilsen is gentrified but still predominantly Hispanic, and is regarded as the place to go for cheap and authentic tacos in Chicago. And the area I live in is pretty diverse, where you can pretty much find people of any ethnicity. So I would say that gentrification being an exclusively white phenomenon is becoming less and less true by the day, and we are most certainly seeing the growth of the black and Hispanic upper and middle classes. The dog2 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes

You wrote what I was thinking, but it was a good call not to leave it there. Ground Zero (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

San Francisco and Silicon Valley

I understand your concerns about the length of the US article, but don't you think it is appropriate to mention something about Silicon Valley? It most certainly passes the notability test since it has the world's largest concentration of industry-leading tech companies, such as Google, Apple, Facebook, Yahoo and Intel. Many business travellers will visit the Silicon Valley for meetings at these companies, and most of these people get there by flying in to San Francisco. And not to mention, San Francisco is home to many of the large investment banks and consulting firms whose purpose is to serve these tech companies. So I really don't think it's inaccurate to call San Francisco the "Gateway to Silicon Valley". The fact is, the recent rise of San Francisco to the point where the cost of living now rivals, or even exceeds that of New York City is due in large part to its proximity to Silicon Valley. The dog2 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

All of that is true, but that information belongs in the San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Bay Area (California), or even California articles. The United States of America article is not the place for minutiae or hair-splitting, as has been mentioned before. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The dog2, isn't San Jose closer to Silicon Valley? San Francisco is itself a hotbed of tech, but that's not the same point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that San Jose is closer, but San Francisco is without a doubt the better known city. And the financial services that serve the tech companies in Silicon Valley are mostly based in San Francisco. San Francisco also has a larger airport with many more international flights than San Jose, so most business travellers, especially from overseas, will fly into San Francisco to get to Silicon Valley.
I will not engage in an edit war, but I still think that this passes the notability test for mention in the main USA article. These tech companies are not just local companies, but are actually the dominant companies in the global tech industry. Let's not forget that we serve business travellers too, and while your average tourist will not be able to tour the Google campus, there will be many business visitors who would actually need to visit Google for meetings, and I think the short blurb I added is most certainly useful in serving that crowd. The dog2 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't agree, but this is what I would suggest for United States of America#Cities:
  • 1 San Francisco — the City by the Bay, featuring the Golden Gate Bridge, vibrant urban neighborhoods, dramatic fog and high technology
That's a central part of what makes SF what it is today (among other things, one of the most expensive cities in the country). Would you agree with this edit, AndreCarrotflower? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine with me. The 7±2 rule for "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections means just that: 7±2 cities/destinations, with brief one-line descriptions of why those cities or destinations per se (read: not other cities or destinations that just so happen to be located nearby) are important.
And let's be perfectly honest here. Wikivoyage aims to serve business travellers, but only as a sort of side hustle. Leisure travellers will always, and should always be, paramount in importance, just as they are paramount in importance to the paper travel guides of the world. As I said before, Silicon Valley's geographic proximity and intermingled economic relationship with San Francisco is a great thing to put into the "Understand" section of San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Bay Area (California), or California. But since Silicon Valley isn't a prominent tourist destination - tourists, again, being our primary focus - it doesn't belong in United States of America (and less still in United States of America#Cities).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek's suggestion is fine with me. It is indeed true that San Francisco's economy today is inextricably linked with the tech industry, and that brief addition also does the job in covering that. The dog2 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad we could agree on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on the clothes talk page

I sense this discussion is getting nowhere, so I'd like to ask you what we should do with this. I know this is getting a bit personal but I already have to deal with this kind of outrage fetish SJW nonsense on a regular basis and it is quite tiring, so I really don't want this kind of culture to ever take root on WV. As rational leftists, I'd like to ask how you and Ikan Kekek think we should deal with this. The dog2 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we've both made our positions clear on the substance. Going forward, if the atheist crusader continues wasting time on tangents, I'd suggest ignoring them. Hopefully, he won't become so disruptive it would become necessary to discuss a block. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The difference between this discussion and a lot of the other recent ones that have "gotten nowhere" is that, other than the atheist crusader himself, we all seem to be of the same mind on the issue. I agree with Ikan: we ought to keep an eye on the user but otherwise consider the matter closed, and avoid further engaging with the user on the issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Got it. I've stopped responding to that thread. After all, our job here at WV is to write travel guides, and not to go out of our way avoid offending every single hypersensitive person. But I'd like to alert you to the fact that the user is an administrator on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if that complicates things. In any case, my most recent comment on that page was unrelated to this issue. It was about how to write the "Formal dress codes" section properly, since the terminology can be a little confusing, so please join that particular discussion if you have any input. The dog2 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I will check that discussion out when I have time. And to answer your other question, the user's status as admin on Wikipedia doesn't have any bearing on happenings at Wikivoyage or any other wiki. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Heads up on Downtown Shanghai

This was DotM but has now become a redirect, so I thought you might like a heads up. Discussion at Talk:Shanghai#Decision_on_Downtown_Shanghai and at least a dozen earlier sections of the talk page or its archive. Pashley (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Where is Whittier?

Regarding this edit: [1] I’m not sure it’s accurate to say Whittier is on the Kenai Peninsula. The Portage Valley is considered the dividing line between the peninsula and the mainland. Whittier is right across from the valley, on the northern side. This really got me wondering and I’ve spent the last 30 minutes trying to find a definitive answer but haven’t managed it. The conclusion I draw from that is that it would probably be mentioned somewhere if it was considered to be on the peninsula. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Southcentral Alaska is divided into two subregions, Kenai Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Those articles don't contain maps to delineate exactly where the boundaries of those regions lie, but for breadcrumbing purposes, we have to consider Whittier to be in one or the other of those two, and from what little I know of Alaskan geography, Kenai Peninsula seems like a better, if admittedly not the perfect, answer. Honestly, a better question would be "do we need to subdivide Southcentral Asaska at all?"... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition to Mat-Su and the Kenai, there is also the Municipality of Anchorage, which is in neither of those subdivisions and is much closer to Whittier than any of the population centers on the Kenai, and the largest city in Alaska. As a nearly 20 year resident of the area, I can say that we certainly don’t think of Whittier as being part of the Kenai. We don’t consider anything on the other side of Turnagain Pass to be in the same region as we are. Anchorage actually extends well beyond the city itself, into Eagle River and Eklutna in the north and down to Girdwood and Portage in the south. Politically, Whittier is int he Valde-Cordova census area, as opposed to either the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the Municipality of Anchorage, so no help there.
However, the road to get to Whittier from the Seward Highway is the Portage Road, which begins at the site of the former town of Portage (it was destroyed in the 1964 earthquake) which is considered part of Anchorage according to the geographic names information system (GNIS entry 1424602)[2] and is actually slightly south of Whittier. It’s basically right on the line, and I really do wish I could find something definitive, but I think it is relevant that it’s only about a 50 minute drive from downtown Anchorage, as opposed to a 2 and 1/2 hour drive over a mountain pass to Soldotna. Southcentral Alaska is subdivided because it is huge, the Kenai on it’s own is bigger than many US states. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
After reading your comment, I had a hunch, so I went back and checked some of the articles. Sure enough, Anchorage breadcrumbs directly to Southcentral Alaska while Soldotna, Seward, and Homer breadcrumb to Kenai Peninsula, which in turn breadcrumbs to Southcentral Alaska. So it appears the problem here is with our Southcentral Alaska article. As a rule, on Wikivoyage, region articles should be either 1) subdivided into a scheme of sub-region articles that, together, cover the larger region in its entirety or 2) not subdivided at all. (I'm kind of getting into the weeds here on concepts related to geographical hierarchy, are you following me?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I think so, and actually it may make more sense to roll it all up into Southcentral, which is one of the six generally recognized regions of Alaska. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Need your help

Hei brother we need your help, because we have no idea how to fix this issue, if you could fix it, it will be really helpful. :-) Bloch khan (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not my area of expertise. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Rollback

I seemed to be plagued by inadvertent rollbacks these days. Thanks for your patience. Ground Zero (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it happens to me too. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why?

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Niagara_Frontier&oldid=prev&diff=3558853 Andree.sk (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You know very well why. There is no consensus that says region articles should have both static and dynamic maps. That was explained to you very clearly in the discussion in the pub, and yet you went ahead with such edits anyway despite being warned not to. Once more I urge you to respect our policy on consensus and status quo bias, because this is the kind of thing that would be taken directly to Wikivoyage:User ban nominations if not for your otherwise unproblematic contribution history. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I would know very well if the maps were the same. I avoided such cases, but the static map in question has no regions inside. Are you planning to fix it in the near future (let's say, 5 years)? PS: If you feel like banning me, do it - I can use my spare time in better ways than improving WV. Andree.sk (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The question is one map per article vs. more than one. The existing consensus that you were unable to overturn was the former. Whether the maps are the same, and when the static map will be updated, are irrelevant red herrings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If I just dropped the static map, you'd be okay with that - that's what you're saying? I seem to have underestimated the stupidity of the 'existing consensus'. There are plenty of articles having even multiple static maps already. Sounds like a new discussion, only "lower level"... But you know what, have it your way, play your bureaucratic games and leave WV look like a WT copy forever. There's no reason for you as an admin and long-term-resident to help finding a middle ground or improvement, you can just say "no". What do I care, I'll just leave the bot finish (only non-AndreCarrotflower-iritating changes (tm)) and go somewhere else. Bye. Andree.sk (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not interested in helping to build a new consensus because I'm perfectly happy with the old one - as are a majority of the Wikivoyagers who participated in the pub discussion, it seems. What this looks more and more like to me is that you can't handle when things don't go your way. That being the case, perhaps you should rethink whether a collaborative, consensus-based project like Wikivoyage is a good fit for your needs. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the whole situation is already beyond patching up, but maybe you should have asked a third party to moderate and try to patch this up. I'd be loathe to use a contributor this way, but I fear the decision has already been taken. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Oy! I'd say other admins don't want to get into this as you are active, respected and apparently valued member. And while my "work" likely is only valuable to me, it's mostly non-harmful. So I don't expect (further) comments? In any case, my "warning" still stands, so if you are not planning to remove the ban today, you may as well make it permanent (and finish the remaining ~1500 regions). In the end, I'd say big part of this whole mess is the always-public-and-hardly-structured discussion.. important things get lost in many superfluous sentences and emotions. Andree.sk (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Andree.sk: Your tone right there is really uncalled for. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 :-( and here I thought that for once I was completely neutral, just stating facts... Andree.sk (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC) Uh, it was about the first 2 sentences? I wanted to explain them further, but I hope if I assure you I meant them in a "neutralest" possible way,it'll suffice. Andree.sk (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
If the bot has been reconfigured to only add dynamic maps to articles that only have static ones, I don’t see the point of keeping it blocked. Unfortunately, I’m out of town at the moment and only have access to the Internet through my mobile phone, which makes using the sysop tools (or doing pretty much anything on Wikivoyage beyond writing in plain text as I’m doing now) quite difficult. So unblocking the bot will have to wait until Wednesday, unless some other admin gets to it before me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough... Andree.sk (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Andree.sk: Per AndreCarrotflower's comment, I have unblocked the bot. Ground Zero (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Flavignerot

Why protect the page and only do some undo. You do realise page was created by and all entries are by the same person (except the one by DaGizza). Best just to ignore this user. At least 15 pages created this month have been created by him. Only a couple of edits within those pages have been reverted. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Admin

Do you really have to speedy archive it? At least give other users a chance to weigh in. Libertarianmoderate (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Administrators#Becoming an administrator says about the administrator nomination process: "...piling on oppose votes adds no weight to the issues raised, and can be embarrassing to the nominee." Usually, when it's clear what the outcome of a vote will be, we speedy archive the nomination as a way of complying with that guideline. I won't speedy it if you don't want me to, but just so you know, you're looking at very long odds of success, to put it generously. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandal

If you're still on Wikivoyage right now, there's a vandal that needs to be dealt with. An admin is of course necessary for blocking someone. Selfie City (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Selfie City (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocking User:Traveler100

Looking at Recent changes, I just noticed you blocked our fellow voyager T100 for vandalism. I assume that was a mistake? --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a dreadful one. Traveler100, please accept my apologies. You had recently instituted a one-day block on an IP vandal, and I had intended to increase that to a six-month block (I'm pretty sure the vandal in question is the Fuerdai guy, and thus his edits constitute LTA), not to block you for six months! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that and thought, "What has he done?" He is such a trustworthy user, the block (for 6 months) really surprised me. Now I understand. Selfie City (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
But AndreCarrotflower, aren't you or one of the other admins going to do something about T100's block? I mean, we don't want Traveler100 to be expelled from the website for 6 months in error, do we? Selfie City (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks WOSlinker. Selfie City (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Mistakes happen. Only blocked for a day is an IP address, did not look if it was a private or public access point. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned this farther down the page. I'm assuming it was a mistake. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Buffalo/Elmwood Village lede

Comments moved from User talk:Ikan Kekek#Buffalo/Elmwood Village's new intro lede.

I would suggest excising all that stuff about Madonna. It's clever for a certain audience, but it's a strange long intro for a travel article, IMO. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I wasn't invited to comment, may I? I like the idea, as it is definitely "lively and creative", and also shows the writer is a real person, rather than just some jaded travel bore, which we all risk becoming from time to time. On the other hand, you could and should trim the first two paras down to one, of no more than six lines; there's currently more Madonna than Buffalo in that lede (even if she is just an extended metaphor), which can't be right. It is probably also true that the majority of readers are not Madonna fans and will, like me, just be thinking "get to the point" by the time "new and eye-opening ways" rolls around. The metaphor works, but the level of detail about her is just not interesting to non-fans, especially since AFAIK she has no actual link to the Buffalo area, so I think brevity is best for this idea. Anyway, the others may think differently. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I moved ThunderingTyphoons' comment here just so they're all consolidated in one place. I'm still hoping Ground Zero weighs in on the matter, but as of now I'm leaning toward keeping the Madonna stuff but cutting it way back, as TT suggested. I think the analogy is explained well enough for readers who are unfamiliar with her career arc to get the gist, but I agree that it's longwinded and it would be better to cut to the chase as quickly as possible. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that a travel guide article should start with Madonna. I think what you mean to explain can be explained clearly without even mentioning her. However, I'll be happy to look at your new version before drawing a totally firm conclusion about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I've pared it down to six lines, ThunderingTyphoons' recommended maximum length (and roughly the minimum length to which it could possibly be reduced without losing much of the substance of the metaphor). I think it works better now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It's very personal writing but I think it's OK for now. In x-number of years when Madonna fully recedes into the rear view mirror, the text will have to be edited. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Or just dust off Taylor Swift... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I think by the time Madonna is gone and forgotten, Elmwood Village will have long since morphed into something that doesn't fit the metaphor anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
It's much better now, btw, and you get the point that's being made. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Sorry for dropping in so late. I was in a cabin, by a lake, and trying to avoid the outside world and its roaming charges. I think the outcome is good. The revised version is bizarre for a travel guide, even this one, and it made me laugh. I don't think we'd want this sort of intro for every article, but we're never going to get that, so we needn't worry about it. I think it's fine to have occasional quirkiness like this, and it is a great piece of writing. I vote in favour, even though the issue has already been settled. Ground Zero (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Park: "see" vs. "do"

One problem with "a park is a see" here; there are already 99 "see" entries in Presidents of the United States, so adding one more breaks things (the autonumbering stops at 99, 99...). Are you sure you want to do this? K7L (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are a bunch of listings without geo coordinates already and presumably more additions to come (several presidents don't have any), so we can't keep fudging the where-to-stick-it rules forever. Someone came up with the idea of sorting the icons by party - red for Republicans, blue for Democrats, yellow for Whigs etc. - rather than the typical see/do/sleep/etc. breakdown. This is the best solution, IMO, as the vast majority of POIs belong in "see" and that scheme would allow for >200 total listings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I've given that a try. As there is no {{listing|type=yellow, I had to go with orange for the three "whig" listings, but otherwise it looks viable. K7L (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You blocked Ibaman

I'm assuming that was a mistake. Just checking. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Andre is editing with a phone or tablet with a misbehaving touchscreen? :) ϒpsilon (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, well as long as we know this was a mistake we need to get it fixed as soon as possible. ϒpsilon, are you an admin? ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I just checked, and no, you're not an admin. What do think the best solution to this is, considering? ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that does it. No more using the sysop tools on mobile. Sorry, Ibaman (and I've unblocked you, of course). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) By way of answering Ypsilon's question on Ibaman's talk page: in both of the cases where this has happened, my original intent was to change the length or conditions of a block administered on a vandal by another admin, and I mistakenly end up blocking the admin instead.

The way the Recent Changes page is set up is not ideal for this purpose. When a user is blocked, it looks like this:

"(Block log); 17:03 . . Ibaman (talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.191.180.218 (talk) with an expiration time of 2 weeks (anonymous users only, account creation disabled)‎"

It's unintuitive that, on the above entry, the only option vis-à-vis blocking that's available directly from Recent Changes works against Ibaman, with no one-click way of getting to Special:Block/86.191.180.218. Contrast this with Special:Log/block and Special:Contributions/86.191.180.218:

"17:03, 24 August 2018 Ibaman (talk | contribs | block) blocked 86.191.180.218 (talk) with an expiration time of 2 weeks (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) (unblock | change block)"

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And for future reference, when dealing with the BTCentralPlus vandal, we should always be a) denying them the ability to edit their own talk page and 2) blocking for a lot longer than two weeks. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I see, it's really silly that the wiki environment is designed that way. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can understand the situation. When an administrator tries to block someone, they're of course in a hurry and that means mistakes can be made, particularly when a button is missing, for example. Anyway, the good thing is that it is now sorted out.
For the record I think many of us on WV, including myself, have often in the past criticized Ibaman for blocking too long considering the type of vandalism in question. As a result I think Ibaman is now trying to go on the cautious side when blocking and now isn't blocking for long enough, which I don't really think is Ibaman's fault. It all comes down to the difference between questionable edits and obvious vandalism, and in the case of the BTCentralPlus user it is an obvious case of vandalism, so IMO that is why AndreCarrotflower stated that we should from now on make BTCentralPlus blocks longer than 2 weeks. ---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 05:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
When I blocked an IP address of that vandal recently I checked Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits and took guidance from it that an IP address should only be blocked up to 3 months. As it was blatant, repeat vandalism I went straight to the max of 3 months. That feels about right to me. Nurg (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Three months is fine, but in situations where user accounts would have been blocked indefinitely, anonymous IPs have routinely been given 6-month and occasionally even one-year blocks without controversy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
There might be no controversy, but dynamic IPs usually change a lot faster than that, and blocking a library, school or Internet café IP affects many more than the vandal, who might use that (static) IP only a single time. I suppose blocks of more than a week make little sense unless the vandal has used the same IP multiple times. --LPfi (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe my account may have been compromised

I discovered that a user talk page had been created for one of the IP accounts identified as the BTCentralPlus vandal and recently blocked as such, which contained some very specific and disturbing threats, supposedly written by my account. Please rest assured that these edits did not come from me. I deleted the newly created talk page and changed the visibility of the edits as soon as I discovered them (thankfully not long after they were made, as the "real me" was already on Wikivoyage cleaning up the damage the vandal did). I have changed my account password as a precaution. Thankfully, it looks like I caught the vandal before they tried to unblock themselves with the sysop tools or anything of that nature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That same passage of threats was posted to one of the English vandal's talk pages two days ago by an IP user from New York City, which Ibaman blocked. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Strange. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

outside scope?

Andre u looked at it for like a second and delete it with explanation outside the scope? Im going to create it again because i want to add on more. Also i will vote to keep for deletion if u delete my page again. sorry. Jazzaking (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

No you won't, and if you keep up the vandalism you'll be userbanned. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Help me

Hi, I'm WVOnline. Pleasure to meet you. Would you mind showing me how to make that babel format that some users have on their pages? Thanks, WVOnline WVOnline (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Just look at the source code (click "edit wikitext") of any such user page. --LPfi (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay, got it mate! WVOnline (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Population template revert

Regarding this edit. It was my impression that no one in that discussion ended up objecting to the use of the template, out of five participants including multiple admins. No one else has gone forward to say they don't want to see the template used (only suggest tweaks). It seems that no one else has anything to say on the subject; at what point do we draw the line and say there's consensus, instead of just quietly forgetting about it? (legitimate question - not being snarky) ARR8 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Historically, Wikivoyage has generally preferred not to use templates where simple prose will do. It represents a barrier for editors unfamiliar with MediaWiki markup, and in terms of the population template specifically, it jibes with our identity as a travel guide that's focused on the travel experience rather than an encyclopedia where facts and figures are of paramount importance. That being the case, I think it's reasonable to assume that consensus for inclusion of this template should be based on affirmative votes rather than mass indifference. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
See also Wikivoyage:Consensus#What consensus is not ("Consensus is not created without participation"; for a user to truly "participate" in a discussion about introducing a new template requires them to have some sort of opinion on the matter) and Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status quo bias ("in the case that a consensus becomes impossible... we stick with the status quo practice").
I posted an objection that apparently got edit-conflicted away. But your additions here make sense, thank you. ARR8 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, until the issue I pointed out at Template talk:Populationof has been resolved, I oppose using the template for places with populations under one million. Once that issue is resolved, I feel pretty neutral about whether to use the template or not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Any scope for removing that edit?

Apologies, I wasn't thinking straight adding that link. In order to not draw any more attention to it, could the entire revision be deleted? I'll then revoice my support for the proposal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're talking to the guy who just a few weeks ago posted a whole exhaustive list of ways you can spot a LibMod doppelganger, so no apology needed! :) We're all still getting the hang of watching what we say, and hopefully it won't last too much longer. As for revision-deletion, I can actually do that without you having to go back and retype your support message. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Haha, thanks :) I'm not really sure on the procedure with this, so perhaps need to play around with the tool in my userspace.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Sex tourism

I see you removed a sex tourism question from the Tourist Office. I consider that decision debatable, but will not contest it.

It does cause me to wonder what you might think of the links I would have responded with, Retiring abroad/Table which has a column indicating where prostitution is legal, & Philippines#Prostitution. I wrote most of both & think they are fine, but it seems worth looking for other opinions. Pashley (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pashley: Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy says "regardless of the legal situation in any given destination, Wikivoyage does not include information on any purchased sexual services" (emphasis in original). I assume that goes for mainspace articles as well as the Tourist Office. Regarding the links you provided above, policy is somewhat ambiguous, but I think there's a reasonable argument in favor of Retiring abroad/Table since the only information given there is the legal status of prostitution in the various countries listed. Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy gives us a lot of leeway to discuss illegal activities a traveller might come across for informational purposes, so simply mentioning that a certain activity is (or isn't) considered a crime in a certain jurisdiction is probably fine. Philippines#Prostitution, on the other hand, wades into some definite gray areas and probably warrants further review. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's my take, for whatever it's worth. I think the table is OK, though why prostitution, cannabis and homosexuality would be particularly relevant to retirees as opposed to any other kind of long-term visitor or expat, I couldn't imagine. I think most of Philippines#Prostitution is OK, but here's where I think it's probably over the line:
If a customer wants more than just flirtation, then he pays a "bar fine" to take her out of the club for the night; she gets a share of that but she will also expect a tip in the morning. [How to, so best to leave out.]
In general these bars are the most expensive form of prostitution in the country, though still cheaper than in higher-income countries. Girls working the street or cruising malls to pick up clients can charge less because they do not have to give the bar a cut.
Advising prospective johns on pricing, even relative pricing, is probably not in keeping with WV policy, though I think this would be OK: "In general these bars are the most expensive form of prostitution in the country, but there is lower risk of theft from them than from a streetwalker, since if one of these girls steals from a john [better than "you", as who is our audience for the article?], the police have a far better chance of finding her and they can easily lean on bar management for co-operation. Also, though it varies with the policies of both bar management and local government, many of these girls are required to get regular tests for sexually transmitted diseases and will be forbidden to work if infected."
I'd like Andre's opinion on whether that would be OK, though. I think it's OK to provide this information because it bears on the safety of travelers who choose to engage in an illegal activity, much like we might tell people who want to use heroin that they're safer using it with clean needles in a controlled setting than with dirty needles on the street, but I think it might still be close to the line, because there could be a question of whether we want to be in the position of advising prospective johns on how best to violate Filipino law. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here's how I would edit that section:

Prostitution

Many Filipinas who are not prostitutes do eagerly seek out well-off men, both Filipino and foreign, as boyfriends or husbands. Foreign men are nearly all rich by local standards and will usually find themselves much more in demand than they would be at home. For most men, these lasses are a far better choice than prostitutes. (Unnecessary at best, and arguably verges on condoning prostitution, albeit conditionally. Finding a local woman who's impressed by your money is a better option than hiring a prostitute "for most men" but not for ALL men?)

Prostitution is illegal in the Philippines, but it is a thriving business; hostess bars, massage parlors and other fronts offer this service. Published estimates suggest the country has several hundred thousand prostitutes. By no means all of those are professionals; a girl in a typical low-paid job can roughly double her income by sleeping with one guy a week, and some do just that on most weekends.

The areas around major US bases during the Vietnam War—Air Force at Angeles and Navy at Subic—became hot spots for prostitution and still are, but the largest groups of customers today are Koreans and Middle Eastern men. (Unnecessary detail. Our sex tourism policy reads as more strict than our illegal activities policy, ostensibly forbidding ANY discussion of paid sex, so it's probably best to stick to giving the bare minimum of information necessary for travellers to be edified and to keep themselves safe.) Other areas where the trade is common include Puerto Galera, the EDSA and Makati parts of Metro Manila, and Mango Avenue in Cebu City.

Enforcement of prostitution laws is generally lax, but visitors should not rely on this. (The second half of the sentence especially smacks of endorsing illegal activities. As for the first, it's redundant: the fact that periodic crackdowns happen, as mentioned in the following sentence, already clarifies the point that enforcement is inconsistent.) There are periodic crackdowns [on prostitution], and if you are arrested the penalties are harsh—large fines, possibly prison, and likely deportation with a ban on returning to the country. Also, corrupt cops may target foreigners in order to extract large bribes, and a few of the girls will help set up their customers for such schemes.

As anywhere, sexually transmitted diseases are a large risk with prostitutes and there is a chance she will lead you into various scams. (I'm iffy on the second half of this, about the scams. At a bare minimum, it should be rephrased to avoid using the word "you".)

The commonest form of prostitution establishment are usually called girlie bars or bikini bars in the Philippines, but similar places in Thailand are called go-go bars and some travellers use that term here. It is fairly common to visit these clubs just to enjoy the show, a lot of scantily-clad dancers who compete to catch customers' eyes. However, the dancers are more-or-less all also available for sexual services. (Again, this is already implied from the fact that the bars were described as "prostitution establishments" in the first sentence of this paragraph.)

Dancers often spend time at customers' tables chatting and flirting; buying a "lady drink" for one of them will cost at least double the price of a regular drink, and she will get a share of the price. Some big spenders or groups of lads enjoy having a swarm of girls about, so they buy a lot of these drinks even if they are not planning to bring a girl home. If a customer wants more than just flirtation, then he pays a "bar fine" to take her out of the club for the night; she gets a share of that but she will also expect a tip in the morning. (Arguably, the whole paragraph is how-to, not just the last sentence. Again, because our sex tourism policy is much stricter than our illegal activities policy, best to assume anything that's "arguably a how-to" IS a how-to.)

In general these bars are the most expensive form of prostitution in the country, though still cheaper than in higher-income countries. Girls working the street or cruising malls to pick up clients can charge less because they do not have to give the bar a cut. Often, though, the bar girls are also the safest. For one thing, there is lower risk of theft since if one of these girls steals from you the police have a far better chance of finding her and they can easily lean on bar management for co-operation. Also, though it varies with the policies of both bar management and local government, many of these girls are required to get regular tests for sexually transmitted diseases and will be forbidden to work if infected. (Same as the foregoing paragraph.)

I think the following section, Philippines#Other sex, is actually far more problematic. It's Captain Obvious that child molesters and human traffickers are considered pariahs and treated harshly by the justice system, and for obvious reasons we should stay far away from anything even remotely suggestive of advice for child sex tourists. I think the whole section should be eliminated; Ikan, how about you? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being naive, somehow, but I think that section is a good warning to any reader who might be so depraved as to be considering raping a child in the Philippines. Maybe I'm not the best person to judge this. Perhaps we should get another set of eyes here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Ground Zero? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Andre, sorry I've not been able to weigh in on this -- the discussion quickly got too detailed for me to be able to follow. I share you concern, though, about maintaining conformity with our policy on sex tourism. The text you identified was problematic. Ground Zero (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it may be worthwhile to tell people who might know that the legal age is (was?) 12, that sex with children over that age (even 17 years old), regardless of it being voluntary, may still get you sentenced. Also, that you can get sentenced for rape just because you took a child to your room, with no sexual intentions, is worth a serious warning (which should not be hidden away in a section on prostitution and sex). --LPfi (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
It's already in a section of "Stay safe". Would you change the subsection's title? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Taking a child to one's room isn't sex, so I wouldn't search for it there. It is like somebody putting drugs in your pocket at the customs. I'd read the Sex and prostitution sections carefully if I intended to have sex with new acquaintances, not if travelling with my wife, and the section Drugs if I intended to use or buy them (or: I would read them anyhow, but I wouldn't expect people to). Surprising risks should be mentioned at the very beginning of the Stay safe section or as headings.
Otherwise I think the discussion on the legal age fits well with the section Sex and prostitution – which should be so renamed, and I think the legal age discussion should be put in connection with girls seeking boyfriends, before the discussion on prostitution (and we should not compare them to prostitutes, which may make the reader treat a local girlfriend like she were one). Then I think we need no Other sex section (the HBTQ one could be moved up).
--LPfi (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
What would you like to call the sub-section with the information about being caught alone in a hotel room with a child? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
As that is only one sentence, I do not think it warrants a subsection of its own. I'd write a paragraph on it in the lead. I suppose it could read something like "You are not supposed to befriend children other than together with their family. Taking a child to a private place, such as your room, can get you a sentence for rape of a minor", but as I know little about the Philippines, somebody else should write it. --LPfi (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, well just to avoid the first half of the issue getting lost in the shuffle, Ikan Kekek and LPfi, do my proposed edits to Philippines#Prostitution look appropriate to you? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any complaints. Whatever edits you feel are needed to bring it into compliance with the letter and spirit of the sex tourism policy are fine with me. And we definitely want to avoid referring to johns as "you". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes Done. LPfi, if by chance you don't agree with the proposal above, the article as is is certainly not set in stone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a big improvement and mostly fine. One more thing is the paragraph on the regions where prostitution is common, which seems to fit badly in Stay safe. Unless those are areas where you should be cautious, it should be removed (or moved to region or city articles, if appropriate in their Understand sections). --LPfi (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Should some or all of this conversation be moved to Talk:Philippines? Or a link to it provided there? Pashley (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It should definitely be moved there (the beginning could be left here, but I think it is cleaner to move all of it). We have no trouble finding it there, while those who do not watch this page should not get the impression decisions are made behind the scenes. --LPfi (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
LPfi, I think the areas with lots of prostitution can be mentioned, even if they are not dangerous, because many people prefer to avoid such areas while others - not necessarily customers - might find them interesting. After all, the Red Light District of Amsterdam is a major tourist attraction for quite a lot of tourists who do not patronize the services of prostitutes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't really think it's necessary to move this to Talk:Philippines. I referenced this talk page in the edit summary when I excised the problematic text from Philippines#Prostitution, so anyone who is curious about the rationale will have no trouble figuring out what it is, and the issues discussed in this conversation don't really have anything to do with the Philippines in particular. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
OK. For the areas, I think it is unnecessary to warn about them in the country article, people should not avoid Angeles or Manila because of some neighbourhoods with prostitution. The warning should be in those articles. If it is a top attraction of Philippines, it should be mentioned in Understand, See or Drink instead (as in Amsterdam and Netherlands), but I am not too eager to add it there. --LPfi (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Right. If the prostitution industry is illegal, and operates under the radar at least to a certain degree, it's unlikely that participants in it would want to draw unwanted attention by causing trouble for those visitors who are not interested in hiring a prostitute. I'm unfamiliar with the Philippines, but aside from the one in Amsterdam which seems like a sui generis to me, I'm unswayed by claims that any given city's red-light district qualifies as an attraction in itself even to those tourists who want no part of prostitution. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
What do you make of the argument that go-go bars are a tourist attraction for many men who just go to see the shows? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

My user page

Could you delete and prevent creation of my user page, in case incidents like this happen in the future? I'd like to stick with the meta one. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

I'm shocked that I was able to make you a Bureaucrat, but I was. Thanks for volunteering to take on this role!

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I think you may have accidentally taken away AndreCarrotflower's administrator privileges in the process. His edits aren't automatically being marked as patrolled anymore. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be a bug in the user rights interface: administrators are considered by the software to be ipso facto also autopatrollers, but bureaucrats seem not to be. I've reinstated myself as an administrator while still retaining bureaucrat status, and let's see if that functions as a workaround. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed that any Bureaucrat was automatically an Admin, much as we remove Autopatroller status from new Admins. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In theory, it'd be possible to give someone "bureaucrat" but not "sysop". In practice, it's unlikely to occur as there's no point in doing so, given that nothing stops bureaucrats from giving administrator status to anyone - including themselves. K7L (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Buffalo star nomination

What your plans on reviving the Buffalo star nomination? Would it perhaps be better to nominate one of the districts of Buffalo first for star this time, and work from there? What's your thoughts on this? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The Buffalo district articles are going to be under major construction for quite some time, so it won't be viable to star-nominate any of them for the foreseeable future. The current phase of my work on those involves cutting down the often lengthy blurbs in the "Buy", "Eat", and "Sleep" sections, and by the end of the next phase, the articles will not even exist anymore in their current form. However, that work will have only minor impact on the parent article, so definitely the path of least resistance would be to nominate Buffalo. IMO it's ready to go as is, but even if not, it would be nice to know which of the concerns raised in the old nomination are shared by currently active editors, and which were raised by inactive editors and thus can be ignored. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. Perhaps the best thing would be to write in one place all the concerns that were addressed (in short, bullet points form), and then from there we can figure out where to go next. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I say we nominate the article and let people judge it with a clean slate, without inserting preconceptions into their heads. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but just to let you know on the Childs nomination Ikan Kekek said that for a new nomination, all the previous nomination's concerns must be addressed once again. I've also created User:SelfieCity/concerns raised with the Buffalo star nomination so we can track who said what in the previous Buffalo nomination. It's not very detailed or anything, just an outline to let us know. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not seeing where Ikan said that. The problem I have is that a lot of the concerns expressed in the previous nomination were, first of all (I'll come right out and say it) BS; second of all, expressed by no-longer-active editors and not seconded by any other editor; and third of all, expressed long enough ago that the article may have changed significantly in the interim. I'm certainly open to hearing dissenting opinions of why Buffalo should not be a Star article, but I think it's important to distinguish between opinions that are actually held by currently active editors and those that aren't. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Question on RFCs

Hi ACF, I'd like a point of clarification on something we talked about, if you don't mind. I've picked up the impression that opening a discussion on consensus here should not be done in wv:Pub, but on the talk page of the relevant concept, and then, if desired, a line can be added to wv:rfc. This I understand; my question is, can one subsequently add a post to the pub drawing attention to the new discussion and asking for participation? Or is that frowned upon? Additionally, can one ping specific users who participated in a related discussion? I ask because these are both done at Wikipedia, but, of course, WV is different. Thanks, ARR8 (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure Andre will agree with me that it's not frowned upon. What is this about, though? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I've finished and tested a new set of somewhat big changes to the Listing Editor. In about a week or so, I'm planning on uploading it to my user space and posting an RFC to ask for feedback on the changes + set the ListingEditor2 beta gadget to use that version, in case anyone is interested in trying it out. ARR8 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. My technical comprehension is weak, so the only thing I'd be interested in is whether the results will substantially change the appearance or content of listings. Otherwise, you have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ARR8, I would say that while discussions like that should not be opened in the pub, it's perfectly fine to draw attention to such discussions in the pub with a pointer toward the relevant talk page. In fact, I'll go a step further and say policy ought to outright encourage that practice, if it doesn't already. The more participation there is in a discussion of that nature, the stronger our consensus becomes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Autopatroller status

I noticed that you moved the user back from autopatroller status, which I understand. What I am interested in knowing, however, is how many contributions does someone need to have before adding autopatroller status? That way I don't add it too early in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's more of an art than a science, but in general you want a track record that's both long and relatively free of problem edits. Of course, good-faith newbie mistakes are understandable, but what you're looking for is someone who learns reasonably quickly and takes heed when other users correct him or give him advice. In general, the more mistakes a newbie makes and the longer he takes to get with the program, the longer the edit history should be before autopatroller status is given, and I'd be very hesitant to give the status to anyone who has any bad-faith edits on their record. As for the user you reference here, there are no problem edits of any kind, but even in a best-case scenario like that, you generally need a good couple of pages of edit history before you can start talking about autopatroller status. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. So you mean, at least 100 problem-free edits? Thanks. I'll keep that in mind in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
There's no magic number, but in general, I would say that 100 edits is a reasonable minimum for someone with no mistakes, good-faith or bad, on their record. An error-prone newbie might need significantly more than that before we're comfortable enough not to flag their edits for further review with the red exclamation mark. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. Just that lists of edits can be up to 500 edits long, depending on what you set them to be, and there's a big difference between 100 and 1,000 contributions. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Another factor that might play into it is what kind of edits they're making. If a user has 100 edits in their history where they're correcting misspellings and typos, that's great, but it doesn't really tell us whether they have a good understanding of our policies, so I'd say wait a while. If it's 100 edits where they're adding really high-quality travel information written in lively prose, formatted according to the manual of style, and the whole nine yards, that's a reason to put more trust in the user. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

New filter

Hi Andre, the following should only be visible to Admins. I tested in incognito mode and seems to work. Please provide any feedback. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/37

Thank you, Andrewssi2. I've provided some feedback in the "notes" argument of the filter, away from prying eyes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Andrewssi2, please see my additional response at Abuse Filter 37's Notes box. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Andre - a big thank-you for your work. Ground Zero (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Further action

I just want you to know that since that blocked vandal used yet another alias to engage in further vitriol, all the accounts they've used so far have been blocked permanently except for the IP, which was blocked for 3 months. They have also been barred from posting to their talk page. I hope we don't need to debate this on the userban page, because it's so obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also semiprotected Talk:Tibet for a month, and extended the semiprotection of Tibet for the same length of time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked TagaSanPedroAko?

Did you mean to indefinitely block the well-established user User:TagaSanPedroAko? If so, please give more of an explanation, because I can't understand the reason for the block. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No, and I'm not exactly sure what happened there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I had intended to block the spambot account User:Rannutsav01, and it looks like there was an edit belonging to User:TagaSanPedroAko directly above or below it on the Recent Changes log. Sorry to all who were inconvenienced. By way of explanation, I just came off a solid couple hours of vandalism abatement involving manually selecting and revision-deleting hundreds of vandal edits, and the eyes do tend to glaze over. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks for figuring it out. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Great work cleaning up and hiding the vandalistic edits. I just checked out Recent changes and the amount of vandalism is just unbelievable :P. ϒψιλον (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
As long as I'm concerned, I really had no history of vandalism, and thanks for pointing out the correct user. I shouldn't have been brought here if I'm not mistaken for a spam bot.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, it was an honest mistake. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Patrollers page

The person who created the page may not have had an edit history, but it doesn't seem that they're a problem user. Seems to be a user on multiple Wikis who just came over and made a couple edits here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@SelfieCity, AndreCarrotflower: there was any wrong content? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Just that the bureaucrat I'm speaking to here was worried because your first edits (to Wikivoyage) were to a policy page, which would have not made sense if you were a brand new user. However, you have experience in other Wiki sites, which I explained above. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I have been asked because the page has been deleted. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 22:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, you're not in any trouble. I've checked your Wikipedia contribution list and you've made a lot of good, reliable edits. Thanks for your work over there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
ZI Jony - We've been having quite the vandalism problem around here lately, so apologies if I was a bit too on edge. It's also of note that Wikivoyage:Patrollers was also created and deleted once before, in November 2018 by a different user. No harm, no foul, but as on any wiki, it's probably best to leave the creation of projectspace pages to longer-standing users. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Didn't see your comment earlier, good to see that it wasn't a serious problem and has been resolved. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the page can be restored, so that people will aware about the rights. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 14:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The consensus among the community is that the page is unnecessary, as evidenced by the fact that it was deleted twice. You can certainly try to change that consensus, but given the fact that you've shown no apparent interest in helping to build a travel guide (as opposed to simply quibbling about this issue), it's doubtful whether your opinion will be given much weight. Again, best practice would likely be to respect consensus and leave projectspace alone. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'd actually support a page about patrollers, but since there's not enough support for consensus yet, I agree that it shouldn't be created. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

Hi, Andrew. I'm not sure the steps being taken are worth causing this much dissension among users of good will, including some admins. I don't want ordinary users to feel like admins are confrontational and that they might be in some kind of trouble if they disagree with rulings handed down from on high. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I admit that I could have worded some of my recent comments a bit more diplomatically. But honestly, I've had it up to here. It's not about inability to handle, or repercussions for, people questioning admins' decisions. There are people like Granger, ARR8, and Ypsilon who have criticized the current course of action in ways that are perfectly constructive, measured, and thoughtful, and I have no trouble engaging with them civilly. But there are also certain users, and I think you know who I'm talking about here, whose constant and often nonsensical obstructionism make them persistent problems whenever they participate in policy discussions. When it's the same two or three people, issue after issue and proposal after proposal, who are always obnoxiously shouting their objections when everyone else in on the same page, who refuse to let things drop when it's clear that the larger consensus doesn't agree with them - and especially when, from one discussion to another, those objections often contradict each other and don't even add up to a coherent picture of how they think Wikivoyage should be - then I don't think it's out of place to ask whether those are good-faith objections or just obstructionism for its own sake. So I get your concern about confrontationalism, but let's be clear about who's sowing discord. All I want to do is keep the vandals at bay. It's a very serious issue given how much of it we've seen and how few hands we have on deck to combat it, so as I see it, there's no room to do anything with nonsense other than call it what it is. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't know where this whole policy thing is going to go. So far, the fighting has been surprisingly bitter, and if we're not careful, the results of the discussion could be really damaging.
Frankly (not that I'm saying you're in the wrong), the problem is that there was no real consensus about using the abuse filters for discussion, or deleting revisions. But achieving consensus, or not, would have been such a long, terrible debate that it made more sense to go ahead with the decision.
The problem you're facing is the decision of whether to decide everything by consensus or have an experienced user make key decisions. It's been underneath the surface for some time, and finally, it has come to the surface. When it comes to vandals, in particular, I think having an experienced user make key decisions would be a better choice, but not everyone agrees with that. Whenever you say, "let's do this", there's a high chance that someone will object.
By the way, I think it may actually be worthwhile to revision delete all instances of vandalism — but I think for the purposes of the related discussion, no attempts to push that idea should be made. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
My basic point is that there's little point in doing something that proves effective against vandals if the larger result is - whether you or I think they should or not - non-admins who are not vandals, and indeed some admins, find this site a hostile work environment - for volunteers. Let's not be too close to the object to see this problem developing.
And to SelfieCity's point: Sure, an experienced admin can make a preliminary decision, but in no way does that mean it can't be debated after it's been provisionally put into effect. Gaining consensus can be very difficult, but it's the Wiki way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I largely agree with your concerns. If these anti-admin techniques are going to cause this much hatred within the community, it makes more sense to go back to the old methods. That's unfortunate, and hopefully over the next couple days we can work out something better, but I feel like everyone has different views about this policy, and no-one is willing to compromise, at least within the opposition. I think we should wait a little longer to see if anything good emerges, and if it does not we should put the discussion on hold in some way. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I will try to conduct myself more diplomatically, which shouldn't be too hard given that most of the people who were being really unreasonable about this seem to have bowed out of the discussion. But I'm not sure what's driving your fear that we're imminently going to lose contributors over this, and I don't understand the pressing need for me to stop advocating these things when they seem to be working as intended thus far, when a solid majority of us seem to be in favor of them, and when, inasmuch as some users still have reasonable concerns, it seems perfectly possible to forge a compromise that satisfies all parties. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying we stop supporting the policy, by any means. But if it gets to the point where people are leaving the site because of this, we've gone too far. I don't think we're there yet, and I doubt we ever will be. But, who knows. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Urban rail

The first line of the article:

"Urban rail is passenger transportation on rail within urban areas, including rapid transit as well as light rail, funiculars, monorail and other modes of transport."

Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ground Zero - If that's the case, then there are a lot of missing cities in Urban rail#Cities with rapid transit, to the degree that completing the lists might make them uncomfortably long. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps "Cities with rapid transit" should be a separate article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Abuse filter

Abuse filter 38 has now received a few hits and therefore has proven to be successful. If you check the abuse log of that filter, you will see what I mean. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

SelfieCity, I responded to you in the "Notes" section. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)