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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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?[edit] (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. (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. (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. (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC) 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... (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. (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... (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Per AndreCarrotflower's comment, I have unblocked the bot. Ground Zero (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


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)


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)


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)