User talk:AndreCarrotflower

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the archives:


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

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Chorizo[edit]

Hi, Andy. I would push back on the idea that chorizos are not American. Cal-Mex, Tex-Mex and New Mexican cuisines are American, and they're arguably more deeply rooted than American-Chinese cuisine (which I would nevertheless call an American cuisine, too), in that a lot of the cooks we're talking about are doubtless descendants of people whom the border crossed, not vice versa, and/or whose families have lived on both sides of the border and moved back and forth for a long, long time. I think the problem here was the phrasing. We should instead say that chorizos are part of Cal-Mex cuisine (etc. - that's the Mexican-American cuisine I know best). What do you think about this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

If chorizo can unproblematically be called "Mexican", when it is in reality from Iberia, by the same vein it can be called "American" if it fits into an American culinary tradition. Having said that, I know of chorizo curers based close to me, yet I wouldn't say chorizo was therefore British; at most I would say those are instances of a Spanish-style sausage made in Britain.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but there are no Mexican styles native to Great Britain, whereas there is a huge amount of land the U.S. grabbed from Mexico in the 19th century. Therefore, we have local Mexican styles with deep roots. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And by the way, Spanish chorizo and Mexican chorizo are not the same. See Mexican cuisine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not always clear what to do with what I would call diaspora cuisines. I guess the question is, for the purposes of the title of this article, do we define the word "American" as pertaining to the physical landmass called the United States and all the cuisines that are eaten within its borders, or does it posit the existence of "American-ness" as a distinct strain of culture with its own foodways and other traditions? I realize this is a loaded question, especially in these political times, but given the fact that in an almost literal sense, every kind of food is available and has a following in the U.S., we have no choice but to go the latter route. The origin of American Chinese food was Chinese laborers originally from Guangdong, who'd immigrated to the American West to work on the railroad or in mines, mocking up as close of a facsimile of Cantonese cuisine as they could using local ingredients. That, to me, is the continuation of culturally Chinese foodways in a different physical location, which remains true of today's American Chinese food even though many people who cook it were born in the U.S. (and some aren't even of Chinese ancestry). The fact that those same original immigrants began to sell their food to white customers, and in many cases adapt the recipes to their tastes, I'd say is enough to justify the existence of the "American Chinese food" section in this article (albeit I don't like the way the article is organized in this regard; I've been planning, when I get the time, to move some of the content into an "Americanized adaptations of foreign cuisines" section which would also include the info on pizza, American sushi, Tex-Mex, etc.) Mexican chorizo is more of a gray area, but ultimately I think the same principle applies: despite the fact that chorizo has been eaten in California, New Mexico, etc. for centuries, those regions were part of Mexico until the mid-1800s, and the cultural continuity of chorizo is much more with Mexican cuisine than U.S. cuisine. We can certainly talk about the influence that Mexican and other Latin American cuisine has had on that of the U.S., but in the case of an ingredient whose use is pretty much limited to consciously Mexican, or at least consciously Mexican-influenced, contexts, you'd still have to treat it for the purposes of this article as Mexican food. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
We're East Coasters, but I've made many visits to California and have also visited New Mexico, and if you insist on calling the Mexican cuisines of the former Mexican states that border on Mexico "Americanized adaptations of foreign cuisines", we are fundamentally in disagreement. Huevos rancheros is a very common breakfast in eateries in California that do -not- represent themselves as Mexican. What's foreign in the U.S. is specifically Yucateca cuisine, to take one example. If you have friends from any of the states we're discussing, I wouldn't prejudge their answers, but you might ask them whether they consider a dish like huevos rancheros to be foreign and whether they consider their state's version of Mexican cuisine foreign. It would be at least interesting to have their thoughts on that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Admittedly much of this is in a grey area. Here in Chicago, there is a large Mexican community that also has a long history, to the point that whether or not authentic taquerias should be considered "foreign" is debatable; some of these are now run by second-generation descendants of Mexican immigrants who were born in the U.S., who I'm pretty sure most of us would for all intents and purposes consider to be American. Just as an analogy, in Singapore and Malaysia, although char siu originally came from Guangdong in China, the Cantonese community has been so well established that we don't even consider the dish to be foreign anymore. And likewise, although curries originally came from India, the Indian community is so well-established in Singapore that we no longer consider them to be foreign cuisine. The dog2 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being on vandal patrol today.[edit]

Butter tarts on cutting board(8293490785).jpg

Have a butter tart (or several). Ground Zero (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Pub and Pashley[edit]

Why did you delete? I'am not a vandal. ZenithGod1900 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a vandal who habitually posts messages in the pub like the one you did. I deleted the message because, in the end, it doesn't matter whether you are that vandal or you aren't: in either case, anyone who wants help needs to be more specific than "I want to create and edit but I'm too scared". We're not therapists here, it's not our job to help you conquer your irrational fear of editing wikis, nor are we in the practice of holding newbies' hands and guiding them around as they learn the ropes. If you really want to make yourself useful, just find an article that's missing something and get cracking. It's not hard, and even if you do make a mistake, we understand. You're only human and so on. But pestering other editors in the pub with vague entreaties for help, without specifying what exactly you need help with, is one of the surest ways to earn yourself a bad reputation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey, thanks very much for the warm welcome – it's appreciated! Really liking it here so far, seems like a nice community, and the work is fun :)

 –Nucleosynth (t c) 03:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious???[edit]

I am referring to your revert at here. Perhaps not all of my information are accurate, but here are some proof of my edits:

Feel free to discuss whether if you have any concerns.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the other stuff, but it's very well-known that the Ganges is one of the most polluted rivers in the world. That should be restored, and the other claims looked into.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Re: cow dung, regardless of what the truth is on whether it's being peddled as a cure, advising travellers not to rub animal excrement on their body comes under advice from Captain Obvious.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
In some cases the problem is the veracity of the information; in others, as ThunderingTyphoons! said, it's the issue of advice from Captain Obvious. Alongside the cow dung in that latter category I think we can add the bit about the Ganges. Travellers with common sense already know not to drink or bathe in the untreated water of any major river that flows through urban or agricultural areas, especially in developing countries; beyond that, the question of where the Ganges falls on the ranking of polluted rivers is one for Wikipedia, not us. The question I have that led to my comment about tendentious edits is, why are we choosing these particular pieces of irrelevant and/or of-questionable-accuracy information to add? It seems strange that everything you added to the article serves, in one way or another, to paint India in a bad light. If it were irrelevant but value-neutral information, or a mix of good and bad, I'd be less suspicious. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that the information about the rivers is obvious, since swimming is a common tourist activity, and bathing in and drinking from the Ganges especially so. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Brevity[edit]

The point of my edits like these is to make Wikivoyage more enjoyable to read. Redundancy (like "originally conceived"), verbosity ("as well as" when "and" works just as well), and filler words ("located" where it doesn't add anything) make Wikivoyage articles more tedious to read. They are crutches that writers should avoid if they want their writing to be livelier. If you don't care about lively writing, why would you revert edits that do address these things?

And when was the Buffalo News article? 2019? 2015? 2008? The reader won't know, and future editors will have to different to find how how long ago the article was recent.

You do amazing work in Wikivoyage, but like my work, the inputs of others can make it better. A collaborative project isn't a good place for work that you want to preserve as your own. Ground Zero (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

With regard to "your hand being forced" into a confrontation , please take responsibility for your own actions. You chose not to raise your concerns with my on my talk page or on an article talk page before reverting my edits on three articles that I made over the span of a week. I would prefer to discuss this and work out our differences that to engage in a revert war. Ground Zero (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I take great exception to your wholesale reversion of my edits here.
You have restored a bunch of instances of "recently" and "over the past ten years" that (a) don't tell the reader what your reference time is, and (b) will go out of date soon, if they haven't already.
You also undid my corrections to capitalization and dates and time formatting that bring the article in line with the Wikivoyage Manual of Style. Doing so is not constructive.
Please do not revert more of my edits (or anyone else's) without discussion. Let's resolve this inns friendly manner since we both aim to improve Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
It's your subjective opinion that phrases like the ones you listed above "make Wikivoyage articles more tedious to read" and "are crutches that writers should avoid if they want their writing to be livelier". Others have argued that such devices help text flow more mellifluously, and that copyediting well-developed articles isn't something we should be devoting time to anyway. This is not the first time, nor am I the only editor, who has called out this pattern of heavy-handed and largely-unnecessary copyediting; why can't you respect that consensus?
As I said above, "recent" is a different story, and any wholesale reversions affecting that word or permutations thereof were the result of not having the time or patience to separate the good copyedits from the unnecessary ones in a single diff wherein multiple edits were made throughout the entire article. Which is the same reason why I find your entreaties to discuss these edits on talk pages to be a bit disingenuous. Parsing out and separately litigating each individual instance of the use of this word or that word is too picayune and time-consuming for most editors to bother with, and I think you know that. I would also counsel (and this is something else you've been advised in the past about) that all instances of "recent" are not necessarily created equal. The word is pretty unambiguously expendable when used in contexts like "...in a recent Buffalo News article...", but when we're talking about "in recent years" or "over the past ten years", we can have confidence that even the most neglected Wikivoyage articles (let alone obviously well-tended ones like the Buffalo districts) are still edited often enough that the word won't remain outdated on timescales that are that long. And readers know this.
Regarding "let's resolve this issue": the issue has, in point of fact, already been resolved. I ask you to please respect Wikivoyage's longstanding practice and leave well-developed articles alone absent changes in the actual situation on the ground. There are plenty of other articles on this site that actually do need attention from copyeditors.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


"It's your subjective opinion that phrases like the ones you listed above "make Wikivoyage articles more tedious to read" and "are crutches that writers should avoid if they want their writing to be livelier". "

It's not just my subjective opinion, it's what all of the standard guides on writing say. Strunk and White, George Orwell and Grammarly are good places to start. But yes, some people in Wikivoyage prefer their own personal style to what writing experts advise are the most effective ways of writing for the reader.

Some other editors have objected to having their text edited, something which I still don't understand in a collaborative project. At the moment, the only one I can think of is Hobbitschuster, who, while he has made a lot of contributions to Wikivoyage, is Someone Who Does Not Play Well with Others. His use of the rollback function as a cudgel to get his way over other editors is not something that is constructive in a collaborative project. Also, us personal style is one of long, meandering sentences that are just not appropriate for a travel guide. We're not writing academic papers here.

"I find your entreaties to discuss these edits on talk pages to be a bit disingenuous." No, they are entirely genuine. My many interactions with other editors here demonstrate they I am willing to compromise and work with other editors to find mutually agreeable solutions, as most recently shown in the pub in the discussion on featuring coronavirus on the Main Page. The lack of willingness of others to discuss edits is a reflection on them. It does not make me disingenuous.

We absolutely cannot have confidence that the most neglected Wikivoyage articles, or even obviously well-tended ones like the Buffalo districts, are edited often enough that these words won't be outdated in those instances.

There is a ton of evidence that Wikivoyage is not edited frequently enough to remove "currently" and "recently" and similar relative expressions of time when they go out of date. I can provide lots of examples where well-meaning contributors have used such phrases in 2004 or 2006 and they remain in 2020. Your Buffalo articles are the best proof of this. Even though they are far-better maintained than the vast majority of our articles, we see these words going out of date.

  • The River Rock Gardens were unveiled in 2014, which is not recent.
  • You wrote in 2014 that the West Side had become home to immigrant communities "over the past ten years", i.e. 2005-2014. If readers should think this article is up-to-date, then it means 2010-2019? I don't think that's what you mean. By avoiding using these expressions, they don't go out of date and don't have to be updated.
  • Is Buffalo still making great strides in adding bike lanes? It's not just recent anymore. It sounds like it's been going on for a decade or more.
  • If Sugar City was best known for its guerrilla theatre that popped up in the two years between locations in 2014, and are still best known for that, it sounds like they haven't done much since then.
  • the reopening of the walkway at the pier is now old news.
  • Amherst Street made its name in the early 2010s according to what you wrote in 2014. So we shouldn't say that it did so recently.

And so on....

I was, in fact, taking a light touch in editing these pages. There is a lot of other stuff that I did not change in order to avoid ruffling your feathers.

I've demonstrated the problem with "recently". I went further and dealt with the obvious redundancy of "originally", and the filler words like "located" and "as well as" because I thought they were not controversial. If you had put a note on my talk page asking me to stop deleting "located" and "as well as" from your Buffalo articles, I would have stopped. Reverting should be the last thing you do in addressing an editing disagreement, not the very first thing you do.

I won't change these in Buffalo articles again. Do you have any objection to me going back to deal only with the out-of-date parts of the article? Respectfully, Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion in the pub[edit]

I agree with your point that long-term impacts are unclear and examining them now isn't a good use of time. At the same time, I think language like "I really don't want to hear any more about this" can come across as dictatorial and is not that well suited to a leaderless collaborative project. Especially at a time like this when many of us are stressed, I think we should work to phrase things diplomatically.

As a side note, I hope you're doing well. I seem to remember you live in New York State and work in hospitality, so I can imagine the crisis is affecting you. I hope we all get out of this as quickly and safely as we can. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: I don't pretend to have the power to put a stop to discussions by fiat. But, all the same, my alarm bells went off when Grahamsands forum-shopped the issue to the pub after not getting the reception he was hoping for at Talk:2019–2020 coronavirus pandemic, and it became clear to me that we need to take a harder tack with him on this, which entails phrasing things a bit more firmly. I do hear what you're saying about being more diplomatic during a stressful time, but that's precisely the reason why I'd prefer we be vehement about discouraging discussions like Grahamsands' which induce stress in participants and readers while also not serving any useful purpose for the site.
On a personal note, I appreciate your concern. I'm staying as well as I can, which is to say physically I'm fine; mentally I'm having my good days and bad days. Thankfully, I got out of the hospitality game some years ago and am now a freelancer who works from home, and my wife's job is pretty recession-proof, so knock on wood, we're both in fairly good shape. As with most things in New York State, coronavirus-wise it's a whole different world between NYC and upstate, so while it's definitely not true that life is going on as usual in Buffalo, the quiet on the streets isn't quite as eerie and post-apocalyptic as what Ikan Kekek is probably seeing.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Maps in Crimea[edit]

Hi. You removed both maps, but I can't figure out how to restore the static map and remove the dynamic map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tourist office[edit]

Let's talk about this here instead, to avoid alienating that new editor any more than we already have. Plenty of people have essential travel where not every detail is planned for them by an employer. But regardless of the situation, it does no harm to respond in a friendly and polite way to a newbie. At worst, that would give them a positive impression of Wikivoyage. A dismissive reply accomplishes no good purpose. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. This whole business is fraying on my nerves. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand. It's a stressful time for many of us right now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
By the way, as it's relevant to this discussion, the user has replied on his talk page (User talk:Thailen) about the whole situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Lor mee[edit]

I just want to say that I'm really impressed that you know about this considering that you've never been to Asia, and this is a dish that is extremely rare in America. Thanks for your help with that translation. The dog2 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You'll probably be less impressed with me when I admit that it was only a few years ago I learned that there was a difference between American Chinese food and what's eaten in China! When the first "homestyle" Chinese restaurant opened in Buffalo, it started me on a whirlwind love affair with regional Chinese cuisines. There's still not a lot to choose from near me - a handful of Sichuan places, a homestyle Cantonese restaurant, and a Xinjiang barbecue house - so I usually have to travel out of town to enjoy lesser-known dishes like lor mee. Now that COVID has made both travel and eating out impossible, I'm really feeling the pangs of withdrawal. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The Central African Republic?[edit]

No article? It's like Ukraine? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. There were two edits by the Telstra vandal before yours (using two different usernames) that added 639 bits between them, and your edit was a subtraction of 635, so I figured maybe you'd undone the one edit without noticing the other. What I did was simply restore the article to the last pre-Telstra version without bothering to look at the changes in the diff. I didn't notice the copyedits you made. I'll revert myself. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a problem. How's your new place? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I was linked to the place through a good friend of mine who owns a small boutique development/property management company with a focus on historic preservation, so I knew I'd be in good hands when my old landlord raised the rent. But the way she has taken care of us and made the whole process so stress-free exceeded my already high expectations. It's a lot bigger than the old place, almost too big for just two people, well kept and reasonably priced. The new neighborhood is a lot quieter, which took some getting used to at first, but overall I'm really happy. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Good! I'm glad to hear things have gone smoothly and worked out well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why didn't you just talk to me?[edit]

Why didn't you just talk to me about the issue on my userpage? I would have deleted it if you had told me about, and going behind my back to discuss with others is not okay unless you consult with the user. Regardless, I have deleted the passage and will close my account, since that is what you want. Donny (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@DAZ14LPA: Donny, the Travellers' Pub is one of the most visible places in Wikivoyage, so Andre was not going behind your back. In fact, he was asking for the views of others as a check on his initial inclination to delete the offensive statement. It would have been a good idea for him to ping you, or to raise it with you directly, but he is a hard-working contributor here, so it would be good to cut him some slack. I haven't seen any comment by him or anyone else about wanting you to close your account. Speaking for myself, I hope that you don't. Ground Zero (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I am just being paranoid. Donny (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@DAZ14LPA: I'm sorry for my part in that conversation. Although well-intentioned, we all handled this situation badly, arguing over policy and theoretics but forgetting we were talking about a real person. I too hope you continue editing Wikivoyage.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt it, considering the situation. You may see me editing again, you may not. I'll just see as time goes on. Donny (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree with TT. Please accept my apology for not pinging you earlier in the discussion. I should have done that. Ground Zero (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fine. I still don't think I'll be going back to editing for a while. Donny (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Donny, I did talk to you about this, in 2015. I tried to be friendly about it, and your response seemed to indicate that you understood. You even edited out the stuff about murder shortly afterward. At that point, I considered the matter closed. Then, last night, I happened to see your name scroll by on the Recent Changes log, clicked on your user page out of pure curiosity, and lo and behold, at some point in the intervening five years the offending material reappeared, along with some extra bonus content comparing speaking French to "coughing up a lung". So really, which of us went behind the other's back in this situation?

Like ThunderingTyphoons! and Ground Zero, I don't want to see you abandon Wikivoyage. But if you do choose to stay, it's very important that you 1) always operate in good faith and 2) demonstrate respect and sensitivity toward people of different nationalities, languages, and cultures (which is important on any wiki with an international editor and user base, but doubly so on a travel wiki, cultural exchange being an important element of travel). This means the stuff about the Colombians at Busch Gardens that you wrote in the same section of your user page probably needs to be deleted too, regardless of the "not trying to be racist" disclaimer.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, you should have brought this back up to me on my talk page. I will delete all text on my user page as there is nothing that is inoffensive, and I know that you do want to see me abandon Wikivoyage as you have been against me from the start. I try to operate in good faith, but that is difficult if people decide to helicopter over me and delete things as soon as they go in. I was only trying to be funny, not offensive, but if I cannot joke about something, I will delete it. Donny (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd add to the list of what to do if you choose to stay: 3) as a less experienced user, learn to gracefully accept constructive criticism from more experienced users. In monitoring your edits and correcting mistakes where necessary, we're trying to help you, not attacking you or conspiring against you. And we're not doing it only to you, either; all new users (those with the red ! next to their names in the Recent Changes log) are monitored and mentored in the same way. We do this because we understand that no one starts out at Wikivoyage or any other wiki (or any other activity in life) as an expert who knows everything there is to know. I certainly didn't when I first started out. What matters is how you respond to feedback from others: those who take it as an opportunity to learn and grow have bright futures in our community; those who take it personally and lash out have more of an uphill climb. As I said, I don't want to see you abandon Wikivoyage (though if you choose not to believe me when I say that, I suppose there's nothing I can do to stop you), but these are things you need to learn if you want to stay. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I still do believe you would celebrate if I was to go, but thanks for the info. Donny (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Userspace content speedy delete nomination outcome[edit]

Just wanted to point out, in case you notice that the nomination for vfd of that user's userspace content has disappeared, that I have done a speedy delete to those pages. I think our consensus was emerging and no-one would reasonably oppose a speedy delete given both the content itself and what was discovered within it.

It's surprising LibMod's content has remained on the website for so long.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What I generally do on a vfd domination where someone votes to speedy delete is wait to see if there are any future votes for either keep or "regular delete", and if that doesn't happen within a few hours I nuke it. In other words, pretty much exactly what you did.
There've been a few users I've seen who've had content like that in their userspace, articles for fictional destinations and the like. In general, I think that kind of stuff is harmless and we ought to leave it alone, even in cases where the user has gone inactive. The difference with this nomination, obviously, was 1) the fact that the user is an indefinitely banned vandal/sockpuppet master and 2) the homophobic hate speech, but I hope this vfd doesn't set a precedent whereby we start deleting userspace content for users who aren't troublemakers.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
On the talk page that I've just archived there was discussion about drawing a distinction between active contributors and other users (which would include those looking for free web-hosting, banned users). I don't know where the discussion ended up though. LibMod really went overboard in abusing the sandbox privileges, and we didn't want him here, so I think deleting was the right thing to do. I don't think this warrants an expedition to root out user page abuse, though. I don't see it as a big problem for Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree #1 and #2, and that we should avoid setting a precedent. Though I still need to review LibMod’s violation on #2. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've seen that part of the article now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

About Chongkian[edit]

Pinging @Ikan Kekek: as well. I'd like to bring attention to some of this user's recent edit summaries. He keeps saying that articles on Malaysia should be "written from a Malaysian perspective". For instance, he deleted the comparison in crime rate between Malaysia and Singapore, saying that it should not be there because the article is about Malaysia. I would disagree with that view, particularly because many tourists visit Singapore and Malaysia on the same trip, and many foreigners based in Singapore will visit Malaysia and vice versa. I'm really not sure how to get it through to him that it's not about a Singaporean or Malaysian perspective, but what is important from a traveller's perspective. I'm not calling for a ban here because he has in fact been a valuable editor who has mostly done good work, but his nationalistic views might end up being a little problematic for our goals of creating a good travel guide. I wonder if either of you can bring things up on his talk page or something. The dog2 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@The dog2: If you look at his talk page, you'll see we've been down this road many times before with Chongkian, and he's already been warned of the risk of a userban if he doesn't straighten up. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to wait for Ikan's feedback, but I'm inclined to go ahead with a three-day block per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks as regretfully the only remaining tool in our tool kit to handle situations like this. It's true that Chongkian is a prolific contributor adding generally good content, but that's not a get out of jail free card to excuse bad behavior that he's been warned repeatedly about. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I remember that you did implement a 3-day block some time ago, so technically speaking, the next block would be 2 weeks if we are to follow the rules strictly. The dog2 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd forgotten about that. I'd have been comfortable instituting a 3-day block immediately, but I think given that the last offense was in 2018 and that the user's contribution history, apart from the nationalistic tendencies, has been fairly distinguished (there's currently an article up for DotM that's mostly his work), a courtesy warning on his talk page might be the way to go before taking the next step in the escalating user blocks process. But it should be made clear to Chongkian that 1) we're doing him a favor by not blocking him immediately, and he should not expect such leniency in the future and 2) avoiding the two-week block requires a satisfactory reply to the talk page message to assure that we're getting through to him (he hasn't responded to previous ones). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait for Ikan Kekek's reply, but I'm happy what you suggested. I think it's best either you or Ikan bring it up though, because he may think I am coming from a Singaporean nationalist perspective if I do it myself. With either of you doing it, then it's clear that it's strictly from the perspective of site policy, and not because of any bias towards or against any particular country. The dog2 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I just undid one of three edits to Pengerang, which was removing mention of Singapore for the sake of it, and voiced my displeasure in my edit summary.
One of the other edits, which removed an image of a ferry terminal in Singapore, seems very reasonable; you wouldn't illustrate Newhaven with a photo of the harbour at Dieppe. The third edit, which removed a sentence saying transport options in Pengerang are "surprisingly limited" given that you can see the city from Singapore, I'm on the fence about. There are several hills round me where I live, where you can climb to the top on a sunny day and see different London landmarks clearly. Yet, anyone who came out here expecting to have the same quality of public transport as London would be disappointed. And this is within the same country! Pengerang is in a different country to Singapore altogether. If it's the case that neighbouring parts of Malaysia are all well-connected apart from Pengerang which is surprisingly backward, then I see the merit of reinstating the sentence, but otherwise I see nothing particularly unusual with semi-rural areas and small towns near a big city having comparatively poor transport connections, especially when that city is on the other side of an international border.
I'm not sure if there were recent similar edits to other articles, but if by my reckoning, only one out of three edits is "anti-Singapore" for the sake of it, a warning on the lines of André's would be best. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

[undent]Hi, everyone! ThunderingTyphoons!, thanks for reading the edits and describing them, so that I don't have to go through that whole process on my cellphone. Yes, let's go with a warning, and ttcf always supersedes local biases when the two are in conflict, so it isn't about a Malaysian or Singaporean perspective when it comes to comparisons that are useful to travelers from outside of both countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thanks for looking through all that. And yes, I agree that the photo of the ferry terminal in Singapore should not be in the Pengerang article. Likewise, it's pointless to compare Pengerang's public transport with Singapore since Pengerang is a small town, and you wouldn't expect small towns to have good public transport anyway. So yes, I would say the latter two deletions you mentioned are reasonable. So, it looks like we are all in agreement about posting a warning on his talk page. The dog2 (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but could one of you please help me post the warning on his talk page? I know I was the one who brought the issue up, but because I am a Singaporean, if I do it myself, it may come across as me just being biased towards my own country and abusing my admin privileges. If one of you can do it as a "neutral party", I think it will carry more weight because it will be clear that it's not due to some sort of nationalistic bias. The dog2 (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd also prefer in this case if it weren't me, because I've previously annoyed him with discussions of formatting and policy, plus I'm hampered by still having to depend exclusively on my cellphone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to do it - also from my phone, and I might add with a broken arm! - but I don't think I've ever annoyed anyone at any time ;) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Oy! I'm so sorry and wish you a speedy recovery! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks pal. It's not too bad, I just can't type on a computer. Most other things it would prevent me doing are irrelevant because of the lockdown - there's an upside to everything!
I've left a message on Chongkian's talk page and have linked this discussion as part of that. It seems (s)he hasn't been active for a few days, so I don't expect an immediate response, but I do expect one when (s)he resumes editing and will be disappointed if that doesn't happen.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thanks for your help with this. And get well soon. The dog2 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)