User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2014

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the following archives:

Newer ones can be found at:



I just wanted to say thanks for this - I really appreciate your kind words; sorry it took me so long to find them! I've not been able to give the project the time I'd have liked to over the last few months, but I'm still very committed to WV's future.

Happy New Year!

Nick talk 02:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Nick, and I'm sorry that I haven't been able to respond to this message till now. It truly has been and is a pleasure working with you, and I should say in light of your most recent post in the pub that in spite of our struggles, I share your optimism about WV's future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image alignment

Your thoughts on image alignment would be welcome at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Image alignment. Thanks! Powers (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If you are going to delete a template, is it also worth removing the transclusions? -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

St.Pierre & Miquelon

Hi! I remember you were planning a trip to Saint Pierre and Miquelon. If you go there, please take a camera with you. As of now, the photo assortment on Commons is more depressing than impressing. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Ypsilon: I had toyed with the idea of visiting St-Pierre and Miquelon, but my travel plans for this summer have changed direction from northeast to northwest. As much as I love Atlantic Canada (and, in the case of SP&M, adjacent areas), frankly I've done it to death over the last few years - not only in 2009 but also in 2008, 2007, and 2001. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. Well, I wish you an enjoyable trip to Ontario and Manitoba, then :). ϒpsilon (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!

The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thanks for updating the Main Page every time a feature changes! It's a bit of a fiddly job and you do it brilliantly and reliably! --Nick talk 10:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. Very well deserved. Andrew is doing a good job. Well done! --Saqib (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Nick and Saqib. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"city" vs. "region"

I noticed you changed Great Northern Peninsula from {{outlinecity}} to {{extraregion}}. I disagree with this change as a region should not contain individual listings, as it is a container in which to place cities or regions. Great Northern Peninsula is a bottom-level article; it covers a large but sparsely-populated rural area which we do not further subdivide into cities, boroughs or city districts as there's too little there. It contains a city-like level of detail for a sparsely-populated peninsula with a few tiny villages to small to stand alone as individual city-level articles. Our bottom-level articles are "city" (or "district" for huge cities, like London). Sometimes that does end up with a geographically huge-but-empty area (Rural Montgomery County, or Anticosti), sometimes that is a geographically-tiny piece of a crowded area (like Toronto's +1-905 suburbs, each listed as "cities"). I'm inclined to revert as WV's definition of "city" is not the legal, municipal definition of the term. K7L (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured it might be controversial. Revert away. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forum shopping

Hi Andre - re [1]: "...WV's de facto policy prohibits forum-shopping" - I think we need to be careful about saying that things here are "prohibited". Behavior like forum shopping is clearly frowned up, and was a contributing factor in 118's ban nomination, but I'd hate to see us start reverting or banning users for posting things in multiple places, particularly when we have no written policy on the subject (the closest I'm aware of is "Let it go"). I don't think it's a stretch to say that we can admonish someone for poor behavior, even if there isn't a written policy on the subject, but stating that things are "de facto prohibited" does not seem (to me) to be an accurate reflection of how Wikivoyage operates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding "stating that things are 'de facto prohibited' does not seem (to me) to be an accurate reflection of how Wikivoyage operates", I'm afraid I can't agree with that: at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/April 2014#ஆவலப்பம்பட்டி a redirect in a non-Latin script was successfully VfD'd because of a policy that was unwritten but understood to exist. That being the case, I don't see why an unwritten but understood-to-exist policy can't be cited as a reason for a userban, especially when we've gone to extraordinary lengths to inform the user of the existence of the policy in question.
Even if not, the fact that Alice has repeatedly ignored warnings to stop forum-shopping qualifies as uncivil behavior, which is a written policy, so the result is the same either way.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We may have to agree to disagree, but I think that an admin stating that something is "prohibited" on this site, particularly when there is no written policy stating as much, implies a much more authoritarian structure than what actually exists, and what should exist, here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it will help reduce friction, I'll amend my wording. In a larger sense, I think a discussion about written vs. unwritten policy should probably happen on some relevant page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for making the update. While a discussion about written policy vs unwritten norms might be useful, my concern in this case was primarily using such a strong word as "prohibited", and I appreciate you changing it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I try... if you notice any mistakes while editing, please let me know. Matroc (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you can tell I don't exactly know how to respond t a notification yet....
Not a problem, Matroc. Thanks for your help! :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution issues

Hello carrotflower,

Regarding this attribution problem

I agree with you that it is not fair to the authors of the content that this link was removed. It is against the best practices of Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and even our own rules published here.

I ask you humbly for your help to raise this issue with the community and reverse the attribution change.

Thankyou carrotflower, Travel doc96 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You misunderstand me. I was actually in favor of the change, which had been under discussion for a while. I was just unaware that it had actually been implemented until I wrote that post. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you!

The Wikivoyage Barncompass
This award is in recognition for updating the Wikivoyage Facebook page on regular basis. You're doing excellent job in keeping our social network profile active, keep up the good work! Saqib (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Saqib, Andre does certainly deserve even three barncompasses for his fantastic work but two precisely identical ones after each other does look a little silly, don't you think? (Yes, I saw you removed the other one already :)). ϒpsilon (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually wanted to award only one barn-compass but somehow the system awarded two. It clearly gives the impression that the nature or MediaWiki was in favour of giving Andre more than one barn-compass. You're right he deserve more than one but I'm not that generous when it comes to giving out barn-compasses. --Saqib (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subregions of the Gaspé Peninsula

Are you planning an imminent massive push to create and fill in lots of towns in this region? Because as it stands now, you've created a lot of empty containers, using 2 subregions to contain only 5 destination articles, plus another 3 subregions which are completely empty. If you are about to do lots of creation and filling in to article, go ahead, but normally in the future I would think it better to wait and subdivide regions after there are sufficient destinations/content to justify it, rather than before. Otherwise, these risk standing around as an unnecessary empty hierarchy level indefinitely. Texugo (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Texugo - to answer the question you posed in the first sentence of your post, yes. I would like to nominate Gaspé Peninsula for OtBP sometime next summer, and if I'm not mistaken, a prerequisite for bringing a region article up to Guide status is that all articles linked to in "Cities" and "Other destinations" have to be at least Usable. I intend to begin filling those articles in as soon as I'm done with the Gaspé Peninsula itself. As for the subregions, I see that as a relatively minor part of the overall process; I envision them as pretty short articles with generalized information on the distinguishing characteristics of the subregion as a whole, with listings and other meaty stuff in the city articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main Page edit

Hi! I assume you didn't mean to insert the text "1. Main Page" at the top, right? [2] --Rschen7754 01:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it was an unfortunate error. Sorry about that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a problem - people have done much worse on the Main Page. (And shoot, I didn't realize it was just semi-protected, or I would have done it myself...) --Rschen7754 03:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarence map

I am shocked and appalled that you would unilaterally remove the map I worked very hard on from the Clarence article. Frankly I'm getting a little tired of the "I don't know how to do maps" cop-out (which seems to be widespread; it's not just you), but even if I concede that somehow Inkscape is beyond the abilities of people who've figured out how to write wikicode, a simple request to update a "horrifically" out of date map is a much better solution than simply removing it entirely. I also have to question how it's possible for a map to get "horrifically" out-of-date in less than 15 months. Have that many establishments shut their doors since last June?

Really, I expect better from you.

-- Powers (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I work on Wikivoyage on a volunteer basis. I don't get paid to do this or derive any benefit from it other than my own enjoyment. But even so, I devote more time to this site than probably 99% of the people in our community. And I frankly think it's a little unreasonable for you to chide me for not taking out even more of my time, for no pay or other benefit, to learn a new computer program just to avoid running afoul of your inexplicable campaign against dynamic maps, which I find as annoying as you do the "'I don't know how to do maps' cop-out". If it's really that important to you that there be a static map on the Clarence article, there's nothing (including me) keeping you from making another one. You don't need to wait for me to ask you to update it or leave snippy notes on my talk page, just do it.
Regarding the question you asked about how many business have closed since the map was made, here's a breakdown for you:
  • Bavarian Nut Company - moved to the Elmwood Village
  • Clarence Country Store - closed
  • Clarence Deli - removed listing from article, not of enough interest to visitors
  • USA Bird Supply - closed
  • Nosh Café - closed
  • Hirsch's - closed
  • Kabab & Curry - moved to former location of Hirsch's
  • Marvin's Bar & Grill - burned down
  • Nook & Cranny Home Decor and Gifts, Ichi Shogun, Pizza Plant, Saigon Bangkok, Tandoori's, Grover's Bar & Grill, Stockman's Tavern, La Scala, Ted's Hot Dogs, Wegmans, both locations of Tops - transferred to Amherst (New York) per Talk:Clarence#Amherst
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrew, I can make the changes to maps if you feel any is outdated. Just do let me know. --Saqib (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Saqib. I personally don't see what's so terribly wrong with the current map, but evidently others disagree. If you'd like to create an updated static map, as I said above, you don't need my permission. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We may not need your permission, but we do need some sort of reasonable notice. I thought we had a consensus on this site not to remove static maps in favor of dynamic ones, but even if we don't, it's really rude to just remove another contributor's work wholesale like that. Powers (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. I know it take too much time and effort to draw a static map and it feel bad when someone just remove it without a good reason. Anyways, I've updated the map as Andrew suggested. But I couldn't find some businesses in the map: Wegmans, Tops, Clarence Deli, Bavarian Nut Company, Clarence Country Store, USA Bird Supply, USA Bird Supply, and Marvin's Bar & Grill. I've moved the location of Kabab & Curry. --Saqib (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buffalo articles are great!

I changed restauranteur to restaurateur - hope that is ok with you... Matroc (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It didn't seem right at first, but I Googled it and apparently "restaurateur" (no N) is indeed the preferred form. Learned something new today! Thanks, Matroc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buffalo/West Side dynamic map

Hi, Andrew. That dynamic map takes up at least 2 2/3 screens on my laptop, so yeah, I think that's quite a lot too big.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done. I figured that was pushing the envelope a bit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

East Aurora

I don't think I am confused about the Millard Fillmore Home: BuffaloBob (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BuffaloBob - Thanks for the clarification; I stand corrected. (Though in my own defense, like all National Historic Landmarks, the Millard Fillmore House is also co-listed on the NRHP.) I'll go ahead and revert my changes to East Aurora. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tour Listings

[[3]] Thanks, I was not aware of that policy. BuffaloBob (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iseo and Clusane

Firstly, could you reply to my message on Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates#Iseo? then how can I do something like this? Could you help me? Thanks --Lkcl it (Talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lkcl it - Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you! I've been extraordinarily busy recently, but I will take a look at Iseo and the other things you asked me about tomorrow. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload files, Upload Wizard?

Wikimedia Commons logo

Hello! Sorry for writing in English. As you're an administrator here, please check the message I left on MediaWiki talk:Licenses and the village pump. Thanks, Nemo 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Snowplow", you mean? Powers (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops. I must have still had snowmobiles on the brain from talking about the Blizzard of '77. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured. Didn't want anyone to think you didn't know your winter conveyances. =) Powers (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia says there are two Barkers in New York. Why do you say there's only one? Powers (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though my edit summary was mistaken, Barker (Broome County) is a redlink. It's my understanding that parenthetical disambiguators should only be used in article titles if there already exists another article that they might be confused with, and if they are used, what's inside the parentheses should only go as far down the breadcrumb chain as is necessary to avoid confusion with already-existing articles.
Case in point: New York and Illinois both have cities named Lockport, of roughly equal size and importance. However, because Lockport (Illinois) is a redlink, we have Lockport for the city in New York, with Lockport (New York) as a redirect. If and when Lockport (Illinois) is created, then Lockport should become a disambiguation page, with content regarding the New York city moved to Lockport (New York).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I was just checking. But in a case like Barker, I'm not sure it's a good idea to move the article just because the other community is a redlink... unless we're reasonably certain the other one isn't likely to ever get an article. Powers (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Andre, why did you indef block W.Frank? That wasn't discussed in the discussion you linked to. Powers (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The short answer is that the user ban nomination cited in the block description covers User:118.93nzp and all associated IP addresses. It's not a huge leap of logic to also subject associated registered accounts to the same bans, and in fact it's spelled out in black and white in our sockpuppet policy that known socks of banned users get indefbanned. This is reinforced by the provision in our userban policy that "users or IP addresses that are blocked for vandalism or other malicious editing on other Wikimedia projects" are subject to bans of congruent lengths here; given that both W. Frank and Alice have been indefbanned on Wikipedia for malicious editing through use of each other as sockpuppets (confirmed by a CheckUser analysis on WP), technically both of them could have and should have been indefbanned here already, without the necessity of the most recent 118 incident as cover.
To answer the inevitable follow-up comment about the relationship of 118, W. Frank, and Alice to each other: the elephant in the room that the community can't seem to bring itself to fully own up to, is that we are so sick of dealing with this problem that we've simply quit engaging. The overwhelming majority of us know damn well that those three accounts are sockpuppets and should be banned as such, but we're afraid of even broaching the subject, even trying to come to a definitive hard-and-fast conclusion because of the knock-down-drag-out brawl that would ignite. And I don't blame us, because not only would such a brawl likely include the three-headed 118/Frank/Alice hydra making a mockery out of the userban process, but we'd also have to try to reason with the obstructionist remnants of the "user bans are an embarrassment/last resort" contingent who, in spite of recent events, still stubbornly cling to their outmoded stance that accused sockpuppets are always innocent absent a smoking gun and that soft security is the answer in all cases of disruptive editing, full stop, case closed. That's why, even though it was pretty much blatantly implied throughout that nomination (in my own comments and others') that the sockpuppetery allegations involving Frank, Alice, 118, and numerous anonymous IPs are true, no one came right out and said it. Doing so would have opened the door to those obstrucionist outliers to cry "not guilty by reason of lack of smoking gun" - which, as mentioned before, betrays a gross misunderstanding of the nature of sockpuppet investigations as well as of consensus - and to thus undermine any attempts to actually solve the problem.
You can see how this trend of disengagement manifests itself in places like the numerous, frequent attempts at revising policy that have petered out; in the new cases recently opened at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations, the majority of which aren't even voted on but instead are notifications to the community regarding users whose bans are already a fait accompli; and in Ikan Kekek's directive for a ban-on-sight for any funny business perpetrated by 118 or any accounts that behave the same way his does, which has been a far more effective tool at dealing with the 118/Frank/Alice hydra than the userban nomination process itself. In the absence of any willingness on the part of the community to come together and address this deficiency, users - and it's not only me - have been taking it upon themselves to interpret and implement policy unilaterally. That's not by any means an ideal solution, but regardless, it's a precedent that's been in place since long before this discussion between you and me got started, and in any case it's certainly preferable to anarchy.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Anarchy" is a ridiculously loaded way to describe the prior situations. Is it not possible that we've veered too far in an authoritarian direction? I think the evidence against such ham-fisted and poorly executed sockpuppetry is stronger than the evidence for, and at any rate, an indef block against an account that hasn't actually been involved in any of the recent activity is procedurally problematic.
The consensus as I understood it was that as long as these accounts continued to act similarly, they could be treated as if they were sockpuppets, regardless of the truth of that conclusion. But this is not the same as what you seem to have read it as (that is, that they are clearly sockpuppets and the actions of each account are irrelevant). In the case of Frank in particular, he hasn't even be around to demonstrate the similarity of behavior that predicates our agreed-upon treatment, so how can he be said to have continued to act similarly to nzp or to Alice?
-- Powers (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever the intent behind Ikan's directive, it nonetheless remains unambiguously within policy to ban both Frank and Alice: per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban, users that have been banned for malicious editing on other WMF sites are also supposed to be banned here for the same period of time, and both Frank and Alice have been indefbanned on Wikipedia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true, but don't you think it's potentially problematic for that action to be taken only after a different account has proven sufficiently annoying? Powers (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to lie and say that the recent userban of 118.93nzp is not the thing that inspired me to take action against W. Frank and Alice, nor am I going to lie and say that I personally disbelieve the sockpuppetry allegations regarding them. In my view, however, neither of those things are relevant. Given their status as personae non gratae at Wikipedia, per our policy Frank and Alice's userbans on Wikivoyage should have gone into effect long ago. It's a simple oversight that we missed because we're human, and think it's fairly nonsensical to ignore that oversight solely based on the circumstances by which it was discovered. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone ahead and edited both Frank and Alice's ban rationales, citing their Wikipedia indefbans and eliminating all references to the 118.93nzp ban. While I continue to stand behind my own feelings, and my interpretation of the community at large's feelings, about the sockpuppetry issue, as well as my conclusions on why the community is reluctant to engage in discussions regarding userbans, nevertheless it should be made clear for the record that everything is being done in an aboveboard manner, according to policy. Also it bears mentioning that my own motivations for taking this action have nothing to do with revenge (I have not had any run-ins at all lately with W. Frank nor Alice nor, for that matter, 118.93nzp); it's a simple matter of doing a necessary administrative task that no one else seems to want to do. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your effort is appreciated. I am happy to see that this situation has been finally resolved in the way it had to be resolved from the very beginning. --Alexander (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andre, policy says we "may" ban those user accounts; it doesn't require us to. There needs to be some other justification. Powers (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Per your advice, I added a listing for Sfäär in Tallinn. I noticed that the Tallinn page is also missing a listing for Kohvik Moon, which I have visited twice. Should I add one?

The Munich page is also missing a listing for La Cucaracha, a Mexican restaurant right in the centre near the railway station, which I have also visited. That was a year and a half ago, and all I remember was that I had a rather good Mexican hamburger. The Stockholm page is also missing a listing for Zocalo, a local Mexican fast-food chain. I visited one of its restaurants in Norrmalm or Vasastan (I don't know yet which district it actually belongs to), had a burrito and found it very good. The problem with Zocalo though is, it has several locations all over Stockholm. Can I add just one listing? Should I add listings for these restaurants? JIP (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JIP, I would encourage you to add listings for any or all of these places. No need to ask permission! It doesn't matter if all you can provide is a little bit of information - a little bit is better than none.
As for Zocalo, what I would do is add a listing for it in the appropriate district article, and mention in the listing that it's one of several locations around town. Additionally, you might also mention the chain in the main Stockholm article, under the "Eat" section (not in listing form, though).
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I have added listings for all of these restaurants. Thanks! JIP (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]