User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2019

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the following archives:

Newer ones can be found at:

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

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

Let's keep talking

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

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

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

Edit deletion

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

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

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

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

Added text on the dotm page

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

I disagree about this edit

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

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

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

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

Buffalo map

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

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

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

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

Hi Andre, I finally got the new district map drawn. Sorry for taking so long, work has taken over for the past couple of months. Let me know if there are any changes. Cheers -Shaundd (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spectacular work, Shaundd. I really appreciate it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Shaundd. Two things. One: I'm currently updating the Buffalo district articles (and working at a pretty fast clip) after which point I'll start on the district reorganization. I hate putting down timetables because they never end up being accurate, but as of right now it looks like it might be done by the end of the year or early next. Just so you know your work on the new Buffalo map isn't in vain. Secondly: I'm wondering if you could adjust the color in the Black Rock-Riverside district (dull green; northwest corner of the city). IMO it does not contrast enough either with the blue of North Buffalo or the gray area outside the city line. I think we have some room to move in sort of a brighter, lime-green direction without too much worry about color contrast vis-à-vis the yellow West Side or the darker green park areas. Can you help out with that? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Andre, I made the change but Commons won't let me upload the file right now. I'll try again tomorrow or later in the week and hopefully it will work then. -Shaundd (talk) 05:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured travel topic banner for Nanotourism

Could you create a couple banners for our upcoming joke article? Thanks! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure thing. I've got a project to wrap up offwiki, but after that I was already planning on taking care of the next month's banners. I should be back with those no later than next week. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you've still got time, but just wanted to let you know in case you had forgotten. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to pass when it comes to those Nanotourism banners. I don't have a lot of ideas for how the topic could be depicted in banner form, nor were there many usable source images for the one idea I did have (a giant insect viewed through a microscope) when I looked through Commons just now, nor frankly am I terribly interested in this whole thing to begin with. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, that's fine, I can shop around for some banners. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, on a similar note, I'll work on some banners for Pleasanton, since I know the area. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was actually going to ask you if you wanted to do the honors on those. Thanks for your help in the banner department lately. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure thing! I've learned the joys (and troubles) of the business! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Van Buren

With regards to Van Buren, isn't the unique point about him that English was his second language? The current phrasing seems quite ambiguous, as it could mean that he spoke English as a second language, but it could also mean that he spoke both English and Dutch as native languages. The dog2 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current wording says Van Buren was the only president to speak a language other than English natively, that language being Dutch. I don't know how a reader gets "he spoke both English and Dutch natively" out of that. Van Buren was raised speaking Dutch and only learned English later. Learning a second language is not the same thing as speaking two languages natively, not even if you become so fluent in that second language that no one can tell the difference. It's right in the etymology of the word "native" (cf. "natal"). If you weren't born speaking a particular language, ipso facto you're not a native speaker of it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So let's say one day in the future a Latino becomes president, and that person speaks Spanish at home but learnt English in the playground, would you consider that person someone who speaks English as a second language, or as someone who has both Spanish and English as his/her native languages?
I won't push the issue too much here, but what I was saying is that the mere fact that someone speaks another language as a native language doesn't mean he/she does not speak English as a native language. People can have two first languages. I know it's not that common in the U.S., but it is not inconceivable for someone to grow up speaking two languages at home. For instance, I once met someone with a Cuban father and an American mother, and she spoke Spanish at home with her father and English with her mother. Therefore, that person would rightly be considered to have two native languages. So like Van Buren, she speaks a language other than English as a native language, but unlike Van Buren, English is not her second language, but rather a native language in addition to Spanish. The dog2 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty sure that the wording in question goes back to me. I don't know whether van Buren was raised bilingual or not. At any rate, all other presidents were raised monolingual in only English. So either interpretation of the wording fits and I think it should this stay that way until and unless we get a(nother) native bilingual president. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: Van Buren wasn't raised bilingual. He spoke only Dutch at home, and only learnt English when he started going to school. I have no doubt that he must have been fluent in English to have been able to run for public office. But nevertheless, English was most certainly his second language. The dog2 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with The dog2 – the fact that Van Buren didn't speak English natively is a stronger and more interesting statement than what the article currently says. We should revert to this version. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side point, but Hobbitschuster, Obama was not raised monolingual but became fluent in Indonesian while living in and around Jakarta for 4 years with his American mother and Indonesian stepfather. However, he was not a native speaker because he moved there when he was 6. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was converrting the taxi items into listings as part of the current Collaboration of the month. If you don't think it's worth converting similar items into listings then you may want to mention it there before too many get done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got your ping

Dear André, please accept my apologies for not responding to your RfC at the Buffalo starnom. I have been very busy lately and have not had much time for Wikivoyage, but you do at least deserve an acknowledgement. Congratulations on the successful promotion of your chef d'œuvre; it's looking marvellous. Hope to be back soon, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ThunderingTyphoons! - Your apologies are appreciated but unnecessary. I saw what you wrote earlier on your user page, and I totally understand the position you're in. I myself have been endeavoring to break free of the cycle of dead-end jobs as shuttle driver or desk clerk in favor of freelancing as a translator, and although I have the necessary skills, it's like an alien world compared to any professional situation I've ever been in before. It's definitely the kind of thing that takes up time that would otherwise be used on things like Wikivoyage; in fact, the only reason I haven't been as scarce as you have is that I'm only working part-time at the moment. Good luck to you, and take all the time you need. We'll be here when you get back. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i apologize on my behalf for the damages i have done. i will certainly keep a look out next time... thanks.... Arep Ticous 16:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Terra" is a widely used and accepted synonym for "Earth." If a redirect page exists for Earth, then there should also exist a redirect page for Terra. The previous discussion at "Wikivoyage:votes for deletion/April 2018#Planet Terra" was for the long-form formal name of Planet Terra to accommodate consistent interwikilinking from other Wikimedia projects (such as Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons) where disambiguation is necessary between other uses of "Terra" and "terra." I went ahead and remade the redirect, but if you think that "Terra" should be deleted the same as "Planet Terra," I would recommend opening a new vote specifically for the international standard name of our planet (international names for astronomical bodies are nearly always Latinized). Otherwise, it would be better for consistency to delete "Earth" as well as "Terra." Nicole Sharp (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't mind my adding my thoughts here, AndreCarrotFlower—Nicole Sharp: take a look at an ngram comparison of "Earth" and "Terra." "Earth" is far, far more common. I'm not against using "Terra" as a redirect — but definitely, "Earth" should not be deleted. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is English-language Wikivoyage, not Latin Wikivoyage. No English-speaker will search for an article on “Terra” and give up because they couldn’t imagine using the search term “Earth”. Be serious, please, Nicole. And there’s no reason for a destination article about the planet where the entire human race except for a few astronauts temporarily on the Space Station lives. Please stop; this is silly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, Nicole, your views were already rejected in the vote for deletion you referred to. At this point, you are wasting everyone’s time with an attempt at and end-around. I will summarily delete this redirect. Don’t restore it as Terran Orb or some other circumlocution, and concentrate on edits that actually help Terran Homo sapiens travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can’t delete a damned redirect from my cellphone. Someone else will have to do it. Don’t waste more time arguing, Nicole. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For consistency, I've also deleted the redirect Luna.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sensible decision. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did you do that?

Good evening. Here, you managed to link to another listing using some sort of special URL. How do you make those? The only way I know to link to a specific listing is with a Wikidata record "Q" number, which naturally most commercial listings, as opposed to attractions, lack. But your way, assuming it's not some sort of magic, seems more universal.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello TT. Here's how it's done. First, place Template:Anchor immediately before the listing (or block of un-listingified text!) that you want the link to jump to: something like {{anchor|XXX}}. Then, you formulate the link like so: [[Page title#XXX]]. Hope this helps. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does help. Thank you, André. Didn't know about that template, and haven't noticed it being used on any other articles. I've just tried it out on York. Works a treat.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this information. I may use this in future, if I feel it may be useful. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TT has a question there for you that you will likely want to answer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On my talk page

Hi. When you have some free time, would you please take a look at the latest discussion on my talk page (User talk:ThunderingTyphoons!#User:Alexkyoung) and offer your thoughts there? Thanks, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


All iam asking for is to help the project please work with me instead of deleting everything i do. Cactusflies22 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Wikivoyage listing templates and including location, contact and hours information in your listings would be helpful. "Such-and-such is downtown" is not really usable information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please block

Will you please block ASPIZZA (it's an LTA) and delete my userpage so that my global page can be restored? Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Praxidicae: Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Praxidicae: would you like me to protect your local userpage against being recreated again? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added some content from Wikipedia. Do you want me to copyedit it? You may want to take a look at it, if you have the time, to make sure you are good with it.

I have been more liberal in terms of copying content from Wikipedia, as while this is not an emergency, it is close enough to one that I feel doing this is worth it. Tell me if you disagree. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definitely a meritorious idea. I'd say the only quibble I have with your additions is the business about the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival honoring writer/director John Sayles and producer Maggie Renzi in 2006, which is rather irrelevant to travellers 13+ years after the fact - but that's okay, because the blurb was a little on the long side IMO anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Maybe "Montealegre de Campos" is not such a big destination and Ávila, Segovia and Cuenca are (after all these three all are World Heritage Sites). Feel free to make your point, but these unexplained reversions are not helpful. Strakhov (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reversions were explained on your user talk page. In short, those lists of cities are limited to nine entries except for bottom-level regions, and editors can't just unilaterally decide which cities belong on the list and which don't - consensus is required. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they weren't. You left me a generic welcome template. Do I really need to get consensus (with whom?) to remove "Almansa" from the main touristical destinations in Castile-La Mancha in this 3-edits-per-year-stub page? And for putting the "migas" image in the Eat section? Including a wikidata ID needs someone else's permission too? Really? Remove the other two cities added if you want, they are the most populated ones, leaving the province capitals aside, though. Strakhov (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Read the message again, specifically the third paragraph and thereafter, which I wrote myself and appended to the end of the welcome template. And yes, site policy calls for consensus for all additions to and subtractions from "Cities" and "Other destinations" lists (again, with the exception of bottom-level regions) and specifically states that undiscussed changes generally get reverted - see Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists#Lists of Cities and Other destinations. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That (the need for asking permission to edit pages which no one edits) could be a very good reason why so many (joke intended) people contribute here and Spanish regional articles look so starving and "desert-like" (pun intended). Bye. Strakhov (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to advocate for a change in policy, there are ways to do that, but on second thought, if you have such a low opinion of this site in the first place, maybe it's better that you just leave well enough alone and be on your way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not giving opinion, just stating facts, Andre (look at those pages). Procedural reverts are not helpful ("reverts" without a point behind, asides the "lack of consensus" and some generic claim of breaking some policy or tradition [Montealegre de Campos (!!!) keeps saying "hello!" in the Central Spain page]). Good luck with your project. Strakhov (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, if you disagree with these policies, there are ways to change them. The part that you don't seem to grasp is that until there is consensus for such a change in policy, editors are expected to respect the current one. If by some chance you do want to make your feelings known, Wikivoyage talk:Avoid long lists would be the place to start that conversation, but frankly I don't think you really do. You've got a bad attitude and seem more interested in stirring up drama than contributing constructively, and given how much work there is to do on this site, dealing with behavior like that is just not a high priority for us. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I'm not an English native speaker, as you may have noticed, and I prefer investing my time enhancing "articles/guides" instead of starting a discussion to change an all-mighty policy in an extraneous language against seasoned veterans or to get a consensus in a topic in which I don't even know if there's a disagreement before I arrive. Indeed, there's so much work to do in this site and you suggesting me to not contribute here (" you just leave well enough alone and be on your way" [sic]) may not be the best way to greet newcomers. Strakhov (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't like the policy, I've outlined the steps to change it. If you can't be bothered to take those steps, then obviously you must not disagree with the policy that strongly, and you're more than welcome to continue editing under the auspices of the current policy. But we don't just set policy aside because one user doesn't like it. You're active on several other WMF sites, so you already know how consensus-based governance works. As far as welcoming newcomers goes, the vast majority of new editors who find their way here have no problem at all. Many of them, myself included, have gone on to become some of the most prolific and respected contributors to the site. The difference between them and you is they don't come in with chips on their shoulders, they don't act as if the rules don't apply to them, they take advice and counsel from more senior editors in good cheer, and they use disagreements like this as learning experiences rather than as reasons to engage in conflicts. These are basic behaviors that are expected of people who are newcomers to any activity, not just wiki editing. So please don't pretend this is a simple case of newbie-biting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm. Indeed, I didn't "disagree with the policy that strongly" (I did just suggest asking for permission before editing it's not very "wiki" and probably not the best way to attract contributors to dreary stubs pages, but I'm far to start a crusade to abolish it), but with the way you are applying it and your reversions (in bottom level, and not bottom level regions, reverting [and not undoing] changes, removing altogether changes affecting lists and others that don't, etc etc), and, finally, I don't know, a mix of 'condescending' language and low-intensity personal attacks? ("maybe it's better that you just leave well enough alone and be on your way", "You've got a bad attitude and seem more interested in stirring up drama than contributing constructively, and given how much work there is to do on this site, dealing with behavior like that is just not a high priority for us" ('us' vs 'you', classic groupthink), "you're starting down a bad road here"), "Many of them, myself included, have gone on to become some of the most prolific and respected contributors to the site" (ejem...), "The difference between them and you is blablabla..." (after three comments you seem to know me better than my own mother) in a simple, common and clear-cut case of newbie-biting. BTW: "No". Strakhov (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm out of town at the moment and editing on mobile, so please forgive my limited ability to continue following and addressing this situation. But, a few points:

" bottom level [as well as non-]bottom level regions"
Read Wikivoyage:Avoid long lists#Lists of Cities and Other destinations again. The policy about limiting "Cities" sections to 7±2 listings applies to only non-bottom-level regions, but the policy requiring consensus before adding or removing list items, and the statement about non-consensus-based changes being subject to reversion, applies to all region articles. Your edit to Castile-La Mancha that I partially reverted consisted of two new redlinks in the "Cities" section. Given that Wikivoyage does not have any articles for or information on those localities, that edit was not helpful to travellers and therefore was reverted. What would have been helpful to travellers, and would have been a much better way to address the deficiencies in our coverage of Spain that you mentioned earlier in this thread, and probably would not have been reverted, is if you had begun by creating articles on those two cities, added some relevant content to them, and then linked to them from the region article.
"reverting (and not undoing) changes"
You made a string of seven consecutive changes to the "Cities" and "Other destinations" sections of Central Spain that all had to be reverted. I used Rollback to spare myself the inconvenience of undoing each of the edits individually. That's precisely the kind of situation the feature was intended for. Unfortunately the MediaWiki software doesn't allow users to add an edit summary when using the Rollback feature, which is why I added an explanation of my reverts to your user talk page underneath the welcome template. You were the one who chose not to actually read what I wrote and instead to assume it was merely boilerplate text, so I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of reverting your edits without explanation.
"a mix of 'condescending' language and low-intensity personal attacks"
Let's be clear on who drew first blood here. I reverted your edits, then immediately placed a friendly welcome message on your user talk page along with a friendly explanation why I reverted your edits. For my troubles, I got a snippy message from you on my talk page falsely accusing me of reverting your edits without explanation (again, a by-product of your choice not to thoroughly read the message I sent you), along with further provocations in subsequent messages while I did my best to keep my composure. So please spare me the accusations of newbie-biting, okay? From my perspective, it looks like the newbie has been the one doing the biting.
"BTW: 'No.'"
The policy document to which I linked you indicated clearly and unambiguously the requirement for consensus before altering Cities sections. The mere fact that you found another user who was either unaware of this policy or unwilling to go to the trouble of arguing with you doesn't make me wrong.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 Questions regarding 2 edidts that have been reverted

Hi AndreCarrotflower

I took the time to read the policies of Wikivoyage before I made my edits, but please be patient with me, I am a newbe ;-)

I am writhing regarding the following 2 edits I made, that you reverted with the following comment als reason: "Reverting last two edits: 1) Wikivoyage is not the Yellow Pages; 2) external links are not used to link to anything that could simply be included in the guide itself; 3) so-called "subjective information" such as relative pricing of taxis in various cities and friendliness of drivers is welcome on Wikivoyage"

Regarding Nr. 3: I have been living in Zurich for almost 20 years and have travelled to many countries. It is true that taxi fares are more expensive here, as are many other things due to the higher standard of living. This is a well-known fact. So you are right, such information makes sense for travelers, but the commentary on the friendliness of taxi drivers is a generalization and really very subjective and damaging to the image of Zurich compared to other places. It is also not fair to many taxi drivers here that do a good job. The sentence sounds like "oh my G*d, Zurich is a terrible place with monster taxi drivers, and that's not the case. It's similar to many places, some drivers do their job professionally and others don't. Most bad experiences come from drivers who work independently and not for one of the 3-5 larger taxi service providers. That's why I did the editing and listed also the 2 largest taxi providers (that have almost a monopoly) and the 3 smaller alternatives that are most known to people living in Zurich. And since UBER does only offer «Uber Black» now here, I added the 2 Smartphone Apps that are kind of an alternative for the comfort of the travellers. Question: Would it be OK to rewrite that part keeping the mention of higher prices but removing the mention of unfriendly drivers? What do you think?

Regarding Nr. 1 and 2: In my opinion, both reasons for rejection are contradictory. Could it be? Here are my considerations: I have listed the best-known limousine service providers that are really based in Zurich City. Of course there are many more from the surrounding area, but you are absolutely right that Wikivoyage should not be the Yellow Pages. At the same time, you write that "external links are not used to refer to something that could easily be included in the guide itself". Well, these limousine service providers are already listed on the information page of Zurich Toursim (a link to a links to primary source), but for the sake of clarity I've only listed those who are really based in Zurich City (also see Google Maps for "limousineservice in Zurich". Does that make sense? My thought was this: If I am a traveller, I am happy to see this information and even a link for more in-depth information if I need it. Question: How could it be solved so that the main rule of the policies "The traveler comes first" can be satisfied?

I am ready to learn and maybe you will even find the time to recommend how you would write the information?

Thank you for your time.

Khlong Lan Waterfall images

Hi. I'm not a regular editor here, but I thought that the use of such misleading images showing impossible colours would be a disservice to readers? We wouldn't use an image showing the aurora borealis in purple, would we? In any case, the image is in the process of being delisted as a Featured Picture on Commons, and has been nominate for deletion. --Paul 012 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I find a bit ridiculous the idea that it's never appropriate for Commons photos to use color enhancement or take artistic license, or that doing so is inherently misleading to readers (IMO, that depends on the context in which the photo is presented). That policy would exclude HDR images, for example, which is a standard feature in most newer-model smartphone cameras that a lot of photographers probably don't even realize they're using. I also notice that the deletion nomination for the photo on Commons has no supporting comments, and while I'm nowhere near as familiar with Commons policy as with Wikivoyage's, I would be astonished if anything came of that nomination. If I'm wrong, Wikivoyage will cross that bridge when we come to it, but until then, replacing the photo on these pages would be premature. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with, for example, this image of the place. The changes are minor, and certainly not "impossible." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andre, the deletion nomination may not succeed, and I don't see why it should, but this nomination to delist it as a Featured Picture looks set to be approved unanimously, and I don't oppose it and will probably vote for it. I think we should use this photo as a thumbnail here, and I do think the other one is misleading if those colors never exist there. Color "enhancement" that makes a place look like it has fall colors when no such thing exists there is indeed misleading. When we considered the original nomination, I was willing to suspend disbelief, figuring that perhaps this was pretty high up in the mountains of northern Thailand and did have a fall season, but apparently not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should use an image that displays the colors as they actually appear, not one digitally edited to very different colors. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the trees at Khlong Lan never change color, then yes, let's not use the image here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They don't. That's what I meant by "impossible". --Paul 012 (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Then it's reasonable not to use that picture. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock request

Hello!. This IP is requesting unblock. As you were the sysop that blocked it, I thought it would be easier if you could handle it. Could you please take a look? Thanks! Teles (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respectfully, Teles, I would hope that you don't suspect us of instituting user blocks - let alone indefinitely banning users and denying them access to their own talk page and the EmailUser feature - without good reason. The user associated with this IP address is a persistent block-evading vandal who we've been dealing with for years. As such, there will be no unblocking. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, this vandal has been around since the spring of 2006, longer than almost anyone of Wikivoyage's current roster of active users. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. I just brought the case to your knowledge for trusting that you would do the proper thing. I obviously don't know local vandals IP range to tell which one is a long-term vandal or not. You may kindly advise me how I should proceed with such requests next time and I will do it. Thanks. Teles (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A virtual beer for you!
For dealing with different edit warriors, vandals and such over the last week and otherwise. Ypsilon (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ypsi. It's not a fun job, but someone's got to do it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversions of Madrid edits

I'm not sure whether we should have vague blanket statements like "some neighborhoods in cardinal direction x may have an uneasy feeling to them" or advise to our readers to please use air bnb. I'm also not sure whether this kind of reversion of edits of a heretofore not active IP editor who seems to bring local knowledge is the best way of handling it. You did explain your reasoning in the edit summary, but I must say I'm not entirely convinced. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hobbitschuster - Well, first of all, just because an editor is new doesn't mean we shouldn't hold his or her contributions to the same standard as those of established editors. We shouldn't bite newbies, of course, but the way folks learn how things work at Wikivoyage is by having their mistakes corrected and being instructed about policy in a friendly and good-faith-assuming way, as I tried to do in my edit summaries.
Secondly, in my edit summary, I tried to make it clear that the IP editor was more than welcome to use his or her local knowledge to paint a more detailed picture of which parts of Madrid might be dodgy, but at the end of the day "vague blanket statements" about "some neighborhoods in cardinal direction x" are better than no information at all, which is what the article was left with until I restored the previous status quo. If I had any personal familiarity with Madrid, I might have done it one better and added higher-quality information, but I don't, so the best I could do was to restore what was there before.
As for the removal of the information about Airbnb, that was pretty clearly a case of the IP user pushing an agenda, which is a no-no per Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals. Whether we like it or not, Airbnb has staked out a significant place on the hospitality landscape, and IMO the word "Airbnb" itself is too far down the road toward becoming a generic term for any web-based accommodation-sharing platform (much like Jell-O is for flavored gelatin desserts or Kleenex for disposable facial tissues) for any argument that mentioning it by name equals touting to hold water. The issue of rent hikes in Madrid as a result of Airbnb is certainly one we can cover in the Airbnb article (if we don't already), and it perhaps also merits a mention in the lede paragraph of Madrid#Sleep, but the bottom line is it's up to the reader to make his or her own ethical decision about whether the negatives of Airbnb outweigh the positives. Simply removing information about Airbnb for clearly tendentious reasons crosses the line into, effectively, a case of Wikivoyage editors forcing their own ethical standards on the reader.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please change the protection of the modules in the subject to only template editor and block user ‎Total Module Destruction. Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ground Zero since you are online too, please support. --Andyrom75 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for patroller

Hi AndreCarrotflower. Would you be willing to grant me patroller rights, so that I could use rollback here? I lot of my edits have been reverting vandalism and spam, and this would make it easier. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you still have the template for the VIA Rail routebox icons?

VIA Rail's Montreal-Quebec Corridor line is now the Ottawa-Quebec Corridor line, so the icon needs to be updated. Do you still have the template? I've already updated the route information on the affected pages and added it to Montreal/West Island and Ottawa (I wasn't sure whether I should redlink to Alexanderia (Ontario) on those pages, but there's a redlink on the Alexandria disambiguation page so I went ahead); we just need to fix the icon now. --Robkelk (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the belated reply here. IIRC, I free-handed those icons with MS Paint. (That was a long time ago!) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Andy. It's too minor a point to spend much time on, but what do you think "various" adds here? Around twenty leaders of government departments would mean they lead around 20 departments. Seems good enough to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree it's a minor point, and I won't make a fuss if you revert me. But aside from helping with the flow of the sentence ("...of government departments" just sounds like it's missing a word), it also helps emphasize that the Cabinet is not made up of the heads of literally every government department, but just certain ones and not others. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it makes that point clearly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Christmas pudding for you!

The Wikivoyage Xcellence @ Xmas Award
For the tireless creation of featured article banners of the highest quality throughout most of the 2010s, I hereby present this celebratory pudding.

Your official stats

  • Number of instant classics made: more than I remember, but this is my absolute favourite.
  • Number of 'illuminated corridor' airport banners: three.
  • Number of Buddha statues used: infinity.
  • Number of words used to describe your creations: all of the words.
  • Number of missed deadlines: no.
  • Number of times thanked: not enough.
  • Number of duds: a number infinitesimally smaller than the below figure.
  • Total number of banners created: I lost count; somewhere north of 600. Santa probably knows.

Bravo, Monsieur Carrotflower, et joyeux Noël ! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]