User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2020

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Older discussions can be found in the following archives:

Newer ones can be found at:


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Thank you for being on vandal patrol today.

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

Pub and Pashley

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

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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 " 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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

I have had no response from you on the matter of "recent/recently" and "currently" in the Buffalo/West Side article. I have not pressed you the issue as you have not been very active on Wikivoyage, so I assumed you were busy with other things in your life. However, 11 weeks gave passed.
As many of Wikivoyage's articles are not updated frequently, and I can provide endless examples of "currently" and "recently" being added to articles 15 years ago or more, the reader has no way of knowing that Bufdalo articles are different from all the others, and that they are current.
Furthermore, my comments above demonstrate that the article in question is not up-to-date either. Ground Zero (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If one editor seems to clash with you more often than can be explained by chance, that may be on them. If several do, maybe the issue is with you, Ground? Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hobbitschuster, it's two in this case. I have listened and have been taking a lighter touch on editing, and as I indicated above, I have done so and will continue to do so especially on Buffalo articles. I have noted that you have not used the revert-and-refuse-to-discuss tactic for quite sometime, and tip my hat to you.
The particular discussion here is about updating the text in the Buffalo/West Side article. I trust that editors can put aside their objections to other people editing their work when it comes to outdated text. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry to stick my spoon here uninvited. I happen to have Andre as a friend on social media, and can testify, he's very busy right now offline. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't hear from him for some time. But I also hope I'm wrong. Ibaman (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion in the pub

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

Maps in Crimea

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)Reply[reply]

Fixed. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tourist office

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)Reply[reply]

You're right. I apologize. This whole business is fraying on my nerves. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. It's a stressful time for many of us right now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Lor mee

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The Central African Republic?

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

  • 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)Reply[reply]
Not a problem. How's your new place? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Good! I'm glad to hear things have gone smoothly and worked out well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why didn't you just talk to me?

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
Okay, sorry, I am just being paranoid. Donny (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Userspace content speedy delete nomination outcome

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Okay, I've seen that part of the article now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Chongkian

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

[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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Oy! I'm so sorry and wish you a speedy recovery! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thanks for your help with this. And get well soon. The dog2 (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And regarding your claim that "the demonstrations in Minneapolis will be outdated shortly", who knows?(or in another way to express, at that time, who knew the protest in Hong Kong on 2019-06-09 will last such long?) Also referring to edits in Colombo, where the bombing on 2019-04-21 (which is a short term event) resulted in a warning against the location, so IMO even short term incidents that fulfills the criteria of {{Warningbox}} can be listed for the sake of tourists.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Andre, but I have to side with 廣九直通車 unless you can cite policy to the contrary. The protests and the response President Trump is advocating could both present a danger to travelers, so per ttcf there should be a warningbox. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think violent protests are germane wherever they happen. Especially if the leader of the country where they occur calls for the use of deadly force... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not take people for fools. If you're one of the few international travellers in Minneapolis right now, a Wikivoyage warningbox is not the first you're hearing of what's going on. If you've heard the news already and are just too dumb to figure out it's a bad idea to get involved in situations where looting and arson is going on, there's not much Wikivoyage can do for you. And if you're not in Minneapolis right now but are for some reason planning to travel there despite the fact that virtually all the tourist infrastructure has been shut down due to the COVID epidemic, the information will most likely be outdated in short order anyway, for the simple reason that sustained, long-term, dangerous-for-tourists demonstrations lasting for weeks, as in Hong Kong, are simply not a thing that happens in the U.S. Even in the Civil Rights/Vietnam War era they were sporadic, albeit more frequent than the norm. The only situation in America in living memory that's even remotely analogous to the Hong Kong protests was the Occupy Wall Street camps, which, far from being dangerous for tourists, almost became tourist attractions themselves; I remember the one in downtown Buffalo had information booths, buskers, a lot of guerrilla art stuff. And weeks-long riots are almost certainly not going to become a thing now that the U.S. has outfitted municipal police forces with equipment and operational training that's basically military-grade. The analysis I've been reading says that law enforcement largely held back last night in order to avoid aggravating an already tense situation, in light of the fact that the theme of the demonstrations was explicitly anti-police, and in the hopes that this was basically a spasm of rage that would resolve itself quickly, but if we see the pattern repeat itself tonight and in the future, that we should expect police to respond in a way that's more assertive, so to speak, and that brings a quick and decisive end to the violence.
We also are not obliged to add a warningbox to an article just because a particular country has issued a travel advisory, which are politicized routinely. In an environment characterized by a backdrop of political confrontation between Trump and Xi - and, again, one where international travel largely does not exist - the one the Chinese government issued handily qualifies as an escalation of a pre-existing war of words rather than a bona fide warning to nonexistent tourists visiting the U.S.
If all this is wrong, we can certainly restore the warningbox once it becomes clear that last night wasn't a one-off, as we did with the Hong Kong warningbox. But to do so now is premature.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@廣九直通車, SelfieCity, Hobbitschuster, AndreCarrotflower: Let's centralize the discussion in one place. I suggest Talk:United States of America, which I think is where the first discussion of this issue was started. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! If you so firmly believe that this file is not in Commons’ project scope and thus should be kept here, please nominate it for deletion on Commons. If the result of the RfD there is deletion, you were right keeping it here; if the result is keep, it can safely be deleted here, as it’s quite unlikely to be deleted in a second RfD. The current situation, in which the file exists in both places, is definitely the worst possible. Regards, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An award for you!

The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thank you for the help with the image. I am new to this - I hope I did it right. Thanks again - I appreciate it. Lazarus1255 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deleting posts on your own user talk page

I thought that was allowed. Do we have a written-out policy about that somewhere?

That said, should we block Supevan for using this site purely a a vanity project for his own user page and clearly state somewhere that people who edit only their user page for x-amount of time are subject to getting blocked, or is it (probably) not worth the time to even think about more?

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can adopt Wikipedia's user page policy here. In a nutshell, "User pages are for communication and collaboration. While considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages, they are community project pages, not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium. They should be used to better participate in the community, and not used to excess for unrelated purposes nor to bring the project into disrepute." Gizza (roam) 00:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that really addresses this situation. A user page detailing where you traveled is presumptively related to the purpose of Wikivoyage, but that's not the issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:Using talk pages#Etiquette says "unlike everything else in Wikivoyage, it's considered bad form to change someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar" and "in general, conversations aren't deleted from talk pages but are instead archived when they are old or no longer relevant". I guess "considered bad form" isn't the same thing as "disallowed", but this user isn't giving us much reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they sure aren't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A userpage detailing your travels is relevant to Wikivoyage's ultimate purpose only if the user edits the articles (if not adding or fixing content, then at least commenting on talk or policy pages). The point of it is that another editor may ask for your help because you have experience travelling in a particular destination. A user who has dedicated all of their time in the last 3.5 years to only listing out their trips is using Wikivoyage like a blog or social media platform. Point 4 in the "Non-goals" section of Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals says "Each registered user on Wikivoyage has a user page; these should be used to support the development of the travel guide, and not as an all about me or my cat website." I admit Supevan's case is a grey area but it's close to going too far. Gizza (roam) 06:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What it amounts to is if he were participating at all, the content of his user page would be OK, but since he's not, whatever content he adds to his user page is a total waste of time and space in terms of the site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might be a waste of his time, though presumably he doesn't think so otherwise he would have stopped; it's not a waste of space because in terms of written content we have near-enough unlimited space on the Wikimedia servers. That page doesn't impact the travel guide or the community outside of its own limits. You guys are choosing to waste your own time by focusing on a page which is completely irrelevant and unimportant to the health or success of Wikivoyage; that waste is on you, not him. I oppose deleting the user page just because it's there. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respect that point of view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent changes

I’m going to be busy starting soon, so if you could patrol recent changes that would be great. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll do my best. Anything in particular I should watch out for? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Editing related to Wuhan. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately it’s continued as he’s moved to another page. This is a longer period of vandalism than usual. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit record said the full protection regarding Hong Kong expires after 01:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC), but why I still can't edit the page? Is there any problems, or did someone extends your protection? Many thanks as I want to make some update to the page.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll change the protection so that you can update. If we have to increase protection again, just contact one of us admins again. I'm sorry you ran into this problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Please post here again when you figure you're done with edits for now. Another possibility is that we could make you a Template Editor. What do you think, Andre? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to intrude on this discussion, but I think he's trustworthy and he has been really on top of things with regards to updates on the Hong Kong protests, so I think giving him template editor rights would be a good choice. The dog2 (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
廣九直通車 - I'm very sorry for the inconvenience. I had meant to set the protection for that page to "autoconfirmed only" rather than "administrators only", but we were dealing with a spree of vandalistic edits at the time that were coming so fast and furious that I'm not surprised I slipped up. At any rate, you should be all set as of now. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan Kekek and The dog2 - I don't think it's strictly necessary to give 廣九直通車 template editor rights now that the issue of the protection level of the Hong Kong article is solved, but I also don't think he will abuse the privilege if given to him, so mark me down as neutral on that issue. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Even on other projects, I have almost no experiences to deal with templates. I should probably earn more experiences before gaining other qualifications.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@廣九直通車: Template editor rights just give you the right to edit articles with a higher level of protection than semi-protection. You don't necessarily have to maintain templates, though there are some templates that do require regular updating that you're certainly welcome to help with (eg. currency conversion templates and Template:LunarNewYeardates). Based on your record, I have no reason to believe that you will abuse the privilege, so I am happy to grant it to you provided there is no objection from the community. The dog2 (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Andre, re: this edit: I don't believe "quarantine" implies isolation in a designated facility outside the home. And by definition, I don't see how a "self-quarantine" can be mandatory. The "self-" in "self-quarantine" means it's the quarantined individual choosing to do so to protect others, as opposed to a government quarantine imposed by external authorities. Powers (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Self-quarantine" means self-enforced, not self-chosen. In the early stages of the pandemic, the Chinese military patrolled the streets of Wuhan enforcing the stay-at-home order, which I guess is an example of a quarantine that takes place at one's own home but is government-enforced and mandatory. Again, though, that's not something that's happening anywhere in the U.S.
You're correct in saying that a self-quarantine is ultimately unenforceable, and if you read the fine print in the official advisory statements put out by the various state governments, most of them all but admit that. Check out item #1 on the Frequently Asked Questions list about the one pertaining to NY/NJ/CT for a good example of what I mean.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not universally enforceable, but as Governor Cuomo has pointed out, it's an "honors system" (in the words of a reporter who questioned him) in the same way that speeding regulations are - you can violate them until you get caught, and then you can be fined heavily. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK, most quarantines take place in one's own home or other domicile. It wouldn't make sense to move someone being quarantined to some other facility. But, that addresses Andre's edit summary, not the edit itself. I'm surprised to see the definition of "self-quarantine" as self-enforced rather than self-chosen. I'd be curious to see if you have a source for that definition. I looked but couldn't find a clear definition anywhere. I note that your self-quarantine link goes to self-isolation after travel, which is a subtly different thing. Would you be willing to have the text changed to "Certain states have established voluntary self-isolation or even mandatory quarantines for some visitors from other states"? Powers (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would you phrase things to deal with the mandatory self-quarantines people coming in from a bunch of states are required to do in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I just consider those to be quarantines. If they're mandatory, I don't see what adding "self-" does except confuse the issue. Powers (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A suggestion

Hey there, I understand that these are depressing times, but I was wondering if maybe something you could work on is the American cuisine article, since domestic travel is still possible. Unfortunately, I am not sure of exactly what format you have in mind, but if you get the ball rolling, I am happy to work with you on this, and chip in whenever I can. Rest assured that even though I am a foreigner, I would like to see the article featured as much as you do; I would not have nominated the article otherwise. And having lived in the US for 7 years now, and having travelled to different parts of the country, there's certainly a lot the US has to offer as a travel destination that many foreigners don't know about, and I'd be happy to do my part in promoting one of those aspects. The dog2 (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Yes, domestic travel within the U.S. is definitely still a thing that's happening. I've got a friend from Michigan who'll be visiting me at the end of next month, which is why you've seen me dusting off and burnishing the Modern architecture in Buffalo and vicinity article in my userspace lately. That's going to be my main focus for the next month (along with the Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee Tour in my userspace, which affords me the opportunity to rewatch those episodes - I'm finding comic relief to be very important in these times)‎, but after the beginning of September I'll be much more able to turn my attention to American cuisine. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

useless redirects

Is there a published Wikivoyage policy to be able to determine what redirects might be useless or useful? The majority of my edits to Wikimedia (not just Wikivoyage) are often redirects, to make it easier to find content quickly and easily, especially between different Wikimedia projects (the interwiki). For example, "USA Virgin Islands" is easier to type into search than "U.S. Virgin Islands," so for me (and likely for other users), that's a useful redirect. It might be helpful if there was an explicit policy on redirects, otherwise what is useful for one person may seem useless to another person. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion going on in Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. --LPfi (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just came across this: "Wikivoyage:Naming conventions#Disambiguation" which I think explains some of my confusion over redirects on Wikivoyage versus Wikipedia. But I still think alternative spellings of locations (such as State of New York) should be encouraged as redirects on Wikivoyage. Redirects make the site easier to use, and don't affect visible content. Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am just writing to let you know that I am a little offended at being referred to as a "pseudoscientist" or a "conspiracy theorist." I am actually a scientist (former nuclear researcher at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and current member of the Astronomical League, with partnership in the NASA Night Sky Network), not a pseudoscientist. I have an interdisciplinary baccalaureate degree with specializations in Physics and Sociology, and understand the difference between science and pseudoscience [2]. I actually don't remember typing the comment on Rachel from 2013, but I think you read it very much out of context, and I apologize for my colloquial and humorous writing style that may have created that confusion.

The article on Rachel has changed since 2013, but reading my own comment, what I meant is that people can visit any area they are legally allowed to. There are no scientific, social, or legal reasons to "stay away" from Area 51 (while still on publicly-accessible lands) just because it is surrounded by folklore and conspiracy theories. I have never been to Nevada, but from what I have read, you can get pretty close while still remaining in publicly-accessible areas, and it's a genuine tourist attraction. It is somewhere I myself would like to visit one day. I think UFOs (UAP) are a very interesting subject matter, and they are certainly a subject of genuine scientific inquiry—any unidentified phenomenon should not be dismissed without scientific investigation to try to identify it.

Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel offended. There's an axiom oft quoted on Wikipedia that applies equally here at Wikivoyage: "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". You claim not to subscribe to pseudoscience or conspiracy theory, and there's no way for us to unequivocally refute that, but your contribution history includes a great deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting otherwise - not only the bit on Talk:Rachel, but also a large block of problematic text attributable to you that had to be excised from UFOs (see also related talk page discussion here). Admittedly, the UFO business is several years in the past as well, and you may have been joking about that too or have changed your opinion in the intervening period, but in any case the end result is the same: for these and other reasons (namely your persistence in creating redirects of questionable worth despite being counseled numerous times not to; your checkered history at Wikinews), for the time being your edits require too much scrutiny for autopatroller status to be appropriate for you. If you disagree, then by all means set about demonstrating your trustworthiness - autopatroller or not, there are currently no restrictions on your editing privileges at Wikivoyage - and we can revisit the issue in the future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know what autopatrolling is so am probably not interested in it. I am happy with just being able to contribute to Wikivoyage as best I can within my ability and knowledge. I was specifically targeted for harassment by a rogue admin on Wikinews (@pi zero:), and have not had the time or energy to bring it to the Wikimedia Foundation to get that resolved. Unfortunately, Wikinews does not have enough active admins to be able to self-govern against the actions of any potential rogue admins like the larger Wikimedia projects can. Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add that there is definitely a stigma against ufology, ufologists, and anyone willing to submit a UFO report. Even in academia, research into UFOs is often scoffed at. It is a very unfortunate situation, but likely a better discussion for Wikipedia or Wikiversity than Wikivoyage. With regard to Wikivoyage, UFO sightings either in the past or present are often magnets for UFO tourism, but a scientifically neutral and nonjudgmental approach should still be taken unless the sightings have been discredited. Nicole Sharp (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

list of socks?

Is there a list of this users socks anywhere here? I noticed you blocked someone who is currently being problematic on enwiki (AppalachianCentrist) who you've blocked here as LibMod but I can't get a glock or an en block without filing an SPI and unfortunately the only two identified socks there have too few edits to compare. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Praxidicae: An exhaustive list would take a while to compile, but to get you started, here's a handful of the most active ones (for recognition-denial reasons, I'm declining to link directly to the userpages):
  • User:Libertarianmoderate
  • User:Libertarianmoderate2
  • User:LibMod
  • User:LibMod2
  • User:Zayn Hussein
  • User:SmokinTourist909
  • User:Alphaomegaone
  • User:SoftAngelFromHell (this was in retrospect almost certainly a LibMod sock, but at the time, we weren't familiar enough with his modus operandi to prove as much conclusively and thus he was never userbanned)
Please let me know if you need me to unearth more.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admin status

Hi there, I'm sending this message because you're a bureaucrat and therefore have the user rights to do this (I think).

I'm expecting to be busy with non-WV related activities starting about now (my user activity has already decreased over the last few days), and might not have much time to edit WV for a while. Per Wikivoyage:Administrators "Unused high-privilege user accounts are a security risk." Therefore I'm taking the somewhat unconventional step of requesting a removal of admin rights. Let me know if the concern in that article is exaggerated, but if not, I've noticed the problems associated with removing admin rights due to inactivity, and while I don't expect to become that inactive any time soon, I think it would be best to avoid that problem through this message.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SelfieCity - I'd say you're definitely exaggerating the concern in that article. As I understand it, that text was meant to provide a justification for why we remove admin rights from users who haven't edited in mainspace for a span of two years. It doesn't sound like you plan to be "busy with non-WV related activities" for that long of a time, and even if you do, "unused" for the purposes of this policy means completely unused, not just less-used. That being said, I will still be happy to pull your sysop rights if you'd like, and they can be reinstated when you return to activity without going through the usual 14-day admin nomination process, but I definitely don't see it as a security necessity. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SelfieCity: go take care of those non-WV things, and hurry right back. We'll miss you. Ground Zero (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, if that’s the case I’ll retain admin status. I don’t expect to leave completely, by any means. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see you removed a _NOTOC_ and asked why it was there. I remember having added some such (or TOC?) when the pagebanners firs were introduced, as the table of content sometimes did not work in the pagebanner or somesuch. Perhaps a search for that word in article space would be warranted. –LPfi (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DotM banners

Hi mate. Sorry to hear about the injury and hope you're managing to rest it.

I'm interested to know, what method do you use for counting the votes for the main page banners? By my count, aviation banner #2 received three first-preference votes, whereas the one that got put on the main page, #3, got only one. Is it the number of second-preference votes #3 received that swung it? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What happened? Very sorry to hear. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the sake of transparency, here's my vote-counting method in black and white:
  • In a standard-sized field of four banner options, each first-place vote is assigned 3 points, each second-place vote 2 points, each third-place vote 1 point, and each last-place vote 0. Needless to say, winners are assigned by adding up the total of all points earned by each banner.
  • In cases where there are a different number of banner options, the point values are changed accordingly, i.e. first place in a field of three banner options gets only 2 points, etc.
  • In instances where editors don't account for all options in their ranking, each of the unranked banners are awarded the average of all remaining possible scores. For instance, if there's a standard-sized field of four banners and an editor indicates their first-place choice only, that banner would be awarded 3 points as usual and the others would be awarded 1 point each (1 being the average of 2, 1, and 0).
  • When two banners are tied for the most points, preference goes to the banner with the most first-place votes.
  • When two banners are tied for the most points and have received an equal number of first-place votes, the tie is broken by the banner maker's own preference. (I'm aware that may come off as self-serving, but I see it as fair reward for putting in the work of making the banners. Also, I'm not the only one who makes banners; for instance, if this situation had happened with the Dunedin banners, AlasdairW would have been the tiebreaker-by-fiat.)
Using these rules, ThunderingTyphoons! is correct in that banner #2 comes out slightly ahead of #3, 10 points to 9. It's down to faulty arithmetic on my part, I suppose. I've gone ahead and placed the proper banner on the Main Page.
I didn't expect you to have such a thorough system in place. Would you like to have a stab at UK electoral reform? :) Thanks for the explanation.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ikan Kekek - it was a really, really painful case of prepatellar bursitis on my left kneecap that began the day before my birthday and was frustratingly unresponsive both to OTC analgesics and the lidocaine/steroid injection the doctor gave me. Thankfully, at this point I'm about 90% recovered with only a bit of lingering stiffness in the leg. I guess this is the kind of thing that happens when a person turns 40. Incidentally, my preoccupation with that situation was the reason why I've as yet failed to acknowledge the birthday greetings you and Ibaman left for me on Facebook, so I hope you guys didn't think that was a snub. Your kind thoughts were all the more appreciated given the circumstances.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you're better. I hope that physical therapy and continued recovery will enable you to get to 100% soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommendations for proper attire in the USA

I am new here so apology if not taking the proper path.

I have observed that articles here on Wikivoyage, Wikipedia and elsewhere in references that guidance on USA business casual attire and general USA proper attire are profoundly biased. I am certain that this is not by intention but resulting from reuse of terms and dialogue left over from the past.

Generally proper attire advice centers around tie or no tie, suit or no suit, jacket or collared shirt etc. and fail to advise on a broader set of clothing articles that are not gender specific.

Not sure where to start to help resolve and initiate corrections so reaching out to you as an experienced individual for help and guidance.

Thanks and appreciation in advance, DVpeacemaker DVpeacemaker (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tourism bureau links

My friend, I think you're being too quick to revert the links User:2601:144:8101:3D40:E4AB:40EC:C9E2:8EF3 has been adding. Please argue your point at User talk:2601:144:8101:3D40:E4AB:40EC:C9E2:8EF3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email from Deadfread

Dear Andre, I got an obscure email from user Deadfread. Do you know anything about him and his actions because you blocked him? Thanks. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roland, please see here.
Andy, maybe in this case, it's better to copy your message to the Pub. If this guy is going to keep emailing different people, then it's better everyone knows so as to minimise confusion. If he gets a small amount of 'recognition' as a result, then so be it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]