User talk:Drat70

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Drat70! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.--ϒpsilon (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you very much for reverting spam in several articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I have a question though: I saw you used a reply with a link to [external links#what not to link to] when you deleted one of the spam messages. Are there special templates or a page with what information should be in the edit summary in such cases? Thanks. --Drat70 (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Most of my message was from {{subst:tout}}. You can read the text of the template at Template:Tout. There's no template I know of on external links, so I just typed that part of the post. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. I just made you an Autopatroller. In the short time you've been here so far, you've been a valuable and very helpful editor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Drat70 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to Wikipedia[edit]


you reverted my edit on Rotterdam: a link to Wikipedia. You explained this with a link that does not work. Perhaps you should change this. Apart from that, I don't quite understand your vision. To my humble opinion it is always useful to make relevant links to sister projects. See for instance: Wikivoyage:Sister_project_links#When_to_link. So please reconsider your behaviour. Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dick Bos, Ikan Kekek: Hi there. Sorry for the wrong link.
I understand where you are coming from, however I was not part of the discussion on the rules to links to Wikipedia. Maybe you should mention this to User:Ikan Kekek he reverted the other of your edits and is much more active than me and has been for a long time, so maybe he can explain better why this rule stands and how come there's a discrepancy between the links to Wikipedia page and the links to sister project page. Afaik this is so that all the essential information is present in the article in case it gets printed out for offline access. Cheers Drat70 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Dick Bos, please see wv:ds. Linking to WP has been discussed many times over the years, if anyone's interested these discussions can be found at Wikivoyage_talk:Links_to_Wikipedia and to some extent also Wikivoyage_talk:External_links. ϒpsilon (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for covering this, guys. Dick Bos, Wikis run on consensus, and the way that works is that policies adopted by consensus aren't changed until there's a consensus for change. That builds in a degree of conservatism that can be frustrating at times, but that's the way Wikis roll. Drat70 does a lot of great work in reverting edits that are at variance with site policies. It's not that Drat has some kind of individual vision that powers such edits, it's just the Drat is keeping the site as close to previously agreed-upon policies and formats as possible. You are welcome to reopen the discussion of adding more links to sister sites in articles, but I would suggest that you wait until new policies for opening links that are currently under discussion are put into effect, because part of the argument against putting inline links to Wikipedia all over Wikivoyage articles is that it will encourage people to surf to other sites and not come back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: The change has been made: External links are opening up in a separate window. Go ahead and restart the discussion about adding additional links to sister sites if you like. The place to reopen the discussion is Wikivoyage talk:External links. But do read through previous discussions first, to get a feel for the nature of the objections that have been made. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Postal codes on Unst[edit]

Hi Drat70, is there a specific reason, why you removed the post codes from listings on Unst in this edit? In the UK, postal codes provide quite a precise location, so they are very useful to have (see Wikivoyage:Postal_codes). If you don't have any objections, I would revert the removals. Thanks for the other edits to the article. Xsobev (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xsobev: Hi Xsobev . Yes, I am aware of this special rule for the UK. However I thought this only applies when the postcode allows to pinpoint the location quite precisely. I noticed that in rural areas of Scotland those postcode often span over the whole town or several villages, making them pretty useless. As there were two locations in this post with the same postcode, I assumed this was also the case here. Please feel free to revert if this was wrong. Thanks! Drat70 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mergcredit" template[edit]

Hi, and thanks as always for your work! Template mergecredit was deleted on this site some time ago, as it's quite sufficient to merge the content and then redirect the article from which the content was merged. The history remains available in the redirect article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I was quite confused about that, as the template obviously didn't work. I think the page Wikivoyage:How to merge two pages should be adapted then, as that's where I got the instructions from. Drat70 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aquaholics deletion[edit]

Hi Drat70, You left no edit summary for your deletion of the Aquaholics entry on Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay. Do you have reason to believe that the entry was not valid? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Pbsouthwood:. Sorry about the missing edit summary, I was going through a lot of dead links, and after a while I missed out some of the edit summaries.
Concerning this specific entry. I've seen that the website is offline and so went to search for alternative sources. The only reference to this place I could find was the wikitravel article. Furthermore there is a different dive shop (Duck and Dive) at the same address, same floor which is also mentioned in this article. So I assumed this is an old entry and the place must have closed down.
I see that you have been editing this article a lot, so if you have more updated information and this club is not actually closed, then I'm sorry for my mistake. Drat70 (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grab and Uber in Singapore[edit]

Grab and Uber cheaper than taxis. Is it 2017 policy or 2018 policy? Are you use Grab and Uber legally. Because legal Grab and Uber in Singapore has different color body car.Gsarwa (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Gsarwa:,
Thank you for your message. I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I use the official Grab or Uber app (so should definitely be the legal one), and the cars have not a different colour body. I am quite certain, that they don't need to have a different colour, the only thing they need since last year is a blue 'private hire' sticker on the windscreen.
I just checked the grab app, for a random Grab ride (woodlands to jurong east), I have to pay 15$ for JustGrab or 18$ for GrabCar, if I look up the taxi price it's $22.37, so it's definitely not generally more expensive. (Of course it can be more expensive).
So if you say the tariff is higher or the cars have a different colour, then this would be news to me. If that's so, maybe you can provide a source for this? Drat70 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I lost the latest source, but I have the older source about dynamic tariff of regular taxis and will update the source if any. Online taxis have used dynamic tariff earlier. In peak hour mainly if there are rain, the online taxis tariff will be very high and more expensive than using metered taxis. I forget mention that Singapore transportation authority has released online apps for regular taxis also. In my experience, regular taxi tariff will be different, if we hail the regular taxi, if we phone the regular taxi and I don't know if using their new app. Legally, online taxis only can be found in certain area only, but maybe the only taxis operator allow their drivers to take passengers in outside of legally area. But, I believe that Singapore transportation authority will take action about it.Gsarwa (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Gsarwa:. Thanks for the details. Unfortunately I don't speak Bahasa, but from what I gather via google translate, this refers to a change in policy in early 2017 where taxis may introduce variable pricing (aka surge prices) via their online apps to help them compete with Uber and Grab. However, as far as I know this is not widely implemented yet. I can only think of one taxi app where you can chose from a 'fixed fare' instead of a metered charge. Even so, the statement in your edit was that 'all ride sharing (online taxi) in Singapore have tariff more expensive than regular taxis', and that is as far as I can tell simply not true and your article doesn't support that statement. Of course when it rains or during peak hours it might be more expensive to take Uber because of surge pricing, but on the other hand if you take an Uber from the city centre at midnight, it might be cheaper because they don't charge city and midnight surcharges. So I don't think we should add such a generic statement, as either option can be cheaper depending on the ride.
Furthermore you say ' only can be found only in certain area', which is also not true as far as I can tell. The only restriction I know of is that you are not allowed to hail an Uber or Grab on the street, but as long as you use the app, they are happy (and allowed) to pick you up wherever a regular taxi might also pick you up. Of course there area places where they are not allowed to pick you up, but those apply to taxi as well (bus stops, expressways etc) Maybe you have a source on those restricted areas?
Just one more thing. I think you might misunderstand the role of the transport authority. They do not make any online apps. All the taxi apps are as far as I know made by the taxi companies. Drat70 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for your explanation. I understand that online taxi such as Uber and Grab matters appear in many countries and transportation authorities made different regulation depends on the country situation, mainly friction between regular taxi and online taxi. So, the regulation about it in one country is frequently changed. But can Uber or Grab pick up someone in Singapore Changi Airport.Gsarwa (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gsarwa: Yes, they can pick up and drop off people at Changi. See for instance these two promotions specific to the airport: [1] and [2] or also this article from an online news portal: [3]. While I've never done that myself, as I usually prefer to take a normal taxi, I know some people who take Grab or Uber from the airport. Drat70 (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Barncompass for you[edit]

The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thanks for your great contribution in Wikivoyage edit-a-thon 2018!

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]