User talk:Ground Zero

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Brendan[edit]

I don't think this edit is Brendan's. He never edits as an IP user. The IP geolocated to the UK, so it can't be him. Plus, the IP has lots of constructive contributions as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Was looking at the IPv6 address, not the IPv4. My bad. But this IP geolocates to Brisbane, not Sydney. So I'm not sure if that's him. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The edit looks like his work, aside from it coming from an IP. Ground Zero (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
True. It looks quite low quality so it may as well be reverted anyway. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for...[edit]

Thank you for nominating me for a sysop. I hope I can use these tools for the better, and while I may not have mentioned it at URN, your nomination was certainly a surprise. Went on Friday night, to the skifields, arrived Saturday morning. Two hours later, Greater Sydney was put on lockdown, and there I had to come back on a seven hour drive. But I was certainly delighted to see the nomination. I'll also be sure to take the speedy deletion bin more often ;)

Apart from that, enjoy your summer in Canada, and hopefully things are going well.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Just letting you know...[edit]

ArticCynda has openly admitted that he will come back in September at the French Wikivoyage: voy:fr:Discussion utilisateur:ArticCynda, claiming "he is on a 6 month break". Just letting know to go on the watch in 2 months time. It's just an indirect way of saying he'll block evade. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I hope to be on the road at that point but I will do what I can. Ground Zero (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I also believe FredTC is monitoring him on nlwiki, so I would like to hear his opinions on ArticCynda's behavior and attitude there. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
SHB2000 He is editing correct and helpfull on nl:WV. On nl:WV we experience more problematic edits from Luchy04 (who also made some edits at en:WV) and ArticCynda is helping by making corrections to those edits. --FredTC (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Luchy04 is also a problem in the French Wikivoyage as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@FredTC: also if you want to know why AC is banned here, see Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive#ArticCynda: Block for repeated bigoted content in articlespace? and Wikivoyage talk:User ban nominations/Archive 2021-2023 as well as User talk:87.74.197.32. He still hasn't apologized as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I am glad that AC is not being disruptive on nlwiki. His edits were for the most part constructive here, but when he crossed a line, it was clear that he was not willing to work with the en.voy community on our terms. Ground Zero (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
He's also not disruptive on fr.voy for the most part there as well. Over on fr.voy, it's the same Luchy04 who's making problems as well as on it.voy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't make me any more interested in dealing with him here again. He was given more chances than you'd find in a bucket of lottery tickets. Ground Zero (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I also feel the same. I'm not too keen on seeing him back in September. But the only good thing he's done and I very much support was his support of Ikan's proposal on A1Cafel's abusive FoP deletions. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The revert[edit]

Apologies for reverting your edit on Lombardy. I just reverted it since I don't know how much of the content by Luchy04 is a copyvio since Earwig's doesn't catch copyvios in a foreign language and Luchy04 has a history of copyvios on multiple WMF projects, particularly the French and Italian Wikivoyage's. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No prob. Probably the right call. Ground Zero (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for changing that section heading. Also, sorry that it had to be you, because one of us probably should have done it already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: thanks for your message. I was tempted to change it right from the start, but I wanted to hold off from engaging with the angry guy too much. In the future, I won't hesitate. Ground Zero (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you ever read meatball:DefendEachOther? Sometimes it's good to wait a bit, and let someone else (someone who isn't named in the discussion) make changes. IMO your initial instinct was solid: sometimes that sort of change can tend to escalate tensions, and that doesn't help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Western and Way to Mongolia tours.[edit]

The domain name was sold in 2019 and the business are connected. Ikan and I were confused, but LPfi had solved the issue by doing more research about this. See the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Cheers, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. It looked like a competitor highjacking the listing. Ground Zero (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
It sure the hell did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
It was why we blocked them in the first place :) Just wished that they used edit summaries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirect Discussion[edit]

I think it's best if I put this here so as not to derail the Redirect discussion. My initial post was obviously made in annoyance however, it was not at you personally. It was at the way in which redirects seem to be created at times. I should not have written "Ground Zero's way of thinking", because I think the "way of thinking" is beyond any one user and writing it like that made that less clear. Nowhere in my post (or any other post) did I accuse you of taking any actions to sabotage site goals or to purposefully make the site less helpful for travelers. I know you are working hard to try and improve the site and I appreciate your work. This was a specific issue I brought forth that just happened to be from an edit that you made. It was not a fabricated issue brought forth to call you out. I have an issue with the way we do redirects (and judging from the discussion, lots of users are confused about and/or have their own issues/concerns about how and when we should redirect). My feelings would not have been different if the edit had been made by any other user. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Personal attacks not welcome and it was directed at GZ. No one apart from us two do these kinds of redirects. Did you read my message with all the highlighted text? Also, FYI, you never apologized to GZ for your attacks (and yet you (+ Pashley) continued to call our redirects as harmful). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: thank you for acknowledging that I am working to improve the site. As I wrote before, the tone of comments like "without any research or consideration of the traveler", "creates frustration for the traveler", "redirects for the sake of redirects", "thoughtless redirects that will only frustrate and anger the traveler", "create redirects for the editors' sakes" gave me and SHB2000 exactly the opposite impression.

Saying that this is "beyond any one user", when there are exactly two users doing this work at the moment is, I think, disingenuous. Further, calling us a "cult" (a word commonly used for Aum Shinrikyo, Jim Jones, NXIVM) made it clear that you were looking for a fight, not a productive discussion. If you are frustrated, take a break from Wikivoyage instead of venting on other editors who are volunteering their time to build a travel guide. Wikivoyage:Keep Wikivoyage fun.

I have demonstrated that the premise of your first post was false, i.e., that I "redirect everything with insufficient content". You wrote that in anger, and t created a lot of ill-will. And it is false. Have you retracted that statement? Have you apologized for it?

And you never addressed your concerns with me directly. Instead, you used inflammatory language and made false accusations in the pub. Ground Zero (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not keep track of what users are performing which actions, so if it is only you and one other user, it was not disingenuous. I was simply unaware. My impression was that this was more prolific than just one or two people. Even in calling it a "cult" (which would have been better left unsaid), it shows that I wasn't aware that it was just you. "Cults" require multiple people. If I had known that it was just you, I would definitely have taken a different approach. I do apologize for that. I really was not aware.
On your other points, you admitted to not doing any research before creating the redirect. That highlights one of the points of contention that I was proposing as part of the change. It was necessary to point that out. I don't think anyone should be creating redirects without proper thought and consideration, which to me, includes research.
The other comments are about what I see as the UNINTENDED results of such redirects. The unintended result is that it will "frustrate and anger the travelers"/"Create frustration for the traveler", and I believe that redirecting articles for low content in the article is not giving proper thought to what the redirects should be for. That is a point I was making in hopes of establishing a better way to think about redirects. I don't see "low/zero content" as enough of a reason to create redirects. I do not blame you or anyone for redirecting for that reason. My intent is to stop that from being a valid reason to redirect moving forward. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I still don't think you're getting the point here. Me, GZ and tt! were not happy with the tone of your comments which were personal attacks. I then highlighted all of the text that looked like a personal attack, but yet you still refused to accept that, and call our redirects as harmful and called our comments of pointing out of the attacks as Language policing.
If you had wrote that message in a way, without personal attacks, and without picking on and attacking us and being more civil, focusing on the content instead of editors, then we would have responded in a much more nicer, and more efficient way without all this fuss, but it's too bad that you're getting thrown over for the bed you're made for yourself.
Now I understand that it wasn't solely you who called our redirects as harmful. Yes, I know that Pashley said that before you, but you continued it on. But still that language was unacceptable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Calling a redirect 'harmful' should certainly not be considered "unacceptable". Granted, it is a matter of opinion and others may well disagree, but it is "focusing on the content instead of editors" and if I think some edits are harmful, I will say so. Pashley (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Pashley, did you learn your lessons at vfd when GZ told you to reconsider SelfieCity's claims as "dumb". Your doing the exact same here except instead of "dumb and arbitrary", it's "unnecessary and harmful". I would like for you to reconsider your words. Your speech isn't being restricted here, but offensive speech and attacks, as you know, aren't welcome. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@ChubbyWimbus: clearly you did not do any research on the work I have been doing before attacking me in the pub. You could have reviewed my edit history. Or started a discussion with me on my talk page. Or, you could have asked for other views in a civil way in the pub. Instead, you came in with all guns blazing. How does that make Wikivoyage better?

Calling my work the work of a "cult" is a personal attack no matter whether there were other editors doing similar work or not.

Your claims that "without any research or consideration of the traveler", "redirects for the sake of redirects", "thoughtless redirects that will only frustrate and anger the traveler", "create redirects for the editors' sakes" can only be interpreted as an accusation that I am not working here in the interests of travellers. Building a better travel guide for travellers is the only reason I work here. You can disagree with my methods, but don't question my motives.

Adding in "unintended" now, a week later, doesn't change your accusation that I am working in the interests of editors, and not of travellers.

Your combative approach and falsehoods have poisoned the well here. Don't be that guy. Ground Zero (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course I didn't look into all of your edit history. I told you that I was not aware that you are the only one creating these redirects, so there didn't seem to be a reason to try and "suss you out". As I've stated repeatedly, the post was about what warrants creating redirects. It wasn't about you. I didn't think it needed to be said that the consequences I was referring to were "unintented". I never questioned your motives. If I actually believed you were creating redirects for the purpose of confusing travelers or some other troll purpose, I would have been very direct about calling you out. I would not fabricate a topic to take jabs at you. I don't have time for that.
In a similar vein to what Pashley said above, I think creating redirects based on article content is "harmful", and I wanted to point out an example and explain. The example was your edit and the explanation required talking about that edit and the justification that I think is flawed, but it wasn't ABOUT you. I admit that I came in too hot and some of the phrasing undermined my own point. The parts that you highlight just above were not those parts, though. They were about our philosophy of permitting redirects for articles just because they have little or no content. If an article can be redirected for that reason, research is not required. I don't agree with that. I do believe that sort of redirect is "thoughtless" and is a "redirect for the sake of redirects" and that sort of reason for creating redirects is entirely managerial. If research and knowledge isn't required in order to make the redirect, we cannot say that the redirect was created "for the traveler". That doesn't mean it was created to undermine the guide or the traveler. It is also not a user (you, in this case) acting against the site or traveler. I believe it is currently a permitted reason. It is a flaw in our permitted reasons to redirect, which is why I started the discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The only example you provided was a redirect I made, so of course it is about me, including the bit about "redirects for the editors' sakes". You have not cited any other examples. I have improved that redirect now — it took only a few minutes — and now I am going back to building a travel guide. This pub brawl you started has not done anything to improve Wikivoyage or the community. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope we could end this discussion. Everybody involved could think about whether something they did could have been done in a better way, and whether there is something that could be done to undo the mistakes or to avoid repeating them. I don't think we need more of pointing out mistakes. It is unfortunate that the wordings got the discussion off trails from the beginning, but I think we should try to leave that behind.

I don't think the current thread can lead to any conclusion, as it is infected by its history. The discussion itself is valid: we need to clarify our guidelines on what to do with weak outlines. I myself would support changing them, but that is not important, the important thing is to have guidelines that allow administrators and other janitors to act reasonably in line with the guidelines without too much personal responsibility in balancing the two.

I don't know whether the best way forward is to just kill the threads and come back later, or whether the discussion could be had from a clean table now, with a new heading and an as neutral as possible presentation of the issues and the stands made. I suppose CW is the only one who can solve the situation, choosing either path and treading very lightly.

LPfi (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current discussion should just be shut down. It is not a constructive one. I am always in favour of constructive discussions that make our policies clearer, but I am not convinced that this is a big problem. If someone disagrees with a redirect, then they can redirect it somewhere else. Or better yet, they can add content to create an article that is useful for travellers. This is a technique I have used here and in Wikipedia to rescue articles that have been nominated for deletion. Adding content is a better use of time than a policy discussion that might not achieve a consensus. Ground Zero (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree on it not being a problem, but this is not the place for that discussion. Let's have the discussion when somebody manages to start it in a constructive way. I'll probably start the discussion myself at some point, from a clean table, unless somebody does before me. –LPfi (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Union County merge[edit]

This is a private discussion discussing the merge discussed in Talk:Union County (New Jersey) Please let me know when and if the merge will happen. I was told to make the Rahway article, but to avoid confrontation, I won't make it until the discussion is closed. Thank you.--JTZegers (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@JTZegers: I hope there isn't confrontation here. I made a proposal, and got feedback, so I made a very different proposal to reflect that feedback. I think it makes sense to wait two weeks before proceeding with any reorganization to make sure that we hear from everyone. I don't see any reason to wait before creating Rahway, though. If you think it is worth having an article, and have information about the town to contribute, then you should go head and start work. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Formatting and spelling[edit]

Since it seems like it is only the two of us who are quite into formatting and spelling, I thought it might be a good idea to ask you for some feedback to a new template which I created at {{formatbox}}, which makes it a lot easier when something changes. It's still a work in progress, but any feedback will be greatly appreciated. (I still haven't added a notes variable for time yet, particularly useful for Quebec, or a note to say for places that are heavily undecided like Australia where all government services tend to use 24, but businesses use 12). Cheers, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added it onto Talk:Chile. Have I missed anything? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. You may meet resistance from contributors who are generally against templates, so you should make clear what the advantages are over the current infobox approach.
I don't agree with having a policy that suggests using different formats within an article, though. This is unnecessary complexity. To make articles easier to read, I think we have to pick one and stick with it. Travellers will generally interact with government services only at points of entry, and then will be using shops, restaurants, and hotels thereafter, so I would go with whatever those establishments use generally. There will always be exceptions. Ground Zero (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
There's always the template haters here (but as you can see from x-tools, about 500 of my contributions are to templates, but mostly for my barncompass project), but the advantages are the clear ability to distinguish everything. And when I mean by government services, it also includes public transport as well (such as this one which I once took frequently). The extra comment box is also optional, although I doubt it'll be used apart from Canada. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
A template update, the major differences in spelling should come up automatically if you enter |spelling=new zealand, it should come up with

Please use New Zealand spelling (colour, fiord, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact, onto)

Also learned that the Philippines apparently has its own spelling with "traveller" and not "traveler", which is quite interesting especially that rather for policy pages we're not using American, but rather Philippine spelling ;). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Pages in Japanese characters[edit]

Probably just w:ja:LTA:SLIME so I revoked TPA and reported the IP to stewards. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. They didn't seem to be very tenacious. Ground Zero (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Previous accounts include The Tokyo Metropolitan Government is in the way and Vegetables nauseous. Dealt with him on ja.wikisource SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, I do find that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government is in the way a lot of the time. I was just trying to move the sofa this morning, and that happened. ;-) Ground Zero (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
My sofa was a bit too old and become unusable since last week, but last night I needed something to replace the couch and they were definitely in the way ;) Ended up using my beach chair (I know it sounds silly, but for the most part, it worked.) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems like he decided to create more after his 2 hour block ended. I've extended it to 2 weeks now, and hopefully the IP gets globally blocked by stewards soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Link to small pages[edit]

You mentioned on the pub that there was a page in the Special: namespace, but what was that page? Can't seem to find it. Might start to work on some of those. Thanks, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The Maintenance Panel (on the menu at the left of your screnn) has a bunch of special pages. Here is the one I mentioned: Special:ShortPages. The first 80 or so that are listed are disambiguation pages, extraregion pages, and other pages that I haven't been able to do anything with. After that you get into pages that should be expanded or redirected. I am often coming across places where over-enthusiatic editors have created more sub-regions than are needed (or are sanctioned by wv:wiaa's dictum that "Geographical units should be large enough in scope to have at least 4 or 5 good quality destinations or attractions"). See talk:Western Iran, for example.
I'm sorry you're having a rough time with the templates. I kind of see the point that others make about templates being a barrier to new editors, but it is frustrating not to be able to use something that saves time and effort. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I might consider working on these, since working on places where I have better knowledge has somewhat hit me emotionally. I'll also comment on western Iran as well. Take care :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

noon or midnight?[edit]

this makes it look like noon to me, but I just wanted to double check whether the 12AM used here means noon or midnight. Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Linking new articles to Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons[edit]

Swept in from the pub

This is something I've never learned how to do. How can I link a new article, Piła, to Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons? Or is this done automatically? The article was created on July 24th, and no link has been made yet. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Add the Wikivoyage article to the corresponding Wikidata item.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Arigatō, sensei. Ground Zero (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Croeso.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I have copied you on an email regarding an issue to our sites' security from vandalism. It would be appreciated if you can read and respond to that email. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also an FYI, but there seems to be a couple of Fuerdai impersonators on simple and commons, so just a heads up. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000: Thanks for the heads-up, although to be clear, this has no relation to that vandal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but I didn't want to start a new thread. Imposters often use image related vandalism on userpages, such as on s:User:Vermont. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Vichy[edit]

nice work on it... Always hate that google translate autoconverts 24 hour clocks into 12, but it's much quicker than manual translation :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a brutal project. I'm amazed that English Wikivoyage only had a skeleton article on Vichy. The French article uses a lot of templates for times, which is what I think screws up Google translate. It doesn't even translate consistently: I was finding things like "19 pm". Ground Zero (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The French Wikivoyage uses templates for everything, which is one of the reasons why ThunderingTyphoons! suspects that it has a low amount of editors, and the lack of coverage outside Europe and Africa (even our New Caledonian coverage is better than theirs). Despite all that, it only took me two days to get the hang of their templates, but that's not the case for everyone. I've been a lot less active there these days, but because I don't do anything but travel content there (which I've also slowed down in light of trying to save a global sysop from losing his privileges because of a content dispute on pt.wikinews). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Teach me please: why one should not ask about such ads?[edit]

Re your: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iraq&oldid=prev&diff=4278915&diffmode=source -

1. Does it thus fall under WV:Tour or another WV policy?

2. Why have you reverted me and not explained on the Talk page (or at least in the comment), also for the benefit of other contributors? Now that I found it, WV:Tour advises us: "If you have a question [...] please use the talk page of the appropriate article to discuss your concerns", which I had instinctively posed there myself, as I would do in other WM projects.

Bows, Zezen (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That I believe was a fingerslip rollback. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Zezen: I apologize for reverting your question. It was an accident, and I restored your comment immediately.
I think that it is okay to list a service like this, as I explained in the article's talk page. But I tried to see if the company is still in this business, and I cannot find any information about it, so I removed the listing. Best regards, Ground Zero (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Namaskar
Deep bows to both, for both actions. I am still finding my way here, and I may thus miss a policy or two. Have a fine day! Zezen (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah the fingerslip advice on en.wikipedia is not really followed here, because it isn't a policy here. (and yet I was threatened there to be blocked for edit warring using rollback with a WMF banned user). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
No easy way to find that policy; could you please link it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy and the actions I did with rollback which I was threatened to be blocked. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Cree[edit]

Just wondering, but is Cree still spoken day to day anywhere? I've seen photos of signs being trilingual (with either French or Inuktitut on it, meaning it must be spoken day to day somewhere). We don't have a Cree phrasebook, and Google doesn't give me much, and the Cree Wikipedia needs TLC (quite sad that my only two edits over there had to be this :(), and thought you'd know better. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it is still commonly spoken, but Cree-speakers would speak English or French as a second (or first) language, as far as I know. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Wish there were more Cree speakers though (someone needs to revive that Wikipedia). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
CBC North and APTN have programming in Cree, and other indigenous languages. Wikipedia says that there are 117,000 people who speak Cree. One of the challenges with Cree is that the eastern dialects are written in the Latin alphabet, while western and northern dialects are written in w:Canadian Aboriginal syllabics. The same problem exists with Inuktitut, the language of the Inuit (formerly called "Eskimos"). Writing articles in Cree would be an excellent school project. Ground Zero (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
What I find rather interesting is that with smaller really small language Wikipedias, rather than it being edited by native speakers, it is rather just edited by one or two non-native speakers, who only edit it because they're interested in that language as opposed to promoting free knowledge. Or you get a case like the Cebuano or Waray Wikipedia where 90% of the edits are bots (although that has changed now). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
And then there is this. It's a big problem. Have you ever checked the recent edits for Wikitravel? It seems to be mostly account creation, with very little article editing going on. I haven't figured out what that is about, or why anyone continues to edit in that museum piece. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised that the RfC for the Scots Wikipedia is still going on. There was a similar issue with Stewards questioning whether someone's Nauruan was accurate or not (because they were blocked on the incubator for "contributing in languages they don't know".).
Oh and to Wikitravel, I wonder who still edits there? I've got an account there, but I was quite unaware of the history between the two sites at that time (and hence why only three edits there and to prevent impersonation from my hater who spends hours on Wikimedia sites trying to harass users), but I've done some unusual stalking and there does seem to be a couple of admins here who regularly edit there as well. But I actually wonder who would want to read that site anyway? And not sure if it is just me, but I'd never trust giving my credit card onto a site that is built by non-verified travel guide writers (I mean sure, this is the same, but then I'd be going somewhere else to pay, and not here, and I'd never want to do that when sites like these can get vandalised easily). I just had a look in recent changes, and this was the main edit of today ;-)[1] SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
That is epic. I believe that the admins there are paid employees of Internet Brands. I can't imagine that there are any volunteer admins left. Ground Zero (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Probably not, and most would have had moved to Wikivoyage by now (it also makes it easier when trying to edit Wikipedia as well, as well as no ads). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
And more userpage spam: [2]. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did another check over there today, and 80% of all activity there were spambots ;). And that is excluding blocks and account creation... I still wonder what is the purpose of keeping it a "for profit" site. (I'd speedy retire if I found out my information was made commercial.) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately that site still ranks high with search engines. As long as it does that, the owner will continue to try to recover some of its investment. In this case, a for-profit with crowd-sourced content model failed, but TripAdvisor thrives. I don't know why one works and the other didn't. This would be a question for an MBA research project to study. I wasn't around at the time, but I gather than IB, which bought Wikitravel, put most of its effort into monetizing the existing content and did little to improve the project, so the volunteer editors were unwilling to continue contributing. Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Probably. Probably why spam pages like this don't last long on WMF servers. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)