Jump to content

User talk:SHB2000/Archive 2024

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikivoyage
Latest comment: 19 days ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Tech News: 2024-49
2023 Archives for 2024 (current) 2025

Currency conversion tables for Singapore

China and Japan are both major sources of tourism to Singapore, and there's also heavy business traffic to Singapore from China and Japan, so to me, it is not unreasonable to list their currencies in the Singapore article. In fact, I would argue that the Chinese yuan should be listed in the currency conversion tables for all Southeast Asian countries because China is the largest source of international tourists for most of them.

As for New Zealand, many New Zealanders change flights in Singapore on their way to Europe. Singapore Airlines in fact operates a direct flight to Christchurch (and Auckland too of course) to cater to this market. And by the way, the New Zealand dollar is not an obscure currency. It is a major world currency and one of the "big eight".

Hong Kong sees very heavy business traffic to Singapore, and there's more than 10 flights a day in each direction. So that's why I think it's not unreasonable to have the Hong Kong dollar in the currency table for Singapore.

I haven't added back the Thai baht and Vietnamese dong, but I think it's worth considering given that they're actually quite easy to exchange them in Singapore. Just go to any money changer and they will be readily accepted. And if you are heading to those countries, you can also obtain those currencies easily at any money changer.

I haven't added the Canadian dollar, but it is a major world currency. And Air Canada is starting a nonstop fight from Vancouver to Singapore in the spring, so I would presume there is substantial business traffic for Air Canada to start operating this route. The dog2 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem with adding more currencies is that it takes longer to update. Sincex2018, I've been updating more than 160 pages every January so that we don't have rates that are up to 7 years out of date anymore. That was just embarrassing. SHB2000 has been helping out thus year, which I very much appreciate. It's a big job.
The dog 2: adding more currencies to a page without updating the others, as you did on China, and perhaps other pages, leaves a mess -- some rates are from December 2022, and others from a year or more later. I will leave that for you to sort out. If I have to fix it, I'l just start fresh with a new table of the standard, internationally traded currencies. Ground Zero (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strictly speaking, the "big eight" internationally traded currencies are the U.S. dollar, Euro, pound Sterling, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar and New Zealand dollar. At least that's what people who invest in forex have told me. Of course, whether or not a currency is easy to exchange depends a lot on where you are. For instance, it is easier to exchange Singapore dollars than Thai baht in Japan, but the reverse is true in Canada. I think that it is warranted to include currencies that are regionally important in the exchange tables. Taking Singapore dollars for instance, including them in the exchange table for Malaysia would be warranted, but not in the one for Costa Rica. The dog2 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since you have a keen interest in East Asia, and in expanding the list of currencies displayed there, I'll leave that region for you to update. Ground Zero (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was going to say what Ground Zero mentioned, but they beat me to it. Flights from CHC–SIN are still quite rare (I think only 1 per day) – I only remember seeing one for the entire day when I was at the airport last week. Far more travellers transit via SYD or AKL when getting to Europe from those who I talked to. AKL, sure, but how different is this from any other country? You could apply the same rationale for a lot of currencies and it becomes one giant chunky list. The reason we list AUD for SEA/Oceania articles, CAD for Caribbean articles, ZAR for Southern African articles, or SAR for Arabian/Gulf state articles, is because they are widely traded locally and have far, far, more visitors than people from NZ to Singapore. It does, however, make sense to add NZD to many Pacific countries for this very same reason – but not Singapore. The same goes for adding CAD in Singapore. A single flight isn't enough to justify it.
I'll leave you to the rest for East Asia and SEA articles, but it's worth considering this in mind – basically this and what GZ mentioned. Cheers, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, CHC-SIN is one flight a day. I think there are 3 flights a day for AKL-SIN, 2 on SQ and 1 on NZ. These flights are actually timed to connect to SQ's flights to Europe, but of course, both are premium airlines and charge accordingly. Even if you transit at SYD or AKL to connect on to Europe, you still need another stop somewhere in Asia, which would typically be in Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok or the Middle East. And of course, there's quite heavy business and diplomatic traffic between Singapore and NZ too.
But anyway, NZD is easily traded in Singapore too. Any bank or money changer will accept it. I can bet you will get a better rate for NZD in Singapore than in Australia. CAD is certainly more niche than NZD in the Singaporean context given that Canada is much farther away, but it too is easy to exchange at any bank or money changer. In fact, I can get better rates for CAD in Singapore than in the U.S. Travelex in both the U.S. and Australia is a rip off. The dog2 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I can definitely concur with Travelex in the US and Aus – when I asked how much US$500 they were going to give me at SYD, it was something like NZ$600 (I wasn't actually intending to convert there since I'd already exchanged prior but asked them out of curiosity). Normally if I'm transiting through Singapore, then it'd exchange there but otherwise I've mostly just exchanged my currency at Flight Centre. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Although the rates at Changi Airport are not very good. You'll get much better rates at a money changer in the city or in a neighbourhood shopping centre. Unlike in Western countries, in Singapore money changers usually give you better rates than banks. That's why for me, the idea of going to an ATM in a foreign country to withdraw the local currency was a completely foreign concept. I get a much better rate by exchanging cash at a money changer in Singapore before leaving on my trip. The dog2 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Airport rates in general are less than ideal, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, do you know how to update the currency exchange table for Japan? I think there should be more currencies than what is listed. At the very least, we should also have Chinese yuan, South Korean won and Hong Kong dollar, and probably the Singapore dollar too since it appears to be the most widely accepted Asian currency at Japanese money changers. I'm a bit on the fence for Taiwan dollars though, because it is kind of obscure, but Japan is without a doubt the most popular holiday destination for the Taiwanese, and also the largest source of foreign tourists for Taiwan. But during my trips to Japan, I did not see any money changers displaying Taiwan dollars on their boards. The dog2 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
For JP, you can edit it on Template:exchange rate JPY. I don't hold any strong opinions for JP so I'll leave you to update it :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-02

MediaWiki message delivery 01:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

This Month in GLAM: December 2023





Headlines
  • Albania report: Wiki Loves EuroPride in Albania 2023
  • Bosnia & Herzegovina report: A year in review ...
  • Croatia report: 2023 in review
  • Czech Republic report: Wiki-residents establishing meeting took place in December
  • Germany report: Go-ahead for Wikidata Project of GLAM institutions from Baden-Württemberg
  • Italy report: WLM Local winners and funds for 2024 GLAM projects
  • New Zealand report: Auckland Museum summer updates
  • Poland report: Intense end to a year of GLAM-Wiki activities in Poland
  • Sweden report: Photo memories project concludes; Sörmlands museum passes 1000 uploads to Wikimedia Commons; Wikimedian in Residence supports an upload of music content; Subject terms from Queerlit; Wikidata for authority control: 3 years of work
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Program
  • UK report: 2023 in Review
  • USA report: WikiConference North America 2023; TSU and USF; Philadelphia WikiSalon; Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting; Wikipedia Editing 101 for All; NYC Hacking Night; Upstate NY workshop; Wikiquote She Said Project
  • Wiki Loves Living Heritage report: Thank you for making Wiki Loves Living Heritage happen!
  • WMF GLAM report: Updates and invitation to test the Commons Impact Metrics prototype
  • Calendar: January's GLAM events
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-03

MediaWiki message delivery 00:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help

with the New Jersey vandal. What a piece of work. Ground Zero (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, not a problem at all! Glad that user is blocked for good. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverts

FYI, 168.8.214.228 is reverting your previously reverted edits. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've put one-day blocks on the unregistered accounts. If it happens again, I think we should protect the articles for 7 days to start. That should be enough to get them to give up. Ground Zero (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given they are block evading (I blocked them for a month due to incivility), we may as well start protecting the articles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-04

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just excited to inform you

That Microsoft Translator added Meitei language in both Meitei script and Latin script today. I hope all the Microsoft software services will get its usage. :-) Haoreima (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's great to hear! Another milestone for the Meitei language today. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to word the Taiwan lede

I'm going to steer clear of the debate on whether or not Taiwan should be an independent country, but I don't think we should take a stand on this here on WV. I know that it is de facto a separate country, and we have in fact stated that in the disclaimer box, but I think we should try to use more politically neutral wording in the lede. The dog2 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Same here; I just think we should write what's the reality on the ground for travellers whenever we can, though. We do this for Kosovo for similar reasons, too. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've made some minor changes, so see if it's fine. It's a bit different in the case of Taiwan because at it now stands, Taiwan has not declared independence, and the Taiwanese constitution considers Taiwan to be a province of China. Kinmen and Matsu are still legally part of Fujian, and the residents of those islands actually don't identify as Taiwanese. Someone from Kinmen will usually say "I am not from Taiwan. I am from Kinmen." if you ask. The dog2 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, that's also true; thanks for bringing that (I completely forgot). I'll leave it to you and others. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The first sentence of the current lede is problematic. We should say it's a set of islands that rules itself, I think, not a "de facto country." Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
What about a set of self-governing islands? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's a better phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that works for me. The dog2 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad we were able to quickly resolve this one :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we should avoid legalistic terminology like "de facto" and "self-governing" in the first sentence of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMO self-governing isn't really a legalistic term given it's self-explanatory. I agree with you on de facto, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) But if we say that Taiwan is a country, then we are effectively taking sides in the political dispute. KMT supporters in Taiwan will say that the Republic of China is a country, and Taiwan is not a country but a province of the ROC. Of course DPP supporters will say that Taiwan is a country, but as of now they haven't amended the Taiwanese constitution to declare an independent "Republic of Taiwan", so it's the ROC constitution that is still in force. For that reason, I think we should stick to deliberately ambiguous wording that covers the situation on the ground accurately. The dog2 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong with "Taiwan is an island off the coast of China"? (Yes, there are other islands, but this is a normal way to introduce an entity that consists of one main island plus a bunch of much smaller associated islands.) The current first sentence with its focus on self-governance reads like the beginning of a geopolitical briefing rather than a travel guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If we just use the word "island" then I think it's probably fine. I'm just trying to avoid controversy here by steering clear of declaring Taiwan a country. The disclaimer box already says that it functions as a country in practice. The dog2 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that "self-governing" is purely and clearly descriptive, not legalistic. Taiwan is one island. How do you think the other islands ruled by the same government should be described in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe island chain? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Island chain isn't exactly accurate. Kinmen and Matsu are located quite some distance from the main island of Taiwan. And Kinmen is in fact close enough to Xiamen for you to be able to see the Xiamen skyline. The dog2 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I always forget about Kinmen but in that case, I'd go with what Ikan mentioned. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

CEE Newsletter - January 2024 Issue Now Available!

Good evening,

We're excited to announce the release of the January 2024 issue of the CEE Newsletter! This edition is filled with captivating stories, community highlights, and collaborative achievements from across Central and Eastern Europe region in the Wikimedia movement.

In This Issue:

  • CEE Hub and WMF Updates: Explore the latest from the Wikimedia Foundation with the Talking 2024 series and insights into the impacts on children participating in Wikimedia projects. Additionally, discover CEE Hub's plans for 2024 as outlined in the recently approved grant proposal named Stronger CEE Hub
  • Highlights from CEE Communities: From the Georgian Wikipedia's 20th birthday celebration to the Wiki Loves EuroPride event in Albania, delve into the vibrant activities of our diverse communities. Journey through time with the celebration of Czech Wikipedia's founder and the resilience of Ukrainian Wikipedia editors. Explore the outcomes of Wiki Loves Earth 2023 and Wikimedia Czech Republic's presence at the Archives, Libraries, Museums in the Digital World 2023 conference.
  • Community Initiatives and Beyond: Read about the unique efforts of the CEE Youth Group and the unification of GLAM Macedonia and Shared Knowledge into Wikimedia MKD.
  • Looking Ahead: Anticipate the 2024 Wikimedia Hackathon in Tallinn, Estonia, and gain insights from Marija Mihajlova's report on the Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2023.

You can read the full newsletter here. We hope you enjoy the inspiring stories and achievements showcased by our vibrant CEE communities.

Happy reading and here's to another year of Wikimedia excellence in the CEE region!

Best regards,

Jan Beránek
Editor-in-chief
Wikimedia CEE Newsletter

15:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-05

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bureaucrat

You're a bureaucrat now. Don't add too much red tape to the site. :-)

Seriously, thanks for volunteering to do these tasks.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the swift response, Ikan Kekek! Glad I could help. One more thing: if I can't add too much red tape, can I add more sticky tape with a tint of red? You didn't say anything about that! /s --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Be my guest. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Thanks

I had never heard of Cormac McCarthy, but today I learned a new word, w:Polysyndeton, and I wanted to thank you for expanding my vocabulary, and for introducing me to this author, and his unusual style of writing, which, to be frank, will probably give me nightmares because I am fond of punctuation, as I find it to be an effective way of letting the reader know where they are in the exposition, and therefore conveys the writer's meaning more effectively. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad I was able to help as his style of writing is really something else which is rather unusual for today's age but it's really evident especially in The Road, a post-apocalyptic novel (okay, seriously, I suck at writing polysyndetons). But yeah, I fully agree with you. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Archive

Could you please archive the talk page on England? Thanks! 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:ACCD:5712:7C99:666F 00:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll do so right in a moment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes Done. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:ACCD:5712:7C99:666F 00:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad I was able to help. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-06

MediaWiki message delivery 19:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: January 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in Education: January 2024

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-07

MediaWiki message delivery 05:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverting of Brycehughes WarningBox removals

Apologies - I did not mean to edit war. Can you please clarify where the right place to discuss @Brycehughes edits would be? It seems a little unreasonable that they can casually revert WarningBoxes on dozens of pages without meaningfully explaining their decisions but I would have to start a discussion for each individual page. I feel that there is a need to revisit what the actual WV guidance should be moving forward on WarningBoxes. I have tried to bring this up in Travellers'_pub#Proliferation_of_Warning_boxes and I even requested comment - to no avail. Cyali (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you're all good. I think for a lot of these it should apply on a case-by-case basis since a one-size-fits-all policy rarely works – would be best to bring up the individual warningboxes on the relevant talk pages (e.g. Talk:Socotra, etc.). Hope that clarifies! (cc Brycehughes). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick response. Also just want to clarify that my original edit to Venezuela was a mistake - I tried to revert it back to add a reason but you beat me to it. (small addition) Is it reasonable to ask that the other user provide their justification as well - or is the onus entirely on me to prove that the WarningBox is necessary? A lot of these edit summaries are not constructive. Is there a policy or set of guidelines to determine if an edit is constructive or useful? I have been relying on the Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first and assume good faith but it ultimately is quite ambiguous in these circumstances.
It would be helpful to have these edits explained on a case-by-case basis rather than me just echoing travel advisories and saying "travel bad". There's no way I can meaningfully address the below concerns without them meaningfully engaging.
13 February 2024
Cyali (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think they are reasonable reasons for removal which is why I mentioned they should be brought up on the talk page for further discussion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can appreciate that, and I'm aware that I'll have to write up reasons for disagreeing. I am not trying to put you on the spot (and thank you for responding - I know you certainly don't have to answer my questions), but it would be helpful to understand how you would suggest approaching this conversation constructively in your opinion, as I'm aware that you share a similar position to the user. What would it take to build a meaningful consensus? If there is not a one sized fits all policy, what points should I clearly address from the get-go - especially when the edit summaries appear very subjective? I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to understand how to build this consensus and try and find a neutral compromise when the issue is so charged and heavily influenced by one's experience traveling (I.e. my travel wisdom is contrary to a government travel advisory). I also am not really sure why the original travellers pub thread that led the user to remove these Warning boxes from many pages in WV in the first place isn't a relevant place to obtain consensus after the fact. Once I write up the issues on their respective talk pages, can I also ask you to provide input and to constructively contribute to the conversations as well? Cyali (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have answers to all the questions since I was overseas when the discussion happened and wasn't following it, but I'll be happy to provide input to the discussions on their respective talk pages. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the consensus was that some cautionboxes are too alarmist and that many stay long after the situation has improved. The other user tried to get some policy changes to address the issues, but did not get support for those exact measures.
Mostly their edits make sense (such as in the Venezuela case, they kept most of the info in a cautionbox in Stay safe), but they are sometimes too radical. Tweaking the edit to reinsert some important issues can work, as can reinstating the warningbox but removing some lesser issues from it, perhaps adding to the running text instead. Among established users, plain reverts should be rare and plain reverts with no edit summary should not be used, other than in special cases.
LPfi (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
To add, plain reverts in general should be rare, not just among established users. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
They can still be used on vandalism and graffiti, or repeated edits which were already reverted with an explanation, i.e. cases where it should be obvious to the other party why the edit was reverted (erring on the side of caution).
Established users should not do edits that obviously should be reverted, so admitting the possibility that the edit was actually good (and therefore explaining the revert) is good manners. The edit summary may be something like "mistake?" or "see talk". The cases should be rare enough that using some extra time on the summary is no burden.
LPfi (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
But usually they are rollbacks which I consider different to a plain revert. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kind of, but I don't see why you could rollback something that reverting without explanation would be wrong. I see the two as equivalent, only that rollback can be a convenient shorthand that more or less explicitly says that the revert isn't worth a comment. –LPfi (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's nonsense to say that Russia is not at war. Targets in Russia have been repeatedly hit by Ukrainian drones or Special Forces or others. You should be careful if you plan on walking past military-related factories, power plants, military induction offices, cars belonging to Russian online war propagandists, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not opposed to finding ways to reduce the alarmism and to keep them concise, factual and up to date. I just find it challenging to keep up when a user can casually revert my contributions with little explanation (a sarky edit summary), all with a similar goal in mind, without being held to the same standard of explaining their decisions individually. I have not opposed most of the other user's edits because they are so numerous and in some cases, I agreed with them. However, the inability to discuss a thematic grouping of edits, many of whom have limited context, puts other editors at a disadvantage in these conversations when trying to get to the root of an issue, and discourages newer editors like me to meaningfully engage and work towards consensus. I'm not saying that individual page discussions are out of the question - but it feels like there's a larger conversation to be had first.
I'd really either like to resolve this constructively with compromise or I'd like to see consensus that the community wants for it to be easier to remove WarningBox than it is to add them.
But I don't think it's ultimately reasonable to proclaim that traveling to Russia and Socotra is totally safe - everyone's just overblowing it, or to reject the assessments of national governments telling you not to go there as being hysterical. Cyali (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any edits done en masse are problematic, for the reason you bring up, unless they are obviously good, with no urgent need for checking or tweaking.
For Russia: yes Russia is at war and the government is cracking down on any critics, the latter an issue for anybody interested in politics. Regarding the war, a warning is needed, for those who may be interested in affected installations – but an average tourist is very unlikely to be hit by a drone in Moscow, let alone in some random other city. The mobilisation issue is severe for dual citizens, but it affects a limited group. Thus I would be fine with confining the warning box to Stay safe.
LPfi (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-08

MediaWiki message delivery 15:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reversion

Why this reversion? Text looks good to me.

Is it Brendan? Pashley (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sadly. Text resembles his, ISP is Telstra and IP geolocates to Brisbane. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-09

MediaWiki message delivery 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

San Diego International Airport Page Banner

Hello, Its been about a week since there has been any progress on the talk page for the San Diego International Airport for a custom page banner. Do you think you can help achieve a consensus?

Hi, individual users hold no bearing over general consensus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know you dont just choose a conensus. But you think you can say which page banners you prefer? Someonehere12345 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-10

MediaWiki message delivery 19:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: February 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-11

MediaWiki message delivery 23:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi

Hello @SHB2000, Can I have autopatroller rights? :) Lionel Cristiano (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

not yet. You must familiarize yourself with our policies and our Manual of Style, and demonstrate the acquired familiarity on your edits. Thanks for contributing to Wikivoyage. Ibaman (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, autopatroller on this rights are only given after a few months of constructive editing. Do read the links linked by Ibaman, though! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand, thank you, can I write to you again in a few months? Lionel Cristiano (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Up to you. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
See you in a few months, I will miss you, have a nice day :-) Lionel Cristiano (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Lionel Cristiano: Do note that it's also generally only given out to active editors too; taking a break and coming back after a few months with few to no edits won't change anything. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are right, I will try to be active. Lionel Cristiano (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cool and happy editing! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

User relations

Please leave Andrewssi2 alone. You can see that they don't appreciate your interaction, so anything you tell them won't help the situation. I don't know what's going on between you, but I sincerely hope you can get over it. Just try to let things calm down for now. –LPfi (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not when there are six instances of them misusing their admin tools in the last 50 minutes (as of this message's timestamp). Asking to be "left alone" is a snarky tactic to dodge the problem at-hand. On the other hand, I will respect this request once the admin tool misuse issues have been resolved; not before. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
When somebody clearly shows that they have no intension to read or answer messages, adding more messages for them to read helps little. I am all for getting your complaints sorted out in due time, but them wanting a respite from this is reasonable (I don't know what reasons they have, but real-life troubles could be a good one, and overload with the issue here is quite enough). I might not think that rollbacks are a particularly elegant way of handling this, but in the situation where one doesn't want to handle the conflict, one might also not want to think hard about the best way to avoid it.
I left you this message before seeing the nomination page thread and hoped the situation would cool down enough to be handled amicably. There is no abuse that needs to be stopped now, so waiting a few days, several days if needed, would be no problem. I think you should ponder overnight about what is best for the project, and whether you personally need to walk the path to its end.
My impression is that you generally want rules to be followed. However, in most projects there are situations where it is better to ignore the rules in some situations. When a rule is broken, is the situation one that the rule on enforcement was written for, or one that could be better handled in some other way? If rules were broken, were they broken in unforgivable ways?
Enough here. If you still really feel treated badly, you have my compassion, but I hope you can get over it without this issue deteriorating.
LPfi (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, LPfi, thank you for the detailed explanation. I'll consider this after a break tomorrow; I now agree with you about the urgentness given that Andrewssi2 / Asretired has retired (per their username). I'm sorry if my messages to you came out a bit hasty. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi: To minimise drama, I'll bring it up here and with you (since your stance mostly seems to be neutral), but we don't allow Special:Redirect/logid/3824876, right? I thought that user talk pages were to never be deleted (but maybe that is a Commons policy). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you also take a stab at "This individual is very unpleasant, unhinged and quite possibly a violent person in real life. This is now a safety issue." on their user page? Aren't attack statements on user pages explicitly banned? I'll leave it to you to interpret foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment: "Threats: Explicitly or implicitly suggesting the possibility of physical violence, unfair embarrassment, unfair and unjustified reputational harm, or intimidation by suggesting gratuitous legal action to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want." (I italicised possibility). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am neutral in the original conflict and the question on who is responsible for the drama, but I didn't see any reason for desysoping him. I think the rollbacks and the action you cite above are non-aggressive self-defence (as I have explained above and elsewhere), possibly excess in self-defence, but as no real harm has been caused (you shouldn't contact him in this situation, and those who need to can reach him anyway), there is no hurry discussing, reverting or taking measures about them. –LPfi (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi: That is fair; sorry for repeating this but users aren't allowed to delete their own talk pages, right (I thought user talk pages should never be deleted)? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we have such a policy here (we use common sense a lot more than en-wp). If deleting the talk page makes him feel more comfortable, I wouldn't interfere with it for a reasonable cool-down period. At some point it should be restored, probably as an archive, unless he does something along those lines himself. Also the talk page protection should be removed at the same time, if not before. –LPfi (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Understandable (3+3 days as you suggested?) – though doesn't the protection automatically get removed once a page is deleted? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, but as page creation can be disabled, I guess the protection entries aren't affected by page deletion (deletion can easily be implemented with a flag in the database, and any action on the page could check or ignore that flag). –LPfi (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Thankfully) Asretired has not enabled page protection on their talk page, so I think that is one fewer thing to worry about. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
To my understanding, people have the right to delete the contents of their user talk pages. I wouldn't support restoring content against his will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. If there are neither guidelines nor consensus on this, we should let the user decide, unless there are reasons not to. –LPfi (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek: Correct me if I'm wrong – I might be mixing this up with Commons policy – but I thought we let users blank content on their user talk pages because they can still be accessed via the page history. However, by deleting a user talk page, the page history will no longer be accessible hence why user talk pages aren't deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The other issue I see with the page deleted is that oppose voters cannot see what exactly I posted on their user talk page which has (unfortunately) led to some users automatically assuming it is harassment. I presume a screenshot will do, but it is more ideal if all users can see what I wrote instead of being thrown frivolous accusations by 5 different individuals (though not all of it had to do with the talk page messages). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That could be a reason for undeleting, yes. However, the issue isn't really what you wrote, only that you wrote there after him having asked you to let him alone, and that he removed what you had written. I think that is well established, nobody has contested that part and nobody has suggested that you wrote something otherwise offensive. –LPfi (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see the point about deleting the entire page, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tomorrow will be 3 days (UTC+11) since the discussion was initiated, which I think is enough time for Asretired to cool down. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll mention it while I can, but I feel very uneasy about their userpage, but I trust that Ikan and LPfi are in a much better position to judge than I am, so apologies if I seem quite impatient with the userpage issue. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The nature of Pashley's comment suggests that I did (keep in mind that this user is in denial of Asretired doing anything wrong, which tells a lot). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
So I think you're right that the userpage should eventually be undeleted, but we shouldn't restore the content we know he wanted deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. It's fine for my messages to not be restored given that they can still be found using the page history. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It can be restored as a blank page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek, LPfi: Given it has been 3 days since the dispute, could one of you undelete the page and blank it? (and I presume we're giving 3 more days for Asretired to edit out the personal safety issues?) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry you think we don't care about you. My intension was to eventually take care of that bit, but I believe it needed to wait and I didn't see much harm in letting this take the time it needs. Perhaps I was wrong, but if I cannot – or you cannot – trust my judgement, then the best I can do is probably to keep away. I am sorry for that too and sincerely hope somebody else can make the best out of this. –LPfi (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Don't feel the need to apologise; at this point Asretired has left Wikivoyage, so there's nothing much to be said. None of this was your fault, you're a separate individual and cannot control what Asretired/Andrewssi2 does. All I wanted is for all references about me, direct or indirect, to be removed from their page ASAP. None of this would have ever been a problem had they never written those statements in the first place (and the few users that enabled their behaviour). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-12

MediaWiki message delivery 17:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: February 2024

Tech News: 2024-13

MediaWiki message delivery 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-14

MediaWiki message delivery 03:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edits on WP that need removal

First of all, thanks for everything you do! You’re doing great work by creating new page banners, and I do not oppose your efforts in that area at all even if I have some slight differences of opinion regarding what constitutes a good banner.

I contribute on WP but don’t know any administrators over there. Today I was editing and stumbled into some borderline defamatory edits on the history of a page. I was wondering if you know any administrators of that website who could delete some old revisions? I can link to the revisions in an email if you like, with further explanation of the background and why they should not be publicly viewable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity: Haha, no worries. Regarding enwiki admins, unfortunately I don't edit enwiki that frequently to interact with admins, but I do know that @Antandrus, Ground Zero, DaGizza: are also admins on enwiki. I'd give you a better answer if it were Commons, but I'm afraid I don't have a better answer. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or you could get a response by contacting WP:OS. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Awesome! Thank you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @SelfieCity: - if you need help just let me know where and which revisions. Happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello Antandrus, I greatly appreciate that. Another administrator covered most of the edits, but there are still four revisions by Rupertlover123 to the w:Jeff Rupert article that should probably be deleted. Three of these edits by that account in particular need to be deleted as they are identifying someone who was a minor at the time of the edit (and the statements made in the vandalism are false).
Let me know if you need more information or clarification, and I can email and also explain why I raised this in particular. Thanks again! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok - I got rid of two more (there are no more un-revdelled edits by "Rupertlover123" now as far as I can see). Antandrus (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Antandrus: Hello, thanks! However there are still https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Rupert&oldid=1063582809 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Rupert&oldid=1063586679 which are viewable to me. Those are the main ones that were of concern to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hm, sorry about that. I have no idea why those didn't appear when I scrolled through. Anyway done now. :) (SHB2000, sorry about all the pings!) Antandrus (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Haha, don't worry – I don't mind the pings the slightest. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

User from IP #107.9.140.157

I noticed that this user at IP 107.9.140.157 had changed the I-90 article to indicate it begins/ends in Portland, Oregon in the west coast going through Pocatello, Idaho. Which is not true. It begins in Seattle and goes through Spokane and Missoula, towards Boston. At the same time he/she created an Interstate 33 article.That Interstate does NOT exist. I believe he/she may of created the I-90 article initially and I made multiple edits to get the information correct. You can always look it up to see who's right and who's wrong. My concern is what other additional articles has he/she created of places or roads that don't exist or which other existing articles may of been changed/edited with misinformation aka vandalism by this user? And to what extent? I am telling you this because based on your interaction with this user regarding the I-33 article, I presumed you are one of the moderators for the board. Anyone150 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have blocked them for 3 days; will delete the I-33 article accordingly. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Summer of WikiVoyage 2024, Albania and Kosovo

Greetings SHB2000. I am Vyolltsa from the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group. Just wanted to give you heads-up about our Summer of Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon in 2024. This year, we are focusing on the North-Central Albania to write about different travel destinations of Albania and Kosovo in English.This is happening from May 3-rd to May 5-th. And, we are inviting everyone to join us online here Saturday from 10:00-17:00 (GMT+2) Time Zone. Could you please update the Albania and Kosovo Expedition pages for 2024? Thank you in advance. --Vyolltsa (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vyolltsa: Yes Done. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @SHB2000! Vyolltsa (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad I could help! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

(redacted)

Hey, thanks for your AI-generated complements. Have a lovely day! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-15

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Taking liberties

I've taken liberties with your draft of a Jökulsárgljúfur article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: Hey, thanks for that! I was away on a camping trip (we were very rained out, unfortunately) so sorry for the late response. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to worry. I was very slow in responding to your request for comments on your draft.
While you were being rained out, I drove 2½ hours to get to the path of the eclipse totality so I could gaze up at the clouds. We saw the beginning of the eclipse, and the sudden darkening of the sky followed by an equally rapid brightening was really cool. And the temperature dropped about 5°C in a mater of minutes.
Also, I started writing a response to CW's ignorant comment, but decided against it as it would just inflame the culture war that I think we should avoid. The anti-non-binary mantra that they know better about non-binary people than non-binary people do is an obviously ridiculous claim. Ground Zero (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, agreed about the culture war – honestly, I've given up on enforcing civility on this wiki (same goes for the comment claiming "anyone who announces 'My pronouns are ...' should be laughed at", which is ignorant of the many who suffer from gender dysphoria). The eclipse must've been cool to see! I've yet to see a full eclipse (only seen a partial before), but it's interesting (but not surprising) to hear about the temperature drop. If you don't mind me asking, where'd you to see the eclipse? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the closest point I can find to where we were standing. I did want to go to the beach, but even in this small town, there were hordes of people. Ground Zero (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Map
Map of Archive 2024
  • 1 Wellingon, Prince Edward County.
Yeah, I'm not surprised by the large swathes of people. After all, it's not a common occurrence that you see. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: March 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-16

MediaWiki message delivery 23:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-17

MediaWiki message delivery 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Growth News, April 2024

18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Newbie

This newbie seemed particularly slow to get the nessafe. I think that Ibaman made the case, but the heavier kept pushing. Then IK made the point indirectly, but the newbie still didn't get it. I agree with not biting newbies, but this one didn't seem to want to listen. Ground Zero (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's very true; some people are slower than others to learn, but at least we eventually got there. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will say, though, if I were a newbie, having a bunch of links thrown at me isn't a very good approach for getting me to stay, at least per WP:IJME. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: March 2024

Tech News: 2024-18

MediaWiki message delivery 03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

French national parks

Thanks for creating articles on French national parks. However, I notice that several of them (by you or others) were marked as usable, although they lacked info on fees and permits and on getting around, and had no advice on getting in other than by private vehicle (mostly just mentioning what roads lead there).

In some other park articles:

  • "As always with National or Regional Parks in France, there are no entrance fees, and in fact the entrance itself will not be easily located along the road. Only a small signpost generally marks it."
  • "Permits can be found at the park administration website." – the link is to the department website, where I didn't find any mention of permits for the park, but my French is lacking, so something could be hiding there.
  • "As with all other French national parks, going off a marked road or travel via your vehicle is prohibited in order to preserve the landscape."
  • "The code of conduct, Code de Bonne Conduite, can be obtained at the tourist office" – might that be true also for other parks? Is there a general Code de Bonne Conduite covering them all?

If the fees and permits are mostly uniform across all parks, they could be handled in one place, linked from the park articles. I still assume that there are local peculiarities, and without checking for those we shouldn't think an article is usable.

Getting in by bus should be covered and, if bikes are mentioned, some characterisation of the entry route from the perspective of bikers. Also, if one cannot reach the sights by car/bus/bike, that should be mentioned either in Get around or the individual listings, with directions ("a 5-km hike along a marked trail from [bus stop]" or the like). Also, the Camping and Backcountry sections are mostly empty. Are there usually camping sites? Is backcountry camping allowed? I assume you should stay on marked trails, but whether or not should be covered.

LPfi (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed regarding the Fees and permits – I will slowly add them once I get the motivation to do so. About the accommodation, it isn't required for usable articles to have all of those filled in – only a minimum of one listing is required per Wikivoyage:Park article status (that page isn't clear, but it's naturally assumed from Wikivoyage:City article status – otherwise we'd be demoting hundreds of park articles if this weren't the case). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, I won't be very active on this site next month (draining in uni work :-(), but I'll try to slowly fix them. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
No problem, this is long-term work and I just happened to notice that you had created some of them. Get around isn't needed for usable, but I think it should be there for high-quality usable articles, which should be aimed for. For Sleep, I think "information on accommodation" means general information rather than one listing.
For a Finnish national park, saying that there are wilderness huts mostly as needed along the marked or otherwise popular routes is much more useful than creating a listing for one of them – which I would think of as gaming the system.
If you can access most sites by car and there's a car-accessible lodging, that might suffice, but if you are supposed to do overnight hikes in other parts of the park, then it is woefully inadequate. Most of those park articles don't tell.
Good luck with the uni!
LPfi (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! I do agree we should aim for high-quality usable articles overall (and it's great that the number of high-quality usable substantially higher than it was in 2013 thanks to people like you). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Green card

@SHB2000, i won a green card. Template:Smiley Lionel Cristiano (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

wait, what's a green card? To me, it's synonymous with a permanent residency card. (I'm genuinely confused haha) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, a U.S. permanent residency card. Congratulations, Lionel! Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, righty. I second Ikan; congratulations! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gender in the UCOC

Hi SHB2000, I've seen this section of the m:UCOC mentioned a few times here, and since it's off-topic for the Talk:Buddhism page where you were talking about this with @Ikan Kekek and @Pashley (apologies to anyone I've forgotten), I thought I'd borrow your talk page. Here's what it says:


Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves. People may use specific terms to describe themselves. As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people, where linguistically or technically feasible. Examples include: [....]

  • People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns;

What this means is:

  • If someone directly tells you "I'm a man", then you should not show disrespect for that person by saying he's lying or by directly calling that person a woman.

What this does not mean is:

  • If you accidentally guess wrong, don't see a gender disclosed, forgot that the person previously said what their gender is, didn't take the time check the userpage first to see whether a gender is disclosed, etc., then doing your best (e.g., guessing from the username) is either bad or sanctionable.

They're trying to stop the kinds of exchanges that sound like:

  • "Actually, I'm a woman" – "No, you aren't, and I'm going to keep calling you he because I know you're a man", and
  • "Actually, I'm trans" – "Our community doesn't accept people like you".

People living in western democracies may find it hard to believe, but pre-UCOC, we actually had at least one Wikipedia that banned gay editors in their policies. Disclosing on your user page was a blockable offense there, even if you never touched a related article.

The main thing to remember is that the UCOC isn't concerned with the kinds of mistakes that all humans make occasionally. That policy is primarily concerned with deliberately malicious behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see; that makes sense, WhatamIdoing. I'm actually quite shocked with the Wikipedia policy, but even the western world 15–20 years ago was a very different place than it is today. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I'm not surprised, thinking about it. swwiki recently blocked a user for reporting an admin's anti-queer style of editing. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is shocking from our perspective, but as you say, it's not entirely surprising, after you think about it for a bit. If memory serves, that Wikipedia was for a language primarily spoken in a developing country where gay relationships are criminalized. If you want your language's Wikipedia to be respected (especially by teachers or others who might be sensitive to child safety issues), then someone might think it was a good idea to set up a policy to exclude those "criminals". Creating a global rule against this actually relieves some local groups from pressure. (The English Wikipedia is fond of saying that nobody asked for it, but multiple affiliates actually did ask for the UCOC, and enwiki says that about everything, even if you give them evidence of the request being made at enwiki's own Village pump as a community-initiated, CENT-listed RFC. Such claims are basically always wrong, and really mean "The individual complaining about this did not personally ask for it".) Now the affiliates can tell their local politicians and pressure groups "Sorry, I know about our anti-gay laws, and we're all very patriotic here, but Wikipedia is run by a US organization that requires non-discrimination, so there's just nothing we can do about it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Figures out – I guess it really does put you in a difficult position if you lived in a country with anti-homosexuality laws, and I say this as someone who's ace, but at least the UCoC helps alleviate this issue. (also agreed on the enwiki bit – enwiki really likes to act as if it were in its own WMF world at times) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-19

MediaWiki message delivery 16:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: April 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-20

MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: April 2024

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

blocked ip address

i tried to edit a post today, but get the following message;

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions. The block was made by ‪SHB2000‬. The reason given is /32 range exclusively used by Brendan since late 2021. If you've been affected by this range block, please leave a message on User talk:SHB2000. Start of block: 08:54, 29 April 2024 Expiration of block: 08:54, 29 October 2024 Intended blockee: 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 Block ID #23146.

not sure who brendan is, but it looks like anyone in the region using 4g will be blocked. is that the desired outcome? 2001:8004:5170:6009:9063:BF69:95A1:87F 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Brendan is an LTA based in SEQ (Maroochydore specifically) who used to routinely IP hop using different addresses from that range. I've unblocked that IP range so you can edit. Hope that clarifies things! --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
thank you, i'm in the northern rivers... certainly a baptism of fire here! 58.171.95.231 03:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, when I usually block a /32 range, I make sure that innocent users affected by it can still contact me since it's a large range to block – it's also why it's only used in mainspace. What I was surprised was that it affected people south of the border too. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
A /32 range covers 4 billion /64 blocks. I don't know how the IPv6 blocks are allocated, but such a range could easily be enough for much more than an Australian state. –LPfi (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
The /32 rangeblocks are usually very effective in tacking Brendan edits, as I've done several times before, but only use them in extreme circumstances (even more so than the criteria stewards use to global rangeblock /32 IPs). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are those criteria public? It would be nice to know how these allocations work and how the reasoning about them goes. –LPfi (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, and even I don't know the full criteria, but often those blocks are mirrored on Meta-Wiki if disruption continues from those ranges and you can imply the reason on a case-by-case (we don't have an exact block policy on Meta, but I've just abstained from doing range blocks over there and letting the stewards do it). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. I wonder whether /48 blocks (or somesuch) could be used in some of the cases where one is tempted to use /32. That would be 64 thousand /64 blocks instead of the 4 billion. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
I believe I've used /48 blocks in the past, though I can't remember if they were full blocks or namespace-specific blocks (or a bit of both). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Though I do wonder if a /38 block would be better in this case. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Whatever covers the IPs you want to block and not too many others. /38 is still many million /64 blocks. –LPfi (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-21

MediaWiki message delivery 23:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-22

MediaWiki message delivery 00:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

userpage

hey, i had been scratching my head trying to workout how to add linkable toc on my userpage banner, then stumbled across your userpage, which had exactly what i was trying to achieve. i do hope you don't take offense that i have used your tech on my page, but do thank you for this knowledge... Gecktrek (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gecktrek: Not a problem – please do feel free to take anything from my userpage as you wish! --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
one more question if you don't mind, i've noticed that many of the indonesian cities don't have a climate template, given the weather is crucial to know, if i add them to a few places, where is the best place to put them? it appears to be in the 'understand' section, but in many pages, this is not in the usual place on the page. should i move the understand section to the correct position first, before adding the climate template? sorry for the long question. Gecktrek (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, under Understand would be good. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 13:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
many thanks... Gecktrek (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
is there anyway of centering the the mapframe contents, so all the location places (coloured dots) appear in the map you see? ~~~ Gecktrek (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, add the latitude in the first parameter and the longitude in the second parameter. It'd look something like {{mapframe|-39.593|153.495}} if those are your center coordinates. Hope that helps! --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
ah, so i manually pick the central spot, and take those co-ords for the mapframe... will give it a try, thanks again!  g e c k t r e k (Talk) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes – though the URL of OSM is also a good way to get centered coordinates. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-23

MediaWiki message delivery 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

This Month in GLAM: May 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-24

MediaWiki message delivery 20:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: May 2024

Tech News: 2024-25

MediaWiki message delivery 23:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aussie oddities?

User:Daceyvillain recently blanked both User:Voyage2023/Sydney/Eastern Suburbs and User:Voyage2023/Sydney/South-Eastern Suburbs with the edit comment "User is tricking readers by spreading misinformation on a user page which is crafted to look like an official page". Both users have been around since late 2023 & have many contributions, most or all around Sydney.

I suspect something weird is going on here, but am not sure what & I lack local knowledge. Can you take a look? Pashley (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pashley: I think that's because Voyage2023 on enwiki has a tendency to push a certain region boundary and I think they were banned for that? (don't quote me on that)
I've reverted Daceyvillain's edits, though – there isn't any policy (local or global) that prohibits this kind of material in userspace anyway. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
FWIW, Voyage2023 was just banned from Wikipedia (yet again) for various reasons (vandalism, sockpuppetry, harrassment, etc)
My issue with their user pages here is that they are essentially putting misinformation on Wikivoyage in order to take advantage of Wikivoyage’s Google Search ranking. In particular, Google now shows the same misinformation and lists Wikivoyage as a source, but the source is actually just their user page and not a normal page on Wikivoyage. So this seems very broken.
Anyway, sorry for any controversy. Some more context here (at the bottom)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daceyvillain Daceyvillain (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In that case, I'd just NOINDEX it SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Daceyvillain (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad I could help :-) (and don't feel the need to apologise). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-26

MediaWiki message delivery 22:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-27

MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

User ban nom

Thank you for getting that going. I was still poking around trying to figure out how to do one. —The preceding comment was added by Ground Zero (talkcontribs) 00:55, July 6, 2024

@Ground Zero: no worries – I will admit it's not as easy as creating a new thread on WP:ANI or COM:ANU (the instructions on both pages are far clearer than what we have here), but at least we've kicked the convo going. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

False positives?

Please check these yesterday edits and apologise if that seems warranted. It seems there was a careless edit of filter 46 back in April. The edits by this user were also caught by m:Special:AbuseFilter/344, but I don't see why (I checked one of the edits, not the latter filter, which is quite complex). –LPfi (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I left them a short note (it seems you can't get it to filter "fag" on its own). Regarding filter 344, it is primarily a tracking filter aimed to catch the edits of a certain pesky LTA (which makes it easier for x-wiki patrollers). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. See my last change of the filter. –LPfi (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
...and thank you for picking that up – that was fully my oversight and I do take full responsibility for that. In hindsight, I know a lot more about abuse filters now then I did back in April. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
We have few admins who really know the ins and outs of the syntax, so we mostly have to live with it, but it may be worthwhile to call attention to any changes, so that the few of us do check them (I did a bit of w:Perl programming once). –LPfi (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed – I should try to learn proper regex sometime sooner or later. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-28

MediaWiki message delivery 21:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: June 2024

This Month in GLAM: June 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Jollof rice

Please look that up. It's nothing to do with Jell-O! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

See w:Jollof rice or just do a web search. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see – guess we learn something new every day. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-29

MediaWiki message delivery 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-30

MediaWiki message delivery 00:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This looks legit to me.

See this Ground Zero (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was a Brendan edit :-( (IP geolocates to Brisbane, ISP is Telstra, text resembles exactly like his). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. Ground Zero (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-31

MediaWiki message delivery 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

CEE Newsletter - July 2024 Issue Now Available!

Good morning,

We're excited to announce the release of the July 2024 issue of the CEE Newsletter! Once again we have captivating stories, community highlights, and collaborative achievements from across the Central and Eastern Europe region in the Wikimedia movement.

In This Issue:

  • International Updates: Stay informed with the "Wikimedia International Update Corner", covering key developments, events and initiatives in the international Wikimedia space for 2024.
  • CEE in the News: Discover notable mentions of CEE region activities in "This month in Education" and "This month in GLAM" newsletters.
  • Reader's Digest: Catch up on the latest insights and stories from around the globe with the "Reader’s Digest".
  • Open calls and consultations: Voice your opinion! These topics are open to discussion. Also, please take a look at the open calls and apply!
  • Updates from Communities: Learn about the successful second quarter of Wikimedia MKD and the first half of 2024 of Wikimedia Ukraine, read more about the Third Ionian Wikithon 2024, review activities in the past months of the Wikimedia Serbia, read the report from the event in the Buffer Zone on Cyprus, discover the new area of focus for Wikimedia Poland, and many more community updates.

We hope you enjoy this issue and find inspiration in the diverse stories and impactful work being done by our CEE communities. Thank you for being a part of our journey toward promoting free knowledge and collaboration.

You can read the full newsletter here. We hope you enjoy the inspiring stories and achievements showcased by our vibrant CEE communities.

Happy reading!

Toni Ristovski on behalf of the CEE Newsletter team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Growth News, July 2024

15:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-32

MediaWiki message delivery 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rollback

Hey, what does it take to get rollback rights around here? Undo button is so clunky. Brycehughes (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing, just a user request haha. I've given you patroller perms. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Brycehughes (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: July 2024





Headlines
  • Albania report: For what matters most for your community
  • Argentina report: Mid-term digitization update
  • Brazil report: Structuring Wiki Loves Monuments through a Wikidata portal
  • Canada report: CCA Hosts Inaugural Wiki Edit-a-Thon
  • Germany report: The flight over the "Rosinenbomber" - drone deployment for Free Knowledge; Kicking off a German-language community of practice for building cultural heritage linked open data with the wikimedia projects
  • India report: GLAM partner ventures into 'Digitisation Plus' programs with Wikimedians
  • Kosovo report: Prompting what's most important - our community in Albania and Kosovo
  • New Zealand report: WikiProject International Botanical Congress 2024, a presentation to the Natural History Museum, London & Kew Gardens staff and a Research expeditions edit-a-thon
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Programme
  • UK report: Translations galore
  • USA report: Wikicurious WikiNYC Civic Hall; San Diego 111; #5WomenArtists campaign
  • Biodiversity Heritage Library report: BHL-Wiki Working Group July monthly highlights
  • Special story: GLAM GLobal meetup & GLAM Global Calls
  • Calendar: August's GLAM events
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-33

MediaWiki message delivery 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-34

MediaWiki message delivery 00:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-35

MediaWiki message delivery 20:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

File:Partial block test.png

Hi! This test file is unused. Is it still needed? MGA73 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes Deleted. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-36

MediaWiki message delivery 01:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-37

MediaWiki message delivery 18:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request

Hello! I have a request, and thought you might be the best person to ask here on Wikivoyage for either information on where to make this sort of request, or if you could assist me directly with it.

I know you're aware of syntax errors collectively called as Lint, and that I've been clearing these up here on Wikivoyage this past month. I've cleared about 75% of this site's 30k total errors so far, and have found there's a small set of pages (128; mostly talk pages/user pages) that have full page protection that I won't be able to clean without a little assistance. I wondered if you would be willing to lower these pages' protection levels temporarily (determination reserved by you on a page by page basis) to allow me temporary access to address their errors in an edit or two per page and then notify you when I'm done (less than 24hrs) so you can re-protect as needed/desired?

If there's any hesitation on my intentions or skill, I have had a similar arrangement with Primefac on the English Wikipedia where they allowed me to clear a few thousand Tidy Font (link color) errors in full protected Admin talk archives last fall, and I've been delinting on en.wiki for about two years.

I don't wish to request and edit all 128 pages in one go, so I thought I'd start my request with the 22 pages of most interest (highest quantity of lint, or are the last page or two of an error type sitewide):

Would these be fine? Happy to discuss any concerns or clarify any details, Zinnober9 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of these pages really don't need to be read. I'm willing to let you edit my archive if you like, though, for whatever it's worth. Do I have to temporarily allow auto-confirmed users to edit it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek, Zinnober9: I assume this is because all of the pages are admin/template editor protected – I think the best port of call is for you to obtain temporary adminship (via WV:URN) and then fix all of those lint errors, while I've given you temp editor perms to edit some of them. Thanks again for all the work you've put in :-). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is correct, admin/template editor protection levels and these pages are/were beyond my editing clearance. That's an interesting reply, not the direction I was expecting based on my en.wiki experiences, but each wiki is a little bit different with procedural things. I've been used to en.wiki's RFPP (Request For Page Protection) page for requesting protection adjustments +/- to various levels of protected pages, and been used to Primefac temporarily reducing/removing protection from pages I was interested in fixing (similar to how Ikan was thinking above I think?). Temporary Adminship wasn't on my radar, but if this is a standard sort of case, I'll look into that. Zinnober9 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In your case I'm almost certain that a 3-month-long temp adminship will almost pass – Ikan Kekek can probably attest to this that most of us here are far more relaxed about granting permissions to those have a valid use for them, unlike at enwiki (we're more like Commons in this regard, though even more so). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've made the nomination at WV:URN. This seems like a good idea. Ground Zero (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sweet; I've given my word of support. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm honored, thank you. Do I need to make any introductory sort of statement there, or just watch that page and answer any questions that arise? Zinnober9 (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The lattter, haha; we're super chill here so no need for any of that intro statements that you see on enwiki. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some people have made a brief introductory statement, though. Since many people probably don't know you, it certainly wouldn't be out of line. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean GZ's already made the brief intro statement anyway. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
True. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: August 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in Education: August 2024

Tech News: 2024-38

MediaWiki message delivery 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deleting spam

Regarding Srgholiday(s515/.com): Isn't it overkill to revision delete spam? Deleting it increases the number of admin actions that are opaque to the general community (admin activity should be as transparent as possible) and hides the actions of the spammer (raising the bar for blocking or blacklisting them). What's the harm of leaving that spam visible in the revision history? If you think this needs doing, I think a discussion in the Pub is warranted. –LPfi (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The nature of this spammer is no different to userpage spammers. I don't mind if you unrevdel it, but leaving the mass spam up only gives the spammer exactly what they want. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 13:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand. Our readers won't see the spam in old revisions. For user pages, the issue is about user pages for non-users, which we often delete as out of scope, which is another thing. If the user page is otherwise legitimate, we just remove the spam, with no deleting or hiding. –LPfi (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As I said you're free to undelete it as you wish – we simply disagree on something where there isn't a clear policy on. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I self-reverted for now; not worth having a discussion on something where there is no clear policy on. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with LPfi here. Revdel should be used only when the text itself is highly objectionable -- racist, obscene, over-the-top agenda pushing, etc. -- not for mere spamming or even for denying recognition to vandals. Pashley (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pashley, if you want to argue to not use revdel per WV:DENY for LTAs, start a discussion on Wikivoyage talk:Deny recognition instead of commenting on policies you clearly don't understand properly. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very (very!) belatedly, I've just tried to add the link discussed here, but it it still blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is very odd – I'll try to take a look into it sometime soon. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) SHB2000 (t | c | m) 13:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-39

MediaWiki message delivery 23:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tout issue?

Is User:(WT-en) Fpatrick a WV:TOUT issue? It's got two lint issues, but if it's going to be blanked or revdel'd due to the content, I'll skip the delinting. Zinnober9 (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I've deleted it as spam. Nice catch. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks! Zinnober9 (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another on User:(WT-en) منتديات البيان البورسعيدى talking about their linked forum/newspaper. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Others:
Tourism agency on User:(WT-en) Le desert vit
Restaurant on User:(WT-en) Restaurantkashmir
Cell phone spam on User:(WT-en) Kalinka
Tours on User:(WT-en) Tour Old Wilmington
Tours on User:(WT-en) Bhutan2009
.
User:(WT-en) Hemraj is not very promotional, but does has work contact info, so less sure on this one. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
User:(WT-en) Hemraj doesn't have any contributions but their user page, so I think it can be deleted as user page of non-user. The contact info is probably out of date. –LPfi (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I removed the number since the rest without it could be read as a user bio rather than a personal ad. If anyone has a stronger opinion, have at it, I don't have a strong opinion beyond my edit. Zinnober9 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suppose it is OK like that. –LPfi (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Wikivoyage is Lint-free! (mostly)

I've addressed all existing Lint errors that I can. The remaining 57 errors* are all due to one single issue relating to Template:Listing being surrounded by BDI tags when Listing contains multilined content. BDI doesn't like multilined content, so when someone uses a manual line break within a parameter (most commonly in the content parameter) in the eat/sleep/etc templates that use Listing, BDI gets stripped and reports a misnested/stripped error. I've cleared some cases this occurred by replacing the manual line breaks with break tags, but the remaining pages have bulleted lists, which is incompatible with that solution. I've asked WOSLinker and Jonesey95, two editors who deal with templates far more than I, and we haven't come up with a perfect solution for this issue so far so probably going to let these sit for now and I'll continue to handle any popup issues that occur. I'll still be around, just not as omnipresent as I have been the last few weeks.

* I am ignoring Duplicate IDs and Background colors, as both are newly tracked and actions (if any) for addressing them have not been clearly defined as of yet.

Thanks for everything so far! Zinnober9 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, congratulations Zinnober9. Your work is invaluable and you've made Wikivoyage a far better place over the months; thanks again for fixing all the lint errors. :-) --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 21:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-40

MediaWiki message delivery 22:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-41

MediaWiki message delivery 23:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: September 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.

Nothing else be said when OP chooses to play rules for thee but not for me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


I was going to drop this, but as you didn't ("It's your responsibility to check"), I think I must tell you that you owe the two of us an apology.

You accused me and Granger for "[bringing up] deliberately incorrect information". There was no reason not to trust good faith. I apologised for the error and explained how it happened. You answered by accepting my apology but not really providing any of your own (I was quite upset for that). When Granger told you that your assumption of bad faith was wrong also about him, you responded by accusing him for not checking carefully enough.

So making a mistake is equivalent to bringing up deliberately incorrect information in your world? I hope not. I wouldn't have minded your first mistake. You were under stress and such mistakes happen even if they shouldn't. But still attacking Granger a day later, when they ask you to keep Wikivoyage fun, that is gross. If you felt that your still were under attack (although you never were), the least you should have done would have been to have a good night's sleep before responding.

LPfi (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a difference in what you and Mx Granger did:
  • You accepted the tad carelessness. I'm sorry for being harsh on you, but we cleared things up in the air.
  • Mx Granger, however, did not. Rather when I called them out, they could have apologised and cleared things in the air, instead of putting the blame on me. Had they apologised for carelessness or even taken responsibility for it, that's an entirely different argument. I never directly attacked them for it, so I also don't know where you're getting that from. So no, I don't actually "owe" Granger an apology if they don't have the basic courtesy to even admit what they wrote was based of incorrect information. Keep Wikivoyage fun requires cooperation from all parties involved – that includes Granger.
Either way, this is really not worth our time debating about. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought it isn't until your attack on them.
  • For me, your defence didn't clear the air, as it wasn't an apology, but I can live with that.
  • Accusing them for deliberately bringing up incorrect information was a faux pas, which needs an apology regardless of anything else, especially now that you didn't respect their wish to keep Wikivoyage fun. Only after that apology, you have any right to criticise them for any mistake they did.
You wrote:
"I don't think it's worth my time arguing when the two of you bring up deliberately incorrect information because you have an issue with the protections."
That's indeed an accusation, a grave and false one. Don't call it an attack if you don't want to, but it needs an apology. For keeping Wikivoyage fun and for common decency.
(I still don't really see what Granger should apologise for; excessive vandalism and excessive spam are both problems that may require locking a page, and some carelessness in the distinction is common. The argument would arguably have been valid using either word.)
I am seriously concerned about your not understanding how serious it is to accuse fellow editors of bad faith, and maintaining the view that you have the right to do that unless they apologise first. Keeping a good spirit in the community needs cooperation from everybody, yes, but there is no reason for you not to take the first step – requiring others to move first is poison.
LPfi (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's possibly a more important issue than keeping Wikivoyage fun, which is to maintain collegiality. SHB2000, I observed the problem edits of the Graffiti wall in real time, as I stated in the Travellers' pub thread, and I definitely understand being upset at dealing with them and then getting second-guessed, but staying so seemingly prickly about this is bad. It's not likely to provoke a de-sysop nomination because it's in no way a security issue, but it's not good behavior. It was legitimate for other admins (or indeed any other good-faith user) to question the semi-protection of the Graffiti wall and also to state that such a step should have required a discussion, and if it happens again, we might consider semi-protecting it for a day or two and starting a thread on Wikivoyage talk:Graffiti wall. I will say that repeated instances of apparent temper and grudge-holding, especially about minor issues like this, might lead to discussions about your status, so to sum up: I'd advise you to chill, recognize that your colleagues deserve respect and consideration, and act accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will admit my use of the word "deliberate" was not the best choice of words and I'll apologise for that. However, my point stands, that it is still incorrect. Keeping Wikivoyage fun also means Granger accepts that they take greater care before questioning admin actions; it's not engraved in policy, but common courtesy to do so. Vandalism and spam are handled similarly in many ways, except on the graffiti wall it's not; discussions that centre on the premise of incorrect information never end well, meaning it is not unreasonable for me to claim it's incorrect.
Also I'm not sure why you're accusing me of attacking Granger a day later? I can't see how Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#c-SHB2000-20241021024500-Mx._Granger-20241020221500 is an attack?
All in all and to respond to Ikan Kekek, in the future I'll try to be less prickly about this (and I fully recognise I could have handled this better), but I hope you also recognise my side of things and why I'm not too pleased with Granger when they chose to not have the basic courtesy to recognise that better care from their end could have been taken? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not only not the best of words, but what made that a false statement and an accusation of bad faith. Pointing out that something is incorrect or might be a misunderstanding is no problem.
Admins should be open for their actions being questioned – blind trust is never good, and asking is better than silently questioning admin trustworthiness. As you probably understood, I asked myself the same question and didn't see the answer in the page history. I could have been more careful, but when I think about it, I shouldn't – already checking as carefully as I did took too much time from other work.
LPfi (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
SHB2000, the reason I felt it was important to comment was that you continued to act like you were holding a grudge about this. As for recognizing why you were annoyed, I already did, and if you don't see that, what did you think you read in my comment above? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do recognise you see my position on this, for the record. And no, I don't hold a grudge against this but what I do care about is basic courtesy (checking carefully does not take too much time and if it does, so be it; it is better than starting a discussion on the premise of incorrect information), which Granger did not give to me. Had Granger at least acknowledged (which they still haven't done so) they could have done better from the get-go, this entire discussion would have gone very differently.
Other than that, nothing else needs to be said from me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 20:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also I love how I still haven't gotten a response for "Also I'm not sure why you're accusing me of attacking Granger a day later?" – I'm not budging for a response but all I've got to say is don't play rules for thee and not for me in the future. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Still no response... --SHB2000 (t | c | m)
What are you trying to get a response on? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
LPfi claimed I attacked Granger – I would like to know how hence why I said "Also I'm not sure why you're accusing me of attacking Granger a day later?" (note the question mark). I don't expect an answer, but find it rather hypocritical and reflects poorly on LPfi by not answering and would rather LPfi clear things up now. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you know how I feel about this, which is that you are in the wrong, and since you refused to apologize for claiming that colleagues were deliberately acting in bad faith, you had ample opportunity to take the next best course of action - dropping the discussion. You should still do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but I did apologise for that? See "I will admit my use of the word "deliberate" was not the best choice of words and I'll apologise for that." SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not merely a problematic choice of words, but I will drop my participation in this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good – because I did apologise and that's objective (despite you claiming that I "refused to apologize"). Maybe it's better for both of us for you to cease conversation on this topic. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 08:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I though I had said what I needed to say, and kept away not to be provoked by posts that I'd better leave alone, so I didn't see your question. But as you insist. Here's your exchange:
  • I did not "bring up deliberately incorrect information" and would appreciate not being accused of it. Thanks for the answer to my question, but I would prefer if we can keep Wikivoyage fun and tone down the hostility. —Granger 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • It's your responsibility to check what you add is in fact correct in discussion (spam and vandalism are handled very differently); if you can't take responsibility for that, that's frankly your issue, not anyone else's. --SHB2000 02:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I indeed read the answer, which doesn't recognise that Granger may have acted in good faith, but instead criticises them – in this context – as an attack. Call it what you will, but I maintain that you owe him an apology for the original accusation of deliberately bringing up incorrect information (and no, it's not about your word choice, but about your false accusation). It may be too late to do anything about it and I have no interest in continuing this discussion.
LPfi (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but that's not what an attack is (despite what you may think). You may have no interest in continuing this discussion, but that doesn't change the fact that you also falsely accused me of attacking Granger. I maintain that you owe me an apology for making false accusations (if you want to go down that path of apologising again; if you want to treat me that way, I will treat the way you treat me. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-42

MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Jersey county articles

Can you unprotect all of the New Jersey county articles please? 73.49.185.194 14:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Long-term abuse isn't welcome. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
What is "long-term abuse"? 175.214.236.208 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
These edits have been rejected repeatedly as not being improvements, but you keep coming back to try to make them. That is abuse of Wikivoyage, and you have been doing it for a long time. Ground Zero (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then shouldn't it be "longtime abuse" instead of "long-term abuse"? 46.48.110.187 01:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Don't play dumb; since you're banned from editing Wikivoyage you shouldn't even be editing this talk page. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 01:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Helping you out

Did some work on PEI topics I see you have also, cheers. BigKrow (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey cheers for the updates, BigKrow – I figured since there's no article for the park might as well create one pre-emptively and add known information and expand upon it when more info becomes available (I did the same for Nilpena Ediacara National Park a few years back). --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 00:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-43

MediaWiki message delivery 20:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Growth News, October 2024

Trizek_(WMF), 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-44

MediaWiki message delivery 20:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

WikiSP Board of Directors Elections 2024

02:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wondabyne

Wondabyne wasn’t trolling on his meta talk page, he was gaming autoconfirmed. Many other RichardHornsby socks also game permissions. Maybe add gaming of permissions to your meta wiki lta Lol1024 (talk) 07:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As requested, Richard. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-45

MediaWiki message delivery 20:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

This Month in GLAM: October 2024





Headlines
Read this edition in full Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-46

MediaWiki message delivery 00:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: October 2024

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-47

MediaWiki message delivery 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Talk page spam

Hey, thanks for removing all the weird "plz unblock" spam on my Talk page, but do you have any context for what's up with this? Particularly curious why randos are reaching out to me in particular. Jpatokal (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jpatokal: The short story of why MidAtlanticBaby is targeting enwikivoyage in particular is because I protected all the pages they targeted on Meta and because I mostly edit here, they seem to be pasting the same spam here on enwikivoyage, initially targeting Meta admins but now seem to be targeting local admins too.
Long story of MAB is they were initially banned from enwiki, but could not take that very lightly so they resorted to threats of physical violence or death threats. And so they resorted to every other platform available, too – Reddit, Discord, Quora, IRC – and they keep moving onto whatever platform or wiki is next – which unfortunately happens to be us right now. WMF is aware, but there isn't a whole lot they can do about this either. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-48

MediaWiki message delivery 22:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

CEE Newsletter - November 2024 Issue Now Available!

We're excited to announce the release of the November 2024 issue of the CEE Newsletter! This edition is particularly special, with 23 updates from affiliates and communities in the CEE region — a record high for this newsletter!

We hope you enjoy the inspiring stories and achievements showcased by our vibrant CEE communities.

Happy reading! --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-49

MediaWiki message delivery 22:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply