User talk:Turbo8000/Archive 1

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello, Turbo8000! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are familiar with Wikipedia, take a look over some of the differences here.

Many thanks for your input regarding districts for Lima.

As a local resident you are definitely welcome to raise a discussion around how best to structure this article. It does nevertheless need to be agreed by the Wikivoyage community (Consensus) in the first instance. This is the same process for any article here.

Would you mind to conclude this first on Talk:Lima and then make your changes? Thanks --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I completely understand that you want to see changes to the districts of Lima, but shouting "WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND JAVIER PRADO ISN'T A DISTRICT?" doesn't help at all. We really want to help you achieve your aims so please do discuss these changes on the talk page first and we will definitely help you to implement them.
Please feel free to ask any questions about this. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to "First aid equipment"[edit]

Can you please explain your strange edits on contraceptives in First aid equipment? In what way did you think it served the traveler to remove warnings about stomach upsets reducing the effectiveness of contraceptive pills? And why did you think it was helpful to eliminate the mention of HIV and hepatitis? Compare your edit to mine here. Which one is more informative to potentially endangered travelers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem. Turbo8000 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central America[edit]

Hi, just to let you know I have reverted the edits at North America. This sort of edit needs a little discussion and consensus. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough to go from consensus in consensus. It's only common sense! Central America, South America and North America are differents! Turbo8000 (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agreeing or disagree with you, just saying please discuss on the North America page first before making such a change. It has other implications to the organization of pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits[edit]

Hello.

Please forgive me for maybe putting it bluntly, but I have noticed that you sometimes make sweeping edits that seem to go against long established consensus and may anger other contributors. Now this may well be a cultural and/or language thing - trust me, I don't always understand everything the English native speakers around here are saying or implying, especially if they're British. But I hope that you try to tone it down a bit, lest others get angry at you. And please don't get me wrong, being of different opinions is fine, even thinking that a particular consensus makes little or no sense (just ask about my attitude towards British English in articles about Germany) is okay, but doing major reversions without so much as asking first and doubling or even tripling down instead of discussing is rather unfortunate. And please try to avoid a "I am right, you have to agree with me" tone, it is not helpful even if you are as a matter of fact, right. Please don't be offended by this, I just wanted to give you some advice as someone who has trouble expressing his thoughts in a polite way from time to time as well. Kind regards and best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hobbitschuster. And sorry for the tone, I'll avoid it. I didn't want to speak with this tone, really. Turbo8000 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Havana / La Habana[edit]

Hi Turbo8000, just wanted to let you know that I moved La Habana back to Havana. The article naming policy for English Wikivoyage is we use the name most commonly used in English-speaking countries. By that test, Havana is far more common, so that is the name we use here. In the future, it's good to talk about a new name on the article's Talk page before doing it. -Shaundd (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shaundd. I didn't know Havana was much more common. Sorry for the inconvenient. Greetings, Turbo8000 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, now that you know that Havana is the common spelling; you should understand why I reverted your edit to the proper spelling on the Quito page. TomNativeNewYorker (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and unilateral spelling changes[edit]

My friend, this is a Wiki. The essence of a Wiki is collaboration. That means not edit warring and not making large substantive changes to articles without first attaining a consensus. So please, if you'd like the names of articles to be changed, propose this on the talk pages of those articles. If a consensus is obtained for such a change, the article will be moved to the new title. Then the name of the place throughout the article should be changed (with exceptions as needed, including for filenames of images, which get broken if you mess with their names). Also, unilaterally deleting health warnings about the dangers of using unboiled water for ice or tooth-brushing is unhelpful to travelers. I have personal experience of having gotten a big infestation of parasitic worms, due to exactly such things (brushing my teeth with unboiled well water in Malaysia in the 1970s) and still having the infestation until I was tested 2 years after my return to the United States. It's no joke and nothing to delete because you for some reason don't like it.

I speak for myself and probably for at least some other regulars here in saying that I really appreciate having people with local knowledge participating in this project. However, as a New Yorker, I know that locals can be very opinionated about their cities and areas, and some of us might be oversensitive to factual information that puts our native lands in a less than flattering light. If you have some of these feelings, you need to suppress them in favor of a laser-like focus on facts, but also a willingness to work within a system that requires collegiality, persuasion and consensus.

I hope you stick around and work constructively with other Wikivoyagers, but if at any point you find that you are unwilling or unable to avoid edit warring and attempts (let alone repeated attempts) at major unilateral changes, you might consider whether another website would be more congenial for you.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ikan Kekek. No one in Peru uses boiled water to brush teeths, well everyone use boiled water for drink. Turbo8000 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Peruvians have built up that much tolerance to the bacteria in their water supply doesn't mean visitors from foreign countries who have not should do the same thing. Discuss these kinds of substantive changes on the relevant talk page and try to attain a consensus. If you do, only then should you make the edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, I am not speaking about the local people, I am telling you that in Peru no one uses boiled water for that. Maybe in some poor countries (like in Africa or rural Asia for example), I don't know. But in Peru, no. Turbo8000 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please lay out your argument on Talk:Peru, but my feeling is that if there are dangerous microbes in the water, such that you shouldn't drink it, it's unwise to brush your teeth with it, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek. When you brush your teeth, you use toothpaste, that's why it's different. In Peru, boiled water isn't necessary for brushing your teeth, but maybe it is needed on some poor countries. Turbo8000 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toothpaste does not sterilize water, and as I personally experienced, it certainly does not get rid of worm eggs. But again, please stop arguing with me here. The only way for you to attain a consensus is to argue at Talk:Peru. Even if you were to convince me here, two people do not constitute a consensus. See you at Talk:Peru. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the water is not safe enough to drink, then it not safe to brush your teeth with it, especially a traveler who hasn't built up resistance (Probably less chance to ingest bacteria than drinking, but still a risk). --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if you drink the water, obviously, there is a high risk. But we are taught to never drink tap water. Turbo8000 (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling you missed the entire point I made at the beginning of of the thread, as well as the points made in the side argument (which shouldn't continue here). In case you didn't fully understand what I wrote in the beginning of this thread, read it again, and if you have any questions about the major points I'm making, ask below. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] Almost no sooner did you come off your suspension than you're at it again! If you edit war or unilaterally change the spelling of cities in any article again, you'll be suspended again, this time for a week. Please stop! Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case you somehow misunderstood[edit]

Other editors (myself included) seem to have just about had it with both your attitude and your propensity to edit things in a way that turn out to be simply not true. I suggest you very quickly do some soul searching on how to change your attitude and try to undo the damage you have done. I am sorry for being so drastic, but it seems that other ways to talk to you seem to fall on deaf ears or are misunderstood. Kind regards. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenients. Turbo8000 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

@Ibaman, it is unfair to block the first time one week. I did nothing to get blocked. Turbo8000 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes you did. You don't listen. You answer serious issues with mockery. You almost caused great damage to our structure before claiming "ooohhh, I'm so sorry, I didn't know La Habana is Havana in English". You keep on saying "I'm sorry" and repeating the same disrespectful deeds over and over. You go doing what YOU want without the least respect for THE COMMUNITY's sayings. Meditate on it or a while. IF you are interested in bettering any article, be invited to do so in YOUR OWN SANDBOX, the block does not forbid you this. Ibaman (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ibaman, I can't edit my userpage. Turbo8000 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you positively, definitely sure that the only thing you have to say about yourself, and the whole situation you put yourself into, is "I can't edit my userpage"? No apologies, no regrets, no explanations...? Duly noted. Ibaman (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try again?[edit]

Hi User:Turbo8000,

The initial ban you experienced above is finishing soon, and we would all really like to work with you constructively.

Please give up edit warring. See Wikivoyage:Edit_war. The districts of Lima are under discussion. Happy to discuss your views and opinions, and see any evidence to support your position, but any further edit warring of the Peru and Lima pages will not be tolerated, and will only result in longer bans for yourself. If you do feel that your edits are correct, then edit warring will only make it much less likely that they will be used and that would be a shame.

This also includes changing images on the Wikimedia Commons if it impacts our Wikivoyage content.

Nevertheless, everyone here would be more than happy to move past this and work together. We don't have many people who can contribute to Peruvian articles, therefore we would welcome your participation.

Thanks --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The new sectorized map of Lima is very very wrong, that's why I'll upload a new map without editing the areas until getting the consensus, really I don't agree with the mergering of the far zones. Turbo8000 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, start as you mean to go on. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded another version of the file on Commons, but I need to get deleted the local version of the file. Turbo8000 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be so kind as to describe precisely WHAT is VERY WRONG with the map you don't like (besides the fact that you don't like it)? Don't overlook the fact that here you are again sounding like "You are all wrong, I'm 100% right, and if you don't realize it, you are stupid and lack common sense". It's a very unpleasant tone and should be avoided. You have already PROMISED to drop this tone, and to never edit war again. Please oblige. Regards, Ibaman (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo8000, do you really not understand what the problem is? Do you know why you were blocked? Really, in many many cases you could have avoided a lot of problems by just saying "Look my opinion on this is as follows because of those reasons (...)" and of course, crucially accepting when other disagree for their own reasons even if you don't think they are more valid than yours. But judging from your behavior here and over at es-WV it is hard to shake the impression that you are trying to be disruptive. Are you? I hope not. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, it's hard to explain the problem to a foreigner! The districtal limits are very bad, the borders are wrong, etc! It seems to be confusing, really! That's why I suggested a new map. Turbo8000 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We know you speak English really well, Turbo, but if this particular explanation is proving difficult, I'm sure one of our more advanced speakers of Spanish could help you translate your concerns.
Just to defend Turbo's intentions a bit, since they are being called into question, we have worked through the passport disagreement on es:Islas Malvinas, and he voluntarily undid his own edit saying Argentinians didn't require a passport to enter the Falkland Islands. I sincerely believe and hope we can continue to work co-operatively and constructively on the English Wikivoyage too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I really appreciate that you are discussing this, and I'm really willing to try and help.
You say that the map is wrong and that the reasons "are really hard to explain to a foreigner" ... well this guide is all about explaining things to foreigners.
Lima consists of 47 administrative districts, as per w:List_of_districts_of_Lima, and that any map that splits them up into North/South/East/West is arbitrary. It can not be 'very wrong' because those divisions do not officially exist.
That is why I took the Wikipedia definitions of North/South/East/West Lima because they have at least been agreed by consensus on that site. If you feel that is wrong, can you provide any other evidence (i.e. web links) to another source that supports your position (i.e. tourist maps of Lima?) Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to clarify organizational issues that perhaps, as a new user to this site, you still don't understand, please check out Khao San Road. It's a little street in Bangkok that, officially and geographically, should not be split from its district. However, take care to notice how this street can be easily considered by the TRAVELLER as THE MOST CRUCIAL place inside the whole metropolis. That is the reason why this street gets its own article, just like Callao, Miraflores and Barranco got theirs. Meditate on it. Regards, Ibaman (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lima has 43 districts, and Callao 7. Turbo8000 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Wikipedia again, yes Lima has 43 districts. Now please point us to supporting evidence for how those districts fall into 'North', 'South', 'East', 'West' and 'Central'. Seriously, you must be basing your analysis on something. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong Maps"[edit]

Missing districts?

On the subject of "wrong maps", please see the map here that you created and are trying rather hard to get onto English Wikivoyage.

Can you explain why many of the southern districts of Lima are missing? Please see w:List_of_districts_of_Lima

Specifically you are missing many districts such as w:Punta_Negra and w:Punta_Negra (and many more).

It is not a good idea to criticise other maps when it appears the one you are try to force us to use has such obvious errors. I'm happy to hear if there is an explanation for this however. Thanks. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not missing Punta Negra nor Punta Hermosa, the problem is that the north side of the Quebrada Chancherías is discussed with Huarochirí province (Santo Domingo de los Olleros). That's why I got out this zone. Turbo8000 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "discussed", do you mean disputed? But what's the issue for a visitor, who doesn't care about disputes between different cities or provinces? Even if an administrative boundary is disputed, the area being disputed has to be covered somewhere on this site, if it's of any interest to visitors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ikan Kekek. That rural area (Pampa Pacta) is not of visitors' interest. Greetings, Turbo8000 13:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's not important. But I think we shouldn't care about administrative disputes. The only issue that might be relevant for the maps is what province these areas are in now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That area Pampa Pacta is now in Olleros, and governed by that municipality. Turbo8000 13:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's clear. I think everyone reading will understand this. You might want to repeat that on Talk:Lima, and also provide some citation to a source that indicates this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removing areas that you personally feel is 'not in the visitors interest' is not what we do in Wikivoyage. Please use a map that has the official districts. Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast (Peru)[edit]

Please be aware that the See section of a region should highlight key points of interest of a region and not list the cities again. The text you added against the cities would however be useful at the top of the page. Also why move Callao away from Lima as an article (which I see as it is almost 1M population and a separate province but then place it net to Lima in the region page. One or the other please. I will revert most of these edits but add some of your additional text back. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Traveler100. Just mergered it on the Central Coast (Peru) because they are conurbated. Turbo8000 16:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not do that with any of the USA conurbations so see no reason here, particularly as the list is so small. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Airlines[edit]

This is another example of edit warring. You don't like Star Airlines? Fine, but don't remove a business relevant for travelers! If there is a reason for foreigners not to use then feel free to explain. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Star PERÚ (not Star Airlines) is not an airline that I don't like, really, I never travelled in that airline. But everyone here know that the airline has a bad service. Turbo8000 21:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't like Ryanair. That does not mean I have to delist from all our articles, even though many Europeans could give you half a dozen reasons why you should never fly with them Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you are giving advice and removing businesses that you yourself have no personal experience of? Please stop doing that. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 week ban[edit]

Hi, it seems you did not understand our concerns at Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations#New_problems_from_User:Turbo8000 and repeating warnings not to edit war above.

Please take the time to consider your editing pattern here, and feel free to use this page in the meantime to ask any questions. The offer to work together in the future still stands. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this shitty wiki the one who knows is being discriminated by some idiots WHO NEVER KNEW the city. Turbo8000 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GET YOUR LIMA ARTICLE IN YOUR ASS! I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONSENSUS WAY FOR DUMB THINGS! TRAVELLING IS OK AND TRAVELING NO. Turbo8000 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/traveling-or-travelling-doubling-a-final-consonant-when-adding-a-suffix.543819/. Turbo8000 23:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've only made things worse by cursing out consensus. It's such a pity that you refuse to work with others; we need people with local knowledge, but if you insist on doing things your own way without even explaining them, or explaining them sufficiently for others to understand, you need to start your own personal website. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have myself disagreed with many things in Wikivoyage in the past, however I have always respected and followed consensus even when I felt it was wrong. The point is that my own feelings/beliefs are not more important than those of the entire Wikivoyage community. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] By the way: traveling definition; traveled definition; traveler definition. American English usually doesn't double consonants before "ing", "ed" and "er"; British and some (most? all?) other forms of English do. Neither is "wrong". Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Spelling to use on Wikivoyage, we actually have rules for that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Turbo8000/Archive_1&oldid=3243698"