User talk:W. Frank

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
If you have any queries, comments or concerns, feel free to leave me a message - just take note of a few things:
  • Please be civil and polite if you wish your message to remain
  • If you write on this page I will usually respond here too, rather than on your own page - so please add this page to your watchlist
  • Sometimes I forget to get back to people - just nudge me if I don't respond
  • Please try and keep discussions about particular articles and policies on their discussion page, unless they only affect me directly or personally or you don't wish to embarrass me or others

Something to say about my edits to one of our articles?
Please say it on that article's talk page, not here!
(And please don't hesitate to email me if you think I've skipped a necessary response to you on that article's discussion page...)

--W. Franke-mailtalk 16:41, 15 September 2012 (CEST)

Stalinist revisionism[edit]

Hi! Are you the same user at Wikitravel? Jc8136 (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes, unfortunately.
I've edited there for more than 6 years, firstly as many and various anonymous IP's then using the same name for a few months in 2007 (until my elevated public profile in Scotland made that untenable) and then for another 6,000 edits or so as many and various IP's again until retirement meant I could recently go back to using my original user name, (all be it, holding my nose and gritting my teeth).
If I didn't strenuously (if rather tritely) believe that the "Traveller comes first" I would have abandoned a sinking ship like many of the long time contributors and WT admins.
However, until that ship sinks below the waves and out of sight it will be the best known on-line travel guide and more folks are needed to stop vandals and nutters inconveniencing travellers by (for example) suggesting that Tiraspol is part of Russia so they will need to waste money and time by getting a Russian visa to visit it. --W. Franke-mailtalk 10:52, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

In response to your message back a few months ago...[edit]

I get it now. Thank you for explaining! Emily951 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm not Jani. I'm Jan since 2006 a Wikitraveller and fed up by IB. Thank you for your clarification. Jc8136 (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2012 (CEST)
P.S. You WT talk page was targeted by the abuse filter of IB. I assume someone tried to inform you about the risks (litigation) if you work with IB. IB tried to hide this fact. Jc8136 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2012 (CEST)
Whoops! I'm aware of the reprehensible (and doomed to fail) attempts to censor and rewrite history at WT (hence the sub-section title I selected).
Fortunately I did a screendump of Jani's (now censored) comments before an IB employee buggered around with my user namespace (and other namespaces).
I have no assets in the US so litigation there would be fruitless and here in the Scottish jurisdiction the courts would give very short shrift to the kind of vexatious litigation recently initiated by Internet brands in the US. Thank you for your concern. --W. Franke-mailtalk 11:35, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

Protection of imported user and user talk pages[edit]

Hi Frank, I have protected your imported user and user talk pages as you requested of Hans. They are now only editable by admins. There is no available level of protection that I know of that would allow only you to edit, so if/when you want to edit, just request an admin to unlock the pages. Any admin can do this. Locking a user page and talk page is not normally done, but this is a special case of preserving a historically significant version of a page which is unlikely to be used again, so I think it's OK. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 22:40, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

Thanks for your prompt and effective action, Peter!--W. Franke-mailtalk 22:46, 22 September 2012 (CEST)

Hi! Why do you deleted most of the content of the Middle East‎‎ page? Jc8136 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

This was (presumably) caused by a cache error.
Until we move to faster servers it is difficult and slow to edit the lede of long articles since there is no way I know to load just the lede for editing.
My attempts to restore the truncation were complicated by continual edit conflicts - presumably with yourself. --W. Franke-mailtalk 13:41, 25 September 2012 (CEST)
The edit conflicts happened because g-t and myself reverted your changes. Editing here is much faster than at WT but of course higher speeds are possible. I think the change to West Asia is unlikely because ME is ovewhelming in use in the public spare. Have a nice day, Jc8136 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2012 (CEST)
Obviously I (and my Internet Service Provider -grin) apologise for the inconvenience!
We both know there are extensive local differences in English useage. West Asia is already widely used in India, Pakistan and Malaysia, especially in aviation circles, and I prophesy increasing use worldwide (but especially in Australia and Oceania). I have created a relevant re-direct and see no need to change our article title. --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:02, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

On some Wikis, lede section editing can be enabled through "My preferences → Gadgets → Appearance → Add an [edit] link". --W. Franke-mailtalk 14:02, 25 September 2012 (CEST)

Go next[edit]

Hey, while your efforts to convert Get out to Go next are appreciated, there are thousands upon thousands of Wikivoyage destinations, so the only way to do this properly would be an automated bot or extension. So for now, we're just holding off until User:Hansm has deployed the extension for use. JamesA >talk 16:58, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes, I saw that on Hans' talk page, but I suspect that it may be some while since he must be very busy right now.
No need to wait on the few destinations on my watchlist.
Thanks for the "heads up", James ! --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:03, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
No problem! I can't imagine any harm in doing some manually, so feel free to convert the ones in your watchlist. I'd imagine Hans would be very busy too. We're hoping that the conversion can be done before we officially become part of the WMF, as that is when things are really going to kick off around here. Happy travels! JamesA >talk 17:05, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
"Happy travels" ? I appreciate the nice thought, James but not with my gammy knee. I'm pretty sessile these days apart from trips home to the Fatherland. What a waste of a bus pass! --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:10, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
Aw, sorry to hear it. Well I hope you can enjoy the world through editing and exploring this site! I've learnt so much just be editing here. JamesA >talk 17:22, 30 September 2012 (CEST)
Me too, I just can't wait to convert Get out to Go next in the few articles on my watchlist. --Saqib (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes, I think the new terminology will be a bit clearer for casual editors and, therefore, give us dedicated editors less frustration and work to do.

It should also be clearer to our readers. An all round win, win situation. Now if we could just get rid of the (stupidly) restrictive and problematic 7+/-2 "Rule". --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:44, 30 September 2012 (CEST)


If you're hoping to persuade other editors to your point of view, I would suggest not describing anyone's edits as "more mindless and lazy vandalism caused by spasm reverts of stalker" and so forth. Personal attacks damage your credibility with everyone. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Where a reasonable editor was concerned, you'd be right.
Unfortunately, Globetrotter has consistently refused to discuss his reverts of my edits on article discussion pages. You're not much better by restoring his vandalism reverts without examining the diffs for ALL the edits you're losing.
Do you really believe that it is better to change "sizeable" to "sizable", "Auckland" to "auckland", "Airport ISite kiosk" to "Airport isite kiosk", "Frequent Traveller" to "Frequent Travller", "Airbus" to "airbus", "==Go next==" to "==Get out==", and bugger up many of the image positions and sizes?
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm off to bed now and probably won't be around to comment for some while - see below --W. Franke-mailtalk 06:15, 2 October 2012 (CEST)
One of many reasons it is always sensible to separate minor copyediting from major reformatting, as I'd guess a long-term wiki editor like yourself appreciates. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2012 (CEST)

Frank, may i ask you to reconsider your attitude towards g-t. Imho your comments today on his talk page borders to rudeness. Currently it is only you who does not agree on the well established consensus.Jc8136 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2012 (CEST)


Frank, may i ask you to stop adding the tocright template at the moment (e.g. Karachi)? The Vfd#Template:TOCright is not closed but it looks like the consensus is against using it. Thank you and regards, Jc8136 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2012 (CEST)

When he did that? I don't think so. --Saqib (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
He means on the Karachi article's discussion page (not the article itself - although the district template's display is completely buggered at the moment, so I'm sorely tempted), Sir.
Often when one first gets to an article's talk page, one finds a collection of ancient and badly (or non-) formatted comments right at the top. The TOCright template cleans things up a bit without destroying the quaint historical indentation. Keep cool! (How bloody hot is it where you are right now?) --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:22, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
The reason why templates need to be (are supposed to be) first proposed and approved by community consensus is because they will apply to more than one article (or clutter the templatespace if not widely used). There isn't a consensus to use tocright, and you should not add it until you build one. I'm not opposed to the idea of having the ToC on the right generally speaking, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to go about this. --Peter Talk 22:31, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
I agree. I don't think using a template that has been proposed for deletion (regardless of how it's looking) is appropriate. I'd refrain from using it until the discussion has ended and/or it has been reproposed for creation. JamesA >talk 03:03, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
I have refrained since 4 Oct 2012, James. --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:57, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

Short absence[edit]

I have some personal affairs to attend to - so I probably won't be reading or replying in WV or WT for a while. I'll still probably be able to respond to email and I'll remove this message as soon as I'm able. --W. Franke-mailtalk 05:18, 2 October 2012 (BST)

Hey, you were supposed to be going away for a while but you're still around. If you're back, feel free to remove this section. I won't mind about my post getting removed. :) --Saqib (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2012 (CEST)
I spend a lot of time in the ward's toilet, but I'll probably get rumbled shortly and then they'll confiscate my laptop so this section is still topical, Saqib... Keep cool - I'm bloody frozen and with a ring around my bum ! --W. Franke-mailtalk 22:14, 3 October 2012 (CEST)!
Well, I'm back home - but at my age, it may not be for long. -- 21:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We don't need it, knock it off. While I personally retain hope that you will be a net positive contributor here, a good deal of your behavior has given me and others a good deal of reason to be doubtful. Registering multiple accounts and trying to pretend that they are different people makes you either look like a troll or just someone with social problems. Pushing trivial formatting preferences, when you don't have consensus to do so, and then posting all sorts of sulking/flamebaiting comments around the site is further evidence of this type of problem. Picking fights with other users is as well, especially while cozying up to others in apparent hopes of creating more drama between the contributors we rely on to grow and improve. The fact that you were banned permanently from Wikipedia years ago and are still engaging in this time-wasting is further reason to doubt that you will be an asset, rather than a liability.

I'll personally ignore your bad behavior up to a point, because we really have more important things to work on than babysitting (and we're just a more open and lenient site than some others). But if you are going to keep harassing other users and edit warring, you'll find less lenience from our community.

And to be clear, edit warring is the reason for this 2-hour cooling-off period block. --Peter Talk 00:17, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

A) I have only registered ONE account here and at Wikitravel and they both have the same name (a subset of my real life name): User:W. Frank
B) As you might expect, I reject your characterisation of my behaviour here. In particular, I am puzzled by this phrase of yours: "...especially while cozying up to others in apparent hopes of creating more drama between the contributors we rely on to grow and improve." Are you talking about these edits: [1] [2] ? --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:57, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

1) Which is the page where my alleged "edit warring" prompted "this 2-hour cooling-off period block" please, Peter?

2) I have not been able to reply before now. Is it technically possible for you to block my editing all pages other than this, my own user talk page - or must blocks always be complete and total so 2-way communication with the blockee is then impossible please, Peter? --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:57, 7 October 2012 (CEST)

You have been edit warring elsewhere, and it has gone mostly ignored. In this case, I blocked you immediately following an edit war on Globe-trotter's user talk page. That's particularly egregious, as we allow users to do pretty much whatever they want with their userspace (like burying discussion regarding your weird behavior in a "green zone"). It's more egregious because you have been posting flamebaiting comments about Globe-trotter all over the site. I understand that you disagree with some of his reverts, but stop the name-calling, stop posting mass pointless texts on his user talk page, definitely stop edit warring, and in general use the processes of this site to build consensus. Rather than drama and conflict, which will mostly alienate you from the people you would need to work with to build consensus. Sometimes I personally agree with your position, but don't join the discussion because of how you are behaving.
If you're curious, the cases in which userspace policing has garnered consensus: threats and offering illegal services (prostitution was the case). Oh, also for deleting spam pages created by spambots (so-called non-contributing userspace spam). --Peter Talk 20:19, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
I don't know why you wouldn't have been able to respond until now on your talk page. On WT, MediaWiki blocks still allow users to edit their own user talk page. Also, it was only a two-hour block. --Peter Talk 20:21, 7 October 2012 (CEST)
If I've understood you, Peter, you are saying a) it is technically possible for you to block my editing all pages other than this, my own user talk page and (b) that is what you tried to do.
If that's the case, then either you hit the wrong switches or there is some other problem because I got similar "you're blocked" messages when trying to edit this (my) talk page whether logged in or not logged in. As far as Wikitravel (WT) goes, this is what an IBadmin wrote recently on this very subject: [3]
Thanks for clarifying that it was my restoring my own words 3 times on User_talk:Globe-trotter that was the "straw that broke the camel's back"
Now I am still puzzled by this phrase of yours: "...especially while cozying up to others in apparent hopes of creating more drama between the contributors we rely on to grow and improve." Are you talking about these edits: [4] [5] - or did you have something else in mind? I really don't wish to cause you any more problems or distraction but it's difficult for me to change my 'dramatic behaviour' if I've really no idea what you were writing about, Peter! --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:03, 8 October 2012 (CEST)


Hi Frank. You shouldn't let Alice use your account when they're visiting Glasgow. I know Frank is not Alice and Alice is not Frank, but when Alice uses Frank's account it starts to look messy. Please see my recent comments at User_talk:Alice#Lalibela and show them to Alice in case they haven't seen them. I value many of Alice's contributions and sincerely hope that they will work more cooperatively with the rest of the editor community. Cheers Nurg (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)zReply[reply]

Not you as well!
You've all gone crazy!
Although I have known Alice for many years, I have no reason to believe my account is compromised.
Which precisely are these edits that you think have been made by Alice using my account, please?
I know Alice is just as pissed off as I am by this whole sock puppet nonsense- why doesn't anyone do the obvious and come and visit me at home in Glasgow and check out my bona fides - it's not like it's Timbuctoo! --W. Franke-mailtalk 00:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The edits made in the last two and a bit days. This account has made no others since mid-Nov. I don't need to check Frank's bona fides - he has made his identity quite clear. There is nothing to be served by visiting Frank. "Alice" edits under a pseudonym and has said that they wish to preserve their real identity. Are you claiming that the edits made by this account in the last 3 days are not made by anyone who normally edits as User:Alice? Please give an unequivocal answer?
I do hope Alice reads my comments on her Talk page. Cheers Nurg (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been sick, Nurg. Sick in body and sick of these endless (and baseless) sockpuppet allegations.
These are all my edits, made by me, Frank:
Now I repeat, I have no reason to believe my account is compromised.
Which precisely are these edits that you think have been made by Alice using my account, please and why do you think so? Just one solitary example will do. --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Frank. I apologise if I made an incorrect assumption that Alice was visiting you in Glasgow. Regarding use of your account, the first edit made since Nov had an edit summary about BA taking over bmi, just like the final edit summary made by Ip90-215-245-164. I assumed that the same person made both edits and had crossed the Irish Sea from Belfast to Glasgow in the intervening 24 hours. Believing that your health hindered your ability to travel, and presuming that Alice had been editing from Belfast, I jumped to the conclusion that Alice had started using your account for convenience because, I presumed, s/he was visiting you. Perhaps I was wrong about all this. Was it in fact you who made this edit?

I do hope your health is improving now. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for both your felicitations and your apology and also your (understandable) explanation of how you made your mistaken assumption.

However, when analysed calmly, I hope you'll agree that my edit summary of "By plane: bmi baby defunct; bmi taken over by BA" is not identical to the Belfast user's: "BA has now absorbed bmi"? And BA's takeover is hardly an obscure tidbit of info in the British Isles, eh? --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, the edit summaries are by no means identical. But the takeover was last year's news so it is an odd coincidence that two recent edits were made on this matter so close in time and just across the Irish Sea from each other. Did you make the Belfast edit? Cheers Nurg (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No - and neither did Alice (I've specifically asked her, since the allegations were made (again by Fitzgerald below} that we're all the same person).
The way that I analyse it, it is not so strange. Alice e-mailed me on 27 June 2013 about this section of her talk page: since she thought the Belfast IP might be me. She based her e-mail query to me on the fact that the Belfast IP had edited both New Zealand and xl. We've both puzzled long and hard since over this editing pattern and have had to put it down to co-incidence - there has been a lot of Irish emigration to Australia and New Zealand (esp. Christchurch) since the celtic tiger died. However the Belfast IP's interest in (the relatively obscure topic of) xl remains puzzling {When I've had a glass or three, I've actually wondered if it's a mate of Fitzgerald's trying to frame us or stir up more drama}. Since I was watching this Belfast IP's edits, it's hardly surprising that I chose this factual topic of BA's takeover to begin editing my hometown article again after my long absence. What is sad, is that nobody else updated our articles on the largest cities in Northern Ireland and Scotland since the BA takeover happened last year.
I really do think that we should either change our check user policies or our sock puppet policies. At the moment it is impossible for the innocent to clear their names. --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much Frank. I think it would be wonderful for all of us on WV who are taking an interest in these matters if the innocent could clear their names and if there was more clarity about exactly who is doing what edits. The difficulty may be in balancing transparency with wishes for personal privacy. You are more open about your identity, esp now you have retired from the firm, and have prev revealed your surname, so I have no need to see your passport. Alice, however, wishes to preserve her identity, except perhaps from a trusted person, and that is fine (I have not revealed my identity either, unless inadvertently). Actually, the problem is that one or more people are not being entirely candid about their editing, regardless of their legitimate wish for pseudonymity. Someone seems to be playing games with us at WV. That's in addition to Alice mixing provocative edits among her/his many excellent edits (and I really hope Alice considers my advice on her Talk page). As to the Belfast edits, if it wasn't you or Alice, I guess it might have been your other old friend. I don't have enough time right now (doing 2 things at once) but I should look up the check user and sock puppet policies. It really would be good for the innocent to clear their names (and for the guilty to desist - voluntarily or otherwise). cheers Nurg (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More nonsense[edit]

You and Alice have repeatedly been observed using the same IP Address. Unless you can provide some reasonable explanation for how that happened, you should anticipate that either your account or Alice's will be permanently blocked. -- Cjensen (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cjensen: As far as I am aware that is complete nonsense. I edit from Glasgow and I'm sure Alice would drop in and say hello if she was ever near here. Please provide a specific example of where we have used the same IP address. -- 18:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC) <---See? A Glasgow IP address, now where are these alleged examples of Alice editing from Glasgow? --W. Franke-mailtalk 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification: it is now your stated position that you and Alice could not have possibly edited from the same IP Address. -- Cjensen (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't haver.
Provide your multiple observations of us using the same IP Address or apologise.
My home provider is TalkTalk which I know re-cycles its (proportionately modest) stock of IP numbers. I do use the Mitchell Library (calls itself the biggest public reference library in Europe) too. Alice hasn't visited me for years so I will be flabbergasted if she has ever used the same IP address as me recently.
The only scenario where I could envisage she would be editing from Glasgow (and not mention that she'd be in Scotland in an e-mail or phone call) would be if she had a brief turnaround at GLA or EDI on a re-positioning flight.
Put up or shut up, please. --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So now you claim to know Alice? You certainly denied this in the past, implicitly and explicitly, on several occasions. --Peter Talk 20:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When and where? Examples, please.
Incidentally, I'm still waiting more than eight months for your reply to the questions I asked you in a section above.
A) I have only registered ONE account here and at Wikitravel and they both have the same name (a subset of my real life name): User:W. Frank
B) As you might expect, I reject your characterisation of my behaviour here. In particular, I am puzzled by this phrase of yours: "...especially while cozying up to others in apparent hopes of creating more drama between the contributors we rely on to grow and improve." Are you talking about these edits: [6] [7] ? --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's an explicit comment [8] (which you have tried to bury from public view from your talk page), where you claim to "think" to know who Alice is. A good example of an implicit statement would be at Wikivoyage talk:Abbreviations#Periods, where Alice was essentially socking your changes to that policy, and you proclaimed that "Big Beasts" should not "slap down" newbies, in reference to Alice. If, of course, you personally knew this supposed other person, and had used "her" account back in the day to continue editing Northern Ireland related articles on Wikipedia after your topic ban (before your later complete ban), then you would know that Alice was no newbie.
Whenever you/Frank/Alice/Ip90-215-245-164 do not get your way, you begin flaming admins who have opposed you, while lavishing praise on uninvolved admins, and attempt to divide the community. If you are eventually banned from Wikivoyage, that will be much more the reason than the weird dissimulations about identities/personas. --Peter Talk 21:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't fabricate "quotations". This is what I actually wrote: "It's really going to piss off a lot of newbies if they diligently read our policies and are then slapped down by unexplained reverts by "Big Beasts" who can't be bothered to explain/discuss their proposed changes on the relevant policy article discussion pages.
This "I'm bigger and holier than thou" attitude by sundry IBodkins is what caused some of us to come here in the first place. </rant>" That's a generalised sermon, (diplomatically) referencing hypothetical occurrences in the future and not a statement in support of what Alice was contemporaneously doing nor a statement that she was a "newbie". As far as I know, Alice has been editing Wikis since 2007 or before. --W. Frankemailtalk 13:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that none of you are actually answering the questions or giving examples.

User:Peterfitzgerald How the hell does my statement that you reference above and that I made on 1 October 2012 (a few days after Alice started editing on 19:40, 26 September 2012) that "I am also 97% sure that I know the real life identities of both User:Alice here and User:(WT-en) Singapore.Alice at Wikitravel, but I am deliberately refraining from confirming my suspicions by e-mail or phone call because I do not want to open a huge dustbin of worms!" constitute an explicit denial that I know Alice!!!!!!?????!!!!! What part of 97% sure that I know the real life identities of both User:Alice here and User:(WT-en) Singapore.Alice at Wikitravel constitutes the explicit denial? (A few days later I confirmed my suspicions and we've been sporadically in touch since). --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it was only after that date that you learned who Alice is, not back in 2008 when the Alice and W. Frank accounts were blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia for socking? --Peter Talk 22:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try and read things carefully - perhaps out loud, with meaning and feeling, like delivering lines on a stage.
It was precisely because I already knew Alice in real life from way back that I was able to feel 97% sure that I know the real life identities of both User:Alice here and User:(WT-en) Singapore.Alice at Wikitravel; hardly a denial, eh? Goodnight. --W. Franke-mailtalk 22:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, you have never claimed to know Alice before today (despite 5 years of your reputation tarnished by a socking ban), and have never tried this line of explanation. When confronted about identical edit patterns between the Frank and Alice accounts your pattern is to scream "nonsense," "what the @#$%," etc. and to call people names. Moreover, you have never exchanged so much as a word between the two accounts. The IP account you created questioned again and again "who is this User:Frank" Peter is talking about? If Alice is your bff, why wouldn't you interact with "her," and why wouldn't you explain clearly that the reason for your identical edit patterns, edit summaries, reactions, etc. is that you two friends are just so similar to each other that you have the same thoughts? In the absence of such explanation (or more generally normal behavior), the only reasonable assumption for anyone paying attention is that you, to be Frank (har har), are trolling. --Peter Talk 03:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"you have never exchanged so much as a word between the two accounts". Why on earth should we on-wiki? When these nonsense allegations re-surfaced again, We initially agreed (by phone and e-mail) that, with the exception of New Zealand articles, we would not edit the same article so that, although false allegations, editors could focus on our edits rather than being distracted by allegations that two sockpuppets were editing the same article. Later we modified that prohibition to one where we should not edit the same article within 4 days of the other. But, until now, that pragmatic agreement was neither public nor publicised. In your world, you may communicate with your friends via User talk pages. In my world I prefer to talk with them face to face or, if that's difficult, on the phone - I am a slow typist you know. What is a "bff" ? --W. Frankemailtalk 13:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why the exception for New Zealand articles? (Just curious as someone who also takes an interest in NZ articles.) Cheers. Nurg (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Egypt warning box[edit]

Thanks for adding warning box atop Egypt article. Much appreciated Frank. Btw, do you think a similar warning box should be added to major Egyptian city article as well? --Saqib (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've no recent, special local knowledge, but listening to the BBC here in Glasgow, Yes Sir! --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you please not add links in warning boxes? News evolve and the link to an outdated article stays. Also it is not exactly in line with our xl policy. Regards,jan (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree.
The traveller comes first and both the British and Canadian governments update their travel advisories on a daily basis.
The link to the BBC is a news report that is updated live continuously. Click on all these links and do the appropriate research before you remove them in future!
When the warning box is outdated it should be removed - so, I'm afraid that argument doesn't pass muster either.
Can you quote me the policy or discussion that says I shouldn't use these external links to warn travellers?
Keep cool! --W. Franke-mailtalk 09:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Policy page[edit]

Not sure why you're reverting my update of the Wikivoyage:Policies page? Globe-trotter (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I didn't assume good faith, I would think you were being deliberately obtuse here. You usually don't agree with my explanations, so you might be better to ask one of the Peters... --W. Franke-mailtalk 12:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Until there is some resolution on the Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Proposal to change default thumbnail size discussion, please do not change image sizes from absolute to relative. Using two formats is problematic, it is poor wiki-etiquette to unilaterally implement a change while discussion is still ongoing, and if for some reason we need to do something slightly different than what is being discussed now then we'll have to track down all of the changes you've already made and undo them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Frank, thanks for copyediting Karachi articles. Should we name the third district as "Central and West Karachi" or "Central and Western Karachi" ? Officially, it is West Karachi.--Saqib (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did see this question you posed at Talk:Karachi but I did not respond because I don't think I'm qualified to answer this question. :Certainly there is a bit of confusion between the "official" districts of Karachi and "our" Wikivoyage districts.
When we get a new map this confusion may diminish - although, as you know, I have a mild preference for not having districts at all. Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland (although the conurbation has less than 1.5 million and has no Wikivoyage districts - although we could split it into a score of (to the residents of Glasgow) obvious districts - but I doubt that would help travellers (as opposed to local councillors and bailies) too much (until we have more active contributors of content). Keep cool! -- 12:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I know please what is the confusion you see between the "official" districts of Karachi and "our" Wikivoyage districts? And btw, didn't you saw this new map? Do you want to see some changes in this new map?--Saqib (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
e-mail me your landline number and the best time and I'll phone you.
The new map looks lovely, but now is the first time I've seen it after I made a cache flushing edit. My bloody ISP at home caches pages too, so sometimes it can be a day or more before I can see changes. It means that when I am editing websites I have to increment the test pages in successive iterations like etc, etc and then remember to delete them from the remote server when they display correctly rather than just hit [Shift][Ctrl][R] to refresh my local machine. --W. Franke-mailtalk 12:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously I can not do that with WV since I have no direct ftp access.


Please don't add flags in banners. This is only to start discussion with nationalistic pushers. Think about Kosovo etc. that's going to end nasty. jan (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the flag is on one country article all nationalist will claim the same right for their country. Lets discuss first on Wikivoyage_talk:Banner_Expedition. I will revert it to avoid any arms length discussionsjan (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already a discussion about flags Wikivoyage_talk:Banner_Expedition#Flags_in_banners.3F. I need to read first as there seems to be a discussion. jan (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Belize[edit]

You may assume I'm a Wikipedia editor since 2006. :P Glad to be useful here too, I'm working with the Italian Wikivoyage users to help them facing the approaching Wikidata's phase 1, so you'll see me probably fixing interlinks between projects. I'm also admin on Wikidata, as well as on the Italian Wikipedia, so if you need any help, just blow a whistle. ;)

Cheers, --Sannita (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm of about the same vintage. Thanks for your offer of assistance, Sannita.
You might like to take a look here where many do not seem to understand the clear implications of this advice. Many of our most long standing editors here have still not grasped the reality of different screen sizes and different registered user choices. --W. Franke-mailtalk 20:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Frank, I've speedy deleted one of the page you created. I feel sorry for being so hasty in deleting it, but let me know if you think it's a legitimate place and I will re-nomiate it for deletion again. --Saqib (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did notice that, Saqib, and I think that was absolutely the correct thing to do (even if it's against current policy to do that with real places {which should either have to wait indefinitely for some substantive and useful information to be added OR instead be re-directed - although it can difficult bordering on impossible to do that if the creator of the page did not provide sufficient information in the stupid stub}. I created it purely to illustrate (in another VFD discussion) the deficiencies in making it so easy for "drive-by" editors to create one click, one line "articles" with one click skelton creation templates that automatically grade the subsequent useless stub as an "Outline" article.
Thanks for the notification - you're one of a decreasing minority that bother to notify the creator of an article or even apply a Vfd template! --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substituting merge templates[edit]

Why are you substituting merge templates into articles [9], instead of using the simple {{merge|target}} markup? Can you point me to the appropriate policy discussion. --Peter Talk 21:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't do this as a general rule.
In the case today of the various Niue villages, none of the separate village articles have discussion pages (or probably very many watchers) so I thought it best that discussion (if any) be centralised on the Talk:Niue page. You may notice that I also had to modify the "merge to" template there to cope with the situation of proposing that the six villages of this tiny (population 1600) island nation not have 3 or four forlorn village stubs. pf and do what is best for the traveller, eh? --W. Franke-mailtalk 21:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was working on Lausanne trying to save its star status and getting it in line with the Wikivoyage:Manual of style. You saw this, as I started with fixing the currency, and immediately you go nuts on it and force your own personal agenda on it, such as turning it into British English and changing the currency to your own preference. All of these shouldn't be done according to the style guide, so could you just give me some time to fix the formatting and listingify it? Globe-trotter (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Split tickets[edit]

Hi, I've addressed your reversion on my edit on the article talk page. --Inas (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks,Inas. I've replied there, asking if this is the edit you're referring to: where I corrected two external link formats and tried to make things clearer?
I rejected your new wording because it gave a probably false hope to folks that they might be able to rescue the situation with a "train manager" and I thought the phrase "...this strategy carries risk if you book the two tickets separate tickets on separate trains, and one of them runs late causing you to miss the other..."
I also did not understand either the previous (or my current) wording to mean: " i think the person proposing the split ticket strategy is saying to buy them for the one train - therefore no risk." as you stated in your edit summary. Split ticket strategy means that you buy more than one ticket for more than one journey for more than one train, doesn't it? If I'm wrong just change things the way you want it, Inas. --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshots of maps[edit]

I searched for your name on Wikivoyage talk:Dynamic maps Expedition so I'm not sure what discussion you're referring to. Please do not replace dynamic maps with screenshots. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you look on the edit history of the Nelson, New Zealand article, Ryan, you'll see that I put the dynamic map on this page in the first place. Then I realised the massive data requirement when the page loads with a dynamic map embedded in it. Having a still image with a hyperlink to a full screen, dynamic map in the caption gives you the best of both worlds: low data download requirement for those struggling with slow connections or high data charges and one click access to a dynamic map for those who are not worried about such concerns. This still all very experimental you know... Goodnight. --W. Franke-mailtalk 03:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Algeria warningbox[edit]

Hi, Frank. Why did you decide to move the warningbox to the beginning of "Get around"? That seems like an unusual place to put it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My first thought was to remove it entirely for the reasons stated in my edit summary. It was over the top for the current situation and the whole country (unless you're going to have one at the top of the USA article. However, for Saharan destinations (and especially Saharan transit to Mali, etc), it's still a valid warning so that's why I've edited it and moved it. --W. Franke-mailtalk 22:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But why to "Get around"? "Stay safe" could be a reasonable place to put it if that's better than placing it at the beginning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I was a bit lazy. Of all the sections, that one seemed the most appropriate, since we don't have a "Transit Algeria to the South" section. I'm off to bed now, but it might be more appropriate to delete the warning entirely and stick it on the regional Sahara Algeria article instead (I haven't checked to see if the region article already has one). You usually have sound judgement IK, so I'll go along with whatever you decide... --W. Franke-mailtalk 23:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Frank. I'm not so up on current conditions in Algeria, though, so I think I'd rather try for a consensus on the article's talk page. Sleep well. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images in headers[edit]

Please point me to the line where the Wikivoyage:Manual of style pleads for images in section headers. Globe-trotter (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our work is guided by what is best from the traveller's perspective.
It's a pity that the regrettably Germanic attitude of "everything that is not mandated is forbidden" seems to be contagious on this Wiki.
Please point me to the part where the Wikivoyage:Manual of style forbids images in section headers where they would be helpful to travellers. Did my edit summary not explain this sufficiently well: "Bus and Tram logos are not sufficiently standardised to be useful to travellers, but the Deutschebahn and Schnellbahn logos definitely are helpful markers in the headings - especially now we've removed a working fine grain table of contents!" ? --W. Franke-mailtalk 01:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If everyone would add stuff to articles based on personal preference, this site would be a mess. I could start adding bicycle icons to Do sections just because I happen to like doing so, but this is not common practice and should be discussed before implementation. That's why there are common guidelines of how things should be done. Globe-trotter (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This edit is not "vandalism", and you should not call it such. LtPowers (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defiance of policy[edit]

For the umpteenth time, do not make changes that violate policy as it currently exists. Just because something is proposed or incomplete/under discussion, does not mean that you may start implementing such changes in articles. You have been warned over and over again, and if this continues I will make a point of drafting a ban nomination based on your extensive history of deliberate policy violations and sock puppetry. Any edits that continue this pattern should and will be reverted. --Peter Talk 18:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied here. Try and stop the groundless personal attacks and argue the merits of your changes. This shouldn't be some sort of silly game of "alpha male" you know - some people are trying to improve our travel articles here. --W. Franke-mailtalk 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should know by now that Peter just reverts your entire edit when it includes a change that is against policy. If you care about the good changes that got tossed out with the bad, then re-do the edit with the offending change omitted. LtPowers (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Experimental templates without objections[edit]

{{Divesitelisting}}, {{Extraregion}}, {{License review needed}}, {{Mapframe}}, {{Done}}, {{TypeToColor}}, {{[[Template:|]]}}, {{Topicsin}}, {{WarningForPageRedirect}},


If I may, what's ambiguous about "anyone ... cannot adjust their status"? LtPowers (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English for Israel articles[edit]

Hi, Frank. Thanks for various corrections you made to the Israel article, but I think you went too far, in that you've substituted British conventions for American ones, and I don't believe Israel favo(u)rs British English, nowadays. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm truly sorry if I made some mistakes, IK.
I made a special effort to avoid changing any Americanisms. Can you give me a bit of a hint as to where I went wrong so I can avoid the same mistake(s) in future, please? --W. Frankemailtalk 05:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the only issue is the date format. In Europe, the standard is [number Month]. In the US, the standard is [Month number]. So, therefore, my birthday in the US is "February 2," but in Europe is "2 February." Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm very conscious of the US way of doing dates by juxtaposing the numeral of a day of the month right next to the numerals of a year and separated by (just an easily lost?) comma. That was why I was delighted when I read what I thought, up to now, was clear guidance at tdf not to use the US date format on Wikivoyage:- from the current "Nutshell": "Dates should use the format dd mmm yyyy" and later: "Use the date format of dd mmm yyyy, e.g., 10 Jan 2003.". Now this policy page does not have anything like what I would personally like it to have - "Do not abbreviate where it would cause ambiguity or be ugly or unnatural in prose (as opposed to listings)" - which is why I left the dates of holidays as 10 January rather than 10 Jan as, technically speaking, the current Wikivoyage:Time and date formats suggests I should have done, but that is hardly a British convention is it? --W. Frankemailtalk 05:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would call it European, but certainly not American. I don't know for sure what the standard is in Israel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although for some years the land that is now Israel was a British mandate of the League of Nations, most Jews after 1943 despised the British (like most Arabs - there's a test of even handedness - to be detested by both sides of a quarrel) and felt that their truest friend was the US and the majority of fluent English speakers (educated Russian, Libyan and Egyptian immigrants excepted) definitely now cleave towards the US variety of English. However, my reason for using the ("European" as you have just called it) date format I did was not because of any strong historical connection with a particular variety of English. I simply thought I was following the date format of dd mmm yyyy that is currently mandated by our MoS. Do you really still think I have read that wrong? --W. Frankemailtalk 06:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, it looks like you did read that right. I think it's incorrect in regard to the US at least, but the place to discuss that would be at that policy page's talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for being big enough to concede the point, IK. So many of my interlocutors cling like grim death to untenable positions as if their whole personal credibility were bound up in not being seen to "lose face" by admitting that another point of view is at least equally valid.
I've pretty well given up the attempt to clarify and simplify our MoS - it's like extracting teeth from crocodiles. However, I still believe that having the clearest, simplest, easiest style guides possible help reduce dissension between editors and time spent discussing the ambiguous. I often suspect that many of my antagonists actually like a degree of ambiguity so that they can swing both ways when pulled up on an inconsistency. Probably the worst, though, are the "Big Beasts" who delight in throwing the baby out with the bathwater just because a) they can't be bothered to edit rather than abuse their administrator buttons b) they can get away with it. --W. Frankemailtalk 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"American exceptionalism"[edit]

Edits like this are bordering on unacceptable. Oblique comments implying untoward motives and bias without actually coming out and stating them are becoming a pattern for you, and they need to stop. LtPowers (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you please point me to the discussion in which a consensus was formed behind this abbreviation for the Yuan, rather than Chinese New Year's, which is how I read the abbreviation? I believe there was no such consensus, and therefore, that no-one should be using such an abbreviation, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks a lot. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I just answered my own question: ¥100 in China, not RMB 100, 100 yuan nor 100元. Please use the standard symbol. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's in a Chinese article.
I presume you're referring to my recent edit to a Mongolian article.
"Travellers should be able to assume that symbols used for multiple currencies (like $ or £) apply to the local currency. Unless there is a real risk of ambiguity, do not use the three letter ISO 4217 currency codes like "USD", "EUR", nor "GBP..." - unless it's being used out of country. Unlike the €, where there is no risk of ambiguity out of its currency area, unfortunately the ¥ symbol is used both for JPY and CNY.
My next proposal at User:W. Frank/$2 will clarify this particular policy by including this phrase: "If the country or article uses multiple currencies, including foreign ones, use the shortest unambiguous form for each. For US dollars, this is USD. For euros, it's €."
OK, I get your point, but "CNY" is not a clear abbreviation for currency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The UN and the PRC government think it is - that's why they chose it.
Very few Abbrev are not ambiguous when given in isolation and taken out of context. If a Londoner says "that ticket machine is completely US", he means UnServiceable or Kaput - not that it was manufactured in the USA. In the context of "From Beijing to Erlian by bus costs CNY180 and takes 12 hr" I don't think anyone is going to think they have to surrender their (Chinese) New Year for the next 180 years to board a bus. --W. Frankemailtalk 03:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but using "US" for "unserviceable" in an article on an international website would be a mistake, for the same reason I think CNY for Chinese Yuan is - because I had to think about it for several seconds before I realized what was meant by it. Though actually, "US" would be a lot worse. Anyway, we can have this debate elsewhere, in time. But I would not recommend using unapproved symbols before or unless a consensus is achieved on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a long discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Currency going back more than 7 years before this was decided as the least ambiguous convention. Anybody who travels is going to see these ISO 4217 conventional 3 letter codes on airport currency exchange boards and on currency websites; like the 24 hour clock and the metric system, it's just another thing that US travellers will need to get accustomed to. Goodnight! --W. Frankemailtalk 03:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I searched in "yuan", "chinese" and "china", and I don't see the discussion. "CNY" appears only once on that page. Unless I'm missing it, there hasn't been even a tentative consensus behind the "CNY" abbreviation on this site, even if it is indeed standard in the financial world. Maybe there should be a consensus behind it, but it seems like more discussion is needed to achieve one. And since you're the one who's plunging ahead and changing ¥ to CNY in an article, I'd say you should have achieved a consensus first, but that in any case, you should broach the subject now at Wikivoyage talk:Currency. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I can contribute to this debate, I have been in both countries, and CNY is usually used for currency exchanges at banks in Mongolia or anywhere in Mongolia that prices are listed in Chinese Yuan, but inside China the ¥ was used for all prices that I saw the same way $ or € is used in the US or Europe respectively. However, the section in question is "Get In, From China", so the ¥ seems like it may be the most appropriate. Altaihunters (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You raise an interesting point. In the old days before the ill-executed banners came along, we had a working table of contents (ToC) which would have showed that, at the time I made my edit, there was indeed a "from China" quaternary level heading above (which did not include the tertiary level section I edited). At the moment, although there is currently only information about getting into Mongolia by bus from China, it's conceivable that some kind soul might add in the next dew days information about getting into Mongolia by bus from Russia. That's why I still think the CNY notation is the least ambiguous. However, this is a very fine point, and I do take Ikan Kekek and other's suggestion to expand and or explain the first occurrence of an abbreviation or symbolisation that may not be known or be ambiguous to some in an article or the first occurrences of foreign currencies very seriously (as I've rather long windedly done here, for example. --W. Frankemailtalk 15:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for your diligent copyedits, but please don't go changing "traveler" to "traveller", especially not on U.S. destination articles. Thanks. LtPowers (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied to you here at Wikivoyage_talk:Spelling#Israel and Saudi Arabia, Sir. --W. Frankemailtalk 10:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP trouble[edit]

Hi, Frank. I am proposing a general suspension of 5 troublesome IPs we've been contending with lately, after the next instance of copyright violation. I may have missed a couple of the IPs used by this user, though, so if you know of any others, please post to the User ban thread I linked with a link to their history that would demonstrate similar behavior, because we shouldn't have to keep playing a game of Whack a Mole with this pest. Thanks for helping to stanch the damage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's not right that you should be wasting your valuable time with this comedian(s), IK. I've supported your proposal here --W. Frankemailtalk 00:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, and good luck with the leaking roof. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Senseless tradition"[edit]

Edits like this are not acceptable. No one appealed to "tradition", senseless or otherwise, as a reason to avoid deleting certain pages; instead, you seem to have included that little jab just for the sake of sounding superior and disparaging long-time editors. Please stop. LtPowers (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get a hold of yourself[edit]

First, you say Jan should have recused himself. Then, when you are informed that he hadn't reverted any of your edits, you say "This abuse is particularly egregious because Jan had no documented interest in Northern Ireland articles before following me here". Your argument seems to be that admins are abusing their power because they have reverted you and because they haven't reverted you, which makes no sense and won't gain you any respect with admins (rather, it will cause you to lose respect from us). Stop behaving like a plaintiff in a legal case; this is not a court of law, and we have no intention of wasting time with legal technicalities that exist only in your head. Please get back to the business at hand, which is what kind of brief discussion of dual citizenship would be both accurate and interesting for readers of the Northern Ireland article. I respect your expertise on that subject and would like for the eventual language in the article to reflect that. But if you can't keep to the subject under discussion and prefer to tilt angrily at windmills, you may eventually get yourself blocked. And it would be a shame and awfully silly for this to be the reason you get blocked. You have annoyed a lot of admins because you show a short temper and a tendency to insult people online, but you often get inordinately angry when any of your opinions meets with disagreement or one of your edits is reverted. I'd really like for you to work on curbing your anti-social tendencies, because there are some very constructive things you do here. I believe you are very close to being blocked right now, and when you are blocked, it may not be for a short time. So please shape up, so that we can continue to work cooperatively for the good of the site. My tone may annoy you, but this could be the very last sympathetic note you get from an admin, so do give it some thought.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll deal with your comments in the order they were made shortly (because I think you have made a fundamental error with them- in the same way I did when mistakenly thinking that Jan locked the article immediately after reverting) but first I want to make some general comments:

We're all volunteers here and the last thing any of us need is anyone slagging us off when we're just trying to do the best at improving a travel guide. In so far as I've been deliberately guilty of making life less comfortable for any of our editors, I apologise and I will genuinely try not to have that occur again.

I think we're all aware that words and intentions can be misunderstood when you don't have any visual or tone-of-voice clues to give context.

You write about "anger." If you met me, I doubt you'd characterise me in that way, but that's beside the point.

You write about insulting people on-line. I think you need to be fair here.

There really are only two possibilities:

1) I'm not really a bald headed German old-aged pensioner that lives in Glasgow at (address has been given to both Jimbo Wales and Fred Bauder when they cleared me of sock- puppetry and is also known to those of you have e-mailed me or talked with me on the 'phone) but rather the sock (or puppetmaster - it's never been made crystal as to who is the puppetteer of whom exactly) of Alice who doesn't edit from a Scottish IP, has wanted to meet a WMF scrutineer face to face and produce a non-German passport, driving licence, etc in order to provide incontrovertible proof that we are not the same human being.

2) I and Alice have been telling the truth and we are not socks but rather two different human beings.

In the first case (1), I can fully understand how the mere presence of either or both of us editing here is offensive and provocative and why, so often when experienced editors feel they are losing face by not being able to provide rational argumentation, they resort to name calling.

My problem, of course, is that ALL of the admins here have offered no assistance in providing a resolution. It would be tempting to write that is because they would have too much egg on their face if they were proved wrong, but consider it from my stance. I KNOW I am not Alice.

The direct corollary of that, means that almost weekly, I am effectively called a cheat, a liar and a fraud. After nearly 7 years, I've learned to try and suppress the anger and the hurt that causes, but I have to admit it's probably still there on at least some level. Also consider this: Why do Alice and I maintain these user accounts when it would be so easy just to pick different user accounts?

Try and exercise some mature judgement here, We are in the same situation as a convicted (but, in reality, innocent) murderer. After 7 years in Scotland a "normal", domestic murderer will usually have a first parole hearing. If he's behaved himself, shows contrition and remorse for his crime(s) and doesn't worry the shrinks, he'll probably then be moved to an open prison, go on outside work parties and, most likely be released on license within a couple of years or so. The convicted murderer who maintains his innocence has a serious problem. He can not show remorse or contrition for a crime he maintains he did not commit in the first place. Every year or he goes back to a parole hearing with the same result - not fit for release because he is still delusional. After 15 more of these hearings, often if he still has family and friends they will persuade him to make a false confession of guilt - with "appropriate" remorse and contrition. Everybody breathes a sigh of relief - 22 years in Gaol were ruining the reahabilitation statistics. In the UK we have had more than one of these cases where forensic evidence - often DNA - has cleared prisoners. Why is that there is no appeal process from this "conviction" by one person who (text deleted because I do not wish to burn all my boats).

Objectively, if the 2nd scenario is the reality, I think both Alice and I have exercised remarkable restraint when we are insulted.

I'll now try and deal with your remarks in the order you made them:

a) I made a stupid sloppy mistake. Not from malice, or because I was angry but because I was short sighted. I tried to edit the page (not with regard to the contentious and erroneous sentence, I hasten to add) and got a "this article is locked from editing by anyone other than an administrator" type message. The very first one I had ever seen on Wikivoyage outside of certain templates. (I've seen others relating to non-Autoconfirmed users and those relating to IP's). I checked the history of the page and thought that [ I saw a third reversion by the oh-so-memorably-named Jc8136 followed by him locking the Northern Ireland article a few minutes afterwards. I must admit I was outraged that Jc8136 was seemingly refusing to answer the direct questions asked on the article's discussion page and I did genuinely (if completely misguidedly) feel this was a breach of process, which is why I wrote [ this new section entitled "Abuse of administrators privileges"). I do not believe my language in that section was insulting or intemperate given my genuine (if erroneous)understanding of the situation.)

I then spent some minutes preparing an edit giving chapter and verse and diffs on the "discussion" at Talk:Travemünde #Time_formats with the edit summary of "This abuse is particularly egregious because Jan had no documented interest in Northern Ireland articles before following me here". When I tried to upload it I was met with multiple edit conflict messages. To my horror I found when I examined the edit conflict diffs that I had short-sightedly confused the lock by Jmh649 with the revert by Jc8136.

I immediately stopped my attempt to upload text about "This abuse is particularly egregious because Jan had no documented interest in Northern Ireland articles before following me here" and instead uploaded this immediate and complete apology: Jan: You're right, I'm wrong and I apologise for my sloppy mistake. So that this unjustified slur does not remain on this talk page, I assume I have everyone's permission to remove this entire section from the page?

In doing so, I made my second sloppy (but not malicious) mistake within a few minutes and omitted to remove the (now entirely inappropriate) edit summary.

Unless you think I am lying, please would you be fair and remove the part of this comment where you wrote: "But I will note that Frank continued to behave intemperately in Talk:Northern Ireland after I urged him to get a hold of himself (see User talk:W. Frank)" ?

You left your comment at 14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC) and, apart from the genuine mistake I reference above, I don't think there was any intemperate behaviour either in Talk:Northern Ireland or elsewhere was there? If I am in error in writing this, I would be very grateful if you would specifically point it out to me...

I then

--W. Frankemailtalk 22:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no technical expertise on sock-puppetry and take no opinion on the accusations, but none of us really cares about that, as long as you are constructive and don't show temper here. So my advice to you is to forget about that and just go forward constructively. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Frank. To help clear up the puppetry stuff – the allegation was that you (Frank the German) had edited using the User:Alice account and/or other "Alice" accounts at WV or WT, and therefore that you were the puppetmaster and "Alice" was the puppet. "Alice" clearly understood the allegation to be that you were the master and she/he the puppet. Unfortunately, simply proving that there is another human who is not German, and whose middle name is not Frank, etc, is not sufficient to prove that you have never edited using any of the "Alice" accounts. Can you think of a way to prove that you have never edited using the User:Alice account or other any of the "Alice" accounts? Cheers Nurg (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Intemperance is a matter of tone. It may be that it is a lot less obvious to you when you write sharply than when others do, but I am a rather thick-skinned New Yorker, and if I can see it and a lot of other users can, you should make a special effort to read and reread your remarks before you post them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

user ban[edit]


just to inform you that i nominated you for a three day ban to reduce your temper and give you a chance to reflect your behaviour on Wikivoyage Wikivoyage:User_ban_nominations. Regards, jan (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You archived it prematurely and (presumably) forgot to add the relevant link: -- 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better text for Wikivoyage template at Wikipedia - done[edit]

Hi Frank. Your fine suggestion about the WV template at Wikipedia has been adopted there. Nurg (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Nurg. The minor changes should be better both for human readers and provide a slight assist to our search results for relevant search terms when spiders notice the changed text in close proximity to the anchor text. -- 12:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

End the Drama[edit]

"swimming": If the accused floats, this is considered proof of guilt because the pure water cast out her evil spirit, according to the belief system of the time. If she sank, she was innocent, although she would also drown. In this 17th century engraving it can be seen that the accused was tied right thumb to left toe, left thumb to right toe, the normal manner in which the "test" was performed

It appears you were unable to resist stirring the drama at your sockpuppet's user talk page. I have blocked you for three days to let you rethink your behavior. In the future, you should anticipate that each block you incur will be longer than the last. This comment is information to you; it is not a discussion, so while you are free to respond to my comment here, I will not be responding further. -- Cjensen (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have a sockpuppet.
Try and refrain from making false and unsubstantiated allegations.
Three months ago I wrote:
Don't haver.
Provide your multiple observations of us using the same IP Address or apologise.
My home provider is TalkTalk which I know re-cycles its (proportionately modest) stock of IP numbers. I do use the Mitchell Library (calls itself the biggest public reference library in Europe) too. Alice hasn't visited me for years so I will be flabbergasted if she has ever used the same IP address as me recently.
The only scenario where I could envisage she would be editing from Glasgow (and not mention that she'd be in Scotland in an e-mail or phone call) would be if she had a brief turnaround at GLA or EDI on a re-positioning flight.
Put up or shut up, please.
You seem to have done neither, CJensen.
And let's be clear, not logging in so that my Glasgow IP address is visible to the doubting is emphatically not an incidence of "sock-puppetry"! --W. Frankemailtalk 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes the Glasgow IP was definitely Frank.[10] Agree that this was a little inappropriate [11] Expecially since Alice has not edited since Jun of 2013.
Anyway hopefully we can go back to improving WV. Frank probably best to leave the issue of this sock stuff to others. If Alice edits again we could probably do a checkuser. If she doesn't it is neither here no there. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frank, whether Alice is your sockpuppet or not is actually irrelevant to Cjensen's block. The issue is your complete inability to recognize what is appropriate and what is not, and having you post that joke on that talk page at that particular moment was obviously inappropriate. LtPowers (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome![edit]

I worry about this site: it needs to evolve, but there's resistance to what I see as logical, practical changes on the textual level from several established contributors. Heaven help us if we can't get together a strategy to approach the WMF for tech development, too. Competition on the net is just too great not to develop serious new functionalities. Tony (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More unacceptable edits[edit]

Frank, you continue to be unable to post within the project namespaces of this site without making veiled and/or vague insinuations of malfeasance or incompetence. This comment seems to make reference to a specific act of censorship but fails to identify the act being discussed, making it impossible for anyone to answer the accusation. Furthermore, it continues on into commentary, irrelevant to the nomination, that seems to disparage the editors of the site as a whole. Again. This is exactly the sort of thing that got you blocked, and it will do so again if you do not learn how to rein it in. "Thin ice" does not even begin to describe the situation you're in right now. LtPowers (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I may have erred on the side of diplomacy rather than clarity when I wrote at Danapit's nomination:
  • Support with the only slight reservation that she does not seem to have made a distinction between Tony's critical (and admittedly acerbic) analysis of faults in processes and cultures here and actually being abusive to individual editors when commenting on Tony's proposed 3 day ban. Ideally, I'd prefer to promote admins that are able to analyse and apply our current written policies and not move any further down the road of censorship of comments (that are not abusive, profane, blasphemous or libellous or contrary to other specific policies) in WV or User namespaces. I have seen some religious Wikis that seem to be able to function with heavy censorship and a complete lack of humour, but they're the exception.
If you prefer, I could change it to:
  • Support with the reservation that she does not seem to have made a distinction between Tony's critical (and admittedly acerbic) analysis of faults in processes and cultures here and actually being abusive to individual editors when commenting on Tony's proposed 3 day ban. Ideally, I'd prefer to promote admins that are able to analyse and apply our current written policies and not move any further down the road of censorship of comments (that are not abusive, profane, blasphemous or libellous or contrary to other specific policies) in WV or User namespaces. If she genuinely thought that Tony was a troll rather than the erudite, perceptive and concerned reformist Wikipedian he claimed to be, then his non-article namespace edits could simply have been ignored. I have seen some religious Wikis that seem to be able to function with heavy censorship and a complete lack of humour, but they're the exception.
I really don't know how you can say that my Support "continues on into commentary, irrelevant to the nomination, that seems to disparage the editors of the site as a whole" when I was making clear what my reservation to her nomination was and there were only an extreme minority of our thinnest skinned and most easily offended editors that ignored our very long standing policies and guides and argued (successfully, I'm ashamed to say) that Tony1 should be permanently banned despite never making a series of problematic edits in article namespace and never committing any of the other cardinal sins.
Anyway, what's done is done (Tony's banning), but please don't expect me to rejoice over this shameful episode, the best I can manage is to try and forget it. I don't think Danapit's edit was either malfeasance or incompetence, or I would not have supported her adminship, but I do think most of the proponents of Tony1's ban should have read, re-read and read again our policy pages before wasting so much time and spleen for so little productive result from the traveller's stance.
By the way, if you are genuine in wanting to offer good advice rather then just trying to get rid of more editors, then please e-mail me since, whenever I get blocked I'm unable to edit any pages whatsoever, including this one, whether I'm logged in or logged out. --W. Frankemailtalk 01:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, the text you have up there in red is very similar to, but not exactly the same as, the text you originally wrote and to which I linked. I realize you have since changed it, but I wanted to make that clear. Your revised text in green would indeed be an improvement, but what's done is done and I don't think you should go and change it now, unless you were to strikeout the old and add the new. Transparency is key, especially for you.
Second, the commentary to which I was referring was this: "I'd prefer to seen admins that are able to analyse and apply our current written policies and not move any further down the road of censorship of comments (that are not abusive, profane, blasphemous or libellous or contrary to other specific policies) in WV or User namespaces" and "I have seen some religious Wikis that seem to be able to function with heavy censorship and a complete lack of humour, but they're the exception." The first statement implies that current admins are not living up to those ideals, and the second implies that Wikivoyage engages in heavy censorship without a sense of humor. Both are implications are irrelevant to the nomination and disparage your fellow editors; this is unacceptable.
Third, I should point out that Tony's behavior on this site was indeed abusive and thus contrary to our policies, so you should not have had a problem with any perceived "censorship" of his comments; an attack need not be directed at an individual by name to be unacceptable here (and this includes your "extreme minority of our thinnest skinned and most easily offended editors" comment above).
Fourth, the simple solution to the talk page/email issue is to stop doing the crap that gets you banned.
-- LtPowers (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Messing with the TOC on newbie`s talk pages[edit]

It's nice that you are welcoming people, but I don't think your substituted welcome message should be shifting people's TOC to the right like that. Welcome messages tend to stay on people's pages forever, and it's not your right to format the whole page of users who likely don't know what's been changed and may not know how to change it back to normal. Texugo (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you like the ToC on the right on User talk pages?
I think it assists communication because:
  1. there is immediately a ToC so your edit summaries are more detailed without waiting for 4 sub-sections to be created.
  2. the ToC appears right at the top rather than in a variable position lower down the page
  3. with a left-to-right written script like English it's best for non text elements such as images and ToCs to go to the right (other things being equal) rather than occupy the prime real estate at top left
  4. with my user templated welcome I want the word "Welcome" to be in that prime real estate position at top left
  5. with my user templated welcome I include a right aligned image, so if the ToC were to be left aligned, "squeezed worm" would result as the size of the ToC grows over (hopefully) several years.
  6. having it on the right is a minor hint that this is a User talk page and not a policy or article discussion page
What is your rationale for preferring it on the left, please? --W. Frankemailtalk 23:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't need a rationale to prefer it on the left. I am just saying do what you want on your own user pages, but it is not your business to step in and mess with the defaults on other people's pages, however nifty you think your way may be. Texugo (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I did assume that it was just your personal preference. I think you would have a point if I was stepping in to a User talk page that already existed and changing the ToC position without discussing it with the User first, but you forget that when I Welcome someone I am creating the page for them and I want to get them off to the best possible start. Please point me to the rational consensus that says the ToC should be left aligned on User talk pages.
And I do agree that you "don't need a rationale to prefer it on the left" no more than I need a rationale to prefer it on the right - however, I have provided a rationale for best practice ToC positioning on English language User talk pages - are you?
PS: If I am to put the ToC on the left with my templated welcome, then my plate of cookies image will have to go on the left too - for the reasons outlined above and I thought you were even more passionate that images should never be left aligned? --W. Frankemailtalk 00:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaving something as it works by default doesn't require me to produce some consensus to back it up. I might better ask you to show me the consensus that gives you the right to format others' user pages how you like, but we both know that doesn't exist. My objection to left aligned images is restricted to the pages we present to the reader, but the default TOC, when it shows up later on, would be very unlikely to interfere with your cookies on the right. Texugo (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quote from w:Wikipedia:Disruptive editing:
A disruptive editor is an editor who...:
  • ...continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.
  • Rejects or ignores community input...
...Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
On relatively minor points like the TOC, when objections are raised you continue to make the same edits instead of just letting it go. We've agreed in past discussions not to forbid a right-aligned TOC, but despite objections to defaulting it to the right you changed the alignment on every article you edited for a long period of time, and are now changing it on every new user talk page you create. While almost any other editor would try to avoid creating controversy by making unimportant changes that they knew would push the buttons of others, for whatever reason you continue to do so and in the process create more frustration than there should be on a site like this one. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watch your edit summaries[edit]

Hi, Frank. You included this in an edit summary for Isle of Jura: "no need to watch me like a naughty schoolboy, you know." I personally don't mind this kind of comment, which I interpret as rather lighthearted sarcasm, but others may consider it overly cheeky or even antagonistic. I hate to cramp your style too much, but I think part of the problem is that sarcastic and even lighthearted humor doesn't always translate well over the internet. So your best bet, especially under current circumstances, is to make an extra effort not to post anything that you figure could bother a relatively thin-skinned person. Also, the fact is, all your edits are indeed subject to patrolling and will be for some time, until or unless you gain the confidence of admins that we can watch your edits more loosely. You're not a naughty schoolboy, of course, but there have been problems with some of your edits previously, as has been discussed.

I don't want this message to end on a negative note, so I'd like to thank you for all of the good janitorial work you've been doing, copy editing and fixing formatting on a slew of articles, and also for welcoming people to the site, without prejudice to Texugo's remarks above.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take that in the helpful spirit it was intended, IK, but - putting the ToC to the right to avoid "squeezed worm", odd typos and spelling mistakes excepted - is anyone able to give me a list below of 10 disparate problematic edits (I need the actual diffs, please) I made in articles with my several thousand edits over the course of the last 7 years so that I can see why I am in this unique position? --W. Frankemailtalk 23:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many examples, as you know. For instance, just take any 10 examples of putting in other-subject Wikipedia links or upright thumbnail dimensions after it had been established that there was not (or not yet) a consensus behind that. Anyway, I have to do laundry. Just keep on being constructive and not violating consensus while you make arguments for change. You probably have noticed that your advocacy of upright thumbnail dimensions seems close to being successful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a big part of the problem, IK. People have been too lazy to actually forensically examine or put forward any actual diffs.
I actually don't know, which is why this is not a rhetorical question.
Over 7 years I've added less than 10 Wikipedia links to articles and all of them were extremely useful to travellers. I appreciate I'm ahead of the curve on this, which is why I promised not to add any more to articles during the next 6 months to allow policy to get up to date with best practice for the traveller.
As far as upright=factor of default thumbnail size goes, that's never been prohibited by any policy page I've ever found so why should using this integral part of Wikimedia syntax be any more problematic than using an Umlaut in a German restaurant name or using alt text to help our blind readers. Reader-choice size formatting may have been unfamiliar to some long term Wiki editors (some of them were unaware that mobile phones can call International formatted numbers without jiggering around with international access codes manually and I guess that many of them still don't realise this works from landlines in most countries too) but travellers and their editors need to be thick-skinned and open to new ideas and rational change. Again, I appreciate I'm ahead of the curve on this, which is why I promised not to add any more "upright" parameters to articles during the next 6 months too, so as again to allow policy to get up to date with best practice for the traveller.
There's no rush for the educational diffs and I'm not aiming this question at you IK - you're actually on the side of the Angels with all my many spelling mistakes you've corrected over the years - I've even got a bit sloppy in checking my own work, knowing that you usually edit the same range of articles, IK. I hope you don't have to do the ironing - gosh I do hate that! --W. Frankemailtalk 00:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hahaha, no, no ironing. :-) Anyway, I understand how you see this, but for now, know that your edits will be patrolled. I'm patrolling a lot of them myself and haven't been seeing policy problems with your article edits as of late. So just keep that up and also be careful about how people might interpret the tone of any remarks on talk pages, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate that is probably great advice, IK. My problem is that I've never been that stereotypical German that shouts "Jawohl" as the only (correct) answer to any order given by a superior rank (or any other rank in a temporary position of authority). Unless it's someone I respect, trust or have befriended, reasoning works best with me. (I've given my "no ahead of the curve edits for six months" pledge precisely so that other editors can get on with more productive things rather than traipse around after me. Technically, the pledge is void since it depended on me not being blocked, but I'm not an Indian giver so I still intend to honour the spirit in which it was given rather than react to the mean, petty and thin-skinned reaction to my expressing sympathy through irony for the impossible position Alice found herself in of "heads she loses, tails her accusers win".) --W. Frankemailtalk 00:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Wikivoyage Barncompass
For your expert advice and continuing to help this project forwards even in the face of adversity. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Frank. I saw you post that you're going back to hospital later this week. I hope it's nothing too awful and that you have as quick and painless a complete recovery as possible.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually next week. Where did I (wrongly) say this week, please? Thanks for the felicitations - at my age I can't hope for much except for some little red-headed nurse to polish my bald pate with loving care. --W. Frankemailtalk 22:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Talk:Berlin. Or I may have misread it. It's great, in any case, that you retain a sense of humor. I hate hospitals, but they're a necessary evil. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right; I've corrected it now (I'd just come off the phone to an ex-girlfiend in France and was getting confused with d'ici une semaine and la semaine prochaine) when I switched back to English. I'm getting senile and the same sort of thing is happening sometimes if I have a conversation in German, too. Any way, it should save a bit on the gas bill and it will be nice to have someone to talk to... --W. Frankemailtalk 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confusing languages is no indication of senility. I've been doing that ever since I started speaking my second language in 1975, when I was 10, or at least when I started learning my third in 7th grade. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop[edit]

Frank, you should know by now that edits affecting the entire site that suit your personal preferences rather than reflecting consensus are not acceptable. Do not make such edits, or you will likely be blocked again, this time for a longer period. LtPowers (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best edit counter for Wikivoyage?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I have a strong suspicion that the edit counter I'm using is not very accurate since it shows I've only made a couple of thousand edits over the last year, whereas my current Active users list shows I've made more than one thousand in the last 30 days.

Does anyone know a better one, please? --W. Frankemailtalk 22:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you can see edit count in your preferences -- only other way I know of is to use an API. - how accurate that is, is unknown to me... especially if the "initEditCount.php" hasn't updated the sql table lately... (that info is for 1.19 so probably is still valid) The sql table may or may not be accurate... COUNT(*) WHERE rev_user=user_id -- as for extensions or other programs, no idea... Good luck! Matroc (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That API still works and bumps my total up by a thousand or so; thanks! --W. Frankemailtalk 14:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to your message back a few months ago...[edit]

I get it now. Thank you for explaining! Emily951 (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm surprised. You're back! --Saqib (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, NHS Scotland still does wonderful work. My return may not be for long, though...
And, in answer to your e-mailed question, I will be voting YES to Scottish independence this coming Thursday in the perverse hope that an independent Scotland will then be kicked out of the suffocating EU bureaucracy, forced to successfully then control our own currency and affairs like Norway or Singapore.
We have been the secret colonial masters of England for too long. --W. Frankemailtalk 19:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, did you accidentally edit an old version here?    FDMS  4    12:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have been getting some cacheing error messages lately, but in the diff referenced in this section heading it's not immediately obvious to me what howlers I've made. If I have buggered things up, then please accept my apologies in advance and go right ahead and make the necessary corrections without further discussion, please... --W. Frankemailtalk 17:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are continuing edit contentiously.[edit]

Your continued insistence on passive-aggressive stone-throwing against unnamed targets is not acceptable behavior. You've been warned about it repeatedly, but you persist. If I see it again, I'm going to recommend that you be banned. Powers (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought it would be quite clear to the admins that principally read that page (and especially from the diffs I provided here) that I was giving User:Cjensen as an exemplar. Have you warned him about unacceptable behaviour? --W. Frankemailtalk 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to play a game of chasing your oblique references around to different pages. Apparently the things you think are "quite clear" are not remotely so. The warning stands. Powers (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frank, as always, you're making a lot of good edits, so please take this warning seriously, make a special effort to avoid trouble, and stick around. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit comments such as this can be seen as patronizing by calling other contributors 'rich westerners'. I do not live in the first world so you also completely wrong. To echo this comments above, I welcome your positive contributions but please don't use WV as a channel to take swipes at other people. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]