User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2015

Re: Great work!
Hi André! Thanks for the welcome. I edited Wikitravel in 2006 and didn't return properly until 2014 after its migration to WMF and becoming Wikivoyage. It's great to be back! I think my experience in editing other wikis has helped me plunge forward but I still might have many questions and will let you know. :) Gizza (t)(c) 23:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. --Saqib (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Pub sweeping
re:, the discussion about updating the main page was put in the pub to gather feedback, but the main page has now been updated, so that thread has run its course. Keeping it in the pub seems... odd. We have a guideline to sweep discussions that have been dormant for a month, but it seems strange to interpret that as saying that even a completed discussion cannot be swept until it has been dormant for a month. That said, I don't care very much and will leave it up to you whether it should be moved out of the pub now, or left there idle for another four weeks. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ryan: as far as I can tell, the purpose for that rule is to make absolutely sure no one has any further comment before a particular discussion is put to bed, and lately pub conversations being revived after two or three weeks of dormancy is a thing that's been happening more and more often. Given that the changes to the Main Page went live just a few hours ago, I actually think there's a fairly high probability of more comments being added to the thread I unswept - perhaps some editors who hadn't been following what went on in the pub might want to chime in, or perhaps after seeing the new banner every time they sign on (rather than only when they specifically sought it out on your user page) folks might start coming up with tweaks to the wording or other minor refinements. In any case, we should be encouraging and facilitating comments on changes to a page as important as the Main Page, even after the changes are put into effect. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The one-month guideline was put into place as a result of this discussion. See Peter's comment that "I don't think we need to slavishly follow the 1 month thing either. If common sense suggests a discussion could be moved earlier... that should be fine too" and the point I raised that "I've always thought of the Pub as the place for active discussions. If a discussion has gone without comment for a full month, moving it to another talk page wouldn't kill the discussion, but it would help keep the pub focused on discussions that people are actually participating in." - applying that comment to the current case, no one is prevented from commenting on the main page changes just because that thread is now on Talk:Main Page.  I originally raised the main page discussion in the pub to ensure that as many people as possible were aware of the proposed changes and had a chance to comment, but now that the change has been implemented the need to advertise that thread is diminished, and anyone who sees the main page and wants to discuss the change would almost certainly be looking at Talk:Main Page as the place to do so.
 * With that said, I don't really care that much if the thread is moved to Talk:Main Page now or in a month, but I think the interpretation that threads cannot be moved out of the pub unless they have been idle for a month (and the statement that this guidance is a "rule") is an unnecessarily strict interpretation of something that was meant as advice for those interested in doing some janitorial work. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 23:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

default engvar on voyage

 * goodonya faircrack of the whip, at least the default is not to bonza old strylian - forever on wp en the almighty bias to engvar of the good ole usa is a blot on the usage of english, at least you are able to show a policy here. sats (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ad's Path
Wow André, you've improved the article a lot. I clicked the thank you button on one edit, but it was for all the edits, ofc. You did remove 1 bus stop's link to the real time info. I don't know if people with smartphones and 3/4G will figure it out, but it may be handy for the ones who do.

I had an issue with this line: a new career as an artist

It's really more of a hobby for Ad. He's not getting paid, nor does he sell his works. So I'm not sure if the word career applies. But the meaning may be different between Dutch, French and English.

On the 22nd of March we'll be hiking the trail. It is my intention to make more pictures of the whole itinerary and add them to Mapillary.com.

I created a map on umap for this: http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/bus-18-from-leuven-then-walk-back-over-pad-van-ad-_30907#12/50.8519/4.7152

It deviates somewhat. I'm not up to hiking 26km myself in one go. I found that out recently...

I did add a "branch" which will bring us back nearer to Leuven.

Here is the description on meetup.com: http://www.meetup.com/Mostly-Outdoor-Leuven/events/220901434/#

Jo


 * Polyglot - Thanks again for all the effort you have put in to Ad's Path, As I said at its DotM nomination, it's got all the information it needs. As I see it, the work I'm doing is strictly cosmetic. :) Also, helping out with Ad's Path has taught me a lot about how to write an itinerary-style article for Wikivoyage. In my userspace I have a very rough sketch of an itinerary that I hope to get started on in the near future, and now I've got lots more ideas than before of how to construct it.


 * I was under the assumption that Ad was a professional artist. Since that's not the case, I agree that the word "career" isn't the best choice there. The only problem is what it should be replaced with. It's getting late here in Buffalo and I've had a busy day, so perhaps that's why nothing is coming to mind at the moment. But I will come back to that issue very soon.


 * One of the things that has been troubling me, now that my copyedits have gotten as far into the article as the sculptures themselves, is the possibility that the text might be leading readers in the wrong direction - I've rewritten the prose in this section and stayed as close as possible to the original, but I've never taken this route myself. So when I say "turn left at (x), then turn right at (y)", all I have to back me up is the dynamic map, which can be difficult to read, and the original text that you've written and that I've sometimes had to clarify. So I was very happy to hear that you'll be returning to Ad's Path yourself on the 22nd of this month. I should be finished copyediting the article by that time, so if you could please verify the accuracy of anything I've rewritten, it would be much appreciated. And I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the new photos!


 * All the best.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Andre,
 * I went cycling yesterday to make pictures of the start and the end of the route (as I had decided not to do those parts the 22nd). I've added links to the most interesting starting points for pictures on Mapillary Mapillary links Ad's Path higlights
 * I've added the statues, of course, but also the points where it may be a bit harder to explain which way to take. I have no idea how to integrate that with the article, though. I may still adapt the umap, so these pictures become clickable there. --Polyglot (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Buffalo/East Side
This article shows up near the top of Special:WantedPages because there are 14 links to it. It seems to me it should be recreated as a redirect (to Buffalo? Elmwood Village? ...?) but I see you have protected it. I know neither the region nor the history of the article so I won't mess with that, but it seemed worth asking here. Pashley (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Pashley - We had an anonymous page-creation vandal some time ago who kept creating stub articles that consisted solely of lists of neighborhood names - he did this for Buffalo/West Side and Buffalo/South Buffalo too, before the "real" versions were completed and brought out of my userspace. That's why Buffalo/East Side was protected. As for creating a redirect, I will if you think it's a good idea (probably best to redirect to Buffalo), but it's worth noting that I'm currently working on Buffalo/East Side in my userspace, and as you can see, it's halfway or more done. So if you're willing to hold tight for a month or two, the Special:WantedPages issue will be solved anyway. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I knew your were working a lot on Buffalo articles, did not know you were working on a replacement for this one. I'll happily hold tight and leave the decisions to you. Pashley (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not work on the article in mainspace? Powers (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Powers - the article as it is now is a mess, full of notes and reminders to myself. I'd hate for a reader to go to the impeccably written Buffalo parent article, skip down to the Districts section, click on "East Side" and have to wade through that. That being said, I have a hard target of June 1st (the start of Buffalo's term as DotM) at which point the East Side article will either already have been completed and moved to mainspace, or will be moved to mainspace in an incomplete state where work will continue (in its current state the East Side article would already be Usable, thus Buffalo would continue to be a Guide and eligible for featuring.) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well at the moment the reader doesn't have anything to wade through... =)  Powers (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Incredible work you've done so far on the East Side article. Buffalo is going to be a fantastic DotM! Just a thought; the Buy section of East Side is approaching 100 listings so would it make any sense to divide the article into two or more parts? ϒpsilon (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't anticipate "Buy" getting much longer than it is now. If others find the section too long, I think it would be a better idea to weed out some of the listings rather than subdivide the district. Though I did my best to rehabilitate its reputation in the opening paragraphs, the fact remains that the East Side is by far the furthest-off-the-beaten-path Buffalo neighborhood for tourists. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

IPBE
Can you please give me IP block exemption rights on the wiki? Because I use the ISP Telstra internet, which is blocked by default so I can't edit as an anon. Antiv31 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Time travel
Hello Andrew. I think the time is here to feature Joke_articles/Time_travel. Yes, we've not discussed on the banner but since we have no time left so you can go with your own choice.--Saqib (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Shoot! Sorry, Saqib. I completely forgot. I'm not home right now and not going to be back home for the rest of the night. If you or someone else could take care of the banner, that would be great. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side
Appears to be a work in progress. Did you intend this to be in article space? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I also see you have a user page East Side which would fill a redlink at Buffalo. Any reason it is not a public article page? It has more content than many article pages, seam a shame not to have it available for other to read and contribute to. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Buffalo/East Side is in my userspace because it's a work in progress. As I had said on an earlier thread on this same page, it will be finished and brought into mainspace within the next few weeks. Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side would ideally be in my userspace too, given that it is a work in progress, but I couldn't figure out how to get the GPX to work at first, then I brought it into mainspace and the track suddenly showed up on the dynamic map, so I surmised that the GPX template doesn't work in userspace. (I may very well be wrong about that - this was my first time working with GPX - but I'd rather not take chances after how long it took me to learn how to trace that track.) At any rate, I don't think the article is doing any harm where it is; there are plenty of work-in-progress itineraries in mainspace; Erie Canal is another one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Andre, I find your work on Buffalo articles imporessive. You've done awsome work with the itinerary, too! Danapit (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook
Helo Andrew, Recently I got in touch with FB guys. They can give our Wikivoyage FB page the verified badge if you ask them. Please do let me know by e-mail and I will give your their e-mail. They will most probably call you for verification as well. --Saqib (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Am I seeming too prickly?
Andre, you're someone I trust. I think that self-reflection and self-criticism, within reason, are good things, and that being oversensitive is bad. So, time allowing, I would like you to give me your impressions of how I come across in a couple of interactions, and maybe some advice about what to do about it, which might include spending a bit less time here (though never fear; I wouldn't desert the site).

The first interaction I'd like you to have a look at is at Talk:New York City. I was surprised to be told that I was being hostile and defensive in the thread, because I wasn't feeling that way. How do you read the back-and-forth in the thread, apart from the question at hand, which has clearly been resolved by a consensus and probably doesn't need further discussion?

The other interaction I'd like you to look at is in three different places: the history of Chiang Mai, User talk:171.5.251.92 and Talk:Chiang Mai. I am not asking or suggesting that you focus on the IP user's conduct or tone but on mine. As annoying as that individual is to me, perhaps my degree of annoyance is disproportionate, and it would better for me to pay less attention to this dynamic IP user and his/her edits (though they're recognizable, eventually, only by style, as the IP is rarely the same for more than a few edits). Maybe his/her criticism of my "wanting to be right" has some substance to it, and I'm allowing myself to become too attached to making what I consider improvements to wording and others don't.

I'm not even completely sure what I'm asking of you, but I guess I'd rather post these things for you than for people who are either personally attacking me or think I'm attacking them.

All my best to you,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello - as the above partly relates to me I hope you do not mind that I add comment.


 * Discusssions about English grammar ramped up to an unconstructive extent. This was a consequence of Ikan Kekek's:
 * antagonistic and petulant comments.
 * unwillingness to consider he may be in error.
 * lack of logic in arguing in his case. His position was based either of his personal taste or referencing, as much as I could deduce, irrelevancies.
 * distortion of the discussion.
 * posting comemnts on the article's Talk pages, even after conceding he was in error regarding grammar, pleading for support of what he considers 'looks better'.


 * Ikan Kekek's comments above are instructive. He admits to editing because, for whatever reason and despite never meeting me, he finds me annoying. In contrast I have made edits for the sake of the articles.


 * Ikan Kekek's actions strongly indicate his interest in editing is for his own reasons (such as needing to demonstrate he is 'right') and not for the improvement of Wikivoyage. Irrespective of his psychological motivations his actions have been unconstructive, antagonistic and show evidence of a 'I'm always right, and if you disagree then you're wrong' view.


 * Should Ikan Kekek be disappointed on how discussions evolved, as his comments above indicate, then a period of self-reflection on how he treats others could be constructive. Alternatively he may wish to consider his own blog rather than attempt to force his opinions and tastes as standard on a concensus-driven and volunteer staffed website.


 * For the record my edits have been, , , , , . I do not believe there are others, although I may have missed a few by mistake.


 * I think that Andre can make up his own mind very effectively with or without your remarks, and I was not asking for him to take sides between you and me. But since you felt like turning this thread into an indictment of me, I will only say the following: I was figuring you are probably the same person who edits all kinds of articles on places in Southeast Asia from different IPs to eliminate colorful language and turn them into your own version of British English (idiomatic British English, or something close to it, is completely appropriate for articles about Malaysia, but a lot more questionable in other places that never were colonized by Britain). I don't mind admitting I find that annoying. If I am attributing to you edits some other person did, that's not your problem. And that's all I have to say to you, because this thread is not about you and not posted in order to quarrel with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assumption about another person is wrong, and is another example of you distorting discussions and posting irrelevances: and as you are keen on annoyances, such behaviour can easily be taken as annoying. And as far as 'injecting' myself, as you reference me it clearly relates to me and so it is only reasonable to allow comment. —The preceding comment was added by 171.5.250.92 (talk • contribs)

Ikan - I've been reading and rereading these exchanges for some time, and I'm honestly struggling to figure out where the problematic behavior on your part is supposed to be. Your opinions were rather strongly worded at some points, but that's hardly an unusual thing at Wikivoyage. In the specific case of Talk:New York City, it would be good for some folks to remember that a lot of nuance is lost in a written conversation as opposed to speech; when factors like intonation, emphasis, etc. are taken out of the mix, it sharply increases the chances of someone's tone being misinterpreted. As for Chiang Mai, I think the fact that the other user followed you to my talk page and continued to hector you - as a response to a post in which you questioned your own conduct, no less - tells you all you need to know about who was the antagonist in that conversation. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ikan Kekek, re the NYC case, I don't think you were being "unnecessarily hostile and defensive". Nurg (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nurg. I hope either of you will feel free to gently let me know if you do notice me seeming overly abrasive or worse. I need to guard against burnout. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * When there are disagreements I try to stick to discussing the content (articles or policy), to not make it personal, and to ignore it when others make it personal. I can't stop people baiting me, but I try to bite my tongue instead of biting the bait.


 * Long before wikis, I learned to pick my battles. I will often speak up, but if I don't convince others straightaway, I consider how important the issue is. If it's not important, oh well, I said my bit, now I'll let it go. If it's important, I'll try to patiently reinforce my argument to win others over. Then I may eventually have to settle for a compromise, which is better than nothing. But if I still don't succeed, I let it rest. On wikis, I find that when I'm right, another chance often comes some time later for me (or someone else) to set things right.


 * In wikis and in other life I sometimes have to stop what I am about to type and ponder whether it may be condescending or sarcastic.


 * I don't know everything, and sometimes the things I thought I did know turn out to be wrong. I don't always achieve humility, but I aim for it.


 * Ikan Kekek, you are one of the outstanding contributors to WV. Better to back off sometimes than to burn out. We don't get paid for it - we do it for fun. If some things go a little off track for a while, too bad. Nurg (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points. Thanks for that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And thanks for the compliment, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I echo the compliment, Ikan. You're one of Wikivoyage's fundamental pillars. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion in Traveller's Pub about my question
Andre, this sounds a little bit pushy, but I don't want you to use your fancy lingo when talking to me. I prefer to use "dumbed-down" English instead of "grok". I don't like to use slang very much; sorry, but that's just me. I'm just stating a suggestion about how you talk to me in these discussions. Donny (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll try to keep that in mind, Donny, and I'm also sorry for accusing you of being uncivil. But, as a friendly bit of advice (and one that I hope will be taken in the spirit it was intended): you have to understand Wikivoyage is made up of many different people who speak in many different ways. Some of us speak in "dumbed-down English", some of us use more technical vocabulary, some of us speak English as a second or third language. I'll do my best to respect your wishes, but in a general sense that's something you're not really going to be able to avoid if you participate here.


 * I also noticed you seemed to be getting a little frustrated in the Travellers' Pub when the conversation you started about the number of cities listed in region articles went off in different directions that you didn't want it to go in. That sort of boils down to the same issue, I think. If you ever want to stop participating in a certain discussion, that's fine, but you have to understand that people are going to enter into conversations like that with their own agenda and their own ideas which you may or may not be interested in, and it's not really fair to get upset or snippy with people for doing that. It's all part of the give-and-take of working in a collaborative environment like ours.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept, and it would've been good to know that a conversation would end up like that. I mean, I just asked a question and it goes on to further questions; or when I state an opinion, it opens up all this stuff about things not even related to the question at hand. Why change the subject? I mean, I said that the 9 city limit was too restrictive, and it opened all this baloney about lower-level regions. I just wanted to know why the limit is 9. Why not be a rounded number, like 10? Ikan Kekek touched on it, and that was it. I mean, what the heck? I hope this explains my quote-unquote "frustration" on the topic. I didn't mean to get "upset or snippy" about the conversation going so far. I am still new, after all. Donny (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess the limit of nine (which originates from a rule stating any list should contain roughly 7 plus minus 2 items) is too ingrained to be changed. If you want to know more about that specific policy see here. As to why the conversation changed to a (somewhat) other topic. Well several contributors (me included) have gotten the impression in recent times that certain things are not well handled when it comes to the bottom level regions (for which technically the 7 plus minus two rule does not apply) and your question was at that time the only topic in the pub touching on that subject. Thus some contributors (me included) voiced their opinion in how to improve this or what the reason for the current (interpretation of) policy is. I hope there's no harm done. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's how you thought it happened. Donny (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but to me (being myself a speaker of English as a second language only, so that may be a reason) this particular response sounds rather snippy and as if you were not taking me seriously. I will assume that's not what you meant and that it was intended in good faith, but I am not sure whether everybody would think so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be rude/snippy, but if that's you view it as it happened, I'm not one to argue, which is why I said "if that's how it happened." Donny (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't find it snippy at all. I think it's important for everyone (both readers and writers) to remember, before accusations of rudeness start to be passed around, how much harder it is to read bad intentions into what someone else is saying when it's in writing rather than spoken. Of course, when the two participants in the conversation don't share a native language things are complicated further. I admit I'm as guilty as anyone else of jumping to conclusions, and for that I apologize again. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's alright, and I thank for the much-needed tip about misreading. Donny (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The pcv guy and the guy who always blocks me.
I need your help ryan keeps blocking me. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thahouseusers2015 - Ryan left you a message on your talk page stating very clearly what the problem with your edits is. If he blocked you, you need to address that issue with him directly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:BushelCandle block
Has this block of a user gone though any warning and followed the How to handle unwanted edits, I cannot see any entry in User ban nominations. Want to make sure we are following some sensible procedure here. The other user earlier with the obvious vandalism of main page, I agree is a instant block without warning but for more subtle objections I think some warning and a chance of defence is needed. --Traveler100 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an ongoing case of sockpuppetry and long-term abuse chronicled exhaustively at User ban nominations/Archive (see exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and J), for which the agreed-upon procedure is indefban on sight per the exception to the userban policy prescribed for block evaders (third bullet point on this list) as well as the principle of w:WP:DENY. See also User talk:LtPowers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Wikivoayage community cannot be expected to monitor every users talk page. This gives the impression of some inner circle of users. Warnings should be on the blocked user's talk page and on the block nomination page, there has to be some transparency of actions so there is no appearance of abuse of admin powers. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * All due respect, I and the other participants in that talk page discussion have been monitoring this case a lot longer than you have, and you haven't raised any objections that haven't already been brought up and resolved many times over. Please see the linked sections at User ban nominations/Archive. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a debate as to whether it was correct to block or not, but more the case of being seen to be doing it correctly. Referencing an archive cannot be the justification for an apparent new users edits. What do you mean by "and you haven't raised any objections that haven't already been brought up and resolved many times over"? Are you say others have objected to user blocks without documentation? --Traveler100 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to do your own research, using the tools available to you. You can't expect others to give you a lengthy series of details about someone who's been blocked — what is it now? 15 times? 20, perhaps? — with many different usernames. And this incarnation admitted it wasn't a new user and certainly wasn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not asking for a research tools or a lengthy explanation, a single line in users talk page and current live User ban nomination would be enough. I took on admin to remove obvious spamming and vandalism do not want to start searching though other admins talk pages and archive pages, but at the same time feel I have a responsibility to check that processes are being done correctly. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We've wasted an inordinate amount of time on this user and its numerous socks, and lost some valuable long-term admins in the process. This is an indefbanned user. Block evasion by an indefbanned user is an automatic ban and shouldn't need further discussion. And you do need to look through at least a couple of the links Andrew gave you and look through the user contributions of the current sock and some previous incarnations to see the editing patterns, because you care about them and don't trust the other admins. There's no shortcut; we can't instruct you at length about all of this, but the record is there for you to read at your leisure. If you feel you have a responsibility to check that processes are being done correctly, that's your only recourse. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * but those links to archive would not have been made apparent if I had not questioned the block. All I was asking for was a little explanation in current pages. I am not questioning the decision just its visibility. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(unindent) Regarding transparency, read How to handle unwanted edits again. Block evaders are explicitly cited as a category of vandals that can be blocked on sight, without consultation at User ban nominations or anywhere else. As an administrator, it's your responsibility to have a full and accurate knowledge of policy, doubly so when accusing others of unfair conduct. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Andre here. --Saqib (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding Traveler100 correctly, there isn't any question as to whether the block was justified or not, but there is a request to ensure that an indef ban includes enough information in either the block log, the user's talk page, or User ban nominations to explain what's going on. I agree with that - an indef ban is a big deal, and even for repeat offenders should at least include a link to a past ban nomination (in this case, something like User ban nominations/Archive) so that we've documented the justification sufficiently for anyone to understand what's happening. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 21:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and put the documentation you consider sufficient on the latest sock's user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement with the block, and had my own suspicions, but also agree that we need to be transparent and linking to the appropriate past discussion on the user's talk page does no harm. It's important to clear that up as unfortunately I don't think this will be the last occurrence... James A ▪ talk 11:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, BushelCandle seems to be pleading his/her case with Tony1 at w:User_talk:Tony1. James A ▪ talk 11:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given past history with 118 & Alice, the fact that BushelCandle went straight to Tony's talk page is another bit of evidence that this is another Alice sockpuppet, in case anyone was still unsure. That said, the user has been blocked here so I would respectfully ask that if anyone is considering joining the discussion on Tony's talk page they refrain from doing so - let's consider the current case closed and just move on. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 16:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology
Reading my comments at Rinjani feature article must seem that I want to go around in circles - the initial response was due to seeing the Balinese airport was closed to Rinjani ash, and seeing the article up of the ash producing volcano as a nominee to visit. I hadnt differentiated the turn around time of the article going up. Most Indonesian volcanoes dont necessarily stay active for long times. The subsequent response was due to a very personal experience of resarching javanese volcanoes, as well as being in buses that do go over the side, and other events. So it might seem I am contradicting myself. Part of experiencing Indonesia I have found, western logic fails. JarrahTree (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, my friend. You made your comment in good faith, and I did the same. In the end all either of us want is to provide the best information for our fellow travellers, which is the only really important thing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah well, having been off most of this year, I jump back in, and feel somewhat self concious, and only feel truly confident when crawling through the Indonesian articles with tense issues at this point... JarrahTree (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Routeboxes and redlinks
Hi, Andre. I hate to be critical, but I noticed a problem with some of the routes you've added to WNY destinations' routeboxes. We don't allow any redlinks in routeboxes, because they inhibit navigation. Each link in the routebox chain has to exist, or some articles may become inaccessible. (Consider a blue link that lies between two redlinks, for instance; navigating from either direction is impossible because only the redlinks show on the neighboring articles.)

Also, there are other little tricks. For example, in the Route 18 sequence in Youngstown (New York), you've linked Barker (New York), but Barker has no routebox, which leaves the reader stuck and unable to keep going to Lyndonville or Waterport.

Also, as an aside: is it really accurate to have Lockport on the 104 line?

-- Powers (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding redlinks: User:Eco84, who seems to be the most active maintainer of our routebox navigation network, has occasionally included redlinks in his routebox edits (see for example the NY 78 line, as well as NY 240 and NY 277 in Orchard Park, since deleted for reasons unrelated to the presence of redlinks). I tried to only redlink destinations that I felt have a realistic chance of eventually becoming actual articles, and especially those that are also linked from the "Cities" section of their region articles.
 * Regarding Barker (New York) on Route 18, Rochester is treated the same way on the Thruway sequence.
 * NY 104 runs through the Town of Lockport, which I can't imagine we would ever treat as a separate entity from the city.


 * -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I've reminded Eco84 about it before as well. Nonetheless, the fact remains that redlinks keep the routebox from being functional. I appreciate that many of these articles are likely to be created in the future, but that doesn't help the reader trying to use the routeboxes now.
 * I certainly don't mind including Barker along Route 18; I consider the article to cover the entire town of Somerset (as per your Lockport comment). I was pointing out, rather, that if you're going to link a destination within a routebox, the destination also needs to have a routebox of its own, or else the chain is broken and the routebox doesn't work anymore.
 * -- Powers (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Starnom
Hi, friend. Sorry I haven't weighed in yet. I expect to support your nom because, really, how could I not after all the tremendous work you've put in? But I feel like before I do so, I should read through the article again and also look at the district articles, which others have reference, and all of that will take some time.

Meanwhile, I'll see if I can get some sleep (famous last words) and work on some crucial business involving my father's estate.

I hope life is treating you great!

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Asheboro routebox
Hi Andre - Asheboro is showing up in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls because the routebox has two "image1" parameters after your most recent edit. I'm not sure which route is correct, so can you take a look and remove whichever one is the duplicate? Thanks! -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)