Wikivoyage/Lounge/Archive/2022-08

Travel topic skeleton (en)

What's up with that disclaimer at the top, "X is a travel topic"?

Any attempt to use that line gets deleted by administrators and there's no sign that that line exists in other existing travel topics, but any attempt to update the documentation to reflect that this is no longer part of the travel topic skeleton also gets reverted on sight - by another administrator. Why?

I recommend starting a discussion at voy:Wikivoyage talk:Quick travel topic article template with a {{ping}} to the admin(s) in question. I doubt that anybody monitors this page on Meta. --Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nelson Ricardo 2500: I monitor this page every so couple of days, but not everyday.

To the Host IP, you do realise that you can't just unilaterally change the format, right? Have you looked at the other formats before? u|Ikan Kekek reverted that edit, because literally, what they said in the edit summary. No, all other travel topic has that inappropriate hat note, and yes, as I repeat you can't unilaterally make changes on formats that have been since the days of Wikitravel. What more, it could have been justified if you had been at least known to the community, or at least sparked up a discussion. But did you do that, and that is no. You need to stop throwing aspersions when you were literally told what you did wasn't the right thing. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 06:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000, We might want to update voy:Wikivoyage:Quick travel topic article template accordingly. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a user who is deliberately locking his talk page so that no one may contact him on-wiki. And yes, if the documentation doesn't match actual usage, it does need to be corrected.

Yeah, did you read the header of my talk page? And yes, that user is me. Follow the instructions there and you should end up going to voy:en:User talk:SHB2000/strip/IP talk page. It's protected from harassment and threats by a WMF banned user. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 00:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You're trying to send me to an unmonitored user talk subpage. That's a little like setting out a dustbin with "suggestion box" marked on the side. I see that the original error (multiple pieces of documentation are telling users to create topics with " Travel topic is a travel topic. " when neither the text of existing WV topics nor the opinions of whatever admins spoke up support the inclusion of this line) remains. I'm not going from forum to forum to explain and re-explain the issue - you're aware of the matter, either fix it or don't fix it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.237.50.3 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So you mean "leave my talk open to anons and get threats?". Yeah, reconsider that because I watch both pages. And yes, I'm aware of the matter, but you are not correct here.

I'm not going to have a go at you here, but change your attitude. You're thinking you know everything but based on your ongoing comments, it seems you don't. And you seem to think you're not at fault here.

And to the original thread, no. The lede is supposed to be changed as soon as you create it. Common sense would prevail that you replace that right after when you insert that. Now perhaps look at the itinerary and event skeletons. They have the same thing as travel topics.

Also, sign your messages. I've told you this before. SHB2000 (talk | contibs) 08:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? "No, all other travel topic has that inappropriate hat note, and yes, as I repeat you can't unilaterally make changes on formats that have been since the days of Wikitravel." makes no sense. If the existing usage is that the hat note shouldn't be there, whomever was reverting the documentation to stick the hatnote back in was the one making the unilateral change. voy:Wikivoyage:Quick travel topic article template and other pages like it are documentation. If following this documentation puts the user in the cross-hairs of admins because the documentation is wrong, fix the documentation so that it matches whatever current status-quo usage WV admins will actually permit.

Changes with a profound impact should enjoy broad support from their communities, not just a handful of users, and certainly no changes should be made unilaterally. Communication is a key aspect of wiki collaboration, so locking one's own talk page to deliberately complicate communication is a strong indicator that a user doesn't have the constructive mindset required for a wiki. ArticCynda (talk)

Maybe if you weren't so salty about your ban, then maybe you'd have figured out that the page was protected to prevent vandalism against a long-term vandal that's WMF-banned. Furthermore, I clearly had an alternate talk page so please keep your nonsensial reply to yourself. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Odd that this supposedly WMF-banned vandal only appears to be interested in you, no one else here has problems with that on our respective talk pages. Have you considered that your own behaviour could be attracting these "problems"? It's not the first time other users have pointed out your questionable edit history and, occasionally, less than constructive attitude. If you make it a habit to randomly delete community-contributed articles you don't like with little or no discussion, then it shouldn't be a surprise that you're not making many friends in a community powered project. ArticCynda (talk)

My own behaviour? This WMF-banned vandal has been threatening me (both on wiki and in emails) for more than a year now, and they've not just been threatening me but anyone who reverts their edits. Again, you're still very salty about your contributions under your IP sockpuppets being deleted (well, you shouldn't have in the first place), and completely missed my point. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:SHB2000, reviewing your recent edits, it doesn't take long to find examples of unconstructive behaviour. Look at this discussion for example which illustrates persistent refusal to engage in a constructive dialogue with other members of the community. In that discussion, 3 different editors have voiced 3 different opinions which are all points valid to the discussion, and you dismissed all of them because they don't align with your own point of view. On a wiki, we address each other's concerns and comments to reach a consensus, and what you're often doing is quite the opposite of that. Additionally, 2 of the users in the discussion have linked policy pages to support their point of view, which deserve to be addressed. It's okay to have strong opinions, but that doesn't mean you can make unilateral decisions by disregarding valid opinions of community members. On a collaborative wiki, this is considered a serious attitude problem. ArticCynda (talk)

Disruptive sockpuppetry and block evasion aren't allowed on en.voy. Period. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you, however, there is no evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion, and the comments added by these users were not disruptive in any way. Let's look at the facts here:

1. Each of the 3 users can be identified by a unique address, referred to as an IP address, which can be looked up with publicly available tools. They geolocate to Switzerland, Belgium, and England respectively. This indicates it is very unlikely to be the same user, because a single user would have IP addresses geolocating to the same city or at least the same country.
2. None of the 3 users have edits to any of the targeted articles in their edit history, so there is unlikely to be a conflict of interest here.
3. At Wikimedia we always assume good faith, unless there is hard evidence to prove the contrary. And these all look like good faith edits to me. Voicing an opinion on a talk page that is different from yours is not "disruptive".

Without evidence supporting your point of view, it should not be a surprise that the Wikivoyage community regards your wild accusations merely as an excuse not to engage in a meaningful dialogue with other community members about subjects that require debate and consensus. Which, as others have previously pointed out to you, is problematic behaviour on a community driven project. ArticCynda (talk)

No-one apart from you has questioned my "problematic behaviour" on en.voy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You're joking, right? In this thread alone already there are 2 different contributors who have pointed out issues with your attitude. ArticCynda (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah only you two, one of which has been community banned since 2018. Totally... SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

incubator:Incubator:Community Portal#Remove the GeoCrumbs extension from Incubator

There's a proposal to remove the GeoCrumbs from Incubator, to which GeoCrumbs is used on Wikivoyages and Incubator has Wikivoyage test projects, do we have opinions on it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)