User talk:118.93.67.66 Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

118.93nzpgmail.com

You are courting a block with your edit warring and especially this edit. Cut the drama and behave normally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This account has been blocked for 2 hours for edit warring. There's no reason to waste time with that nonsense. If you do it again or are otherwise disruptive or use abusive language, this account will be blocked for a longer period. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi 118.93nzp, I noticed there is a disagreement between Texugo and yourself on User_talk:Cormac_Bracken. Firstly, I see this escalating, and I don't want to see another blow-up on this site and I do want to see you continuing in your helpful work doing general copy editing. Secondly, regardless of the rights or wrongs, it doesn't leave a great impression to the new user on WV to have an edit war on their talk page.

I get the impression that just removing your page preferences (and leaving all content) would satisfy Texugo and diffuse the situation. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it leaves a dreadful impression.

I agree that it would be a tragedy if I had to ask for sanctions to be applied to such a prolific and long-standing editor as Texugo.

However, nobody should feel that they have extra rights to flagrantly breach etiquette around User talk pages.

Part of the problem here is the abuse of the revert button. Generally this should be reserved for vandalism.

If he does not like what he sees on a user's talk page, he should message the user himself so that user whose talk page it is can decide what to do on his own talk page - removing my words (when they are not abusive, libellous or otherwise in breach of policy) is simply unacceptable and if it continues you are right in thinking that there will be problems.

Thanks for noticing this abuse of etiquette. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just cut it out! You know damn well what's causing this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am going to suspend your account if you continue to use someone else's user talk page to use formats that lack consensus and then edit war about it. This nonsense is not tolerable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

* This edit is way past the line. You cannot make new users welcome pages another forum for your indignation. Stop now. --Inas (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

And I've now deleted it. Your version that you welcomed the user with is here User talk:User:118.93nzp/deletedwelcome --Inas (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked for 3 days following the discussion at [1]. Please do not evade this block through the use of IPs, or we will need to implement rangeblocks. --Rschen7754 03:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Completely contrary to our long-standing policies of more than 10 years. I note that you did not have the confidence to canvass more opinions in the pub before your block. I assume you will now change those policies so that you can block more editors more quickly... --118.93nzp (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The removal of the shortcut box from Wikivoyage:Image policy has nothing to do with the VfD. They are separate actions; why do you want me to wait until the VfD is done? LtPowers (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I should also point out that with the VfD notice on the redirect page, the redirect does not function, so it's misleading to show it as a valid shortcut. LtPowers (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you go to the Lioness of Gobedra outside Axum? I have tried to find the exact co-ords for it for couldn't find a location that seemed totally accurate and reliable? Nurg (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It appears to be near 14.115975,38.681267. Type those coordinates into Google Maps, then drag the streetview man to that spot. You will notice there's quite a few geotagged photos at that one position, so I'd assume it was there. James A ▪ talk 09:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's the area, but not accurate and reliable enough. Nurg (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

In many cases a satellite view of the place and a way to extract the coordinates should do the job (for instance the Google Earth app as Mapquest aerial is not available for this area) but as we're talking about a small geographical feature it's probably not useful unless you know the area yourself. ϒpsilon (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have never visited the Lioness of Gobedra outside Axum but it's general location was pointed out to me from a few hundred metres away. I know some school children in Axum that I can e-mail and ask them to take a tourist there that has a smart phone with GPS and collect the GPS co-ordinates. --118.93.67.66 00:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, don't bother. I just wondered if you'd been to the exact spot and could easily pinpoint it. I believe that when tourists go to the general area children materialise to show the way. Nurg (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit of a hike, so normally they would be taken there by their driver. --118.93.67.66 01:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi 118.93. The suggestion has been made that Frank is using this IP. I am trying to nip this suggestion in the bud on the user's talk page so please don't react to the suggestion. Give the person the chance to retract. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

If the suggestion is that user: W. Frank has used this IP address in the last 3 months then, because I have just examined three months of contribution records for this IP, I can assure you that only one person (me) appears in that contribution record. While I would like to preserve my anonymity, I am perfectly happy to phone you (I assume we are both currently in New Zealand) and discuss how we can put this allegation to rest, Nurg. My e-mail address is 118.93nzp AT gmail.com (please note that I am too busy right now to have e-mail exchanges on this topic, but I am eager to have a phone conversation with you, where you may learn some things to your advantage, Nurg. I do guarantee you confidentiality if you will guarantee mine.)

Thanks for the heads up! --118.93.67.66 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I asked you not to react. You chose to do so, both at Wikivoyage talk:Search Expedition and the other user's talk page. Why won't you cooperate with me? Nurg (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ahhhhh, my misunderstanding. I thought you meant react in the sense of "go ballistic or incandescent with rage", rather than "respond". That's why it's so much easier to talk voice to clear up misunderstandings. What a pity you don't trust me to keep your secrets, Nurg. --118.93.67.66 08:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've removed all of my responses in both places now, Nurg - I hope that will help as you seem to think it will... --118.93.67.66 08:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Nurg (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure.

To avoid further misunderstanding, I do reserve the right to re-instate all of my comments that I removed and vigorously defend the innocent from past or further unfounded allegations at the earlier of:

1) 00:02 17 Nov 2013 UTC

2) 4h after I note an edit on Wikivoyage from the "new account" of SpendrupsForAll if the editor in question has not self-retracted. --118.93.67.66 01:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I hope that SpendrupsForAll will retract, but if not, I note and appreciate your advice in the pub to "just try and ignore those who make you foam at the mouth". Cheers. Nurg (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, my attempt to nip the allegation in the bud was an abject failure. Your checkuser (CU) request looks like it would not get far, as it won't meet the stewards' requirements, at least according to Rschen, who knows about these things. I presume the part of your CU request covering User:Alice, User:W. Frank and User:118.93nzp is to disprove that you are Alice or W. Frank. Even if a CU was done, it would not bring the level of proof required to kill the allegations conclusively, as Alice has not edited since 22 Oct and Frank not since 16 Oct. What just might disprove that you are one of those other editors is evidence that you edited at the same approx time as them. Will you post a list of IP addresses (and user accounts, if any) that you have used in the past. Doing so would also be in line with the transparency that you have asked of others. Cheers. Nurg (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Difficult with such a long editing history. Most of the New Zealand Vodafone edits will be mine, but I've used a huge variety of IP's when I've travelled overseas. You can always give me a ring about any particular edit source that worries you, Nurg. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I expect it would be difficult to list them all, but surely it would not be difficult to list some from earlier this year at least. Nurg (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you can probably guess that most (but not all) of the edits from New Zealand Vodafone IP addresses were made from my portable device (not necessarily by my fingers - as I've explained before, I didn't think that the terms of use or any other policy required me to keep it under lock and key or close personal scrutiny). An example of one such IP would be Special:Contributions/118.93.47.31 , another Special:Contributions/210.246.47.134

Now that I've created a WMF global account, the situation is quite different when I edit as a logged on user. If I can successfully avoid hacking and keystroke loggers, then there is a very strong likelihood that all the edits from this account were actually made by me. --118.93nzp (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

So you're not willing to say what any of the IPs were that you used before 118.93.47.31, to help kill the allegations? Nurg (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I really can't see the point, Nurg. People just love conspiracy theories. I must have used hundreds of IPs like 210.246.47.134 or 118.93.235.201 or 118.93.240.37 over the years... --118.93nzp (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The point is that if you can find an account or IP address of yours that was editing at the same time as Frank and/or Alice, it would be at least a smidgen of evidence to quiet the "conspiracy theories". Powers ^(talk) 13:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Really? I very much doubt it, but just to test that lie: https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice&diff=prev&oldid=2515231 --118.93nzp (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looking good. The more of those you can rack up the better. It still leaves open the question of why your editing interests, conversational styles, and interactions are so similar, of course. Powers ^(talk) 15:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I sent an email to 118.93nzp AT gmail.com at 4 November 2013 03:44:13 UTC. I have not seen a reply. Did you not receive my email? Nurg (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I got that email and saw clearly that you were motivated by trying to avoid further problems for Alice and Frank, as well as to perhaps assist me, (if I was open to that}. And, of course you have the whole wiki at heart too.

I can see that it might seem rude that I did not favour you with a reply, but I assume that meanwhile you saw and understood what I wrote above {While I would like to preserve my anonymity, I am perfectly happy to phone you (I assume we are both currently in New Zealand) and discuss how we can put this allegation to rest, Nurg. My e-mail address is 118.93nzp AT gmail.com (please note that I am too busy right now to have e-mail exchanges on this topic, but I am eager to have a phone conversation with you, where you may learn some things to your advantage, Nurg. I do guarantee you confidentiality if you will guarantee mine.)}.

If there are some technical reasons why you refuse to e-mail me your telephone number (deafness, a speech impediment, you're on some strange island that has e-mail facilities but no telephone, etc) then I'm sure we can overcome those but, since the topic is sockpuppetry, I'm firmly convinced that we mutually need to lose a degree of anonymity with each other (however, I will unequivocally and despite my occupation, treat with the solemnity and respect of the confessional and guarantee you confidentiality) and stop playing silly buggers - never mind the plain fact that it takes me at least 4 times longer to speak than to write and the hours of delay to any question that means a productive and efficient dialogue is nest door to impossible. --118.93.67.66 23:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Meanwhile" I did see you offering your email address above. Why did you offer it to me when you already had an unanswered email from me? That's what I don't understand. There is no technical reason why I can't speak to you on the phone but at this point I do not intend to. The email line is open to you and Alice. I'm interested in improving WV by helping resolve issues that are an ongoing source of disruption. I am not interested in losing my anonymity - it is you and your acquaintances that have the identity complications. Nurg (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is that a rhetorical question?

You've forgotten this - or did not realise that was me too even when the list of IP's that Vodafone NZ was assigning was kept reasonably up-to-date?

I'm not interested in circular and fruitless emailing. You're not interested in either a face to face or phone dialogue. Impasse. Do you understand this now? Any further attempts at clarification will just sound rude.

You, Nurg - along with everyone else here - have every right to preserve your anonymity here.

Disruption is being caused by the hypocrites that maintain multiple accounts without clarification or declaration and then have the brass neck to accuse others (specifically Alice and Frank) of being sock/meat puppets and drama queens every time they are in danger of losing a rational argument.

I'm quite secure in my identity, thank you and I reject any intentional implied slur that I am not.

This attempt at dialogue never started; if you do ever change your mind about phoning and dialoguing prior to a physical meet, you have my e-mail address if you do want to productively and efficiently avoid further problems for Alice and Frank, as well as to perhaps assist me, while remaining to have the whole wiki at heart too. --118.93.67.66 01:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was not sure that you had written the post you linked to. I did not intend to offend you and have therefore struck two words in my previous post. I apologise. Nurg (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted. Vodafone NZ seem to have changed my IP again - I had quite a long run with this IP, but all good things seem to come to an end. This seems to be my new one, but how long that will last, I've no idea: Special:Contributions/118.93.88.129 Once all this obsession with sock puppetry and allegations are put to be bed I can use my global WMF account here and use the new Wikilove feature. --118.93.88.129 09:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is a bizarre claim. If you used your global account now instead of alternate accounts or your IP, there'd be fewer grounds for accusations, not more. LtPowers (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a bizarre old world where a Kiwi writing from Godzone and using Vodafone New Zealand IPs can be alleged to be a German superannuant that has provided a heavily documented life story centred on Glasgow, Scotland. Never mind, we'll see if the heavy mob have reformed their bullying, unfair and sloppy behaviours or not. Feel free to ask for a check user any time you feel the urge to throw any sockpuppetry allegations around or email with a phone number if you wish to chat or meet up. --118.93nzp (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have emailed you my number if you wish to give me a call. I will not be home yet for a couple of days. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The point, 118, is that your decision to use an IP address while demonstrating a) familiarity with the site and its personages, b) a disproportionate umbrage at mistaken identity, and c) very similar opinions to two users who've both been accused of sockpuppetry in the past and are both known to use IP addresses when they feel persecuted, is extremely suspicious. I can only conclude that you're either oblivious to the signals that decision sends, or else are deliberately trying to pull our legs or game the system. Neither reflects well on you; using your existing global account would go quite a ways in building trust. LtPowers (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're (unsuccessfully) trying to read too much into small matters, Powers. That's only your (and others' mistaken) assumption that I haven't edited on this and other Wikimedia sites before. Sometimes I will quite deliberately choose not to log in. I might wish to quite deliberately reveal my IP (and hence my location and ISP) in response to all these sockpuppet allegations that are so casually and rudely and wrongly thrown around. Sometimes I won't wish to risk compromising my password when I'm not on a device I control or that is overlooked by CTV cameras or work colleagues. If you don't want me to continue not to log in, then you will either need to get a consensus to change policy or just rack off. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Where did I say you haven't edited before? But if you want to make sure people don't make that assumption, well, that's pretty much what accounts are designed for. If you do choose to edit without logging in, then you kind of have to accept the baggage that goes along with it. (And of course, revealing your IP address does nothing constructive, as has been pointed out before, so you might as well stop.) LtPowers (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi 118.93nzp. Did you post this note to my user Talk page a couple of weeks ago? I believe you have had a number of Vodafone IP addresses and I just want to make sure whether it was you or someone else, rather than making an incorrect assumption that you posted it. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I certainly made this edit so I've no reason to think that the other edits were not made from my mobile device too. I don't want to lose my anonymity by writing too much and I don't want to lie by omission either - hence my request for a confidential explanatory telecon - but I'm sure you can appreciate that when two of us are sitting in a car out in the wop wops in the wee small hours it can get rather boring between shouts, so whether all of those edits were my actual fingers on the "keyboard" or one of my mates', I'd have to individually go through all the edits and check. Certainly if they weren't my actual fingers, I would have had the opportunity to look at the screen and either tacitly or explicitly consent to what was being saved. However, now I have a password protected account, I think we can all be confident that any edits made from my brand new WMF global account will be down to me. For the avoidance of doubt, my mobile device hasn't been out of New Zealand for at least 2 months and has never been to either Singapore, Glasgow or Australia. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I hope the two of you are not drinking and driving. Nurg (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ha, ha. (No, I'm using "shout" here in a way that may be peculiar to an occupation sub-group of kiwispeak). --118.93nzp (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

One question: should I stop forcing the size of the rest of the mission pix? I'd like to have pix of all 21 missions, but that might be difficult if I don't force sizes Purplebackpack89 22:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That would certainly be my preference - however, there needs to be community input on this question, so I have replied on that article's discussion page. If sizes do need to be forced they should be expressed as a proportion of the default size using the "upright=n" syntax we have had for some while now. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're aware of the status of discussion on upright thumbnail dimensions - namely, that they are not to be used for now, while waiting for the WMF to change the default size of thumbnails. It would therefore be courteous and constructive not to try to get people to use upright dimensions piecemeal in some articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm afraid that's not my understanding.

No consensus has been achieved anywhere to my knowledge to prohibit a particularly useful and helpful feature of MediaWikia software. Certainly some very loud and tightly controlling editors go around pretending that such a prohibition is mandated by our MoS (perhaps on the basis that everything that is not specifically allowed is forbidden) but such a weird interpretation of consensus would fly in the face of pf. Certainly I'm currently employing a self denying ordinance in an effort not to "incite" the more intolerant and thin-skinned editors here, but this is not to concede that there has ever been a consensus to ban relative image sizing.

Please also do not confuse this issue with the default size of thumbnails set by the WMF for our project when no size has been set either in user preferences or by forcing an image size (fixed or relative) that is an entirely separate issue that seems to have been deliberately thrown in to avoid progress and muddy discussion. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, I believe you are aware of the state of discussion, which is precisely that upright image sizing is being held in abeyance until the WMF changes the default size of thumbnails, although there are also some other concerns about it. I'm trying not to find it a bit irritating to point you to the discussion, which I do believe you are aware is mostly at Wikivoyage talk:How to add an image#Usual image syntax?, because I have never been opposed to the use of upright dimensions but want people to please stop deliberately substituting their own opinions for a consensus they haven't been able to achieve. While I believe in more flexibility toward harmless or better experiments, freelancing of the type you are proposing is a good way to create unnecessary work by people who will revert things and be annoyed at you for fundamentally disrespecting the way Wikis work. I know you'll understand and don't plan on drawing out this discussion.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because your post on Talk:Buffalo/North Buffalo was the first, I was unable to click a "Thank" button, so I'm posting here to thank you for your eloquent compliment of AndreCarrotflower. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is that a known bug? The authors may want to know.

I do think we need to reward wanted behaviours more; it's been too much stick and not enough carrot for a while now... --118.93nzp (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if that's a known bug. I think it's worth posting about that to the Travellers' Pub.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The first link in this edit may have worked at the time, but it doesn't work now. Nurg (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the "heads up", Nurg. I've changed the type of link to refer to a particular revision version of the Pub now, since I'm very conscious that the Pub is regularly swept. If there's a better way to do this, I'd welcome your advice, Nurg. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The link from the RFC page is now fine, except that the proposal should be on the policy talk page. Advertising the proposal is a separate issue from where the discussion is held. Nurg (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you and Saqib are warring about in regard to shortcuts, and I am not too interested in an explanation, but I can't imagine what "Remark" would be a useful shortcut for. I almost deleted its talk page, and if you proliferate huge numbers of unnecessary shortcuts that are deleted, it may become necessary to delete repetitive talk pages on them or/and take other action. So please back off and stop creating additional shortcuts, for now; whether you're in the right or not is not as important as the time wasted on fighting about unimportant things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it takes two to tango.

I'll respect your wish not to be put in the picture about this petty squabble.

wv:remark was in use both in the edit summary and the text here and here at Wikivoyage:Wiki_markup before Saqib declared war. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see, and thanks for the explanation of this shortcut. I'm not sure it was an intuitive shortcut, but I get it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did not realise it might be thought obscure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comment_%28computer_programming%29#BASIC

http://www.mcs.gold.ac.uk/~mas01sd/cis229/HTMLParser/javadoc/org/htmlparser/nodes/RemarkNode.html

http://www.pclanguage.biz/html-comment-tag/

What about wv:comment then? Any better? --118.93nzp (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

A bit better, but "comment" can mean a lot of things. Are shortcuts always needed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No - not if you're a quick typist or you're rude enough not to be bothered to leave a clue in your edit summaries as to what you did and why you did it.

Unfortunately, I'm neither. --118.93nzp (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since you use firefox, have a look at a tool like Paste Email Plus. It will allow you to setup your own personalised text strings that you can enter with the mouse, or keyboard shortcuts. Since the policy names are usually far more intuitive than the shortcuts, you will be even more polite to people reading your edit summaries, and save yourself even more keystrokes. --Inas (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tip, Inas! --118.93nzp (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your edit to Wikivoyage:Requests for comment appears to be an attempt to conduct a discussion on that page. That's not what WV:RFC is for... it's just a list of pointers to discussions elsewhere. I'd suggest starting the discussion elsewhere (if it doesn't exist) and posting just a pointer to it on WV:RFC. K7L (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought that's exactly what I did, if you examine your own diff above.

I posted the link to the discussion I started at Wikivoyage talk:Administrators#Sub-optimal venue for important policy discussion, didn't I (and explained very briefly why the discussion could not be achieved at the venue Saqib suggested since it was subject to highly selective censorship)? --118.93nzp (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a non-issue, since the same discussion is continuing in the pub, and you have contributed there. --Inas (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe that's wrong since the Pub discussion will probably degenerate into sterile name calling.

Saqib's behaviour may be the catalyst, but there needs to be a generic discussion on a better venue for these types of policy discussions. Precisely because disussions in the pub are archived after one month, it would be better if there were at least two new policy pages:

One new policy page dealing with "outing" and another dealing with revision deletion. Then there would be a record of how we came to develop and clarify our policies.

None of this discussion should be taking place on Sasqib's talk page because he just removes comments he does not like. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pub conversations are not archived. They are swept to the appropriate forum, where discussion can be continued if necessary. For precisely the reasons you outline. --Inas (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Excellent point!

@Saqib:, @Inas: Very sad to see Saqib go. It should never have got to this point. Other admins should have stepped in earlier to warn about incivility and poor User talk page etiquette- even if there is a natural reluctance to tread on a fellow admins' toes. --118.93nzp (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, what codswallop. --Inas (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry you think that way. Perhaps that's part of what is wrong with the culture here. --118.93nzp (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps. However, being our most persistent editor, claimed long term user, and most prolific contributor to policy in terms of words, it is about time you stopped talking about any cultural issues as entirely divorced from your own actions. For someone who claims to not be in the slightest bit interested in the social interaction, and only interested in improving the guide, you put yourself in the middle of every drama. Saqib made a mistake. He fessed up straight away, and apologised. Meanwhile, as usual, you thread your irrelevancies through the discussions, with yet another forum for your indignation at possibly being considered in one breath with two other users with whom you share identical interests, phrasing, offline communications with, and run a tag-team of similar edits, with a back story that's frankly hugely improbable. It's unhelpful. The audacity at the conclusion of claiming that the result could have been avoided if incivility had been managed by others is quite astounding. If there is a issue here we have to manage, it is how we get and keep people who are good and interested in writing travel guides away from users whose game it is give people a blast, and test to see if they are thick-skinned enough avoid making a mistake in the resulting heat, or simply give up and walk away. --Inas (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's your club perspective.

It wouldn't be appropriate to correct your mis-characterisation of Saqib, but why don't you both try to stop feeding the "monsters" and counsel your fellow clubmen to do likewise. The disputes here rarely seem to be about actual travel topics and more about the exciting sports of wiki-hounding, sock hunting, punitive reversions, personality politics and who to ban or block next. Just try and deal with the basic stuff and you may find all the rest will magically fall into place. A good start might be to stop assuming bad faith and then desperately trying to avoid egg-on-face time by refusing natural justice procedures of proving "innocence" when there is just the eentsy bitsy chance that one of the druids might actually be wrong for the first time. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not assuming anything. I'm not a member of any club. It's a nonsense. It is another one of your unhelpful lines you keep spinning, with no foundation. Possibly a assumption, in good faith? I've never met anyone on this site, and I don't really know anyone here. I respect user accounts that I've observed having a history of edits with a propensity to be considerate and cooperative. I don't care about socks, I don't care if every edit comes from a different account, or if 10 people share one account, or if everyone edits from a dynamic IP. However, I've observed before, that the same administrative approach has to be take to your edits, as is taken to the other two users I mentioned about, because you edit in the same way. I don't know anyone's personality, so I've no idea how I could play personality politics. I only know you by your edits. You could change account names tomorrow, or IP addresses tomorrow, and again, I'd only know you by your edits. --Inas (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

118.93nzp, in this edit summary for Nelson (New Zealand) you invited another Wikivoyager to do some sleuthing in regard to your relatives. Can you confirm that you are happy for people to investigate your personal and family information? Clarification would be appreciated. thanks. Nurg (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Happy is the wrong word.

If you want to know such detail, then the polite and efficient way to do it would be to phone and ask me. However, I realise that is not going to happen any time soon because your anonymity is important to you, Nurg... --118.93nzp (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If happy is the wrong word, do you take back the invitation for others to so sleuthing in regard to your relatives? Nurg (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't a general invitation.

The edit summary was rather specific and made in the context that a particular editor had not spent enough time or effort doing the necessary research on either Alice or Frank or Tony or others in preparing a poorly researched hatchet job: "Ypsilon: my rellies arrived here on 14 December 1842 if you want to do any sleuthing"

Like you, I wish to remain publicly anonymous. And I certainly have no wish to drag relatives who are still alive into this. (Although I am prepared to surrender that anonymity to specific individuals that give me a pledge of confidentiality if it will help clear up some fundamental identity misconceptions that seem to plague this project and divert a lot of time and generate bad feeling). --118.93nzp (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If you wish for yourself and living relatives to remain publicly anonymous you should not make casual invitations to anyone to do sleuthing into your family. We have already had a user post links to someone else's off-wiki info (not realising they would be severely criticised for doing so) and I am concerned that the edit summary you made might lead someone into doing similar. I doubt that you were deliberately trying to entrap anyone into doing that, but it would be a serious concern if you were. Nurg (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was a bit childish and badly thought out, I agree. Problem with edit summaries is that, unlike other text we write here, they have no possibility of ever being updated or corrected so I think I'll stop using them except in rare cases... --118.93nzp (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I hope you don't stop doing edit summaries. Do a summary, but just stick to a factual explanation of the edit rather than digressing with additional messages. I try to always provide a summary. I wish everyone would follow my example! Nurg (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

First I will reiterate what I said in a private (my first and probably last) e-mail to Saqib about two weeks ago: I’ve seen enough already (by that I mean “the big picture” - BTW, you’re absolutely right that my older analysis was faulty), and therefore I’m now convinced that it is absolutely futile to address any concerns of that nature here. Thank you very much, I won’t. The best thing to do is pretty much to sit back with a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show.

Secondly, I would eat my hat if anyone at all here would seriously be interested in your or anyone else's family. Should anyone be and why?

Finally it would be faster to go directly to User ban and make an entry for oneself than to DOX someone, especially if that someone is “important”. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks very much for the barnstar! I do my best. :-) Graham87 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2013(UTC)

Indeed you do, and I think it's a pity that contributions like yours are often overlooked. Keep up the good work! --118.93nzp (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well spotted! Thanks. Alux (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure, Alux. Thanks for the great content additions - do you know the history of the various Langleys (Abbotts and Kings)? --118.93nzp (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please do not copy and paste large quantities of text from copyrighted web sites, especially not without attribution, as you did at Talk:Suwon and Talk:Singapore. Thank you. LtPowers (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the redactions. I'll try and contact the author for permission. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is not enough; you must have them agree to license it under terms compatible with those of Wikivoyage, and the email should ideally be forwarded to OTRS, so that the permission is documented legally. --Rschen7754 23:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Even for discussion pages?

What's "OTRS", please? --118.93nzp (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, even for discussion pages. Please see m:OTRS. --Rschen7754 23:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --118.93nzp (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This is a minor issue, in my opinion, but I've noticed that you are changing "30 minutes" to "30min" in prose descriptions. As I said, I don't care enough to make a federal case out of this, but I don't think that's correct. I think those kinds of abbreviations are best used in tabs other than the "content" tab of listings. I seem to remember discussions that supported my view, but I don't feel like looking for them right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I have, then I think that's probably sub-optimal and I apologise.

Was there a particular example you had in mind, please?

I must confess that if I see something like journey takes approx. 30 mins by car I will more than likely change it to the slightly shorter journey takes c. 30min by car rather than the journey will probably take approximately thirty minutes by car.

If you're talking about the abbreviated prose in the content field of listings rather than body text in the main parts of our articles, then you have already been kind enough to continue discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Abbreviations#Minutes_and_hours.3F I see... --118.93nzp (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think it was in the "content" tabs of listings, or mostly so. We can continue the discussion there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've just edited out two examples of your using abbreviations in prose, in Gokarna and Mitzpe Ramon. Please don't do that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're talking about writing 500m (rather than five hundred meters/metres) or 55mph rather than fifty five miles per hour then we have a fundamental disagreement I'm afraid. --118.93nzp (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

55 mph is well-established in prose, but editing out "500 metres" is something that we do disagree on. And I don't think anyone except you has so far supported changing "500 metres" to "500m" in prose, outside of listings. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I've ever changed "500 metres" to "500m" in prose, outside of listings, then I apologise unreservedly because that would not be a good move. I like to think that any of our articles is always better after I've edited it - not worse.

If I see "500meters" in a destination article with a strong connection to Commonwealth English, then I will improve it by changing it to the well established "500m" - likewise with changing 50 Kms to 50km or 50kilometers to 50km...

Again, I think this is a trumped up charge to get me banned - if not, then please provide the relevant diff...

If you keep up this harassment, then I think I'll walk rather than get another unfair block. --118.93nzp (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not everything is a "charge," and if you think any time I post a message to your user talk page detailing a disagreement, that constitutes "harassment," that is quite regrettable. The question of whether to use these kinds of abbreviations in prose or not is just a disagreement - and not that important, in my opinion. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone would cite this as a reason to ban anyone. As for your requests for some relevant differences, here's one: [2]. I think you can find the others. It strikes me a bit odd for you to ask others to track down the precise edit in which you substituted an abbreviation for "metres" or such-like in prose. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Look, I don't make the policies - and neither do you. Go and read Wikivoyage:Measurements and then tell me I'm wrong to avoid the question of whether it should be 1033 meters or 1033 metres in a Star nom by using the abbreviation specified there for mountains (of 1,033m).

Actually, don't bother, it's obvious that my welcome has been overstayed and if you don't get me for this it will be for some other petty nonsense. Goodbye! --118.93nzp (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to ignore your attitude and comment on content. Wikivoyage:Measurements#Examples does show abbreviations being used in prose. However, there is an ongoing discussion we've taken part in at Wikivoyage talk:Abbreviations#Minutes and hours?, and some of the views expressed there seem at odds with the "Measurements" page examples, so it would be best to have further discussion there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the great input to the Island Peak page. I'm very happy with the way that page is shaping up. That route map is fantastic. Dave.mcc (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes dynamic maps are great fun for editors to play with and readers to use - it can be a bit of a bugger getting the co-ordinates right as OpenStreetMap doesn't have high zoom level satellite view meaning you have to hop around between Bing and Google maps views to try and place some features... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you want to do with the units (distance measurements, etc)? I believe in the UK they use the Imperial system so miles and yards would be the standard there. Should we be using miles as the standard with metric in parentheses? What's the usual practice on those? Dave.mcc (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll copy this query to the discussion page of Talk:Offa's Dyke Path since it's best if as many people as possible give their opinions, Dave ... --118.93nzp (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and thanks as always for all the really helpful edits you do, most of the time. However, as you are aware that upright thumbnail dimensions are not currently approved on this site, it would behoove you to desist from inputting them, lest you be nominated for another suspension due to intentional violation of current policy. As you also know, I am sympathetic to your point of view on upright dimensions, and I won't argue with you about this, but I would really rather that you not court trouble unnecessarily.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Texugo and the other ban-happy admins here have never established a consensus to change our policy to not allow registered users' thumbnail dimension preferences to be respected and neither have they established a change of policy to disallow any position of the ToC other than the left or images other than on the right.

Put forward this weird proposition in the Pub that all image widths have to be hard coded to an arbitrary pixel width and your rationale - if you can find one!

I strongly suggest that before you start canvassing banning me again for "contravening policy" you actually establish the policy I'm supposed to be contravening!

Merry Christmas!

--118.93nzp (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please understand: I'm not proposing to nominate you for a new ban (at least not at this time; if you do this all over the place, I might reconsider) over this kind of merely annoying (because it requires editing) willful flouting of consensus. I am merely suggesting to you that you would do better not to gratuitously engage in this kind of behavior, since you're aware of its likely consequences - namely, that someone else is likely to nominate you for a ban if you continue. And as I don't oppose upright dimensions in principle, I consider this discussion closed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my bad. I misread the history of that user talk page at first. You're absolutely right: When the user him-/herself sets the TOC right, it's totally up to them. Sorry for the hassle. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

No worries - to be honest I was amazed when you dived into the bear trap not once but twice.

Now you do realise that Texugo was (and is?) absolutely wrong in farting around with other user's words, don't you?

It's up to the individual user if they want to remove words - or code - from their own user talk page and the proper way to address these kind of concerns is to invite the user to remove any "offending" code themselves (presumably after providing the user with cogent reasons why).

Getting to the substantive point, having the ToC on the right helps distinguish a User talk page from either an article discussion page or a Wikivoyage policy page and I really struggle to find a downside to having it on the right... (118.nzp not logged on for operational reasons) --210.246.47.134 08:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't realize that about Texugo, but that's beside the point this time, as I was clearly mistaken. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why is it more appropriate to say "from" to get in, as per this edit? Nurg (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not.

I've dropped a clanger.

Because it's the "Get in" section rather than the "Get around" section, I should not have made that edit and I have now reverted it; Sorry!

Wikivoyage:Country_article_template#Get_in states: Arrival overview for getting to the country. Give visa or other legal information, as well as warnings about border crossings. This may also be a good place to note contact information for embassies and consulates from this country in other nearby or English-speaking countries.

Below are some sections for common ways to get to a country... (my emphasis added). --118.93nzp (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good-o. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

• User talk:Sibyl8590ffoys
• User talk:Mervin68Shw
• User talk:SteLar84

Hi. Please stop using upright dimensions, as someone may block you for that, per User talk:118.93nzp, and I would really rather that didn't happen. Also, please respect the standard American spelling of "traveler," and do not change it in articles about American destinations. I know you'll claim that Evan means for only one spelling of "traveller" to be used in every article on this site, but (a) he isn't here and (b) no-one else seems to think that "traveler" is an incorrect spelling in articles about the US. "Traveller" actually comes up as a misspelling when I type it. Thanks for all your helpful copy edits, as always. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It certainly is an unusual word in English, but I looked it up in the dictionary for the heck of it, and here are the results, for whatever they're worth.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seems my edit summary was wrong then. However, I think I will let my amendment stand, eh? --118.93nzp (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Certainly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, hope you're doing great. I noticed your user page was recently spammed. It seems you're quite popular among spambots as well. LOL. Kidding so don't mind. --Saqib (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, more spam attacks may well be the price we have to pay for greater popularity and readership. Tell me when you think you are ready to be nominated as an admin again - I know you've done some great work in spam fighting, Saquib. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you think this edit of yours will give good impression to a newbie about our editors? --Saqib (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it will give an accurate impression about these two editors and their sloppy, inaccurate and downright bitey behaviour towards a new editor that obviously meant well and (if they'd done a little research) probably was not breaching his own copyright either... --118.93nzp (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for reverting you; somehow I misread the diff and thought it was the other way around. (However, I do still question the need to mention Greenwich specifically, but that's a separate issue.) Powers ^(talk) 13:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I very much appreciate this message, Powers. It takes a big man to explicitly admit when they are wrong but it is very important for our process of trying to move forward by rational discussion to both respond to questions and explicitly concede when, perhaps by considering new data or re-examining old data, one has been persuaded by opposing arguments.

On a purely technical level, if the "undo" button is reserved for vandalism and bad faith efforts, it often means that - in the process of physically having to edit text you may at first blush find objectionable - you may discover some merit in the words or general meaning after all.

Of course if I had been writing these words as original text, I would not have included Greenwich in the "What do all these numbers mean?" section of wv:How_to_use_dynamic_maps. However, in the context of the pre-existing text of Longitude specifies east-west, from -180.0 to 180.0 with the Prime Meridian in England being the zero reference point. being changed by me to Longitude specifies east-west, from -180.0 to 180.0 with the Prime Meridian passing through Greenwich, England being the zero reference point. I do think that my text both corrected the impression that a line of longitude was a relatively short line found only in England (rather than reaching from pole to pole and, in the case of the prime meridian, only passing through England before then passing through the lands of France, Spain, Algeria, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Togo, Ghana again before finally reaching landfall again in Queen Maud Land, Antarctica on its way to the South Pole) and might have jogged readers memories about it's forebear the Greenwich Meridian. Now that I've examined this text again, I think I'll change it again since, of course, it's not a "point" at all... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I know it's a small matter, either way, but I'm guessing that because there's at least a somewhat less fraught history between the US and Argentina than between Britain and Argentina, they probably mostly prefer US spellings, so "neighborhood," rather than "neighbourhood," etc. I do realize there's a community of descendants of Welsh immigrants on the Pampas, but even so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

And Scots and Irish communities too.

However, it's not these impoverished emigrant communities that have had the biggest influence; that was from rich, monied investors that had the financial wherewithal to send their children to English boarding schools and universities.

Commonwealth English is certainly not an official language, nor the most important language variety, but certainly has been historically the variety widely used by the educated elite in Argentina (as it still more clearly remains the choice of the elites in Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Burma, Cyprus, Jordan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Northern Cyprus and Oman).

Thanks to groups like the Argentine British Community Council (ABCC) it's possible that British expats may in fact feel more at home in Argentina than in Britain. Constantly arranging truly “British” events such as car boot sales, village fetes, fun runs and fundraisers, the ABCC see their duty as upholding the British tradition, which includes saying “please”, “thank you” and being on time!

Here's what one forum user wrote: "I was wondering, since Argentina is the country with the biggest British community in Latin America, has many cities founded by Englishmen, and 80% of Buenos Aires' private schools are British, Argentina could have been, along with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the fourth British colonized country in the Southern Hemisphere!

"We also had the only Harrods store outside the UK and have the most important and oldest English newspaper in Latin America, The Buenos Aires Herald.

"These are just a few of the towns established by British settlers in Argentina: Hughes, Rawson, Hudson, Hurlingham, Temperley, Banfield, O'Higgins, Brandsen, Parish, Fair, Barker, Bunge, Tornquist, Roberts, Gunther, Gahan, Abott, Anderson, Warnes and many more towns, which I cannot remember right now (These towns are located in the Buenos Aires Province, throughout the country we have many more English towns)

"And this is a website about the British in Argentina (bear in mind that the Irish in Argentina are a huge community as well) http://www.argbrit.org/

If you're interested, then here's some more tangential online reading:

• bizarre conjectures of a "Southern Cone Under the British",
• BBC reports: "Apparently we are now marking the bicentennial of the Reconquest of Buenos Aires by Argentine forces from the British in 1806 and the Argentine ambassador to Britain Federico Mirre is hosting a memorial",
• Few sights present as quintessentially English a scene as admiring the immaculately trimmed polo fields of the Hurlingham Club, window shopping under the famous green canopies of Harrods department store or watching a football match between the St Andrews School and Balmoral College. The Anglophile can attain a pinnacle of perfection by taking afternoon tea, leisurely browsing through the local news in the Herald.,
• Attempts by Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to stoke anti-British feeling have failed to stop her compatriots from spending a record £104million during holidays and business trips in 2012

That said, I think that the whole of the Americas (with the obvious exceptions of Belize, Canada, Chile, the Falklands, French Guiana, Greenland, Guyana, Nicaragua, St Pierre and Miquelon and Surinam) have an increasing tendency to use US English spellings and constructions. {Note that I've excluded the Caribbean and the Atlantic islands like Jamaica and the Bahamas, where the position tends to be more nuanced, from this list...} --118.93nzp (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, although I'm really not convinced by the argument that country X must use British spelling because it likes the UK more than the US or vice-versa. (As language fanatic User:Alice really tried to convince me of somewhere previously)

I work occasionally with teams in Argentina and they are very much US orientated. Unless someone can find a definitive directive from the Argentine government regarding British English (I'm guessing... nope) then probably best to leave as American. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you really mean that you work in Argentina or with teams from Argentina, Andrew? What kind of teams? --118.93nzp (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Its a global economy these days :) The (software development) teams are physically situated in Argentina, although I never go there to visit them. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that interesting information, 118. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've always imagined that most Argentinians are more or less anglophobes since the Falklands War. If this is not the case, don't you think the things to avoid section should be updated? ϒpsilon (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

No. We're talking about the monied elite here who actually speak English (and often shop in Europe). A series of Argentine governments have used las Malvinas to divert attention from their chronically poor (and sometimes more dictatorial and brutal, sometimes less) domestic management. However, as the economy in Argentina steadily worsens, even the non-English speakers may begin to see what a swizz the whole malarky is... --118.93nzp (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

[Unindent] You seem to have decided to enforce British spelling in the Argentina guide, despite this discussion. Why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Despite?!?

I've obviously failed to get my point across.

Let me re-iterate: I think that the whole of the Americas (with the obvious exceptions of Argentina, Belize, Canada, Chile, the Falklands, French Guiana, Greenland, Guyana, Nicaragua, St Pierre and Miquelon and Surinam) have an increasing tendency to use US English spellings and constructions. {Note that I've excluded the Caribbean and the Atlantic islands like Jamaica and the Bahamas, where the position tends to be more nuanced, from this list...}

All the nations of the world (pace Andrew), and especially the younger generations are increasingly US orientated due to greater or lesser degrees of media hegemony, but as I write this, the majority of those who speak English at home in Argentina (as opposed to Spanish, German, Welsh, etc) use the Commonwealth and not the US variety.

And enforce is too strong a word. If I'm copyediting I'll usually use the idiom I'm comfortable with unless the article has a strong connection to another variety of English. If folks don't like my idioms they're more than welcome to waste their own time changing middle to center and focus to center and I won't complain - that's the way a wiki works. Incidentally, this phrase "city centre" is a Commonwealth idiom - the US idiom is "downtown" isn't it?

Anyway none of this is worth bothering about, since I've agreed with Ryan that in a few hours I'm not going to log on and edit any more. --118.93nzp (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't get your point because you didn't include Argentina on your exception list above: "(with the obvious exceptions of Belize, Canada, Chile, the Falklands, French Guiana, Greenland, Guyana, Nicaragua, St Pierre and Miquelon and Surinam)". If you feel reasonably confident that British spelling is used more often than US spelling in Argentina, I'm fine with that. As for "city center," there's nothing particularly non-US about that, though we use "center of town" more often. I think it's more that "downtown" is not used in certain places than that anyone would find "city center" at all strange. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Reverting an edit is not "edit warring". Reinstating an edit of your own that was reverted is. Now would you care to discuss this on an appropriate talk page? Powers ^(talk) 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that helpful and succinct explanation. That explains a lot that I have been puzzled by the last decade or so. I'll apologise on the Pakistan page if I may... --118.93nzp (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad I could help. You may find w:Wikipedia:Edit warring informative. Powers ^(talk) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove spaces between numbers and units, as you did here. Powers ^(talk) 13:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello!! Why do you have a tick to remove newlines at the end of the content section? It is not the way a listing is edited, when you click on it. Happy travelling. --Axisstroke (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's annoying that the template is set up wrongly.

If you look at almost all our other temaplates, whether it's something long like {{mapframe}} or something short like {{unsigned}} almost none of them have the closing pair of braces orphaned on a line by themselves.

(There are some other errors in the listing templates, too. For example: the example given for 24h format is wrong and it does not have the currency symbols needed for Kč (Czech crowns) or ₱ (Philippines pesos) or ₪ (Israeli shekels) or ₹ (Indian rupees). --118.93nzp (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Did you ever try to escalate that?

Right now I find the edits that change the newline annoying as they are just noise until the next time the edit link is clicked on. Best --Axisstroke (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can understand that.

However, I don't ever bother editing just to make that trivial change to save one byte and format the template correctly.

I have raised the wrong 24h time format and lack of currency symbols in quite a few fora. However, most times I do that Texugo moans about "forum shopping". --118.93nzp (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmm puzzling. Anyway thanks for the info! I do not participate on banning hope to see you around. Best. --Axisstroke (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please avoid adding new comments to old comments that have already been replied to. That's why I marked it with Template:unsigned, though without a timestamp it's not ideal. Powers ^(talk) 16:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

While I do understand the general rationale, it sometimes happens that certain questions or issues were inadvertently overlooked in the original (partial) reply and a late(r) response may the lesser of two evils. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Following up on comments of yours: Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition#Naming_scheme.3F and Wikivoyage_talk:Naming_conventions#Commas_instead_of_brackets Pashley (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up, Sir. I actually have both those pages on my watchlist but I have often noticed that my contributions are actually counter-productive in promoting the changes I believe to be necessary.

My number one goal right now is to greatly enlarge the readership and prominence of Wikivoyage and even the most stubborn will eventually have to admit that Frank was right in his SEO suggestions. --118.93nzp (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply