User talk:Alice Voyage Tips and guide

	Wikivoyager in favour of lifting the Wikivoyage ban on new templates — at least in User namespace!

Hello, Alice! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Project:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. --Globe-trotter (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2012 (CEST)

Thank you for welcoming me with such useful information,Globe-trotter. Are you an administrator here? -- (WV-en) Alice^✉ 21:39, 26 September 2012 (CEST)

Yes, I am an administrator :-) Always glad to help, and thanks for your edits, they are appreciated! Just want to say that you shouldn't press "enter" after every sentence, just write full paragraphs! --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2012 (CEST)

Thankyou for being patient with me, Globe-trotter.

In Singapore, children are taught that a major topic or theme requires its own paragraph, when they are writing in English. Paragraphs may be several pages long or just a sentence. I will discuss this further on Singapore's discussion page, if I may-- (WV-en) Alice^✉ 22:18, 27 September 2012 (CEST).

Ay yay yay, please don't go making such changes without any discussion! It's a real waste of time, and a waste of time to undo your edits. While I understand your rationale, the advantages of changing U.S. → US are definitely outweighed by the time wasted doing it! --Peter ^Talk 19:19, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

I was plunging forward according to the advice given in the various policy articles listed here, Peter.

Sorry if I've upset you!

So that my hard work bringing pages in line with our policies is not wasted, please would you revert your revert of my reverts? -- (WV-en) Alice^✉ 20:18, 29 September 2012 (CEST)

Alice, The policy on abbreviations is that U.S. is to be used, not US without stops, so it would not be appropriate to revert to your edits. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:35, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

Hi, Alice. As I said on the Singapore "Talk" page, I very much appreciate all the work you're doing to edit this site. But the appropriate thing to do if someone (in this case, Dguillaume) reverts your work with a good-faith explanation, such as happened in the American and British English article, is not to reinsert the text that was reverted, but to discuss in the relevant "Talk" page (Talk:American and British English) why you think the revert (in this case, of "Commonwealth English" to "British English") is wrong. And lest there should be any confusion, I am not expressing an opinion on the content of this edit of yours, but only on the inappropriateness of edit warring. All the best, (WV-en) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2012 (CET)

And again. I think you know how it works here by now, don't edit war. If you'd like to change the position of the TOC, discuss so first in the Pub (or at Wikivoyage:Table of contents location, but it's archived). Don't change the TOC individually per page, it leads to an inconsistent lay-out.--Globe-trotter (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I could not find the discussion. Alice^✉ 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alice. It seems you took a similar issue to the US spellings for the North Korea page. If you look at the Policies page, it clearly states: "Nutshell: Destination guides should be written in the local variant of English." To my knowledge there is no 'local variant of English' in North Korea, therefore US spelling should be default. (Disclaimer: I am a British person). Much like Ivan, I just want to avoid an edit argument issue. Thanks! Andrew —The preceding comment was added by Andrewssi2 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 April 2013 UTC

Since we pretend not to vote here and that all editors are to be given equal respect, I agree that US English is the local variant in South Korea. Perhaps because of this Southern governmental choice, the DPRK's totalitarian family chose the non-US English variety as their local, official variant some while ago. Of course they are hypocrites and this stated preference sometimes slips. It's no secret that it would be a lot easier to default to Commonwealth English since there are far more countries that use a variant of this than the US variety. Alice.

See my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding content to English language varieties. First move your content from that page to American and British English, then convert English language varieties to a redirect. Then you can add more content to the right page. I have explained why on the article's talk page.--Globe-trotter (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why? You have offered no explanation as to why the shorter, inferior article that is more restricted in scope should be paramount. Don't come here and hector me. Discuss on the templated article's talk page and win an argument by reason rather than brutality! -- Alice^✉ 01:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful edits to the Malaysia article.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice, I have moved Cycling to mainspace to preserve history. It has overwritten a couple of your edits, which you may wish to repeat. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, Peter - and sorry to cause you extra work! -- Alice^✉ 06:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Alice. I always saw the terms "Federated States" and "Unfederated States" when I was in Malaysia, including two years in Sekolah Kebangsaan in Terengganu, an unfederated state. I never saw "un-federated States." Therefore, I have edited that particular edit of yours in Malaysia.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your correction seems a wholly reasonable change to make since all the authoritative sources agree with you (with the sole exception of the Malaysian Government's web portal - but that's hardly authoritative since it mis-spells "Federel Territories" sic).

However, these sort of specific article comments are usually best made on the article's discussion page itself because

a) others who may be tempted to make the same mistake can be forestalled

b) although it's not relevant in the proximate case, some "corrections" may need a consensus

I always add to my watchlist automatically any article or user talk page I edit so I will certainly note any comment you make there. Thanks for the correction. -- Alice^✉ 20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I take note of your preference and reasons for posts to be made to the article's talk page. All the best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your sense of involvement on this site and some very good edits that you've made, but none of us should take too much personal ownership over the exact forms of words in any article, such that we feel personally offended when edits are reverted, or even to edit war. Also, no one person is indispensable here, and I certainly include myself in this. So my advice to you is, if you're feeling upset about seeing your edits reverted, maybe you should consider taking a break and coming back another day when you feel rested and happy. Wikivoyage will still be there when you come back. Enjoy your day. All the best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, well in my brief experience here, the regulars are beginning to suffer culture shock from the first signs of exposure to the larger WMF community. Alice, I suspect there's some knee-jerk defensive reverting going on, so don't take it personally. And there's no particular need to "take a break", a suggestion that can often cause offence. Tony (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek is one of our less prickly editors round here and his advice may be sage. He's trying to be helpful and I certainly don't take offence at his comments above. What I do take offence at is him playing in the "Admins Tagteam" with this revert.

There's no other way to say this: Reverts should be saved for vandals - not editors. -- Alice^✉ 05:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We disagree. Reverts are not just for vandalism and never have been. Moreover, everyone's work is reverted sometimes. Yes, very much including mine. It pays not to get too upset about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice, thanks for your note on my talk page. I guess the en dash is more elegant than the hyphen, when used in the widely prescribed role of numerical ranges. But it's the readability that is more important to me. So, in order (in my opinion): readability; wide prescription by just about every major style authority in English, including US and UK; and much better appearance.

Tellingly, I see an inconsistent usage already on en.WV, even in policy pages. And hardly anyone likes the interruptor on the sentence level - as a scrappy little spaced hyphen – it looks pretty low-grade. I notice plenty of en dashes in that guise already on en.WV, and editors should be free to go about correcting them if they wish, don't you think?

If you have a Mac, it's on the keyboard; it's weird that Windows keyboards still don't have one of the basic typographical keys in the language. If you have Windows, it's easy, though: there's a button just under your edit box; or you can type in –; or you can ensure your numlock is off, hold down "Alt", and type 0150.

I would like to propose a number of modifications to policy that appear to be long overdue, to bring en.WV into line with best practice elsewhere. It's a pity there's a sense of ownership among some of the regulars. Tony (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

There's always a flip side to human characteristics.

What is admirable family loyalty when a Filipino has to be absent from the family he loves for months on end in order to send home remittances from the broiling heat of his Saudi construction site is labelled corrupt nepotism when the President promotes his brother to Secretary of National Defense or his aunty to a position in the Social Security administration.

A degree of "Ownership" may be the price we have to pay for having editors devote all these hours of unpaid labour...

Try and pick your battlefields, Tony. You can't win them all but it won't hurt to expend your evident energies wisely. -- Alice^✉ 04:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed your comments at User talk:Traveler100#Plunging forward and I'd like to point out that there's no need for users to verify that they're the same users as on enwiki. Wikimedia uses as system called CentralAuth to provide global accounts to its users. While this is not perfect, and some users have local accounts only, this is easily verifiable thru Special:CentralAuth/Traveler100 or tools:~quentinv57/sulinfo/Traveler100. Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

CentralAuth is a great system, Snowolf (of course it doesn't work for banned "sockpuppets" like me). Those comments at User talk:Traveler100#Plunging forward were made at a time when we were having a certain amount of trouble from IBobi fanboys masquerading as newbies and I wanted to be sure that I was dealing with the genuine article and not someone that had just usurped (either by co-incidence or design) the moniker of an existing Wikipedian (it was pretty obvious from the first couple of edits of User:Traveler100 that they were not a neophyte).

Thanks for keeping an eye on things here! (I may shortly e-mail you in your steward capacity, if I may, after the Peters and I have thrashed out some practical matters on the topic of identity verification...) -- Alice^✉ 20:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alice, You said you have been accused of being a sockpuppet, and would like this to be cleared up by a checkuser. I am willing to put a request to a steward if you can point me to where the claim was made and most importantly whose sockpuppet you are accused of being. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The most recent occasion was earlier today here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jc8136&oldid=2087368#Nonsense

I don't just want a checkuser made because all that would prove is that we're editing from different continents. I've both e-mailed and spoken with Frank voice and what we both want is for a person or persons of self evident probity and reliability to see us each in the flesh with our official documentation and then make a public announcement that he has personally verified the identity of Frank (whose details including his date and place of birth, full legal name and permanent residence were disclosed several years ago to the WMF in the shape of Fred Bauder) from his German Passport, etc and that he has also seen me in the flesh and checked that I match my non-German Passport and that we are different individuals with different names, dates and decades of birth, height, weight and race. Then we can finally put this nonsense to rest for ever more. I shall e-mail Frank tonight and I hope we can co-ordinate a suitable place and time that I can take off from work. Frank is not well and really can not travel very far from Glasgow but I can travel. Frank is not worried by privacy concerns (I think) but I do not want my name or any other personal details published - simply that it has been established beyond any conceivable doubt that I am not Frank using an alias.

I was going to discuss this with Snowolf above and was drafting an approach when you fortuitously intervened. -- Alice^✉ 08:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Snowolf has better connections and knows the procedures better than me, but I am willing to help if I can. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! It's much appreciated.

Are you based on Australia's East coast? (Reply by e-mail under promise of confidentiality if you prefer...) -- Alice^✉ 20:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I am in Cape Town, South Africa. (Nothing confidential about that - it is stated on my userpage). Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although SIA does still have a direct flight to Cape Town, I'd prefer to find an admin in the Western half of the Pacific Rim since I am currently flying OZ/NZ routes with the odd Silk Air flight SIN to Cebu/Davao in March/April. Thanks anyway Peter, and if I can't find anyone closer I might still take you up on the offer if I can arrange cover -- Alice^✉ 07:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to help verify the separate identity of both of Alice and Frank. Am going to be flying through Hong Kong in two weeks to Kathmandu where I will be for a couple of weeks. Will than be flying to Kota Kinabalu via Hong Kong on Nov 3. I head to Japan on a fairly regular basis. Will of course be in London next summer and possibly up to Scotland. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

James, that would prove that there is another human who is not Frank. How will it help in proving that Frank has not edited using the Alice account? I am not saying that he has, but how can it be disproved? Nurg (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

True. That is impossible to disprove. I would suggest we AGF on that point. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You may have the capability to meet Alice and examine her actual passport however I would suggest that you do not. It would definitely set a precedent and it could be harming to the WV community without actually achieving anything conclusively. Although I'm not a legal expert I do believe all contributors should have a right to anonymity. I don't have an alternative solution to resolving this claim of sock-puppetry however I would ask that you consider the wider implications of checking up on users in person. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have meet hundreds of Wikipedians and Wikivoyagers at different events around the world. Often meeting in person if both are so inclined can solve problems. Maybe unlikely in this situation however. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

A lot of time is being wasted on this unnecessary drama. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I suggest we go back to the time honoured ancient judicial procedures of Scotland.

Alice should be bound hand and foot and thrown into a deep pond.

If Alice sinks, we can immediately and indubitably clear Alice of being a Sockpuppet, place the appropriate message of regret and apology at the top of this page and indefinitely protect both this page and the associated User page (from either moving, re-naming or editing) as that of a deceased Wikivoyager.

If Alice floats, we can immediately and indubitably convict Alice of being a Sockpuppet without further appeal, place the appropriate message of Sockpuppet status at the top of this page and indefinitely protect both this page and the associated User page (from either moving, re-naming or editing) as that of a Sockpuppet.

The advantages and efficacy of this procedure should be obvious and I recommend it for your earnest consideration. --92.26.113.205 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hilarious! James, what does "AGF" mean? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Assume Good Faith". A principle which does not appear to be applied with great consistency. The parallel with witch hunting is not too far off the mark in my opinion. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Alice is a sockpuppet of Frank, or that Frank is using Alice's account. Besides which we do not even have a rule forbidding sockpuppets. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am also a little concerned about this blocking action. Can someone point toward or summaries the reasoning behind it? I have worked on a number of pages were Frank has contributed too and have not seen a reason to complain. Alice has also made some useful contributes and yes, sometime some odd edits, but I have assumed good faith on lack of knowledge of things like templates rather than a deliberate act to cause problems.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have a rule forbidding using sockpuppets for disruption. So, I'd suggest that all accounts refrain from any activity that could be considered disruptive to the creation of our travel guide. Then nothing else is required. --Inas (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The list of exceptions to the user ban nomination process does not include mention of sockpuppets. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Alice. I don't want to revert your last edit to Philippines, because it was otherwise good, but "practice" is indeed the American spelling, and "caroling" is also American. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

So it's not like offense - offence, then. What's a good on-line source for US spelling, please? Growing up in Malaysia, you must be pretty good at spotting the differences, eh? -- Alice^✉ 08:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am, except that I sometimes have to think for a moment or get surprised by red lines on my browser when I favor a British spelling. And actually, American English is "offense," so it isn't always consistent. Webster's Dictionary or dictionary.com give primarily American spellings, but I don't know of a source that gives some kind of quick British-to-American spelling dictionary. In general, I noticed that consonants are not doubled in American English when it isn't really essential, so traveler, canceled, etc. That's pretty consistent. The our -> or spellings are pretty straightforward, as are the re -> er, for the most part (we do use "theatre" a lot in New York, but "theater" is the standard American spelling and is fine for New York, too). And in general, whereas ise may be used in British English, we usually use ize, as in magnetize, pulverize, idolize - but improvise is an exception. So I guess trial and error is really the only way. I'll end with a funny little story: I used to have a Canadian girlfriend, who remarked that Centre Street, in Downtown Manhattan, was the only correctly spelled street in New York. :-) All the best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seemed open when I walked past on tuesday. Doubt it has shut since then.Armin-t (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. Any chance you can wack in the other details then, like opening hours, phone number, etc? Don't knock yourself out! -- Alice^✉ 02:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So I volunteer my own free time to add to wikivoyage and you respond with sarcastic comments about me not doing enough? Sigh Armin-t (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

We're all volunteers here. Don't be so prickly and assume it was sarcasm - I deduce we have different cultural backgrounds and perhaps you need to understand that if I want to be nasty to anyone I will do so directly - not tangentially.

The colloquial comments above were intended to be in the same spirit as your original message and convey this meaning (not sarcasm and offence, and I am sorry that my grasp of English was insufficient to convey my intended meaning):

I deeply appreciate all the hard work you have done in improving not just our Otago articles, but many others. I appreciate that something, however partial, is better than nothing and if you could possibly find the time and inclination (the next time you are in the area - please don't make a special trip) to look at the opening times on the door and then add them to the listing, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! -- Alice^✉ 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alice. The correction you made to my syntax at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates - was that just to remove the blank line following the heading, or something else? cheers Nurg (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, the substantive change was to replace the "bar" or pipe symbol with a space in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Merge_from|the one at WP]? so that the link to Wikipedia then actually worked. I don't normally mess with other people's signed words on non-article pages but I thought you would rather have it corrected in this case, eh? -- Alice^✉ 03:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, not the first time I made that mistake. I didn't notice. Thanks very much for fixing it. Nurg (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice. You've got me thinking with this edit (thanks for the useful edit summary). If it was talking about the National Park, ie, APNP specifically, I could perhaps understand it. But it is referring to "a major" national park, ie, one of several major national parks. Having a quick look, I find the example "King Henry VIII (a particular member of a class) was a king of England (the class itself)" at http://goodtools.net/pages/SUNstyle/punct.htm. Not sure if there is more to it than I realise. cheers. Nurg (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know the Singapore educational system is very old-fashioned with English language grammar (Singapore still take O-Levels and A-Levels when the UK gave them up long ago 'cos Singapore was worried about marking inflation with the then new UK system) and there are some very tiny differences with NZ English, but I would be very surprised if I was wrong about this. Kings of England is a bad example to help because customary titles are often strange. Think about the Falklands Exclusion Zone. Before it was legally gazetted, it was just an exclusion zone around the Falklands. After it was gazetted and had a definite and precise legal boundary it was always capitalised (especially the more there was talk of Thatcher facing a war crimes tribunal for the Belgano sinking). Have a look at lists of "Kings of England" rather than "kings of England" - there is a subtly different meaning. I don't think the capitalisation's very important for the traveller in the case of Arthur's Pass National Park so I'll be happy to have you change it to whatever you think is right - but please don't savage me if I come back in a year's time and change the capitalisation back to what I would still think is correct having forgotten this conversation! -- Alice^✉ 08:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alice. I note your comment that an important and longstanding principle is that "Consensus is difficult to achieve if there is inadequate communication; the community has a right to be informed of the possibility of a change that may affect them." As yet the Consensus policy does not state anything close to that wording. The nutshell needs to be consistent with the policy. In this case the two are not consistent, so either the policy or the nutshell should change. What way should we go? Would you like to add the principle to the policy? Cheers. Nurg (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Most of my important edits tend to get reverted as the witterings of Sooty, with the hand of a German living in Glasgow stuck up her bum, so it might be better if you added it to the policy rather than me — but only if you agree with that principle, of course. If you don't agree, please tell me here and I'll eat some Weetbix and gird up my loins for battle... -- Alice^✉ 00:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Alice, I have opened discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Consensus#Add:_Communication_of_possible_changes.3F. Best to get consensus on additions to the consensus policy, lest I be accused of ignoring the very policy I was discussing. I hope you don't mind that I removed the sentence from the nutshell for now. We can add it back once it gets into the policy, if appropriate. Nurg (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I know I can see the number of edits of individual editors in the last 30 days at a special page eg: here, but is there any page or tool I can view that ranks WV editors by decreasing number of edits, please? -- Alice^✉ 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not aware of any local list that does what you want. On Wikipedia, developers make pages off-site where you can analyse edit counts. Also, let's remember that the number of edits someone has doesn't mean they are a better contributor than anyone else. Some people only edit every now and again but make huge content additions. JamesA ^>talk 01:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick (if somewhat disappointing) answer, James.

Your subsidiary point is so true (and I would also add that some editors — I'm a prime example of this — have to make sequential edits correcting their own spelling and syntax, etc rather than getting things spot on with their first edit, and this also boosts their count). -- Alice^✉ 01:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You're also completely right. We need a mix of all editors. Those who make many small, quick edits that revert vandalism or correct spelling/phrasing mistakes, and those who make large edits. So good on ya for all your help! :) By the way, if you really wanted to find such a list, try looking at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters. One of those external tools might have been modified to also work with Wikivoyage. JamesA ^>talk 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I remember that ClausHansen did on WT a quarterly statistic on how may edits user patrolled. I was quite good as it moved quite strong from quarter to quarter. The main target is different today but i guess that the statistic fun can be done. Currently it will be senseless as several bots and human are on the run and do major changes. It's the long run that count. jan (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice. Can you pls check your last edit to Dunedin [1]. There are 3 lots of "swim" there now. Just a slip obviously. cheers. Nurg (talk) 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ooops! I've fixed it now Thanks for covering my back! -- Alice^✉ 05:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alice, glad you like the North Island map. It won't be a problem to add have different sized dots for different sized cities. Just one question - are you proposing to use Fox Glacier instead of Westland NP? Westland is what's referenced in the Other destinations list, so I try to keep the names consistent with that and the Cities section. Unless you're suggesting changing Westland to Fox Glacier in the OD list (which may be a good idea, I'm not sure what's better known). -Shaundd (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was, but now I see it's even more complicated than I thought with both Westland and Westland National Park.

I've now suggested at the discussion page for the SI to abolish the three West Coast sub-regions. Right now, Franz Josef is more well known by tourists than either Westland or Fox Glacier but I predict that will rapidly change in the next couple of years as activities at Franz switch to Fox because of the umungous hole at Franz. If my abolition proposal is not opposed, I would indeed suggest switching between Fox Glacier instead of Westland NP - that should add a bit of future-proofing.

Do you also have room to green shade Paparoa National Park and/or Punakaiki? -- Alice^✉ 07:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Swept in from the pub

Is this technically possible and, if so, how would one achieve this exactly, please? -- Alice^✉ 08:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible outside of installing a client-side filter in your web-browser. LtPowers (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that - it's very useful sometimes to have a firm negative - it saves time looking for something that might not even exist. Looking on the bright side, it may not be necessary now that an "draped-amphibian"-free future is looking more likely here... -- Alice^✉ 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to anything that says its the first? Otago is generally classed as the original [2], then first completed following the announcement of the plan was st james [3] [4]? Not picking a fight, just keeping you honest...Armin-t (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Although I admit I just noticed there could be a distinction for specifice 'mountain biking' tracks - still could not find anything to confirm. Armin-t (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neither are the first purpose built trail. As I hope I've now made crystal clear, Dun Mountain was indeed the first Great Ride purpose built for Mountain Biking as opposed to touring. That's one of the reasons the all-NZ downhill championships have been held in Nelson. None of it's sections are really very suitable for wheelchair users I'm afraid. I have always tried to live my life honestly. -- Alice^✉ 21:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All good but is there a link or something you can point to to confirm? Armin-t (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict) Almost certainly. But don't believe everything you read on-line. There are currently, only 18 Great Rides in NZ and 10 in the SI. Which do you nominate as the "first Great Ride to be finished in the South Island especially for Mountain Biking" if you really think it's not the Dun Mountain Trail, please? -- Alice^✉ 21:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is that it was the third great cycle ride to be completed [5]. Admittedly it may be the first classed as 'grade 3' - but that is a different argument as to what is mountain biking or not (which seems to be in its general sense anything off road, which would cover all of the trail, although I'm sure the mountain bikers i know would disagree).Armin-t (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's where both my local and specialist knowledge comes in - I have sources other than and in addition to those on-line (but I can't say too much more on that topic because I value my personal privacy and keeping my tru-life identity a secret). Perhaps an analogy may be helpful: just because I walk up Mount Arthur without using even my hands, never mind ropes or belays or other mountaineering techniques, doesn't make that mountaineering. If you really think I'm wrong, seek a second opinion - as you did with Talk:South_Island#Temperatures. -- Alice^✉ 22:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This one [6], St James, first to be finished, listed as advanced grade [7]. And I certainly don't believe everything but I'm pretty confident with the facts and statements from government and council web-sites.Armin-t (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again, you miss the subtle point. St James does indeed have difficult and challenging sections (but none as challenging as Dun Mountain) but it also has sections specifically recommended for wheelchair users. Now please go and ask your mountain biking friends if the Dun Mountain Trail [8] was the first Great Ride to be finished in the South Island especially for Mountain Biking is a true statement or not, please. Tell me the result if it's anything different from what I expect. -- Alice^✉ 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is ridiculous. Quotes from the NZ Department of Conservation web-site I linked to about St James "Of the 18 nationally promoted cycle trails, it requires the greatest level of experience to complete." and "the first of the country’s ‘Great Rides’ to be fully completed." You letting your 'ownership' concern over your comments and anger at me prevent you from actually thinking reasonably about this. You have not provided any link or evidence to back your claim, purely hear-say, and I have provided multiple links to official web-sites backing my view. Armin-t (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Calm down, please. What is "your view" ?

I really am finding it tedious that you continually ignore the subtle difference between being "the first of the country’s ‘Great Rides’ to be fully completed." and what is actually in our article. Please state clearly now whether you consider the Dun Mountain Trail was the first Great Ride to be finished in the South Island especially for Mountain Biking is a true statement or not, please and then come back with the result of asking your mountain biking friends was too, please. If you really don't think that the Dun Mountain Trail was the first Great Ride to be finished in the South Island especially for Mountain Biking, which was? -- Alice^✉ 22:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Your not even reading my comments. As I said 3 times, the St James Trail. It is what I consider, and what is listed on the official web-sites. The Dun-Mountain trail is not technically a 'great ride' anyway, it is only one part of the official Nelson/Tasman 'great ride' [8]. I'm not bothering my friends with an internet argument. Either come up with some evidence to prove (a) Dun mountain trail is a great ride and it was the first especially for mountain biking, and (b) St James is not especially for mountain biking (and I'm sure you can walk on it if you feel the need, just as you can with Dun), or I'm changing it back. We are really arguing over a technicality anyway, the whole section needs a rework i think.Armin-t (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice. I know you're an expert on Singapore, so may like to weigh in on that discussion I started. JamesA ^>talk 01:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I must recuse - but thanks for the heads up anyway! -- Alice^✉ 01:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this? It's not like your change had any consensus behind it. But anyway, Commonwealth English is not a standard of English. There is no book with guidelines on how to write proper Commonwealth English; it doesn't exist. It's a loose grouping of widely different varieties, not a standardized register that users can follow when writing. American English and British English are standardized registers that site readers can follow. Globe-trotter (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

First, let's be clear what we're talking about, here: registers are spoken and there is no more one single standard spoken variety of "British English" than there is a standard spoken variety of "American English". Glaswegian, when spoken, differs as much from Cornish as Lousiana cajun does from Maine. If the Glaswegian and the Cornishman are writing formally, they and I will all use Commonwealth English with the same spellings and many common constructions and vocabulary - even though I'm writing half a world away from Europe. When writing, one can definitely speak of a US and a Commonwealth variety and I delineate the geographic boundaries here: User:Alice/Kitchen/English_language_varieties#Usage_by_countries. It's a bit like male and female - there is whole gamut or spectrum of anatomy and secondary gender characteristics but that does not stop most people knowing what toilet they're usually going to use. Most writers of English know which side of the fence to group themselves on, in a similar way. Another way to look at it is that a Singaporean, for example, often feels more politically comfortable when saying that they use Commonwealth rather than British English. That's not necessarily true of all the ex-British colonies. An Irishman (usually conscious of his literary heritage of Wilde, Behan, Swift, Shaw, Keating, Joyce, Goldsmith, Burke, Synge, Yeats, Heaney, Sheridan and Beckett) would usually vomit in equal measure at the description of his writings as being in either British or Commonwealth English! This really is the principle of least offence. Commonwealth English is not going to offend anyone (except some Irish as just mentioned) but that is certainly not true of the label British English!

We obviously have a different definition of the word consensual; I propose a change, nobody opposes it for 3 weeks and then when I make the actual change proposed on the discussion page you rip it out to suit yourself and Peter in a sort of grotesque tag team of destructive edits. I think I'll leave you guys to it for a bit and see if a more knowledgeable and collegiate group of editors come on board. Thank you and good night. -- Alice^✉ 08:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a standard way of writing of British English. Sure, many spoken varieties, but a written standard that's accepted. There is not a single written standard for all Commonwealth varieties, as each country has its own written standard. Singaporean Standard English is not "Commonwealth English", it is Singaporean Standard English. The Republic of Ireland is not even a member of the Commonwealth. Canadian English uses a vocabulary that has a lot more in common with U.S. English. Might as well refer to these varieties as they are, instead of making some random "all countries except the US" grouping. Commonwealth English doesn't exist. Singaporeans won't be offended if described they're writing in Singaporean Standard English. They might be offended if claimed they're writing in Commonwealth English, considering they don't.

About consensus. It's all written out at Wikivoyage:Consensus. Consensus means people agree. It doesn't mean only you agree. If you add something without any response, this doesn't mean there is suddenly a consensus for your change! It just means people overlooked or maybe didn't bother to respond. When you change the complete tone of an article without any consensus whatsoever it's all good, but when someone else does the same, you're "offended". Adding shortcuts to many sections of policy pages without any consensus, it's all good, but then don't be surprised when a consensus is actually reached at Wikivoyage talk:Shortcuts#Shortcuts for everything and they're removed... Globe-trotter (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's really getting wearisome that you don't actually bother to read what I write so I think I will just have to give up responding to you - it's quite literally a waste of my time. I'm quite amused that you should try and lecture me about a topic where it's so obvious you know very little. I'm tired of this nonsense so I'll just confine myself to a simple question: where may I read about this mythical beast: "Singaporean Standard English" in a written (as opposed to a spoken) form? Again you have missed the critical distinction I make above between oral and written forms: [9]

As for consensus - you wouldn't know it if you stepped on it and it bit you. Where do I see you seeking consensus here for the ignorant and appallingly destructive series of edits you made here? You even don't understand that the "British Islands" is a term officially used by HMG to mean the territories of the UK, Isle of Man and the two Bailiwicks of the Channel Islands - it's not some sloppy spelling mistake for the (entirely different geographical concept of the) "British Isles! -- Alice^✉ 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's clear even you agree Commonwealth English doesn't exist, so I'm glad we agree on this point. The written variety in Singapore is British English, not Commonwealth English. About my edits of the Measurements page, I'm not sure what you disagree with. Bring it up on the talk page and we'll discuss it. Not sure how it's "destructive", as I kept everything in tact, except river flowing speeds and pressure measurements (this is a travel guide, not a physics journal...). I know about "British Islands", but most people don't and might confuse the term with "British Isles", so I thought it's easier to just refer to the United Kingdom and omit this technicality of the small islands that surround it. Globe-trotter (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice. Do you know what we do with the categories for the pages that have been turned into redirects. I did this but not sure if it's the right thing to do. Nurg (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid I know nothing whatsoever about (the recent introduction and) use of categories here at WV. I think I will learn how to draw maps. but otherwise I'm getting rather dispirited about the silly "I don't like it, we've never done it that way" style of "discussion" here that seems inimical to efficient development and the participation of different cultures and aesthetics and I may conclude that this project is not a good use of my time in future. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and best regards for the future and apologies for my delayed response. -- Alice^✉ 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Was this a mistake? Can it be deleted? Texugo (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was. I keep slipping up and putting "wp:" as the namespace instead of "wv:". Sorry, for the extra work and yes, the wrongly created page at wp:ad should be deleted, while wv:ad should stand as the re-direct to that tout policy page section. Thanks! -- Alice^✉ 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I blasted it.Texugo (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -- Alice^✉ 05:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if I moved your IB comment from Search Expedition over to WV & WT? That way we can keep the one discussion looking forward, and the other looking back? --Inas (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Whatever you think best, Inas... Thanks for asking. -- Alice^✉ 05:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For the cleanup at Queenstown, Tasmania - one of my former places of living...I hadnt even started checking at that level... (not as nice as the south island one btw...) sats (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

How nice (and unusual) to be thanked! I'm more used to dodging brickbats from the old guard around here...

By the way, I'd love you to express an opinion about our Talk:South_Island#Boundary_of_Queenstown-Lakes_.2F_Otago.3F question since I guess you may have visited the South Island -- Alice^✉ 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey I have a very very soft spot for my old town of residence, a bleak place more like some of the south island west coast - isolated little former mining communities... I have watched you in recent changes in your endless efforts on south island topics and realise my conflation of the two queenstowns (in the early 2000s I took my 3 young children and wife to Tasmania Queenstown to see where I had lived and worked when younger... I had wished it had been Queenstown South Island...) I really miss the place (south island) even though the visit was so short when I did. More recently an old uni friend had been a professor at one of the universities in, yup, tourism.... will look where you asked, and thanks for responding, btw I have no problem if I have to wait re admin, I suspect my naivete (byte space and automated acount creation being a start...) will carry me through regardless of what happens. sats (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice, I have responded to your question here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

and again. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up Philippe - I can save you some work in future, because I invariably watch any page I edit for at least 14 days and thus, am automatically e-mailed about any changes. -- Alice^✉ 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and comments, Alice. If you ever need assistance from someone with shiny buttons, you know where to go ;) JamesA ^>talk 12:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know that already, James - you're widely known already as one of the more helpful and technically knowledgeable editors around here... -- Alice^✉ 01:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Pretty sure you're not right about an IDP and no local licence being valid in the Philippines after 3 months. It is inconsistent with the other information out there, and it doesn't make sense, as and IDP is just a translation not a licensing document. Do you have any source, that says anywhere in the world you can drive on an IDP when your foreign licence is no longer valid? It doesn't make sense. --Inas (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delayed reply, Inas - I wanted to check my facts and opinions...

We're actually both right here, Inas.

You are absolutely legally correct if you hold that an IDP is just a translation of a national entitlement to drive that has been certified by an approved organisation (in NZ, it's the AA that issues IDP's and the AAP in the Philippines ) and is in one of two forms approved by two different international conventions dating from 1949 (Geneva) or, more rarely 1926 (Paris).

However, after checking the position now with several members of the Philippines National Police and sundry Pilipino Balikbayan and expatriate Philippines residents, I still believe that my edits were helpful to travellers in that it may be more useful for them to know the practical (as opposed to the theoretical legal position) when they are harassed by Buaya (in Cebuano, more commonly spelt Buwaya in Tagalog) or the "traffic police crocodiles". I think it's a pity that drivers are shaken down by cops either ignorant of the law or abusing others' ignorance, but the original edit (and my supporting edit) was intended to reflect the reality on the ground... -- Alice^✉ 23:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are still misunderstanding the situation. It can be useful/valid to have an IDP/foreign licence. It can be useful/valid to have a local licence. It may even in some bizarre corners of the world be useful to have an IDP and a local licence. What can never be valid is to recommend to a traveller that they just have an IDP and no local licence when their foreign licence is no longer valid. This was the content I removed from the article. This is a scary position to recommend, insurance, etc may all be invalidated. So firstly, recommend what licence a road user needs to drive legally. If you'd like to suggest they get an IDP as well fine, but just driving on an IDP without a valid licence (local or foreign to back it up). is extremely risky, almost certainly illegal, and just not a generally good thing to do. --Inas (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did indeed misunderstand your intent, both with your edit and with your initial comment in this section, Inas!

The original edit (correcting 30 days to 90 days in longstanding text not of my origination) was made by an editor that I have observed to be making some very useful edits to Philippines articles, Sky Harbor.

My edit to that correction was not comprehensive but merely served to "avoid ambiguity between "International driver's licenses" and "International Driver's Permit"" in that I understood the previous text not to be referring to an IDP when it spoke about "International driver's licenses" but rather drivers licenses that were not from the Philippines and that were, in that sense ""Foreign driver's licenses". I was fairly sure at the time I made that edit that the 90 days was indeed correct (and I'm sure now that it is [10] [11] [[12] [13]) but needed to check the practical enforcement of the 90 day rule and whether there was indeed legally an extended period of 1 year (as prescribed by international treaty) if a valid foreign driving licence was accompanied by a valid IDP. Those enquiries are not yet complete, but I have a meeting next month in Cebu where I hope to get the definitive answer. Meanwhile, I agree that it is best to keep the advice simple and accurate, so I have made the appropriate changes that I hope will meet with your approval. -- Alice^✉ 06:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have further reverted your policy article changes regarding thumbnails and sizing. It appears to me that you are spending your time by inserting changes into policy articles so trivial/boring that most everyone will pass them by, and then start harassing editors who actually write useful travel guides with them. And then going back to your tired flaming routine.

Before you start on again with your 7 year old denial shtick—designed like most of your edits to waste others' time—you are well aware that you have been blocked indefinitely or partially for your weird sockpuppet routine on multiple sites. All your known accounts are permanently banned from Wikipedia, and have had your "non-primary" accounts banned on Wikitravel. Your edit patterns are extremely obvious to anyone who has an eye for this type of thing. Anyway, this in particular is less of an issue now, as you appear to have chosen this as your primary account, and are no longer using sockpuppets to further disruptive behavior.

I will keep a closer eye on this type of behavior in the future, but that's a shame to have to, as it is a distraction from work I do on meaningfully improving Wikivoyage. --Peter ^Talk 22:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

is but an intersection--Inas (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The more I look there are ridiculous tyops and factual innacuracies in articles about australia - it is very hard to be polite for a lot of the mistakes - sats (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's the beauty of a wiki. There are great authors (like User:Jpatokal and User:Pbsouthwood) and then there are the tedious ants like me that (when they're not blocked by ignorant traditionalists and US-centrics) try to improve our guide in tedious and boring ways like making sure that spelling is intelligible and that forced image sizes don't blow folks' cellphone data roaming budgets. In some ways it's good that you get emotionally involved, sats, since it may give you the hormone rush to do more productive editing than less. New Zealand articles have lots of howlers too - there seems to be a regrettable tendency to claim biggest, oldest, longest, heaviest first, etc - with or without the qualification of in the Southern hemisphere/North Island/Australasia, etc and without any indication of a source for the claim. I'm guilty myself of that "blindly following the local tourist board" type of editing sometimes. -- Alice^✉ 00:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Let they who are without sin, Alice. In addition to advising people to drive illegally in the Philippines, Manguri has now moved another 400km away from where it was before. Please take care. I'm not entirely convinced that we need non-breakable spaces if they are going to cause the introduction of serious factual errors. --Inas (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for spotting that weird slip-up, Inas. I certainly agree that non-breakable spaces are not worth the possibility of such important mistakes being introduced inadvertently and sorry for that! -- Alice^✉ 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Was there an agreement I missed somewhere to always use default thumbnail sizing? This edit makes the thumbnails ridiculously small unless I change my defaults, but I didn't want to change it back on the off chance I missed a discussion. My understanding is that there was still disagreement about not specifying a size. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You can change your default sizes for thumbnails in your user preferences - and change them backwards and forwards again at will if you start using a smaller/larger screen or larger/slower connection. Please remember that it is the traveller that comes first (in this case, our readers) rather than the travel guide editor who, unless there is a very good reason to do so, should not seek to over-ride the preferences set by the reader.

This ability has been in the Wikimedia software we use for quite some time and there has been relevant discussion here, Ryan: Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Sizing_of_images -- Alice^✉ 00:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that thumbnail defaults can be specified. However, per the discussion you linked to there isn't yet any agreement to have all images use defaults, so I've restored the Antarctica images to their larger sizes. I think your argument about reader vs editor is addressed in the linked discussion, so I won't comment on that here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you are right that you should comment at Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Sizing_of_images (rather than go around forcing arbitrary image widths on all our readers because of your own personal preferences {or, possibly, out of a misplaced sense of loyalty}). Please point me to the consensus discussion that concluded that image widths in thumbnails should be specified, Ryan. If there wasn't one, surely my preference is just as valid as yours? -- Alice^✉ 01:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What is a superimposition artifact? --Traveler100 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Before my nosey interference, your 2 "Babel Boxes" were superimposed on the top right corner of the article statistics table, which I assume you wanted corrected by the introduction of the clear all previous floats HTML.

Although, <br style="clear:both" /> is more righteous, this isn't good enough in some circumstances; legacy browsers would ignore inline CSS. To cancel floating under all conditions the following markup (valid XHTML 1.0 transitional) works:

<br clear="all" />. Keep up the good work! -- Alice^✉ 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop blanking articles - there are well-defined process for deleting an article, namely a VFD or if the article refers to a geographic place then create a REDIRECT. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you had read the edit summary of "ADMIN, PLEASE HELP! I THINK THIS PAGE SHOULD BE SPEEDY DELETED following consensus reached on regional re-organisation at Talk:South Island" you might well have concluded that it could, indeed, have been speedy deleted since it was never a real geographical place or even a real article with any content that was not duplicated elsewhere, but merely a regional fiction. Nevertheless I shall now follow your advice and re-direct this and other obsolete "regions" in the same boat to South Island -- Alice^✉ 00:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I most definitely read the edit summary. There is no policy that justifies me (as an admin) speedy deleting those pages. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough - but wouldn't it have been quicker to just re-direct them yourself? Can I VFD a re-direction page without putting a VFD template on it? -- Alice^✉ 00:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you want to VFD any page just put {{vfd}} on it and list it at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. The only time this process is tricky is when doing a template VFD, in which case you need to be careful to do a <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude>. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The page in question is the page I just wanted an admin to speedy delete since it should not linger on as a Zombie page; it is not a place, travel topic, likely search term or anything else useful in any way to a traveller: South (New Zealand)

I've slapped {{vfd}} on it now but that does not produce the usual templated notice of

This page has been nominated for deletion. After taking a look at the deletion policy, please weigh in with your opinion at Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion. Please do not remove this notice as it must remain on the article until the nomination discussion is complete. If you are the author of this article, this nomination is not a critique of your work, but is instead a notice that the article title or subject may not meet Wikivoyage's criteria, or that the content might belong in another Wikivoyage article.

that I see elsewhere. Sorry to be so abstruse, but I usually create articles rather than destroy them. -- Alice^✉ 23:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just put the vfd template above the redirect. That way people can see it has been voted for deletion. The redirect will turn soft below the notice. This is a good thing because people won't miss the vfd notice by being redirected before they are aware of it. --Inas (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alice, I believe you now need to list it at the VFD page. cheers, Nurg (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are you not listing it at VFD? Nurg (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because I'm just a "sockpuppet" so nobody pays any attention to a word I say - consequently I'm thinking of permanently quitting this unproductive and unfriendly snake pit. Why don't you or Ryan nominate it for deletion? If I do, I'm sure one of the gang will come up with all sorts of reasons (tradition, not a valid reason, I like it, blah, blah, blah) for not deleting it so I really don't see the point in doing anything here any more. -- Alice^✉ 09:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not nominating it for deletion at this point because I don't know whether it should be deleted or not. I can think of reasons for and against, so I was waiting with interest to see your reasoning. Then I would decide whether I supported your proposal, opposed it, or remained in two minds. Nurg (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I say this as someone who is supportive of the proposal to use relative image sizing, but please, please stop changing images to use that formatting while discussion is still ongoing. We are far from any consensus to change how images have traditionally been sized, so let the discussion play out before making changes. There are two reasons for this: first, if the final decision is not to use relative sizing, or if someone brings up another option, then we'll have to chase down your changes and undo them, or, if the decision is to use relative sizing, then having a handful of pages that already implement that change may make any sort of automated change more difficult. Second, it makes it very difficult to build consensus when a key member in the discussion appears to be charging ahead without regard for dissenting arguments, as the debate about whether or not to make a change then becomes little more than a charade for someone imposing their preferences on others. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:External links explains the currently accepted format for external links. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No policy change proposal is necessary to continue to use relative image sizing.
It has been an essential feature of our software for many years and there has never been a policy to forbid it's use in favour of forced display of exact pixel widths to over-ride user set preferences.

The discussion you refer to {Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Sizing_of_images} was in favour of both

1) increasing the choice of default image widths available to be selected by registered users

and

2) increasing the default image width for thumbnails imposed on un-registered user (or registered users who had not bothered to log in) from 220px. (My proposal was to go to 300px and certainly a consensus emerged for at least 270px)

As so often happens around here, the discussion achieved no concrete progress since (1) was deemed technically problematic by Wikimedia tech staff and no admin (including, reprehensibly, yourself) bothered to renew the request for just (2) as a stand-alone proposal.-- Alice^✉ 12:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

moved from Talk:Bohol

For as long as I have been editing on Wikivoyage, we have generally preferred images to be plain thumbnails and right aligned.

Thumbnails are (by default) set to respect readers' choices so that readers on slow or expensive data connections are not too frustrated by slow loading and/or high charges while logged in. Readers on fast connections and/or with large screens can adjust their user preferences to have these plain thumbnails to display larger. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PIC#Pixel_counts_vs._upright_factors for more detail.

In ordinary run-of-the-mill article placement it should rarely be necessary to have images other than plain thumbnails and these should usually be aligned on the right and it's advisable to give a rational reason if specifying strange fixed image widths.

If I am in error in not having noticed a consensus develop to ban perfectly valid and usual MediaWiki image syntax, then I apologise for my ignorance and would be grateful to receive a pointer to what I may have missed.

(I do know that no policy change proposal is necessary to continue to use relative image sizing. It has been an essential feature of our software for many years and there has never been a policy to forbid it's use in favour of forced display of exact pixel widths to over-ride user set preferences.

The only discussion that I am aware of at Wikivoyage_talk:Image_policy#Sizing_of_images was in favour of both

1) increasing the choice of default image widths available to be selected by registered users and

2) increasing the default image width for thumbnails imposed on un-registered user (or registered users who had not bothered to log in) from 220px. (My proposal at that discussion was to go to 300px and certainly a consensus emerged for at least 270px))

I would welcome hearing User:Texugo's rationale for flouting users' preferences by setting just two thumbnail widths in this article to be forced to be exactly 300px wide. (Why not 330px or 432px or some other arbitrary number?) -- Alice^✉ 20:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I accept that the EEA is a region, and we can have a page describing it. I even see some use in discussing visas, etc. But it is a term not commonly understood. Your description that most people think Switzerland is in it, even when it isn't, shows exactly how poorly understood it is. I really think we should avoid it if we can. In this edit [14], your comment was that Iceland has some nice cycling routes too. This is great info to add. However, your change from Western European that is commonly understood, to EEA isn't a step forward in clarity or meaning, IMO. --Inas (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK I still dont like the article - it was in its earlier form in the tone of do this and dont do that, it is an embarassemnt of an article - the issues are much more complex than a little grab bag of generic generalisations - havent had the time to see how indigenous of xx articles are for other countries yet... will probably have look at them before I go back to it sats (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice, Thanks for fixing, I didn't know it was broken. It used to work OK on WT. I guess the software here is a little different. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Talk:Taiwanese_Hokkien_phrasebook really needs someone who speaks the language to weigh in. I have lived in Singapore and Quanzhou, so I know a bit about it but not nearly enough. I think a merge with Minnan phrasebook is obviously correct, but I could be wrong.

Are you a Hokkien speaker? If not, are there other Singaporeans you could ask? Pashley (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

hi Alice. There's a penguin sound file that you added at Oamaru#See but it doesn't work. Are you able to fix - or should we remove? cheers Nurg (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

G'Day, Nurg.

Sorry about that. After all the talk about adding audio clips, I assumed we already had the template to play them! In a quick and dirty fashion I've imported the necessary template now, and, right at this minute, you can hear the penguins. However, someone from the deletionist tendency will, no doubt shortly delete {{listen}} and I have a plane to catch, so I'd be very grateful if you could clean things up for me by removing wikipedia red-links, etc... -- Alice^✉ 19:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some cleaning up as best I can. I suggest you check over it when you're back. Nurg (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice, We would like to finalise the nomination of SatuSuro, and your comments are one of the few outstanding items. SatuSuro has now been editing for nearly 3 months, and has contributed a fair amount in mainspace and to policy discussions in a constructive manner. Would you be so kind as to make your current position on this matter clear at WV:Administrator nominations? Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have responded previously (and again just now) but I think you now may realise that I was waiting for Cacahuate to withdraw his objection, Peter. -- Alice^✉ 00:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think the order of withdrawal of objections is very important. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

In case you didn't notice Singapore Changi Airport just got its own article in the same way as some other huge airports. As an aviation enthusiast presumably living in Singapore, I thought you'd love to "plunge forward". Ypsilon (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Alice. Can you check I've got the coords right for Ezana Stone. Keep putting the text in & I'll tidy the typos. cheers. Nurg (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yup, you've nailed it, Nurg! -- Alice^✉ 12:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Check if my last edit to Lalibela is correct. Nurg (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting my typos again Nurg - that was a real howler having 2 "North-Western" church complexes! -- Alice^✉ 11:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad you like the banner. Could do with a bit of improvement, but there's not a whole lot of appropriate shots available online. Maybe you could take some and stitch them into a panorama! Enjoy your travels. James A ▪ talk 09:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a wonderful composition suggesting the majesty of the highlands that surround Lalibela and emphasizes the pinkness of Abba Libanos's rock. The picture was obviously taken before the shelters were erected in the nineties but still I had to check the offset of the windows to make sure it wasn't wrongly captioned since I did not remember it looking like that. I actually got up at 5 this morning to go and check it at first light at 05:45 and was unable to find the photographer's standpoint despite climbing around for three hours. Part of it is the cropping, I think, but it really is a great shot and ideal for the article.

Because of security and privacy concerns (famous passengers and all that) we're not allowed to carry camera phones and I very rarely pack a heavy camera - usually there is someone else that does have a camera and I get them to e-mail me a pic. That doesn't work now we have to use the Commons of course...

I'm getting a bit wound up by the lack of progress with either external links or image syntax policy so I may take a few months break to let my lips heal from all that biting, Nurg... -- Alice^✉ 12:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alice. I was delighted with the work you did on Ethiopia as I am planning to go there at the end of the year, and was interested to confirm the locations for Ezana Stone, the tombs, & the Rome Stele. Did you go to the Lioness of Gobedra and the quarry? They are ones I haven't managed to geolocate with total precision and confidence.

Now I know you are a bit wound up by the lack of progress with some policies. They are not policies I have taken much notice of. But I don't know why you don't just relax a bit and try to exercise a bit more patience. When you, I and others worked on the South Island reorg, both you and I found ourselves on the wrong side of consensus on one point or another, but we each respected the consensus. As Ryan said below (addressed to you, not the Belfast IP), you make a lot of good edits. I hope you will come back from your break and make more of the many good edits you do, but to chill out a bit and not be quite so headstrong and provocative when you find yourself ahead of your time.

As you will have seen below, someone has started editing from 90.215.245.164 in Belfast. The edits are so much like yours that initially I just assumed you had moved on from Ethiopia to Belfast. I was then surprised to find that this person claimed to be "a County Kerry man". Further, they claim to not be you.

Ryan referred below to you being blocked on WP for being a sock puppet of W. Frank. I believe your assurance that you are not a sock puppet of Frank and that you have discussed this with Frank. I presume you have something in common with Frank that has led to some similarities in editing, resulting in that erroneous allegation of puppetry.

I strongly suspect, however, that you are the new user Ip90-215-245-164. How come when you take a break, Ip90-215-245-164 pops up editing in the same style. Why bother?

I don't care whether you have the wiki persona of a woman who lives in Singapore, or a man from Kerry, while the real you might be an hermaphrodite from Alaska, as I am. We all judge fellow editors by the quality of their edits, not by their wiki persona or (if revealed) real identity. I judge your edits as often top class, and occasionally niggardly when you get frustrated and go against consensus. Why not be a bit less headstrong, stick to your established account, change your account's persona from a Singapore one to something else if you wish, and try harder at the cooperation, consensus, and compromise. I don't need to see your passport; I want to see your good edits and to see your compromise when you're been unable to win every debate.

Cheers. Nurg (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice. It dawns on me that perhaps your wikibreak was preplanned and that you decided to give the pot a good stir before you went. Consider the pot well stirred. I guess we will see you in a few months and hopefully things will be more harmonious. Happy travelling. Nurg (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some people seem to think I'm really you! --90.215.245.164 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Special:Contributions/90.215.245.164 is either you or someone who has randomly chosen to exactly copy your specific interest areas, editing style, and choice of shortcuts in edit summaries. Combined with the fact that w:Special:Contributions/Alice is blocked for sock puppetry on Wikipedia, it's next to impossible to come to any conclusion other than that you're playing games with us.

After having privately messaged several other admins to solicit their opinions, the following seems to be clear:

• You make a lot of good edits here, but you also make a lot of disruptive edits. At this point a consensus is emerging that you've been given enough feedback that your style changes, policy changes, and other edits meant to provoke reactions from other editors need to stop. Examples include numerous spelling battles, time and date format edit wars, your brief spate of questionable template creation, relative image size changes, front-link changes, etc, etc.
• Whatever game you're playing with this IP account is a breach of the trust needed for editors on a wiki; you need to stop that immediately.
• If you would like to continue editing here you need to rebuild your credibility. If someone is concerned about style or formatting changes you are making, stop making those changes. If someone disagrees with you, don't dismiss that disagreement and resort to name calling. And stop making edits that you know are disruptive - you are well aware when an edit you are making is going to push someone's buttons, so just don't do it.

If you would like to contribute constructively then you are welcome to continue editing here. However, while some past actions have been concerning, this latest adventure with the IP account crosses a line into trolling that calls into question whether your edits on this site can be trusted or whether you are simply here to be disruptive. So it's your choice: if you can avoid creating further drama I'll personally put a barnstar on this page to thank you for your contributions, but if your future edits indicate that your goal is primarily to disrupt the site, expect to start seeing your edits reverted without comment. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we all please calm down a bit?

As for the putative sock puppet bunch of numbers, I agree it looks like Alice but "it's next to impossible to come to any conclusion other than ..." seems wildly overstated. Anyway, there is an established procedure for dealing with such issues, Wikivoyage:Checkuser. Ryan, if you really think this BoN is Alice and there's a serious problem here, then you should invoke that procedure. Pashley (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Who is BoN? Also, stewards will decline to run a CU that will connect a user account to an IP address. --Rschen7754 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, a BoN is a "bunch of numbers", an IP address. Pashley (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the stewards would decline a CU request for this, but it is possible to analyze behavior and come to a determination that way. --Rschen7754 04:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why would one not simply do a check user of Frank and Alice to see if they are using the same IP address? If they are case is closed. One would need both to be editing though. If Alice is no longer editing nothing needs to be done as what damage is being done by an unused account? Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know you have an interest in airlines. Is Talk:China#Airline_info something you might help with? Pashley (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey Alice, you have been indefinitely blocked by User:Cjensen as some feel that your account is controlled by User:W. Frank. Anyway not sure if it is possible to prove otherwise to the satisfaction of those who feel that this is the case. Also not sure if you are still interested in contributing to WV. We may be able to look at it further at some point if you are interested in contributing again. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the block settings while I wait for an explanation of why this user was blocked indefinitely in apparent violation of policy. 1 day should be enough time to allow a reply from the blocking admin. Our policy does not allow for blocking the user from editing their own user page, and there does not appear to have been a ban nomination or any discussion. If there is another policy somewhere which does authorize these actions, please inform me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The reasons are here and here, and the evidence is all over this talk page. I think there is no particular policy for this situation, and I am not sure we need it. Common sense should be enough. And if not, it is bad luck for all people involved. --Alexander (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is not clear to me how the links provided as reasons relate to an indefinite block without prior user ban nomination when there is no apparent exemption applicable.

It is also not clear to me what the situation is for which there may be no particular policy. As I understand it, one of the reasons to discuss proposed user bans on the user ban nomination page is that the situation can be defined, and when appropriate new policy can be made. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes open community discussion should take place before an indef ban occurs. It is unfortunately to see long time editors leave. Banning an account that hasn't edited since June of 2013 does not however seem like the solution. Travel Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Alice. I reverted this edit in which you removed a space between a numeral and a unit. In a separate edit I changed the ordinary space to a non-breaking space. As you know, Wikivoyage:Measurements#Avoid orphaned units still says "we have a mild preference for separating the number from its associated unit by a single space". Unless and until the policy is changed by consensus, please don't remove such spaces. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

When I am already copy editing a section and I see an amount separated from its unit by a non breaking space, I simply delete the space because that is at least five keyboard strokes less than inserting a non-breaking space and to leave it as an ordinary space would violate the spirit of wv:aou.

Since there is no policy either way, you have as much right to stick the space back in again (breaking or non-breaking) as I have to remove it. In fact, our current "mild preference" might even be said to contradict and fly in the teeth of the rationale for wv:HTML.

Since well-respected online and freely available style guides and the best selling printed travel guide series on the planet all favour the more condensed and consistent (see temperature and electrical units) style, I really find it difficult to admit that I am doing something wicked here. -- Alice^✉ (editing without logging on because I am wary of compromising my password where I currently am) from IP address 61.29.8.33 11:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I notice that changing spelling to British style English is a particular passion of yours, and in the case of 'Munich City Center' Munich/City_Center you might actually be correct. I would however ask in future that you at least announce your action on the talk page of an article before making a significant change such as this. Thanks Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that using British spelling in articles about places in the EU should be uncontroversial, as it's the official English variety of the EU. That is, unless I'm missing something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't suggesting EU spellings in British English were controversial. I was just asking that a significant change (such as changing the spelling of an article title) just have a corresponding entry in the talk page as a courtesy to other contributors. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say that it's a passion. It's just that when I arrived here from Wikipedia many moons ago, I wanted a rest from all the angel-dancing-on-pinheads discussions and thought I would restrict myself to what I thought was uncontroversial copyediting.

How wrong I was! Whether there is a space or not before the degree symbol and other minutiae seems to arouse a passion in the strangest people - people who when they look like losing a discussion on the merits, then resort to name-calling and blocking.

If I'm doing other copyediting, I do tend to correct spellings in conformity with the local variety officially or commonly used. For most of the countries of the world that will not be US English, but in Korea, the Philippines and Israel I sometimes have to correct to US spelling if I'm doing other copyediting. I do have to be careful with the differences between Singapore English (which is very close to that written in Ireland and New Zealand) and other national varieties.

If we weren't so low in the search results right now this wouldn't be at all important. However, if journalists review our articles they often pick up on these little inconsistencies.

I do agree that if the variety of English is at all in doubt (as might be the case in Israel which was once a British occupied mandate and where the Palestinian Authority has deliberately declared in favour of non-US English to thumb its nose at the occupiers) it's best to signal changes on the article's discussion page.

In the case of all the countries of the EU (including Germany) I didn't think people would doubt that the official variety of English was that used when translating texts originating in Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the UK. Do you think we could do with a templated notice on each country article's discussion page to make clear what variety of English should be used. It's normally only a big deal when articles are up for Star nomination, but it wouldn't do any harm, would it? The British Virgin Islands are a case in point where it might not be entirely obvious that they cleave towards US English when writing. -- Alice^✉ 03:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I was not questioning the use of British English in this instance or even about how it is used in WV in general.

If the name of an article is changed, I feel that it is a significant enough change to warrant an explanation on the talk page of that article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

In general, I'd agree. However, for something that should be as uncontroversial as a spelling correction, I obviously thought differently. Historically our approach has often been to pf and then discuss changes afterwards (as we're dong now) if anyone finds them less than obvious. You're very welcome to place an explanatory note on [[Munich/City_Centre's discussion page if you think it would be more collegiate, Andrew. Incidentally, I wish you all the best as an admin, you certainly put in the hours! -- Alice^✉ 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Alice. I really don't like BC/BCE or AD/CE mashed together with the year. Please point me to the discussion in which that was established as a consensus (I'm not suggesting it isn't the consensus, just that I'd like to see where it was established as such). Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I respect your right to have a different aesthetic preference - as I hope you will respect mine. Not only do I not think that this point has ever been discussed (other than tangentially) I fear that we will never reach a consensus. On grounds of both brevity and the rationale behind wv:HTML that mitigates against the use of (the otherwise essential) non-breaking space, I prefer it un-spaced and without periods.

I'm not alone in this preference, since well-respected online and freely available style guides and the best selling printed travel guide series on the planet all favour the more condensed style.

In our style guide, I think you already know that I am in favour of brevity and consistency where they do not lead to ambiguity or ugliness. Consistency means it's easier for new editors to learn our rules and brevity means they have more time left over for attending to more important matters of substance rather than style. Alice (editing from a risky location and not wishing to log-on.)

If there's no consensus either way, I would appreciate it if you would leave it well enough alone and not impose your preference because you are motivated to change every instance of dates to suit yourself. Happy trails, wherever you are travelling! Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

As there has been concern in the past about sockpuppetry, including a permanent block of this user account on Wikipedia, can you clarify whether or not you also edit using the account Special:Contributions/118.93nzp or recent IP addresses such as Special:Contributions/61.29.8.41? If you are not the same person, can you clarify why you have almost exactly the same editing style - in the past I believe there were statements that you collaborate via email? If you are using multiple accounts I think it is important to make that clear so people understand who they are talking to in discussions, and if you are not it would be helpful to state that clearly and explain why the editing patterns are so similar in order to address ongoing sockpuppetry concerns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately the "concern in the past about sockpuppetry" has not extended as far as making a #Checkuser request.

I have stated repeatedly that I don't edit using any other pseudonymous account (as Nurg would put it) other than Alice.

I do often not log on - either when I'm in a hurry and can't be bothered or, as in the case of Special:Contributions/61.29.8.41, when it's difficult to find a connection where I am not at risk of compromising the security of my account password.

I think that my "editing style", as you put it, is going to match those of many editors who don't have a US background and are concerned about detail. I've been accused in the past of being Frank and Tony and Seligne and Neotarf and I can't remember exactly who else, and this is just the latest nonsense. Please realise that in a few years time it will seem like you are the odd one out in opposing the usual World Wide Web blue style of hyperlinking (you call it front linking), honouring registered user's preferences (you call it relative image sizing), being inconsistent about whether there is space between units and their amounts (and whether that should be non-breaking or not), being inconsistent about punctuation in abbreviations (UK but U.S.), whether to use 6pm rather than 6PM, and all your other trivial hang-ups. You and the other "more-equal-than-thou-admins" are actually in a minority of Wikivoyage editors when it comes to not wanting links to non-travel topics on Wikipedia where it would be useful to the traveller, so it's hardly surprising that I will continue to be accused of being the same person as a number of accounts. Just remember that you have my standing agreement to run a checkuser on me any time you feel like it. Yes, I do have a natural sympathy for the Tony types who get a raw deal from your cabal, but that's only because I don't like unfairness. What is highly amusing about the Special:Contributions/118.93nzp allegation is that I emailed him a ferocious e-mail when I thought he was trying to ape my style and stir things up with his original "Ethiopean" edits. Since then I've had a few more e-mail exchanges with him, but we certainly don't collaborate except to the extent of agreeing how much damage you and the other conservatives have done to our search engine visibility and wishing there would be just a little less hypocrisy and a bit more rationality when it comes to admins flexing their muscles.

Now I did think 3 months was long enough for tempers to have cooled, but it seems obvious now that you and some others just want to continue to concentrate on conspiracy theories, so I'm going to take another wikibreak before I really lose my temper.

My advice to you and all the other dramatists is to concentrate on the BIG ISSUE: LACK OF Wikivoyage READERS DUE TO POOR SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION. -- Alice^✉ 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You are reminded, for the billionth time, to desist from attempting to stir the kinds of trouble which seem to gratify you so much yet got you banned from Wikipedia. This naturally includes desisting from the pointless use of socket puppets and anon accounts which also got you banned from Wikipedia. Naturally your response to this will be to attend your fainting couch and demand an apology for stating obvious yet easily researched facts. Please feel free to add such a comment in reply to this, or even to delete this, but do not anticipate that I will be further drawn into this soap opera in which you plan to star. -- Cjensen (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I am not at liberty to discuss any actions on Wikipedia that took place in the decade before this one since I understand that Frank is still waiting for his appeal to be heard. Suffice it to say that I vehemently deny being a scokpuppet on any Wiki. If you were falsely accused, convicted and sentenced I dare say you might mention your innocence from time to time.

Now I'm generally baffled as to your sudden and weird comment above. You seem to be obsessed. You don't make any constructive edits for months and then you just pop up and make these unspecific and baseless accusations. Please provide diffs for the problematic edit(s) that have suddenly stirred you into this attack. Did they occur this year or last year, for example? -- Alice^✉ 15:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Let this serve as a formal warning to desist in forum shopping regarding relative image sizing, especially on pages where policy discussions don't belong. If it happens again, you're liable to come up for a userban just the same as your doppelganger accounts did. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't have any doppelganger accounts.

Where it's safe to log-on I do so using this account and this account only, and where there is a risk of compromising my password, I simply don't log-on. I appreciate you are tired of the same old topics - please appreciate that I am also tired of your false and baseless libels.

I also reject your concept of forum shopping. If something is objectionable and unhelpful to travellers it doesn't change however much you wish to censor the idea. If you don't like something, then argue your case rather than threaten editors. -- Alice^✉ 20:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

As you wish. --AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#User:Alice. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Any comment to make about Talk:Philippines#Palawan? Pashley (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Philippines now have four regions, both in text & on map, with Palawan as #4.

Any comment here Talk:Calamian Islands? Pashley (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've not been deliberately ignoring you, Pashley.

On 18 November 2014, AndreCarrotflower suddenly decided to change block settings for Alice to an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) presumably on the basis that "(indefbanned on Wikipedia for disruptive edits - see Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban)" even though I had not edited here for many months previously. See https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AAlice&type=block for details. Subsequent to that ban I have not been able to edit any pages whatever (including this one) if I log on first rather than edit without logging on. Alice^✉

I verified the block settings, and there were/are no restrictions placed on editing this talk page; that box is unchecked. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You might find Wikivoyage_talk:User_ban_nominations#Breaking_a_logjam.3F interesting. Pashley (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

As Ryan said in the previous thread, in the block on User:Alice, the checkbox for "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" is unchecked. If it was checked, the block log would show "cannot edit own talk page", as it did for nearly 12 hours on 1-2 Oct 2013. If User:Alice is unable to edit this page, then the MediaWiki software is working in an unexpected way. When User:Alice is logged in and attempts to edit this page, what is the exact message received? I have unblocked 124.13.149.251 to allow you to respond. Nurg (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Nurg. And I'm sorry that you've had this extra work when you could have been continuing to improve our Indian articles. I have no control over the IP addresses I'm assigned, so I'm afraid your efforts have been in vain. but I do appreciate them none the less.

When I have a secure connection, I'll test these conditions and try and post a screenshot. My recollection is that this is not a new occurrence, whenever I have been censored/blocked/sanctioned whatever, I have not been able to edit any pages while logged in, including this one -- Alice^✉ from IP address 1.9.216.83 23:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You don't have to, if you're trying to prove that I blocked 3 IPs from editing their talk pages. I don't make it a secret that I blocked those 3 IPs recently and also blocked them from editing their talk pages. I'm OK with being overruled on this, but the reasons for blocking needless talk on talk pages as well as everywhere else on the site are identical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, you muisunderstand. The whole point of a block should be to prevent edits - BUT NOT TO THE BLOCKEE'S own TALK PAGE (without very good reasons to sever all communication.) This is not just a matter of etiquette, it's common sense that it's futile to block IP adresses when they changed so frequently.

I can edit any page when I am not logged in but when logged in as Alice, I can edit no page at all including this one!

Needless talk? You ask a question and then block the answer?

Why? -- Alice^✉ from IP address 202.188.143.137 01:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:Ikan Kekek - I don't understand. How did you block those 3 IPs from editing their talk pages? The setting "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" is left unchecked for those 3 IPs. Maybe there is something I don't understand about block settings. Nurg (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I thought I checked those settings. But anyway... Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unless you're trying to emulate IBobi, there are very few justifications for blocking communication on IP talk pages - libel, profanity, local legal reasons. Ifanyone does wish to communicate, my email address is at the top of this page. -- Alice^✉ from IP address 202.188.143.137 01:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply