User talk:AndreCarrotflower/2013

Older discussions can be found in the following archives:

Newer ones can be found at:

Re: A brief question

That's a tough one, and we've never had a strong consensus. Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it says grocery stores go in 'Eat', and while it's hard to argue with the semantics, they don't (usually; Wegmans excluded) fit the restaurant listings normally found in that section. You're probably fine putting it under "Eat", but consider moving it to "Buy" if that fits better, such as if the supermarket is a popular place to buy other staples beyond food (as may be the case in some small communities). LtPowers (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FYI, a fellow Wikivoyager plunged forward and created the Wikivoyage:LGBT Expedition. The discussion in the pub has been moved to the expedition's talk page. -- Sapphire (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent! I'm in full support of it, as I mentioned in the Pub, and will help where I can, though I doubt I'll have much to add. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:A quick hello and a request for assistance

Figured you might miss a reply if I put it on my talk page. Allentown and the Delaware District is very nice. But:

  • Where's "Get around"? The "Get in" is somewhat muddled between information about getting into the district (By public transportation) and getting around (by bike & by foot), with "By car" being a mix of both. The "get around" section could include a few sentences at the start about the layout of roads in these districts (main roads, any special roads, parking, etc).
  • The buy section has a lot of listings & I don't think all of them are really necessary for travellers (tattoos & piercings, ACE hardware)
  • In "Contact", is there a public library with (free) wi-fi? Even without wi-fi for visitors, listing a library is good to find local information (knowledgeable staff, books/media on local-interest subjects, etc).
  • This might be difficult to fix right now, but some of the photos should be taken in spring/summer so they don't look so drab. Sorry, but the bare trees & piles of dirty snow don't look so appealing, even if snow is a big part of Buffalo's climate. The Theatre of Youth picture has an over-filled trash can featured front and center.

But that said, the whole point of this is to be critical and bring up issues to fix. The article is very impressive and the only thing I noticed at first glance was the pictures. Great work. AHeneen (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

District articles usually forgo "Get out"; the Wikivoyage:District article template doesn't list it. The logic is that districts are either small enough that getting around them is trivial, or large enough that getting around them is essentially the same as the huge city's "Get around". However, in my opinion, "Get in" is often unnecessary as well; there are so many roads connecting districts with each other that it often doesn't make sense to recommend one over another (exception: if a district is physically separated from the rest of the city). In those cases, I personally favor leaving out "Get in" and just using "Get around" for all transport information. LtPowers (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"District articles usually forgo 'Get out'" meaning "Go next"?
In writing the Buffalo district articles, I've usually used "Go next" to link districts with other districts with which they share something in common (i.e. "If you like the nightlife in District X, try District Y for more of the same.")
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I meant "Get around", not "Get out". LtPowers (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, you are now an admin! So pick up a mop and get moppin! --Peter Talk 06:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! And thank you also for pointing me to the Administrator's Handbook; I'll make sure to give it a thorough review before getting started with the janitoring. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that you've been "demoted" to a shiny button guy, could you please do the two things listed at Talk:Main_Page/New, so we can get the ball rolling? If you want the exact code and instructions, I can give you that too. Thanks in advance! :-) JamesA >talk 13:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, offline events in my life have been such that I've had a slow start with the admin stuff. If you could send me the code and instructions, I'd be grateful. I expect things to slow down soon and I will be able to begin discharging my duties in earnest. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's no problem at all! I simply noticed you were online, so thought I'd contact you about this. You need to copy all the text at User:JamesA/common (except the <pre> tags) exactly onto the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.css. I managed to solve the other issue through non-admin means, so don't worry about that. Thanks for your help. JamesA >talk 14:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, could you please add this to the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.css:

/* Hide title on Main Page New */ h1.firstHeading {
  display: none;

Thanks. JamesA >talk 14:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers. Are you seeing the changes at Main Page New, now? JamesA >talk 00:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Andre, I archived SatuSuro's admin nom as unsuccessful based on opposition by a couple including you - there seemed to be a change of heart from some of the other opposes, so I'm letting it run a couple more days in case anyone else wants to withdraw opposition – cacahuate talk 16:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Andre, i saw that you crossed your wait in the nomination. I can't find a statement from Ikan and you crossed his statement as well. Do i missed his responsed or do you crossed incidentically his wait as well? jan (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was Ikan who struck out his own comment [1], not me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP user blocks

Hi Andre - I've changed the block on Special:Contributions/‎ back to a one year block (matching Wikipedia) as I don't think we have any precedent for an infinite block on an IP address. The IP address tracks to a school, so even if we did infinitely block IPs, in this case we'd essentially be blocking all future students for the bad behavior of one current pupil. Hope that makes sense! -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the IP is for a school, then even blocking the page for a year seems harsh. This could simply be one computer in a classroom/library that one troublemaker used, or a proxy server representing several computers at several schools. The Wikipedia block is actually 2 years, but most vandalism for this account was Feb 11th, with a couple isolated incidents before. There have, however, been a couple useful edits to WMF wikis in years past. This should be a typical, short block of a couple days, with increasing blocks if vandalism continues. IMO, account creation should be permitted to prevent vandalism by (or identify) the troublemakers, but not anyone who wishes to edit from this IP in a productive way. AHeneen (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your patience is urged as I continue to gain administrative experience. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm in the same boat. AHeneen (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're a Star!

  The Special Barnstar of appreciation
      is awarded to André Carrotflower for novel ideas and timely reminders of things we should not forget    
      - all spelt conventionally for a small part of the planet (cheeky grin)!      

(I particularly admired these contributions here) -- Alice 22:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you kindly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My pleasure, André.
Now, to change the subject entirely, I'm continually amazed about how folks that continuously write that x or y doesn't matter at all are, nevertheless happy to revert (rather than substantively edit) policy and articles. My stance is that hitting that quick revert button or undo button is really only for vandals or touts. If you actually have to go in and edit the "offending" words, then folks might actually stop to think how childish they are being. The classic example is the one I quoted down the Pub, where I pointed out that it still seems to be the Official policy of this Wiki that I can not abbreviate "Square" to "Sq" in listings. This may seem like total trivia to some (they're not the ones having to waste 200% more keystrokes when preparing listings or explanatory edit summaries {by being deprived of shortcuts in edit summaries}) but when you're making more than 1000 edits a month to Wikivoyage, it all adds up.
I would really like to enjoin some of the "Bigger Beasts" to concentrate on doing the things they do well and enjoy and not to think they have to parachute into every topic (sometimes where they actually know rather little about it and have an even lesser interest in developing it long term) and stymy common sense development and evolution. Never mind the stalwarts, this type of "Ooooh, it's new, I haven't got time to think about things in depth, so I just better hit the revert button" behaviour is almost guaranteed to drive away casual editors and stop them becoming useful assets. That's got that off my throat. -- Alice 22:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Accounts merged

I've merged your (WT-en) AndreCarrotflower contributions to this account. In order to allow the old user page to be moved over I've put your current user page (and its talk page) at User:AndreCarrotflower/Saved, so you'll need to manually move/merge things to get the talk page and user page how you want it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vfd discussion

Hey, no hard feelings, I hope. I was surprised to see the article suddenly deleted, and I have some issues with current deletion policy, but I do understand why you made that decision and it's nothing personal. All my best to you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No offense taken. As I said, I appreciate the fact that it was established immediately that no one was accusing me of acting in bad faith or in reckless disregard of policy. Over and above that, any opportunity for productive discussion is a good thing. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Andre. Six months is a pretty long block, and based on the user's edits they may just be experimenting - blanking part of an article is something that happens with new users or people on bad connections, and the user's other edits looked like they could just be experiments in updating quickbars. If you think a block is warranted then that's fine, but for non-obvious cases it is best to start with a day or less and gradually increase the block length, per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User ban. An exception is for IPs that are blocked on other Wikimedia sites, but that does not appear to be the case with this user. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The user has three messages on his talk page asking him to explain his rapid-fire problem edits - which range from trivial and inexplicable but relatively innocuous to outright vandalism, i.e. his most recent edit to Turkey - and the user did not even stop his misconduct, let alone respond to the questions left for him. Because of this, I blocked him for 31 hours, and after that block expired the user picked up right where he left off. For a second offense, I felt it was expedient to send a strong message.
In helping me to learn how to better use the blocking tool, I read a lot of literature at Wikipedia on how to properly identify vandalism and what tactics are popularly used. This user's behavior reminded me very much of some of the things I read at w:WP:DISRUPT#Attempts to evade detection.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may indeed be a vandal, but our policy is to tread carefully, and in this case I don't think anyone can say with 100% certainty that the user is here to vandalize so the block policies are designed to tread lightly. Historically a block for a day is followed by a block for a couple of days, then a week, etc - six months would be somewhat unprecedented and probably warrants a ban nomination. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood. What irked me most was the lack of response to the questions on his talk page. I would assume that if the user was editing in good faith, he'd explain himself when asked to do so. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for updating that. A lot of time new users don't understand talk pages and talk page etiquette, which might explain the lack of response - see for example User talk:, who has been repeatedly copying promotional material to the Telluride from different accounts and IPs despite repeated messages. While it's entirely possible this user is editing maliciously, if I had to place a wager I would actually put my money on the "not a vandal" side for Special:Contributions/ (although I wouldn't wager a lot), which is why the long block was concerning. -- Ryan • (talk) • 07:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you. פארוק (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're quite welcome. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikivoyage Barncompass

  The Wikivoyage Barncompass
Thank you for all your hard work through Wikivoyage articles, as you did most recently to Guadalajara. Curtaintoad curtain or toad 04:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks, Curtaintoad. Here's to Guadalajara as next month's Destination of the Month. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just going to add a barnstar to your page, but others have beat me to it. You've been doing an outstanding job helping to keep things running smoothly around here lately, from closing VFDs to update DOTMs. Those tend to be the most thankless tasks, where nobody seems to say anything unless they're unhappy (in which case they often find creative ways to tell you what they think of you, your mother, and anyone who might ever encounter you) so many thanks for taking that stuff on of late. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again! :) And that reminds me, tomorrow's the first of the month... -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely ditto what Ryan said! Btw, concerning your new job, we should meet up and chat some day—I have some very funny concierge-related stories ;) --Peter Talk 21:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you

Swept in from the pub

Just wanted to let my fellow Wikivoyagers know that I've been hired as a concierge at the Hilton Garden Inn in Cheektowaga, and my work on Buffalo and the corresponding district articles was the deciding factor. Thanks to everyone who's helped me justify putting that bullet point on my résumé.

And to head off a possible follow-up comment: yes, I do plan on heeding Wikivoyage:Welcome, business owners to a tee.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bravo! L. Challenger (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations! You're obviously a superb pick for that job. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grats! I'm sure you'll be pushing our top-notch Buffalo article to any lost guests from now on ;) JamesA >talk 10:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congrats! That's great to hear! :) --Nick (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations! I wish that hotel business employed more people like you! --Alexander (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very cool. Congratulations! -Shaundd (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again, friends. Onward and upward. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get well soon!

Hi, Andre. I read somewhere that you mentioned having a really nasty illness. I can empathize with that, as I've been sick with a nasty cold for close to a week and a half. Get better soon! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Ikan. I'm coming along nicely, as evidenced by the uptick in my Wikivoyage activity. It was a bad case of strep followed by a lingering cough. For want of any other culprit, I'm going to blame my girlfriend's roommate, who is one of those people who uses antibacterial everything. :)
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I've been hearing that the antibacterial soaps kill the wrong bacteria that actually help us. :-)
Glad you're feeling better!
Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Andre. I nominated Clarence for star status. Thought you'd like to know. As far as I'm concerned, it already is a star and one of the best articles on the site, especially for a suburban town. Have a great day! Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; you'll find my commentary on the starnom page. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I saw you uploaded a pagebanner locally (possibly just by mistake). While it's a little confusing, we're keeping the DotM banners local (so we can handle upload protection during features), but uploading all the ToC banners to Commons in the various categories under Commons:Category:Wikivoyage banners. --Peter Talk 05:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that; I did kind of get those two things confused. I'll fix that at some point in the very near future. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your brilliance

This is one of those moments where a giant lightbulb comes on over my head accompanied by a "why on earth didn't I think of this?" ;) --Peter Talk 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't use words like "brilliance"; it will put ideas in my head. :) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the Buffalo districts

I think at this point it would be useful to move your userspace content into the main space—and yes, it was me a while back who suggested working on them in your userspace ;) As long as you have the listings all moved, and have the articles created, it would be nice to share your work with the world. The one thing that would require your immediate attention, though, would be to fill the main article's see, do, buy, eat, drink, and sleep sections with overview prose that directs readers to the appropriate district articles to find the thematic content they are looking for. Copenhagen provides a really nice, clear example of how to do this. I'd like to think that Washington, D.C. doesn't do too bad a job of it, too. --Peter Talk 17:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Peter. I've responded at Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates#Buffalo to both the comments on that thread and your comments here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Niagara Falls

The heck? LtPowers (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O'Hare International Airport

Hi Andre, i just came across this very useful article and was thinking about to nominate it for either FTT or OtBP. During either the thanksgiving or christmas rush such an article might be valuable for the non-frequent fliers. I don't want to simply nominate it. Do you have a preference? jan (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At first glance, it strikes me that featuring O'Hare could be a great way to draw more attention to the Airport Expedition, and that it could work either as an OtBP or an FTT. For purely practical reasons (being that it's a U.S. destination), my first instinct would be that treating it as an FTT would cause the least disruption to the schedule if we're aiming for a November or December feature. But I would definitely ask for input from others before making a final decision on that. I've taken the liberty of putting up a pointer on Wikivoyage talk:Destination of the month candidates to gather opinions from other Wikivoyagers. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andre, no worries. Being out of town is part of WV;) jan (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Andre - regarding this change, Torty3's first contribution was on 19-January, not 18-April: [2]. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hatnote templates

Andre, where did you find a consensus to keep Category:Hatnote templates in the VfD discussion? Only Globe-trotter actually actively recommended "keep", and the only explanation was "It could become useful". That's not a policy-based reason. And Saqib just said "Keep" with no justification at all. LtPowers (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LtPowers, there was not a single vote in favour of deletion, thus it was kept. Learn to accept the way things are. --Saqib (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't lecture me. The policy is clear: pages are guilty until proven innocent. We default to delete unless someone gives a good policy-based reason to keep. Admins are supposed to know this, especially before actually closing discussions. LtPowers (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the archived discussion, there were only two votes, both of which were Keep. Additionally, Texugo and WOSlinker commented on the nomination without voting.
The instructions at the top of the VfD page read, and I quote: "if, after fourteen days of discussion, the consensus is to keep, redirect or merge" the article, those actions should be taken. We had about as clear a consensus to keep as we could want. As far as the phantom "good policy-based reason" clause is concerned, absent that being indicated on any of our actual policy pages, I have no reason to know or believe that's an actual policy.
Additionally, I'm confused by, and quite frankly resentful of, the fact that my abilities as an administrator are being called into question here. I'm aware that taking action on VfD's is thankless work that involves stepping on toes from time to time, but I did not do anything here other than follow our policy as it was written, as closely as possible. That's exactly what a good admin does, in my estimation. I personally think that it might be good if we require a good policy-based reason to delete articles, as LtPowers seems to want. But as a responsible and impartial administrator, I have to note that that's something that hasn't been adopted by consensus yet, so I simply can't consider it as part of my decision even if I personally, or a few of us, think it's a good idea. I look forward to seeing the matter brought up on Wikivoyage talk:Deletion policy.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikivoyage:Deletion policy says "Simply asserting that a page does not fit within our goals is not sufficient for a deletion rationale, which needs to reference specific policy." So, point conceded, but frankly I still think it's clear why I was confused - that text was about a half-dozen paragraphs down from the top of Wikivoyage:Deletion policy such that a reader could (and did) easily skip it over, and nowhere to be found at all on Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion in the section where all the other parts of the procedure were recounted. I'm an administrator, but I'm also a fallible human being, and if "admins are supposed to know" by heart every last detail that's buried halfway down a wall-of-text policy document, then I wonder how many good admins we have by LtPowers' definition. It's not as if I have these turgid policy documents committed to memory, and I bet that applies to most if not all admins as well.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that policy pages need to be made clearer - if necessary in the way that WP does by using specific text templates to make them easier to read.
Some folks have made unsuccessful efforts in the past to make policy and quasi-policy pages easier for newbies (and others) to understand - but it sometimes almost seems that some long-term users prefer obscurity and obfuscation since it gives them an emergency "ace-in-the-hole". --W. Franke-mailtalk 17:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There were two clear "keep" votes and not a single clear "delete" vote on that nomination, and insofar as the "keep" votes failed to cite policy, the nomination itself failed to cite a policy that would justify its nomination for deletion. Andre didn't do anything wrong in resolving that nomination as a keep. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guilty until proven innocent means there doesn't need to be a policy-based justification for deletion. It means, if the existence of the page is challenged (as it was), those who want to keep it need to provide a solid policy-based reason to do so. Period. That's the way we've always done it, and I'm stunned to find that said practice has apparently changed without discussion.
Here's the truth: If we are to keep a category such as this, then we need to have a solid consensus to fully categorize templates. Absent that consensus -- and no one has pointed to it -- we should not allow categories to pop up willy-nilly whenever someone wants to create one. It should be implemented systematically, or not at all -- and that's why we do Guilty Until Proven Innocent. LtPowers (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll reiterate: Andre was in the right here. In more than eight years of contributing here I don't recall ever seeing a VFD resolved as a "delete" when there were multiple "keep" votes and not a single "delete" vote, so Andre resolved this nomination as we have always resolved such nominations. If you feel that the nomination was closed incorrectly, please re-nominate it, but Andre did exactly what would be expected given the commentary on that nomination. I don't want to seem too critical of either side in this discussion - Andre volunteered for a thankless task and closed a VFD according to his interpretation of policy, but LtPowers also has valid concerns - so in this case the right thing to do when someone disagrees with how a VFD was resolved seems to be to re-open the VFD discussion for an additional discussion period. I will do so now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally, absent clarification on any policy pages, I have to default to the assumption that the definition cited by LtPowers of "guilty until proven innocent" - "[that] there doesn't need to be a policy-based justification for deletion [and] if the existence of the page is challenged (as it was), those who want to keep it need to provide a solid policy-based reason to do so" - is his own independent interpretation of that policy rather than anything supported by consensus. Lest anyone think that I'm accusing LtPowers of being intentionally uncooperative or otherwise poking the bear, I'd like to conclude by reiterating what W. Frank said: policy pages probably should be made clearer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This VfD is being reopened for the the second time now. Hope it would be resolved this time with a more clear consensus. --Saqib (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I sincerely hope there's no questions left as to my qualifications as an administrator. That really hurt my feelings. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have resolved that VFD in exactly the same way, so we're both unqualified to be admins :) -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andre, I was not impugning your qualifications. I apologize for that perception. If anything, I'm unqualified, because this interpretation, that a couple of offhanded "keep" votes -- one of them without any explanation whatsoever is sufficient to keep a nominated page seems completely novel to me. It feels like a Wikipedia import. LtPowers (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Curtaintoad

Hi Andre, I saw you reverted edit of Curtaintoad on his talk page. There's nothing controversial on the user's talk page and user seems to be in-active here so if xe wants to blank his user talk page, I don't see any harm in that. --Saqib (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, moreover, comments on Curtaintoad's talk page can always be retrieved from the page history since the page is only blanked not deleted. --Saqib (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My understanding of past instances where blanking a user talk page was reverted was in cases where the blanking was done to hide active discussions or relevant user warnings. While blanking a user page is considered poor form, modifying anything in user space is also a touchy subject and in general should only need to be done if there is a specific reason for restoring the content. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thought process was that if we go so far as to preserve the old talk pages of articles that have been deleted, and given the fact that I myself have been gently reprimanded in the past for going back and editing things out of my own comments on talk pages rather than using the strike-thru feature, then it's probably best to revert the blanking of the talk page. Especially if the user is inactive and probably wouldn't know or care either way. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Andre. I just saw your post on User talk:Saqib. I went through similar things with my parents. Feel free to contact me off-line if you'd like a friendly ear. All my best to you,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Ikan. It's tough, but she's in the hands of some of the best in the profession. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's reassuring, though it doesn't make things easy - just a bit less difficult. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DotM candidates

Hi, Andre. I hope life has improved somewhat for you.

Here are some guide articles outside of the overrepresented US and Germany that could be considered for DotM nomination: Kraków (probably could use more photos), Lyon, Georgetown (Malaysia), Hue, Quito (needs Mos fixes, more photos). A few of these are good enough that I'll do formal nominations later. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Ikan. My girlfriend has been up from Pennsylvania for a few weeks to help me hold down the fort. Hopefully she'll eventually be inspired to continue the work she started on the Laurel Highlands article.
If I remember correctly, Kraków was nominated a short time ago and ended up slushed. I imagine we'd have to examine the issues brought up in its nomination to see if they've been addressed. Lyon might be nice for summer too - I might be wrong, but I think I might have seen that one in the slush pile too. Georgetown would be better for OtBP, I think.
I have my eye on Hue or Quito for March - without knowing for sure, I'd conjecture that between the two of them, Quito's climate would be slightly less attractive to winter-weary Northern Hemisphere residents (isn't it located in the "eternal spring" of the Andes?) But I might be worried about "Asia overload" if the progression on the DotM column is from Mumbai to Kunming to Hue.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Georgetown (Penang) is one of Malaysia's major cities. It would have to be a DotM, in my opinion. I'll have a look at the slush pile. I don't think we should worry about "Asia overload"; it's the most populous continent in the world, and we don't have enough good South America or especially Africa articles, so if it isn't Asia, that leaves mostly North America, Europe, and Australia, which are already kind of overrepresented (though parts of Europe are not). Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amherst, New York

I'm very happy to see you populating that article. All my best to you, Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! It'll be a while before I get around to elaborating on it - until the Buffalo districting process is finished, most likely - but I definitely plan to.
More to come.
-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, part of it is that I'm happy to see you doing a lot of good work. I hope it helps you take your mind off your troubles somewhat. I know I've been doing work here while procrastinating about preparing for a semester of new courses... Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi André,

i saw you don't speak English, so i just wanted to give you a brief follow up of the crosswiki otbp nomination Travemünde. I proposed on the WV en pub June 2014 as the month for the joint Travemünde presentation. This is primarily driven because June/July are the best month and that in July is the Travemünde Sail Ship week which is the event of the year. Due to the request by commons for a Wikimania guide book in July or August 2014, this would be a good fit, too. I think we will be pretty full for the next northern summer. Can i extend the schedule to reserve the spot? jan (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks André! I will keep you updated. Regards, jan (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andre, just saw the extension of the Dotm/otbp7ftt schedule and i must admit we never have been better prepared! I'm now for almost seven years working in that category and usually we have been happy to see three or four months settled in a row. Now we are spoilt with choices. You do a terrific job and with choice comes responsibly. Lets enjoy the discussions. REgards, jan (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, it's much appreciated! It does feel good to have our affairs in order for a nice long while. Next order of business is to take some banner photos for Clarence's stint as OtBP, which I'll be doing in the next few days. Cheers! -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for reminding--TianyinLee (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear André, just to inform you that the German admin is the counterpart for the cross wiki Travemünde activity. She is in charge to get the cross-wiki Travemünde thing from the German side done. As i will not be active anymore, she asked me to do the introduction. Please feel free to contact her, if there is any issue concerning Travemünde. All the best, jan (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm really sorry to see you go, Jan. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tony1 and the newest proposal to revamp policy on unwanted edits

Hi there. I just saw your ban nomination and wondered if you would please comment on the new proposal to revise our policy in regards to dealing with these types of users. Thanks! Texugo (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barker (Niagara County)

Hi Andre, as you seem to know the Buffalo region well, I was hoping you might have an opinion about Barker (Niagara County). I've encountered it in an effort to recreate a bunch of almost empty skeleton articles, but I'm not sure this kind of small village should have its own article, or is best integrated in a broader Somerset (New York) article. Where I'm from, we have many such tiny towns but they cater extensively to visitors, making them surely destinations of their own. I'm not sure the same goes for this Niagara region though, as I'm having trouble finding tourist information websites or places to stay. I imagine you've never been to Barker, but perhaps you have a better view of the rural towns in general. Any thoughts? JuliasTravels (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may, Somerset is not much more than an administrative division. The whole area is usually just called "Barker" because that's the post office name for most of the town. As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to restrict the Barker article to what's within the village borders. LtPowers (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I'm sorry LtPowers, I was unaware of you knowing the region too :) I don't mind it either way. I just found this website for Somerset, which gave me the impression that travellers would be likely to encounter Somerset as a destination name rather than Barker, but I'm absolutely unfamiliar with the area. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pub talk

For your latest comment there - good on you. Nurg (talk)

Thanks, Nurg. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've blocked the /16 range for 2 hours - probably not safe to block it for more as there's the potential for a lot of collateral. Problem with the mobile IPs is they can just cycle the wifi switch on their phone and get a new IP. --Rschen7754 08:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked an /18 too. :/ --Rschen7754 08:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing personal

Hi, Andre. I hope my doubts about how we're treating Frank, or/and whomever the IPs were, aren't causing you offense, and I'm sorry if they are. You are one of the greatest editors here, and quite arguably the best, and I know that you always have good intentions. Whatever I ever post should never be seen as questioning that. You've behaved honorably. I just think that it's best to avoid mentioning certain things if we know that will produce an undesirable reaction, that's all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other thing is, though some people interpreted my remarks as directed toward you, they really are not. The issue I address has been a recurrent one, involving remarks by a bunch of people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The feeling is mutual, Ikan, and thank you for the compliment (a gross exaggeration, IMO, but appreciated regardless). Even after what happened with Peter, Jan and Alexander, I firmly believe that we are a community that can disagree from time to time and retain respect for each other throughout. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The important thing is to respect our work and the fact that we are all doing our best to better the site and thereby serve the traveler. And I'm really glad you were able to parlay your work here into a related job. I don't think that's in my future. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


G'day, André!

Nice to be able to put an image to the name! I see that you are one of the rare accounts here that is not anonymous.

Firstly, may I thank you for withdrawing and archiving your recent user ban nomination (mark II). I hope that this signals a new, more collegiate atmosphere where we can all concentrate on adding content, refining style and generally doing all those varied and myriad tasks to create a great travel guide.

I do appreciate that it can be quite upsetting if you genuinely think that some are "gaming the system" as LtPowers recently put it and, because you are one of the very few that has had the guts to surrender their anonymity, I wonder if it would help if I phoned you for a short discussion?

(Nurg and Ikan Kekek are amongst those who have expressed their opinion that my recent contributions have been unhelpful in stirring up certain allegations that should not have been made at all but, unfortunately, they do not have a revealed, real life persona as you do.)

You would obviously retain the right to terminate my call at any time and I would certainly keep your phone number entirely and utterly confidential if you would email me with a good time to call you. --118.93nzp (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Andrew, its weird official website of Sweden diplomatic mission in US doesn't mention about about their consulate in Buffalo however a search gives these results but anyway the official website is more reliable. By the way, do you have any idea if honorary consulates actually provided consular assistance otherwise listing them in our articles seems unnecessary. In-case they don't, I'm going to trim down the huge list from our Karachi article. --Saqib (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A continuing problem with the web is its mixture of reliable and unreliable sites - never mind the difficulty that when an organisation goes bust or out of business it's rarely one of their last acts to update or take down their website.
How active an honorary consul is (and whether they are physically available) depends very much on the individual involved and circumstances. The honorary part means that they are volunteers and not paid or staff members. All honorary consuls should be able to provide a channel of communication in extreme circumstances but it is very rare that they will be able to provide emergency passports. --118.93nzp (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I doubt such consular assistance are provided by honorary consulates except few. --Saqib (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even so, they would be a very useful point of contact for foreign nationals visiting Buffalo; I'd leave them in. LtPowers (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I've neglected this discussion for so long: internet trouble at the apartment. I envisage keeping them in for the reasons LtPowers gave. It's a long drive from Buffalo to New York City, where most of the non-honorary consulates are, and if readers can get the services they need without spending seven hours in the car, they ought to be given the requisite information. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:PositionMap general

Just wondering if Template:PositionMap general could also be deleted or if I'll need to nominate it at vfd separately. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its a speedy deletion candidate now. --Saqib (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the user page of "AndreCarrotflower/2013".