User talk:Ibaman

• Archive 2013-2018
• Archive 2019

Edits to Ubud

Hi, my friend. Just a heads-up that with these edit summaries, I consider the latest edits by User:Elvahadi to be good (except for the phone number format) and ones we shouldn't revert.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This is Eroy 1998. Sir, you've deleted 'Chilapata' page that I've recently created.

Apologies if you felt that the content was promotional. The truth is I wasn't familiar with the guidelines of Wikivoyage. I'm sorry. I didn't know that a link to a single page is not allowed multiple times. I'm not a business owner, but a traveller, with a slight inclination towards a particular resort that I've stayed at, in Chilapata. Chilapata wildlife sanctuary is an important travel destination, but hasn't got much awareness like its nearby destinations (example, Jaldapara National Park). You can google it if you want to check. It really needs a page of its own, and the sad part is nobody has taken the initiative to do so. If I keep my tone neutral and unbiased, am I allowed to re-create 'Chilapata' page? —The preceding comment was added by Eroy1998 (talk • contribs)

Hi Ibaham. Please note a similar conversation at w:user talk:billinghurst. Billinghurst (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

"Retired" IP account?

Hi, Ibaman. What's the story on this and this? SelfieCity, please feel free to comment too/instead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• The story AFAIK is: anonymous user, most probably an employee of the Cinnamon hotel chain of India, trying to use Wikivoyage to advertise a business, but without any success. Ibaman (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I mistakenly believed this was the user who you contacted, due to the timing of the IP user’s edits. I wasn’t totally sure, but I probably shouldn’t have intervened, since it’s not my area of expertise. All these touts seem the same to me! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Dunno, guys. These are regular listings, albeit with no descriptions, and 2 of the 4 are Cinnamon hotels. I'm not seeing anything obviously revertable here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• if it had been on one page only, I'd agree and take no action . However, this user spammed on several pages, therefore it could not stand. Ibaman (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh sure. I didn't realize that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Border

Hello, Re this; from the times of the Grand Duchy to the WWII, the Russian-Finnish border actually wasn't too far outside St. Petersburg, along Sestra. Nowadays the river is the border of Leningrad Oblast and the City of St. Petersburg. Not sure if it's important to mention in the article, though. Ypsilon (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. That bit's choice of words was bothering me as geohistorically innacurate, per Vyborg's history (which itself is waaay more complicated than we can describe on a travel guide), and the fact that the Grand Duchy was part of the empire from 1811 on. It's hard not to oversimplificate things in our context. I aim for brevity and accuracy. Let's keep tweaking. Ibaman (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, Vyborg has "changed countries" several times. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire

I started up articles for the two historical European empires that we still didn't have articles for, and thought about asking you if you'd "possibly" would have time and interest to contribute "something little" to the Portuguese Empire article. Looks like I don't need to ask, at this speed the article will be at guide status before the weekend is over. :) --Ypsilon (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, I can kinda boast of having a considerable knowledge about this subject :D Ibaman (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about a revert

Hi Ibaman. What was wrong with this edit? It looks fine to me, but maybe I'm missing something. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• ...maybe it's overzealousness from my part? I kinda get into "autopilot" when I see a new "taxi airport services" listing. As I said, every day I get to revert about 30 or 40 of them, mostly from Mumbai and Chandigarh and Goa and Rishikesh and Varanasi and so forth. I reckon it'd be un-isonomic and unjust to treat Portuguese similar advertisers differently. Ibaman (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Then maybe you shouldn't revert any of them? Or if you think airport pickup services shouldn't be allowed, let's start a discussion in the pub to figure out what our policy should be. Either way, I think it is extreme to block a well-intentioned user without saying what the problem was. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, if the problem is that airport pickup services can't be listed, then I think you should say that to the user instead of just vaguely linking to Don't tout (which says nothing about whether or not airport pickup services are allowed). —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, did you open the link? It opens a page that says in Portuguese "service is terminated as of 16 March. We'll be coming back soon". In its present state, it's a textbook case of External links#What not to link to, IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 00:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like it could be a temporary service suspension due to COVID-19, in which case the listing should be fine to include. But the broader point remains: on the user's talk page, you didn't say anything about the link being dead. The user had no way to know that the link was the problem. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• You have a point. It's not the first complaint I hear about not using the user's talk pages more often. I'll make this up. Ibaman (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus routes in "Get around"

Hi Ibaman, I'm just wondering if I could get your advice on something? I recently added some information on bus routes to a number of towns in Ireland, and I noticed that on a few of these you moved my info from the "Get around" to the "Get in" sections. The bus routes I added were intended to be a list of useful bus routes which somebody staying in the town might use for 'getting around' (not only within the limits of the town, but also to the surrounding vicinity).

I didn't put this list in the "Get in" section, because they are not all routes which would be particularly useful for 'getting in'. For example, in the case of Balbriggan, the 192 and 195 routes go to nearby rural villages, so it is unlikely that any traveller visiting Balbriggan would be arriving via these routes. However, someone staying in Balbriggan might find these routes useful for 'getting around' to explore nearby villages.

My plan was to go through all of the towns in Ireland and add any useful bus routes into the "Get around" sections, and then go back through them at a later stage and put more focused information for 'getting in' into the "Get in" sections, such as routes from the main cities and airports. But I'm a little unsure now how I should proceed with this.

As a general rule, should bus routes in or out of a location always be in the "Get in" section, regardless of whether they would actually be used for 'getting in'? Or is it ok to list these routes in the "Get around" section, and maybe just make the text clearer, to explain that this is a list of useful routes, which someone who is already here could use for 'getting around'?

Thanks for your help, Regards, Royboymaps (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern. Per wycsi, "town-to-town" bus services go in Get In#By bus, and "intra-town" services in Get Around#By bus. This was the logic behind my corrections. Your edits prove you have a considerable knowledge about your area, which is very valuable in Wikivoyage. Thank you for them, keep them coming in. Ibaman (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think Royboymaps's logic is better than strictly going by the advice in wycsi. These lines should be find in the Get in of those villages, if they get articles, but I think there is little use listing them in the Get in of the main town. Perhaps there have been discussion on this that I am nor aware of? --LPfi (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• If there was, I'm also unaware. I acted on autopilot here, tweaking things to what I sense to be WV default. If the older version better serves the traveller, let's revert. Ibaman (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think it is a sensible default, but somebody with local knowledge should do as best serves the traveller. --LPfi (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Indeed. I rolled my edits back. Ibaman (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Ibaman and LPfi, thanks for your advice and comments. I can understand the reasoning behind the default guidelines, but also the need to do whats best for the traveller. I think I'll keep going with this approach then, but I'll be clearer and say that these routes provide service beyond the town, and may be useful to those who wish to explore the surronding vicinity. Most of these routes have multiple stops within the towns and so can also be used for intra-town journeys, so I'll mention this point too. Regards, Royboymaps (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

O Rio de Janeiro

Good evening! As you've added the factoids that Recife and Porto are often referred to with an article, in Brazilian_Portuguese_phrasebook#Gender,_plurals,_and_adjectives it's mentioned that Brazil's, if not South America's most famous city, Rio de Janeiro, is also referred to with an article. It might be worth mentioning it in the city's article too. --Ypsilon (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good idea. I'm operational. Let me see if I can remember more. Ibaman (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block?

Hi Ibaman, why did you just indefinitely block User:Saurabhgurgaon with talk page access and email disabled? That is an extreme measure only for severe vandals. Based on Special:Contributions/Saurabhgurgaon, it appears that this user is making an earnest effort to contribute to the travel guide. Can you please explain what justified this extremely harsh block? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I just checked out his global contributions. He happened to be indefblocked today, on Wikipedia, per the same reason, insistent PCV, creating articles for bus stands and such. There have been lots of edit wars in Wikipedia on the last years, coming from India, that sparked really lamentable incidents full of profanities and such. I'm thinking of preventing this ending up spilling here. Ibaman (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to block a user here simply on the basis that they were blocked on Wikipedia, or based on their nationality. I especially don't think it's appropriate to deny talk page and email access (making it impossible for the user to appeal the block) on that basis. Are you willing to reverse the block, or should we take this issue to the pub to seek the community's input on whether this type of block is appropriate? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I based myself on this. Please tell me if it's overreaction from my part. Ibaman (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. To be frank, I think it's a strong overreaction on your part. I don't think it's appropriate to block a user here on the basis that they violated Wikipedia policy by using sockpuppets on that wiki. And even on Wikipedia, the blocking admin didn't remove talk page access, which you did here—that is really an extreme step that should only be done if necessary, because it leaves the user with no recourse. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

do you remember Lima's Turbo8000, or Arctic Cynda? It's identical. I'd better be safe than sorry, eh. Ibaman (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibaman, those are not reasonable comparisons at all. Those users were first given clear warnings, then short blocks; they were only blocked indefinitely when other steps proved ineffective. Please read over Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks for how user blocks are supposed to be used.

You say "better be safe than sorry", and I agree with that sentence—but you seem to interpret it differently than I do. I think we should be cautious about blocks, because an unnecessary block of a well-intentioned new user can easily deprive Wikivoyage of a new contributor. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I agree this comparison was unhappy. This guy here never once answered to no one on his talk page. I'd be more lenient if this was not the case. His behavior on Wikipedia tilted the scales of my judgement. Ibaman (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

On the basis that the user wasn't responding on the user talk page, you blocked his/her ability to respond on the user talk page? That doesn't make sense. And an indefinite block the first time? Again, I urge you to read Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Escalating user blocks. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

His talk page is unblocked, Max, per this conversation. Ibaman (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and while I still don't understand why you removed talk page access in the first place, I'm glad that you restored it. But the user remains indefinitely blocked, which I do not think is justified. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Let me change it to two weeks then. I'd be happy to read in his talk page that he's not a vandal, and will read and abide our policies, and make bona fide contribs. But I doubt he'll change his Wiki ways. Let's be vigilant. Ibaman (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope so too. Hopefully we'll see more good contributions like this one. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it's off-topic but I meant to thank you for all the improvements you made to the Brazilian Portuguese phrasebook earlier this month. It looks like it's been improved a lot! Kudos. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The first block is normally 3 days. If this is the user's first block, I'd encourage you to shorten the time. At the first sign of ignoring any talk page message, the user can be blocked for 2 weeks with another message, then 3 months the 3rd time and indefinitely after that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This user is on ignoring mode from the start. Today he went into edit war mode, and then after a mild block I made my searches, and turns out that this user today, not much before, got indefbanned in Wikipedia for insistent PCV. I said to myself, "maybe he'll vent frustration on Wikivoyage? No way" and escalated the block. Sorry if I sound racist, but I've been recently following some edit wars by Hindu and Pridnestrovian/Moldovan nationalists in Wikipedia, and this might have affected my vigilance habits. Granger pointed out some good edits from him, but his overall m.o. sounds "total vandal" to me. Let's see whether any complaint is made. I'm vigilant. Ibaman (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any edit warring, nor do I see questions on their talk page. Are those edits deleted? --LPfi (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Which edit or edits on Wikivoyage justify the first block? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is some edit warring. If you look at the history of Sarsai Nawar, I've twice reverted a pagebanner that was too big, and also left a message on his talk page the first time. Now, there's a third oversized pagebanner in place. If there's other stuff like that, a three-day block is justified.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

At most a very low-intensity edit war: inserting of different banners three times, the first time a week after being reverted. On sv-wp three revertions in one day is counted as edit war warranting a block. And one unanswered message, which was not a question. No warning. I think the block was an extreme decision, with the en-wp behaviour the only thing remotely warranting a block. Not following guidelines and advice is no reason for a block unless they are clearly in bad faith, touting or big scale ignoring warnings. --LPfi (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I can resolve the problem with the pagebanner. I can understand a block and can somewhat see both sides here, but I think an indefinite block ‘’including talk page and email’’ was an unnecessary step too far. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with LPfi, and I'll add that I don't think users should be blocked here for using sockpuppets on en.wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Good morning, y'all. I see our guy didn't come back, and didn't complain about his 2-week block. If he does, I won't object to his unblocking. Ibaman (talk)

Good morning. You haven't provided any justification for a two-week block, and nobody else thinks that block length was justified or grounded in policy, so I've reduced it to three days, as is the norm for a first block. I'm open to arguments for the block to be lifted altogether, but am not prepared to take that step unilaterally.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

no objection. I'm vigilant. Ibaman (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say lift the block altogether. With respect to the pagebanner, I think it's clear the user was making an effort to respond to the feedback, even if they didn't do so correctly. The block on Wikipedia shouldn't justify a block here when the user's edits on Wikivoyage have been good-faith contributions, and a user's nationality should never be a consideration in whether to block. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

agreed fully but for the point of "the user was making an effort to respond to the feedback". He never once wrote on his talk page. This is malicious m.o. to me, as such user is obviously familiar with editing techniques and syntax. IF he ever used it (or if there was any sign of complaint by now), I'd get less suspicious. Ibaman (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree there's no evidence that feedback was even read, much less taken on board. I can't go as far to say that there was any malicious intent, because the lack of engagement leaves a big black hole of uncertainty. I still think we should enforce policy by the book, but I would not be surprised if a similar editing pattern resumes after the block expires / is lifted. To try to avoid this while continuing to assume good faith, perhaps another message on the guy's talk page would be in order, briefly going over the problems, explaining that we're here to help and want to, but we need some engagement back in return in order to work together.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I kinda expect a similar editing pattern to resume after the block expires / is lifted. I hope this timeout can serve a good purpose. We're a team and have achieved a good level of organization and swift action agains touts, vandals and spammers, which I trust. Ibaman (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW the user did also remove the vfd tag from that (now deleted) bus station article. Given their track record on WP this user should definitely be watched. On WP they haven't been interested in discussing their edits but have just complained about being blocked and their edits and articles being deleted and reverted. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think this revision shows he is aware of one of the comments posted and who posted it (the content came from here, but I don't think he took the comment seriously.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The fact that the user substituted a different banner (though still not with the right dimensions) seems to me to be a sign that they were trying to take the feedback into account, but perhaps I'm being too generous. I have to admit the revision SelfieCity links is not encouraging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything on that userpage is copied from other users' pages. The line about our coverage being uneven is from another Wikivoyager (DaGizza), the bouncing Wikipedia balls I've seen elsewhere, the Babel box is obviously inaccurate etc. But they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and currently we're allowed to put whatever we like on our user pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

London vandalism and cross-wiki abuse

Hi Ibaman, thanks for taking care of the vandalism at London. That vandal's been causing problems at enwikipedia for a few weeks, and I posted at Wikidata's Admins' noticeboard about the steps we've been taking. I'm not sure what the revisions you deleted contained, but you may find our abuse filter useful for stopping the vandalism, and we've been trying to figure out a more robust solution at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal:_Bot_for_the_current_main-page-related_vandalism. Wikidata chose not to use the edit filter, and it may not be a big enough problem for Wikivoyage to bother with yet, but let me know if you or other WikiVoyagers need help handling the cross-wiki abuse. Best, Wugapodes (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Protection

FYI the protected version of your user page still has the attack --DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks. Ibaman (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe hide the revision of the protection as well? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Colombia / Panama boats

Swept in from the pub

Look at recent edits to the "get in # by boat" section. I think User:Ibaman somewhat jumped the gun by being too harsh on that newbie. Or am I missing something there? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that we should do more to encourage new users to edit here rather than reverting their edits, I think would be better to move this discussion to User talk:Ibaman. Several Wikivoyagers have made edits to that page recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the record, his first edits were of the "sneaky link on main text" kind, and substituting his own link for another service's. I wrote the tout template on his talk page. The user didn't answer and reverted my corrections. At this point, I gave him the standard "persistent tout, 1st warning block" as I do every time on every user that behaves this way. That's when dialog started. I pointed him to appropriate policy, unblocked him and went to sleep. I woke up not long ago. Let me check what happened. Ibaman (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Ibaman has been trying to resolve this on the user's talk page, which is the appropriate first step for dealing with a disagreement in Wikivoyage. Bringing a disagreement with a long-established user to the pub without first discussing it with them on their talk page is the wrong way to go about things. Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The replaced link was of a linksquatter so it was de facto dead but not recognized by our deadlink bot. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And I thanked him for pointing this out, and removed said link. The dialog was funny, I'm not sure if the person is unfamiliar with computers and Wiki syntax, or went cynical with my face, but am assuming good faith so far. Ibaman (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: I'm not fully following how "multiple editors having edited the page recently" is a reason against raising this in the pub... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My concern isn't specifically about starting the discussion in the pub, it's about keeping it here. This discussion is about the individual actions of an administrator and it ought to be discussed at the relevant talk page, where many important editors have commented recently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• For the record again, the first edits mentioned were of a purely touty nature, my actions were textbook procedure, and I stand by them, unlike some former harsh actions of mine on other articles and with other new users. Ibaman (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It is correct that the edits seem touty on the face of them, but I think you could've checked whether the replaced link was actually pointing to something existing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm looking at the edit history of Colombia—I think the first revert is debatable (it would have been better to check whether the existing link was dead before reverting), but the second revert is definitely too harsh—the user clearly explained in the edit summary that the ferry service no longer exists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You're right Max. But persistent touts have a method, this guy was consistent with it, and left a flea behind my ear. The moment he explained himself on his talk page, I unblocked him gladly. @Hobbitschuster: Your opinion is totally correct and I abide. However, if you, my dear halfling fellow, took this step of carefulness before me or as the same time, this whole topic of discussion could have been avoided altogether. Let's share the blame here, and go back to our games of historical ball, shall we. Ibaman (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No harm intended. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize you had blocked them. I think that's too extreme. In the future, I suggest reading the edit summary and seeing if it is reasonable before reverting or blocking. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I do think discussing the issue on the user's talk page is a good step, so thumbs-up on that. And thank you for unblocking after the explanation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

About careful checking of link content (both substitute and substituted, if it's the case), it's really necessary and primary, I can assure the community that I'll never go into "harsh admin mode" before this step from now on. Ibaman (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Europe semi-protection

Hi matey. I'm a bit unsure as to your rationale for protecting Europe from IP and newbie edits for a whole week. There were only two edits by the same IP which, while not the best quality in the world, weren't really vandalistic in their content. I know we're all getting jaded by the amount of shitty edits to revert at the moment, since there's millions of people with nothing better to do right now than vandalise websites or try to recoup some lost customers by touting, but I don't think we should lock down Europe, so to speak, just for two edits.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Don't you think it a good idea? I'm always high-strung about anonymous IPs able to graffiti at will our central high-hierarchy pages to include personal preferences and tweedle, Pridnestrovie or Transnistria, Romania is Balkanic or Latin, where does Malta fit, blah blah blah. A step up of protection would not be bad, IMHO. Maybe this should be debated by the whole community. Ibaman (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I came here to ask about the Africa semi-protection, which I don't really understand since there hasn't been a pattern of disruption (only one IP edit, which I disagreed with and evidently you did too, but not vandalism). I can understand being high-strung at the moment—I think many of us are, which means we have to work harder than ever to make sure this is a welcoming community. I'm trying to see contributions from IPs and new users as opportunities to guide a new editor and welcome them into the fold. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I must also say the edits (particularly the ones to the Europe article) were more along the lines of a newbie trying their best rather than vandalistic, touty or offensive. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

a prevention measure gave birth to an afterthought and the draft for a proposal for comment, or so we may say. Actually, I think this should be moved to the Pub for more comment. IMHO indefinite protection of continents and countries and articles prone to polemic (Middle East comes to mind first) should be default in Wikivoyage, as prevention against spammers, touts, vandals and mistakes by unexperienced users. Ibaman (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It depends on our resources. If defending those articles take too much energy, we have to protect them, if they don't, those edits could be used to introduce new users to our site. Perhaps articles where people come to further theirs agenda are not the best recruitment ground, but people who notice they cannot edit the travel guide anyone can edit are probably not that inclined to become wikivoyagers. Those adding their favorite destination or restaurant too high in the hierarchy may be educable. --LPfi (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion was taken to the pub. It was actually overreaction by me, on a busy day, and we achieved consensus about removing their protection. I still think it not a bad idea, though; if the problem arises again, I plan to reopen the discussion. Ibaman (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't know how I got the impression this thread was more recent. --LPfi (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Kızılırmak Delta Bird Reserve

Hello Ibaman,

I know you cannot sleep there now but we asked today and they said the bungalows should be open in a few days time. Of course if there is a second wave of covid the government could delay that but it would be nice to get started on the article in advance I thought. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Does the park really merit its own article? Please check out Yellowstone National Park and Yosemite National Park for reference. If you really think so, then plunge forward. Ibaman (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Not as popular as those obviously, but as Kızılırmak Delta is a Ramsar site it is attractive to local and international bird watchers at certain times of year. I am not a bird expert myself but I understand from those who are that it is best to watch around dawn or dusk. So sleeping in Samsun and going for a day trip would be fine if you just want to distance yourself from the city crowds and see the buffaloes, but not if you are a birder. By the way I don't have any financial interest - as far as I can find out so far the chalets are owned by the council. I will make a start and hopefully get prices etc once the accommodation opens. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

East End

Hi there, just saw your message on my talk page after I'd already reverted what I took to be you objecting to a red link.

"Please discuss your proposed change to London's districtification scheme on Talk:London"

Oh, I wasn't proposing anything, I was just correcting the map on the East End article, which was presenting a literal boundary map of Tower Hamlets as "the East End". As explained in more depth at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_End_of_London#Uncertain_boundaries, there are no universally agreed boundaries to the area, so it's misleading to suggest that it's been mapped.

I added a link to Tower Hamlets assuming it might go somewhere, was all, I've taken that link out if it's a problem. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern regarding the accuracy of this travel guide. Kindly consider selecting and substituting a better map for the article. Ibaman (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've already been looking for one for the Wikipedia article, if I find anything suitable I'll return and add it here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Hey there, would you be interested in becoming a bureaucrat? If so, I'd be happy to nominate you. The dog2 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s a kind thought, but per Wikivoyage:Bureaucrats we should have as few bureaucrats as possible. We have three active ones currently, Andre, Ikan, and Powers, so we shouldn’t have any more bureaucrats unless those become inactive. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 10:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

well, I'm happy and flattered to have been considered to the position. If Wikivoyage ever needs me, I'm here. Ibaman (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitely, it's nothing personal at all as I think that if we did need a bureaucrat, you'd be one of the first to be considered for the position. And if it becomes clear that one of our existing bureaucrats is about to become inactive for a time, as you mentioned on that person's talk page, another bureaucrat nomination should be considered. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I saw edits of him as of today. I really hope he will stay around as always. Ibaman (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely good news. Especially now with the pandemic situation, seeing an editor leave for just a few days can raise concerns that s/he has the virus or some other one of the challenges we've been facing lately.

Ironically, I think I'll actually have more time over the coming weeks, as I've been busy editing on Wikivoyage lately and I'm expecting that trend to continue until later this year when the re-opening takes place. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Seeing an editor leave for just a few days can raise concerns" - agreed. I hope everyone who has to stop editing for any reason thinks about letting us know if possible. Disappearing without a word just makes one fear the worst.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, I'll hold off on for now then. I was under the impression than Andre and Ikan were the only active bureaucrats, so I was wondering if a third one would be needed. If Powers is also active, then I guess we could temporarily shelve this for now, but you'd certainly be one of the top ones on the list should we need another one. But just to be sure, Ikan Kekek and AndreCarrotflower, you guys wouldn't need any extra hands, right? The dog2 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be interested in being a bureaucrat currently, so I think it would probably be either you (Ibaman) and TT if we came to that decision. Two active bureaucrats is ideal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ryan has also been around as of lately. And in addition to the voyagers mentioned above, I think we could also consider Pashley or Granger or GZ as a possible bureaucrats (actually anyone that is guaranteed to check in at least every few days) if they're interested, and if more bureaucrats are needed. --Ypsilon (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

True, all of them definitely should be considered as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd support Ibaman for any position. That said, there is very little Bureaucrats do that any other Admin can't do. I think the only additional power we have is the ability to change the status of someone whose nomination was approved for Admin to Admin. There might be something else I'm forgetting, but the main point is that the tools specific to a Bureaucrat are seldom used. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can also assign bot status to an editor and change usernames. But the only controversial decision that a bureaucrat makes is to promote or not promote an admin when consensus is unclear. It is common for the community to be split on bigger wikis like Wikipedia but it hardly ever happens here. Gizza ^(roam) 06:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, bots. That doesn't come up much here, but it can be useful. Admins are promoted here only by consensus. Any Bureaucrat who promoted an Admin other than by consensus would be really likely to get desysopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you Indonesia People?

Es Semanggi is tradisional eat from magelang.. Do you know that? If you dont know about it, I give you that infomation now Albama05 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know about Indonesian cuisine, but I know about the Wikivoyage Manual of Style. Please be aware of WV:Listings and WV:Where you can stick it. As I wrote earlier, listings on the Eat section of cities must be about LOCAL PLACES TO EAT and not LOCAL DISHES. This information might belong in Indonesia#Eat, but does NOT belong in Magelang#Eat. Thank you for understanding. Ibaman (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Though if a dish is a specialty of a city or a region (and especially if you can't find it elsewhere), it can and should be mentioned in that city's or regions Eat section. But not in the form of a listing but normal text. --Ypsilon (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I don't understand the reason for this revert. This looks like a listing for an establishment on Jl. Semarang-Yogyakarta ("Jl." means something like "road") in Magelang Utara (North Magelang). The formatting could be improved a bit, but it looks like a useful listing to me. Am I missing something? —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The link opens to a blog written in Bahasa Indonesia. The text is pure propaganda, very out of tone. Those were my reasonings. Ibaman (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll restore the listing with adjusted text and without the link.

@Albama05: Thanks for adding these listings to Magelang! Make sure that you only add links to the official websites, but you're very welcome to add more good restaurants. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Jl.=Jalan, which is exactly "Road". The "Eat" section absolutely should include names and descriptions of specialties that are particular to a given region or city. Those should be laid out in the beginning of the "Eat" section and should be bulleted or in a prose sentence or paragraph, rather than in listings, but I can't understand why we would ever want to do anything but encourage people to provide such information. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the listing describes itself as a "depot". I really thought this listing preposterous, touty and out of purpose, and can only hope there is real touristic merit about keeping it. Ibaman (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits in Tamil Nadu North Coast > Chennai > By taxi

Hi, just few hours before myself add my taxi service (vins travels - www.vinstravels.com) in Chennai > By taxi wiki voyage space, after 1 hour the edits has been removed, i'm a business owner of this travels and i wasn't aware of this wiki voyage guidelines. I'm truly apologize if my edit was like promotional and i'm really new for this platform and i really didn't have any clue so i went on (By taxi) space and start to edit and added my travels over there. if it is the wrong way to provide details there, then please help me with the right way and help me to add my travels over By Taxi space (https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Chennai).

Days

Hi Ibaman, here you changed "Sa Su" to "Daily". Is it open every day, or just in the weekend? Ground Zero (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Every day. I checked it on Google Maps. I wrote originally "Su-Su", hoping to comply with tdf, but "Daily" is clearer. Ibaman (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

This may interest you

[1] Ground Zero (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Update request for Hagia Sophia and Chora

Hello.

Yes, the conversion of the Haghia Sophia, Fethiye and Chora into mosques already have a detrimental impact for tourism (which since 2015 has already been seriously damaged due to the terrorist attacks, the coup attempt and ongoing government repression - separately from the Covid-19 pandemic that has brought the entire tourist industry of Turkey to a collapse), as these along with the Topkapı and Dolmabahçe Palaces are the biggest tourist attractions of the city and even the country. The strict dress codes and that these buildings are closed five times a day during prayer time for ordinary visitors, will make visits restrictive and even uninviting. Thus the minuses far outweigh the only plus (that they are now free of charge). Because the internet is delibaretly slowed down here by the government and often freezes (when I try to edit or even visit a page, it freezes), I will give to you the latest news sources. I am glad too that I visited all the Byzantine churches in Istanbul, and also the two Hagia Sophia churches in Iznik [2] and Trabzon [3] before they too were converted into mosques. Only two Byzantine churches are left in Istanbul that have not been converted - yet: Haghia Irene [4] which is a museum and Church of Saint Mary of the Mongols [5] which was never converted and still functions as a Greek Orthodox Church. Since 2015, Istanbul, has really become an intimidating place not only for tourists but also for locals, especially in the city center where Taksim Square, İstiklal Street and the tourist sites are under a heavy police presence with even portable fences. It is really very sad.

Here are news sources (I try to find more):

• Dress code which also applies to every mosque (that are also former churches)
• Chora
• Fethiye Mosque which was reconverted into a mosque in the 1960s, except for the parekklesion.

Yours sincerely, IP from Turkey 31.200.15.225 00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I had the pleasure of visiting Istanbul and other parts of Turkey in 2017. The police presence was intimidating, but the history and architecture of the city is so amazing. And the food is great, too. I really love Istanbul. Tomorrow, I have an errand in another part of my city, Toronto, that will take me near a Turkish grocery store that sells great simit. I always stop for simit (and maybe some loukum) when I go to that part of the city. I look forward to visiting Istanbul again. I hope that conditions will improve there. Ground Zero (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

richiesta di traduzione per Coreca in portoghese e inglese

Buongiorno dalla Calabria, ti scrivo e ringrazio per quello che hai fatto per la pagina della mia comunità, purtroppo il mio inglese fa piangere un marines, ad ogni modo ti scrivo se puoi dare una piccola mano in inglese e portoghese, ho visto che sei molto attivo e pratico, io disgraziatamente sono bravino in Wikipedia, ma per il resto sono una frana totale. Per il resto spero che vada tutto bene lì da te, naturalmente se posso fare qualcosa per te chiedi pure tranquillamente. un caro saluto e a presto!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Grazie per i complimenti e per i contributi alla nostra guida. Non parlo italiano, infatti, ho bisogno di usare la traduzione automatica. Sono stato a Roma e Venezia e voglio tornare, parlando meglio l'italiano. I contributi degli utenti locali sono sempre i benvenuti, sentiti libero di contribuire di più. Ibaman (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Taxi services

Hi Ibaman, I don't understand the reason for this edit. Why did you remove all the contact information for taxis from the article? I can understand cutting down the list if you feel it's too long, but surely it doesn't help the traveller to remove them completely. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

oh well, when it comes to our articles on India, and Bangalore specially, the Indian car transport enterprises are way too aggressive about advertising. I usually never let "XXX Private Tours"-type of listings stand, but in Bangalore they tend to accumulate. How can we sort'em out? What would be the criteria? Are they really needed? I admit that sometimes my "nuke'em all" vibe takes over, with less-than-optimal results, but the aim is a clean and reliable travel guide, always. How could we tackle this issue, for the greater benefit of Wikivoyage? Ibaman (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes find taxis useful when I travel (that's why I added two phone numbers for taxi services to Colonia, for instance). The most fundamental principle here is that the traveller comes first, so I think we should certainly allow contact information for taxi services in the article.

I would say let's restore the list to the article—I don't see that it was causing any problems. I can do some online research to remove the ones that are dead links or that get bad reviews. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, edits advertising tours can often be reverted per Wikivoyage:Listings#Tour listings. But I don't think that applies to most of the taxi listings in this article. I'll double check though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I've cut down the list somewhat—hopefully an improvement? [6] —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Totally an improvement, much cleaner now. You're ace, dude. Ibaman (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiVoyage - Westport edits (Carters Beach)

Hello, Ibaman, regarding Westport, I am a visitor and have been in the area for about 6 months, staying in Carters Beach. I had intended to start a separate article on Carters Beach, as I believe it's deserving of its own space. Are you thinking it's not and that Carters Beach, Cape Foulwind, and Tauranga Bay all should be under Westport ? --PDXMaria (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, and for your collaboration. Please check out the wiaa policy. If each of these locations merit two or more See, Eat, Drink and Sleep listings, they definitely should have their own articles, and the correspondent listings should be moved accordingly. Per Don't tout, each business should be only one listing, site-wide. If you could add the geocoordinates for the listings you're adding (they're easily available at Google Maps), it would be so nice. Regards, Ibaman (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Supermarkets

Hi Ibaman. Thanks for all your great contributions. I noticed this edit and edit summary of yours. Have another look at Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it. Maybe you looked at the 'shopping' entry and not the 'supermarket' entry?? Cheers. Nurg (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

wow! Roger that. Will comply. Thanks for the heads-up. Ibaman (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Westport WikiVoyage

Hello Ibaman,

You indicated in a 19 Sept undo that supermarkets belong in Buy. That contradicts the guidelines: https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Where_you_can_stick_it that state they belong in Eat.

Just letting you know as a courtesy that I'm moving those back to the Eat section. --PDXMaria (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

yeah, I was wrong, thanks for doing it. Ibaman (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. BTW, you didn't indent your reply ;)) This Wiki stuff is quite addicting. --PDXMaria (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your recent reverts on Härnösand

See https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Map_of_campsites_doesn't_work,_is_rawhtml_permitted? about how to best integrate this valuable information into Wikivoyage from WD.--So9q (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please listify the individual campsites as you add them to the page, that's the Wikivoyage way. Thanks for your concern Ibaman (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Server lag

I was seeing the same delay and there was a warning about a server lag. Seems to be running normally now.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Ibaman,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Attica

Hello ibaman, Attica is historical a peninsula but modern attica Region include the argosaronic and kythera island complex. Attica peninsula and Attica region are two different things, Attica region include islands, peninsula not include--2A02:587:4417:E381:C0F9:D6FB:AA3E:3B2B 08:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• You know, it would really be best if you concentrated on developing the empty sections of this article, for the benefit of travellers, instead of fighting over precise geographical definitions and bad grammar choices. Thanks for improving Wikivoyage content, anyway. Ibaman (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Westport NZ - Beaches

Hello, Ibaman, I differ in opinion at your edit of Westport's Beaches. They can as well go under See as Do, and I assure you that See is what these beaches are mostly used for. WYCSI for Beaches: "sightseeing may be See." Respectfully, I am going to move them back. --PDXMaria (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this walking tour no good to list?

Re this edit:

A link to the Gundagai Visitor Information Centre is a good primary link, right? And walking tours may be listed per tour. So as I see it, the only problem is that this should probably be put into a listing template. But I don't understand deleting it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I also disagree with this block and will respectfully undo it. Listing walking tours is not at all a violation of any policy currently in force. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

See User talk:120.17.134.2. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

well, as for this case, I thought I was dealing with a vandal on edit war with you, reverting your reversions. I might have got carried away in this frenzy. Thanks for the heads-up. Ibaman (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing. I would say it does pay to look carefully at the edits. Someone who starts off by using a link of a type we don't allow doesn't always end up being a touter; sometimes, they're just someone who didn't know what kinds of links to use and not to use on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please reconsider Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay rollback

Regarding your rollback to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay. I believe this is a legitimate addition of a business to a local services directory. Please advise. —The preceding comment was added by 102.165.91.169 (talk • contribs)

The listing says "Mobile operation - no offices." Our guidelines on listings says businesses must have a local presence, with address. If you want an exception, you should argue for that on the talk page. Moreover, I find the listing odd. It says, on Special:Diff/4069305/4070264 that "Cape RADD is a research station". I have not before heard about virtual stations – isn't the point of a station to have real-world facilities? At the linked web site, under Publications, just two articles are listed, one using "big data", probably not gathered here, and the other seems to critisise the methods of a study conducted in the area, not doing the empirical work themselves. Shouldn't a research station be able to link dozens or hundreds of relevant research articles? –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the project descriptions should present the project leaders and their qualifications, a comprehensive discussion on the used methodology etc., and articles or working papers produced so far. Nothing of the kind. I get the impression this is pure leisure diving, but with the "projects" and "research" giving participants a feeling of doing something important. If I am wrong, please rework your web site to answer these worries. –LPfi (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There are several listings in this category that do not include an address, and another specifically that says 'Mobile Operation - no offices.' I do not see the relevance of debating an academic record for a listing categorised as providing diving services. Guided citizen science diving is a service not provided by any others on this list of dive tour operators, regardless of your views on the merits of such an activity. —The preceding comment was added by 102.165.91.169 (talk • contribs)

"Others are violating policy/guidelines" is never a good argument for anything other than removing the other listings that are in violation of those policies or guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And if it is included because it offers "citizen science", then it should provide something scientifically valuable. I understand that citizen science is not academic research, but it should be useful other than in providing nice experiences. Your webpage failed to give me any evidence of this activity being useful for anybody but the business, and hopefully for the customers. Why doesn't the projects page link to more in-depth info on the projects? –LPfi (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)