User talk:JuliasTravels/archive

Welcome

Hello, Justme! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

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

Great work on Eindhoven!

To respond to your questions, the first problem you had was that you placed the description within the alt="" tag, which is for alternate names, and which displays in italics. The description goes between the > and < in "></eat>". I have fixed this [1].

To add an image to the article that has been uploaded, see Project:How to add an image for a detailed explanation. The short explanation is: copy [[Image:Image name.extension|thumb|260px|Description]], but substitute the proper name for the image file and an actual description.

Lastly, don't worry—Wikivoyage does have a somewhat steep learning curve! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:58, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Really good work at Eindhoven! Well done. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 05:11, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you :-) It's a lot more work than I intended really, but well, I guess I now decided to make it useful enough for the average traveler. (WT-en) Justme 05:33, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

's-Hertogenbosch/Den Bosch

Would like to hear your opinion in this discussion: Talk:Den Bosch. :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:23, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Get out section

Just a heads up that this section is intended for a few quick wikilnked suggestions of where to go next, and not transport info. All transport info should go into the Get in section. You should change that Eindhoven please. Cheers. —The preceding comment was added by [[User:(WT-en) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:57, 2 August 2011 (EDT)|(WT-en) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:57, 2 August 2011 (EDT)]] ([[User talk:(WV-en) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:57, 2 August 2011 (EDT)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(WV-en) --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:57, 2 August 2011 (EDT)|contribs]])

Well, hello, mystery guest. Unfortunately, I didnt know that before and information is so ample that it's quite hard to read up. I don't really feel I "should" do anything, frankly I don't see why transport info can /not/ be there, especially to the extend that it isn't in "get in". Travel info to minor destinations around (like Helmond, for Eindhoven) doesn't really belong in get in either, I guess, so I don't see how it hurts. If I were a traveler, I would like to have an idea of how far Amsterdam is (since the Netherlands is small, it's actually doable even as a daytrip). And I feel that /if/ you link to minor destinations, like Helmond, it doesn't hurt to say which bus line runs. However, feel free to move the information to get in if you find it important. (WT-en) Justme 16:35, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

That was me. It is a long established policy at WT that Get in contains transport information and Get out is for the purpose I explained above. That's the case whether it is a big city, small city, huge country, small country etc. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:57, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

Ah, you :-) Well, I did move the train info to get in, as well as the express bus lines. I left travel info with regards to travel times, bus lines and cost for the local/regional destinations though, as star article Hilversum lists such info as well. Just links to these places (which so far have no information) seems hardly helpful for travelers. Quite frankly, I do wonder about this whole concept for "get out", as most articles now list surrounding villages as suggestions on where to go next. For Eindhoven and Hilversum alike, I would say major places like Maastricht, Amsterdam or Zaandam make a lot more sense for travelers in the Netherlands. These small places are of little interest and the major ones aren't that far away. But well, if that's the policy, I'll let it rest for now.Cheers. (WT-en) Justme 07:23, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

Vaals

Hi. I noticed some of the sentences at Vaals#History contributed by you are same with the Wikipedia article of the same name. Were these sentences contributed by you over there? If not, that constitutes a copyright violation without proper attribution. Could you please clarify? – (WT-en) Vidimian 10:41, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

If it came from Wikipedia, then you just need to use the Wikipedia attribution tag at the bottom of the article {{wikipedia|article name}}. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:48, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Okay, thanks. It did come from Wikipedia, I just adjusted it. I did mention that in the edit summary, with a link to the edit history of the Wikipedia article, in order not to violate their copyright (see http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Vaals&action=history). That is basically the same as the attribution tag, I just didn't know that tag existed. I'm happy to use the tag (although I find a link in the edit history more subtle). I think it doesn't make sense to re-write the history of such places when Wikipedia has good, free-licensed info. That is principally okay, isn't it? (WT-en) Justme 11:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for clarification. I should have missed your edit summary as I was patrolling all edits to that article for that day (in which case you can't see the summaries unless you go one by one again). I now added the Wikipedia attribution template—I think it's a bit unsightly but that's the proper way of attributing the authors over at Wikipedia. While copying from Wikipedia, as far as I know, is in principle okay (with proper attribution, of course, and unless done massively), I think it's best to create original content for Wikivoyage (for the sake of avoiding that template if nothing else), although copying especially history sections from there is somewhat common. – (WT-en) Vidimian 12:23, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

At second glance, that tag really is far too ugly, and unnecessary. I don't really see why you would like to use it instead of a note in the edit history (which is the same place as where Wikipedia puts its editors and legally fine). Frankly, I find it a bit silly to create new content for such specific parts, when it is exactly the purpose of "free content" to be re-used. But oh well :-) I guess it's another one of those policy things, right? (WT-en) Justme 19:00, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

please help, IP blocked

Lovely. I just made a new account (as Justme2) on Wikivoyage shared, since I can't seem to log in today with that open ID functionality. But now it says my user name or IP has been blocked, reason "spambot". It suggests contacting the administrator who blocked me (Riggwelter) but I also can't edit his page. Can someone help me or tell me what to do? I don't want to use my personal email address. There must be another way, isn't there? (WT-en) Justme 07:59, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

I unblocked your new Justme2 account there. I suppose Riggwelter got a little overzealous blocking all the spambots that we have had lately there... (WT-en) texugo 08:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Thank you :-) I imagine those bots can be annoying. Strange though that you have no way to proof your innocence apart from via email. Oh well, all fixed now. (WT-en) Justme 08:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Oh, hm, too early - it still doesn't work. Are you sure you unblocked me? In the edit history of shared I can see where I got blocked, not that I got unblocked though. (WT-en) Justme 08:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps try logging in and logging out? I just tried to unblock you again and the software is saying that "Justme2" is no longer blocked. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:00, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Thank you, Ryan. I tried that but it didn't work then. Just needed some time to get processed apparently, because now it seems to work without any problems. (WT-en) Justme 15:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

Pub cleaning

Just want to say thanks for the pub cleaning! --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Me too! It's a job that nobody likes doing. Thanks a lot.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 10:14, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Quite welcome, I've been filling it a lot myself too, lately. I'll try to move a few more later, but there's a few at the top I'm not sure what to do with. Something like Project:Travellers'_pub#Road_types.. for example, I don't know where to place. Same for the long topic on ClubMed resorts. Perhaps one of you could just see to those two? =)(WT-en) Justme 10:46, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks from me too. And please do just skip over the ones you aren't sure what to do with—it's immensely helpful to just take care of the ones you know. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Great job!

I was just patrolling some of your work, and I want you to know that I'm continually impressed by your energy and the amount and quality of the specifics and photos in the guides you're creating and editing. It's exciting to look at the fruits of your labor!

All the best,

(WT-en) Ikan Kekek 19:17, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks, Ikan Kekek, that kind of praise is very encouraging :-) Thank you for all the patrolling, quite frankly I didn't realize you still have to review every edit I save. (WT-en) Justme 06:20, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm guessing that won't be the case for long. You are building up an impressive body of work. If I am traveling to Flanders, I'll be sure to consult your suggestions. (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 16:25, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Somewhere buried in the labyrinths of this site there is an explanation of how long a new user's edits are patrolled. It is either 500 edits or one month. I can never remember.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 19:27, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

Chinatown hotel

Good point. Truthfully, the boundary between the two districts is supposed to be Sutter Street, but things between Sutter and Bush kept winding up in the Union Square article and I wasn't vigilant enough to really enforce that boundary. At this point, it would probably make more sense to just bump the boundary up to Bush Street and move those hotels to the Union Square article - something I will work on shortly. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 16:15, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Eindhoven

I nominated Eindhoven for OtBP (see [2]), see it as an appreciation of your work on it :) --(WT-en) globe-trotter 12:50, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Thank you, that's much appreciated :-). I'm not sure Eindhoven is the most interesting of places in the Netherlands, but perhaps that shouldn't make a difference. If it would be featured, it would best be during October, when Glow and the Dutch Design Week take place. If it doesn't make it, I'm all up to bring another Dutch city or town to guide level and nominate it, if you're up for another cooperation some time :-) Maastricht or another South Limburg town would be a good candidate: although not very off the beaten path it could make a good dotm. I'm open for other suggestions, though. Cheers! (WT-en) Justme 17:19, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

I was looking at potential Dutch candidates for featuring, and Delft would not require much work. It looks like a guide already to me. We need more candidates, and another Dutch entry would be great.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:33, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Surgeon general

Thanks for all the awesome work you are doing on the Country surgeon Expedition! It's really helping to keep us all moving ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:27, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

No thanks needed :-) It's a fun group effort and one of the best collaboration ideas you could have come up with. I didn't realize before that so many countries have just *no* see section at all. So, thanks to you, really ;-) (WT-en) Justme 06:34, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Thanks from me also... very good work. Would be great if you signed the expedition members page here.--(WT-en) burmesedays 09:05, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

Very welcome :-) I've signed up on that page now, for the record ;-) (WT-en) Justme 10:18, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

How to edit {Schengen}?

Swept in from the pub

Can someone tell me how I can edit the text that is generated by this: {{Schengen}} , in a country article? Thanks, (WT-en) Justme 05:19, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Template:Schengen. Just keep in mind that whatever changes you make will show up in all the almost 30 articles that use this template. (WT-en) texugo 07:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Ah, thanks, also for the "nowiki" trick :-) (WT-en) Justme 08:10, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

purge a page

swept in from pub

Is there any trick to purge a page easily, and see the last version? For some reason, I always have to read the "edit" version to see what's really on the page, since the normal page shows me versions up to days old. Isn't that like a major major bug? It's very frustrating at the very least, but I would say it limits the use of the whole website.. (WT-en) Justme 05:05, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

On the edit page, there is a purge button at the bottom. Or you can change the action in the URL from edit to purge. (WT-en) texugo 06:56, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

For me, just pressing F5 usually makes it show the most recent version. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 06:59, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Amongst the stinking heap of operational crapiness of this site, I think this is the worst of it all. It is sometimes weeks before a cached page clears itself. Most regulars know how to purge cache (although it is still incredibly annoying), but casual users (i.e. the key target market) will not have a clue.--(WT-en) burmesedays 07:59, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

The comments above are an understatement, dog crapiness does not even come close either. It is near impossible to edit anything without a mind numbing array of page reload attempts, failed previews or 'lost' edit uploads and a seemingly endless stream of blank pages instead of a page or preview loading. Lately I have near given up. I have recently just given up on a few corrective edits because I just cannot get anywhere with the page despite purging, cache clearing and even waiting and returning later often ends up in the same morass. Gets a bit disheartening after a while and is an appalling waste of time and energy. -- (WT-en) felix 11:37, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

For what it's worth, IB is hopeful that upgrading our version of MediaWiki will resolve these problems. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:42, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

IB's latest update with respect to performance issues is here. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

For my information, is the issue reported here also the issue reported here: http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tech:Cache_not_clearing_after_editing#Caching_still_not_working --(WT-en) IBobi 18:23, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

Tech indicates that if the MW update does not resolve the issue itself, there is a chacheing upgrade we can do as well to resolve this.--(WT-en) IBobi 19:38, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

That's good news IBobi, thanks. (WT-en) Justme 14:43, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Good catch

Thanks for pointing that out - should have had User: in front of it - thanks sats (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

was delayed in doing anything by a power outage that lasted 20 hours plus - so much for living in abuilt up area after so long in 'the bush'...sats (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, just wanted to make you aware so you could fix it. There was no rush. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

redirects to specific sections?

Swept in from the pub

Quick question, when redirecting e.g. names of large attractions to the town it's in, do we just redirect to the general article or to the see section where the description is? And if the latter is true, how do I do that again? JuliasTravels (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

#REDIRECT[[pagename#section]]--Traveler100 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks. So the answer is yes, we do redirect to specific sections in such a case? JuliasTravels (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's permitted, but some have expressed a mild dislike of the practice in the past. It's not required. LtPowers (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)