User talk:SHB2000/Archive 2024

Latest comment: 16 days ago by SHB2000 in topic Taking liberties
2023 Archives for 2024 (current) 2025

Currency conversion tables for Singapore

China and Japan are both major sources of tourism to Singapore, and there's also heavy business traffic to Singapore from China and Japan, so to me, it is not unreasonable to list their currencies in the Singapore article. In fact, I would argue that the Chinese yuan should be listed in the currency conversion tables for all Southeast Asian countries because China is the largest source of international tourists for most of them.

As for New Zealand, many New Zealanders change flights in Singapore on their way to Europe. Singapore Airlines in fact operates a direct flight to Christchurch (and Auckland too of course) to cater to this market. And by the way, the New Zealand dollar is not an obscure currency. It is a major world currency and one of the "big eight".

Hong Kong sees very heavy business traffic to Singapore, and there's more than 10 flights a day in each direction. So that's why I think it's not unreasonable to have the Hong Kong dollar in the currency table for Singapore.

I haven't added back the Thai baht and Vietnamese dong, but I think it's worth considering given that they're actually quite easy to exchange them in Singapore. Just go to any money changer and they will be readily accepted. And if you are heading to those countries, you can also obtain those currencies easily at any money changer.

I haven't added the Canadian dollar, but it is a major world currency. And Air Canada is starting a nonstop fight from Vancouver to Singapore in the spring, so I would presume there is substantial business traffic for Air Canada to start operating this route. The dog2 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem with adding more currencies is that it takes longer to update. Sincex2018, I've been updating more than 160 pages every January so that we don't have rates that are up to 7 years out of date anymore. That was just embarrassing. SHB2000 has been helping out thus year, which I very much appreciate. It's a big job.
The dog 2: adding more currencies to a page without updating the others, as you did on China, and perhaps other pages, leaves a mess -- some rates are from December 2022, and others from a year or more later. I will leave that for you to sort out. If I have to fix it, I'l just start fresh with a new table of the standard, internationally traded currencies. Ground Zero (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Strictly speaking, the "big eight" internationally traded currencies are the U.S. dollar, Euro, pound Sterling, Japanese yen, Swiss franc, Canadian dollar, Australian dollar and New Zealand dollar. At least that's what people who invest in forex have told me. Of course, whether or not a currency is easy to exchange depends a lot on where you are. For instance, it is easier to exchange Singapore dollars than Thai baht in Japan, but the reverse is true in Canada. I think that it is warranted to include currencies that are regionally important in the exchange tables. Taking Singapore dollars for instance, including them in the exchange table for Malaysia would be warranted, but not in the one for Costa Rica. The dog2 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since you have a keen interest in East Asia, and in expanding the list of currencies displayed there, I'll leave that region for you to update. Ground Zero (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was going to say what Ground Zero mentioned, but they beat me to it. Flights from CHC–SIN are still quite rare (I think only 1 per day) – I only remember seeing one for the entire day when I was at the airport last week. Far more travellers transit via SYD or AKL when getting to Europe from those who I talked to. AKL, sure, but how different is this from any other country? You could apply the same rationale for a lot of currencies and it becomes one giant chunky list. The reason we list AUD for SEA/Oceania articles, CAD for Caribbean articles, ZAR for Southern African articles, or SAR for Arabian/Gulf state articles, is because they are widely traded locally and have far, far, more visitors than people from NZ to Singapore. It does, however, make sense to add NZD to many Pacific countries for this very same reason – but not Singapore. The same goes for adding CAD in Singapore. A single flight isn't enough to justify it.
I'll leave you to the rest for East Asia and SEA articles, but it's worth considering this in mind – basically this and what GZ mentioned. Cheers, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, CHC-SIN is one flight a day. I think there are 3 flights a day for AKL-SIN, 2 on SQ and 1 on NZ. These flights are actually timed to connect to SQ's flights to Europe, but of course, both are premium airlines and charge accordingly. Even if you transit at SYD or AKL to connect on to Europe, you still need another stop somewhere in Asia, which would typically be in Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangkok or the Middle East. And of course, there's quite heavy business and diplomatic traffic between Singapore and NZ too.
But anyway, NZD is easily traded in Singapore too. Any bank or money changer will accept it. I can bet you will get a better rate for NZD in Singapore than in Australia. CAD is certainly more niche than NZD in the Singaporean context given that Canada is much farther away, but it too is easy to exchange at any bank or money changer. In fact, I can get better rates for CAD in Singapore than in the U.S. Travelex in both the U.S. and Australia is a rip off. The dog2 (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I can definitely concur with Travelex in the US and Aus – when I asked how much US$500 they were going to give me at SYD, it was something like NZ$600 (I wasn't actually intending to convert there since I'd already exchanged prior but asked them out of curiosity). Normally if I'm transiting through Singapore, then it'd exchange there but otherwise I've mostly just exchanged my currency at Flight Centre. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Although the rates at Changi Airport are not very good. You'll get much better rates at a money changer in the city or in a neighbourhood shopping centre. Unlike in Western countries, in Singapore money changers usually give you better rates than banks. That's why for me, the idea of going to an ATM in a foreign country to withdraw the local currency was a completely foreign concept. I get a much better rate by exchanging cash at a money changer in Singapore before leaving on my trip. The dog2 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Airport rates in general are less than ideal, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
By the way, do you know how to update the currency exchange table for Japan? I think there should be more currencies than what is listed. At the very least, we should also have Chinese yuan, South Korean won and Hong Kong dollar, and probably the Singapore dollar too since it appears to be the most widely accepted Asian currency at Japanese money changers. I'm a bit on the fence for Taiwan dollars though, because it is kind of obscure, but Japan is without a doubt the most popular holiday destination for the Taiwanese, and also the largest source of foreign tourists for Taiwan. But during my trips to Japan, I did not see any money changers displaying Taiwan dollars on their boards. The dog2 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
For JP, you can edit it on Template:exchange rate JPY. I don't hold any strong opinions for JP so I'll leave you to update it :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-02

MediaWiki message delivery 01:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

 
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

This Month in GLAM: December 2023

 




Headlines
  • Albania report: Wiki Loves EuroPride in Albania 2023
  • Bosnia & Herzegovina report: A year in review ...
  • Croatia report: 2023 in review
  • Czech Republic report: Wiki-residents establishing meeting took place in December
  • Germany report: Go-ahead for Wikidata Project of GLAM institutions from Baden-Württemberg
  • Italy report: WLM Local winners and funds for 2024 GLAM projects
  • New Zealand report: Auckland Museum summer updates
  • Poland report: Intense end to a year of GLAM-Wiki activities in Poland
  • Sweden report: Photo memories project concludes; Sörmlands museum passes 1000 uploads to Wikimedia Commons; Wikimedian in Residence supports an upload of music content; Subject terms from Queerlit; Wikidata for authority control: 3 years of work
  • Switzerland report: Swiss GLAM Program
  • UK report: 2023 in Review
  • USA report: WikiConference North America 2023; TSU and USF; Philadelphia WikiSalon; Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting; Wikipedia Editing 101 for All; NYC Hacking Night; Upstate NY workshop; Wikiquote She Said Project
  • Wiki Loves Living Heritage report: Thank you for making Wiki Loves Living Heritage happen!
  • WMF GLAM report: Updates and invitation to test the Commons Impact Metrics prototype
  • Calendar: January's GLAM events
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-03

MediaWiki message delivery 00:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help

with the New Jersey vandal. What a piece of work. Ground Zero (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, not a problem at all! Glad that user is blocked for good. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverts

FYI, 168.8.214.228 is reverting your previously reverted edits. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've put one-day blocks on the unregistered accounts. If it happens again, I think we should protect the articles for 7 days to start. That should be enough to get them to give up. Ground Zero (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Given they are block evading (I blocked them for a month due to incivility), we may as well start protecting the articles. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-04

MediaWiki message delivery 01:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just excited to inform you

That Microsoft Translator added Meitei language in both Meitei script and Latin script today. I hope all the Microsoft software services will get its usage. :-) Haoreima (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's great to hear! Another milestone for the Meitei language today. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

How to word the Taiwan lede

I'm going to steer clear of the debate on whether or not Taiwan should be an independent country, but I don't think we should take a stand on this here on WV. I know that it is de facto a separate country, and we have in fact stated that in the disclaimer box, but I think we should try to use more politically neutral wording in the lede. The dog2 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Same here; I just think we should write what's the reality on the ground for travellers whenever we can, though. We do this for Kosovo for similar reasons, too. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've made some minor changes, so see if it's fine. It's a bit different in the case of Taiwan because at it now stands, Taiwan has not declared independence, and the Taiwanese constitution considers Taiwan to be a province of China. Kinmen and Matsu are still legally part of Fujian, and the residents of those islands actually don't identify as Taiwanese. Someone from Kinmen will usually say "I am not from Taiwan. I am from Kinmen." if you ask. The dog2 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, that's also true; thanks for bringing that (I completely forgot). I'll leave it to you and others. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The first sentence of the current lede is problematic. We should say it's a set of islands that rules itself, I think, not a "de facto country." Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
What about a set of self-governing islands? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's a better phrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that works for me. The dog2 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad we were able to quickly resolve this one :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think we should avoid legalistic terminology like "de facto" and "self-governing" in the first sentence of the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMO self-governing isn't really a legalistic term given it's self-explanatory. I agree with you on de facto, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 04:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) But if we say that Taiwan is a country, then we are effectively taking sides in the political dispute. KMT supporters in Taiwan will say that the Republic of China is a country, and Taiwan is not a country but a province of the ROC. Of course DPP supporters will say that Taiwan is a country, but as of now they haven't amended the Taiwanese constitution to declare an independent "Republic of Taiwan", so it's the ROC constitution that is still in force. For that reason, I think we should stick to deliberately ambiguous wording that covers the situation on the ground accurately. The dog2 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What was wrong with "Taiwan is an island off the coast of China"? (Yes, there are other islands, but this is a normal way to introduce an entity that consists of one main island plus a bunch of much smaller associated islands.) The current first sentence with its focus on self-governance reads like the beginning of a geopolitical briefing rather than a travel guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
If we just use the word "island" then I think it's probably fine. I'm just trying to avoid controversy here by steering clear of declaring Taiwan a country. The disclaimer box already says that it functions as a country in practice. The dog2 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that "self-governing" is purely and clearly descriptive, not legalistic. Taiwan is one island. How do you think the other islands ruled by the same government should be described in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe island chain? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Island chain isn't exactly accurate. Kinmen and Matsu are located quite some distance from the main island of Taiwan. And Kinmen is in fact close enough to Xiamen for you to be able to see the Xiamen skyline. The dog2 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I always forget about Kinmen but in that case, I'd go with what Ikan mentioned. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

CEE Newsletter - January 2024 Issue Now Available!

Good evening,

We're excited to announce the release of the January 2024 issue of the CEE Newsletter! This edition is filled with captivating stories, community highlights, and collaborative achievements from across Central and Eastern Europe region in the Wikimedia movement.

In This Issue:

  • CEE Hub and WMF Updates: Explore the latest from the Wikimedia Foundation with the Talking 2024 series and insights into the impacts on children participating in Wikimedia projects. Additionally, discover CEE Hub's plans for 2024 as outlined in the recently approved grant proposal named Stronger CEE Hub
  • Highlights from CEE Communities: From the Georgian Wikipedia's 20th birthday celebration to the Wiki Loves EuroPride event in Albania, delve into the vibrant activities of our diverse communities. Journey through time with the celebration of Czech Wikipedia's founder and the resilience of Ukrainian Wikipedia editors. Explore the outcomes of Wiki Loves Earth 2023 and Wikimedia Czech Republic's presence at the Archives, Libraries, Museums in the Digital World 2023 conference.
  • Community Initiatives and Beyond: Read about the unique efforts of the CEE Youth Group and the unification of GLAM Macedonia and Shared Knowledge into Wikimedia MKD.
  • Looking Ahead: Anticipate the 2024 Wikimedia Hackathon in Tallinn, Estonia, and gain insights from Marija Mihajlova's report on the Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2023.

You can read the full newsletter here. We hope you enjoy the inspiring stories and achievements showcased by our vibrant CEE communities.

Happy reading and here's to another year of Wikimedia excellence in the CEE region!

Best regards,

Jan Beránek
Editor-in-chief
Wikimedia CEE Newsletter

15:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-05

MediaWiki message delivery 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bureaucrat

You're a bureaucrat now. Don't add too much red tape to the site. :-)

Seriously, thanks for volunteering to do these tasks.

Best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the swift response, Ikan Kekek! Glad I could help. One more thing: if I can't add too much red tape, can I add more sticky tape with a tint of red? You didn't say anything about that! /s --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Be my guest. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

 
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Thanks

I had never heard of Cormac McCarthy, but today I learned a new word, w:Polysyndeton, and I wanted to thank you for expanding my vocabulary, and for introducing me to this author, and his unusual style of writing, which, to be frank, will probably give me nightmares because I am fond of punctuation, as I find it to be an effective way of letting the reader know where they are in the exposition, and therefore conveys the writer's meaning more effectively. Ground Zero (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad I was able to help as his style of writing is really something else which is rather unusual for today's age but it's really evident especially in The Road, a post-apocalyptic novel (okay, seriously, I suck at writing polysyndetons). But yeah, I fully agree with you. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Archive

Could you please archive the talk page on England? Thanks! 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:ACCD:5712:7C99:666F 00:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'll do so right in a moment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much! 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:ACCD:5712:7C99:666F 00:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad I was able to help. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-06

MediaWiki message delivery 19:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: January 2024

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

This Month in Education: January 2024

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

 
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-07

MediaWiki message delivery 05:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reverting of Brycehughes WarningBox removals

Apologies - I did not mean to edit war. Can you please clarify where the right place to discuss @Brycehughes edits would be? It seems a little unreasonable that they can casually revert WarningBoxes on dozens of pages without meaningfully explaining their decisions but I would have to start a discussion for each individual page. I feel that there is a need to revisit what the actual WV guidance should be moving forward on WarningBoxes. I have tried to bring this up in Travellers'_pub#Proliferation_of_Warning_boxes and I even requested comment - to no avail. Cyali (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you're all good. I think for a lot of these it should apply on a case-by-case basis since a one-size-fits-all policy rarely works – would be best to bring up the individual warningboxes on the relevant talk pages (e.g. Talk:Socotra, etc.). Hope that clarifies! (cc Brycehughes). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the quick response. Also just want to clarify that my original edit to Venezuela was a mistake - I tried to revert it back to add a reason but you beat me to it. (small addition) Is it reasonable to ask that the other user provide their justification as well - or is the onus entirely on me to prove that the WarningBox is necessary? A lot of these edit summaries are not constructive. Is there a policy or set of guidelines to determine if an edit is constructive or useful? I have been relying on the Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first and assume good faith but it ultimately is quite ambiguous in these circumstances.
It would be helpful to have these edits explained on a case-by-case basis rather than me just echoing travel advisories and saying "travel bad". There's no way I can meaningfully address the below concerns without them meaningfully engaging.
13 February 2024
Cyali (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think they are reasonable reasons for removal which is why I mentioned they should be brought up on the talk page for further discussion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can appreciate that, and I'm aware that I'll have to write up reasons for disagreeing. I am not trying to put you on the spot (and thank you for responding - I know you certainly don't have to answer my questions), but it would be helpful to understand how you would suggest approaching this conversation constructively in your opinion, as I'm aware that you share a similar position to the user. What would it take to build a meaningful consensus? If there is not a one sized fits all policy, what points should I clearly address from the get-go - especially when the edit summaries appear very subjective? I guess I'm just finding it really difficult to understand how to build this consensus and try and find a neutral compromise when the issue is so charged and heavily influenced by one's experience traveling (I.e. my travel wisdom is contrary to a government travel advisory). I also am not really sure why the original travellers pub thread that led the user to remove these Warning boxes from many pages in WV in the first place isn't a relevant place to obtain consensus after the fact. Once I write up the issues on their respective talk pages, can I also ask you to provide input and to constructively contribute to the conversations as well? Cyali (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't have answers to all the questions since I was overseas when the discussion happened and wasn't following it, but I'll be happy to provide input to the discussions on their respective talk pages. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the consensus was that some cautionboxes are too alarmist and that many stay long after the situation has improved. The other user tried to get some policy changes to address the issues, but did not get support for those exact measures.
Mostly their edits make sense (such as in the Venezuela case, they kept most of the info in a cautionbox in Stay safe), but they are sometimes too radical. Tweaking the edit to reinsert some important issues can work, as can reinstating the warningbox but removing some lesser issues from it, perhaps adding to the running text instead. Among established users, plain reverts should be rare and plain reverts with no edit summary should not be used, other than in special cases.
LPfi (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
To add, plain reverts in general should be rare, not just among established users. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
They can still be used on vandalism and graffiti, or repeated edits which were already reverted with an explanation, i.e. cases where it should be obvious to the other party why the edit was reverted (erring on the side of caution).
Established users should not do edits that obviously should be reverted, so admitting the possibility that the edit was actually good (and therefore explaining the revert) is good manners. The edit summary may be something like "mistake?" or "see talk". The cases should be rare enough that using some extra time on the summary is no burden.
LPfi (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
But usually they are rollbacks which I consider different to a plain revert. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Kind of, but I don't see why you could rollback something that reverting without explanation would be wrong. I see the two as equivalent, only that rollback can be a convenient shorthand that more or less explicitly says that the revert isn't worth a comment. –LPfi (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think it's nonsense to say that Russia is not at war. Targets in Russia have been repeatedly hit by Ukrainian drones or Special Forces or others. You should be careful if you plan on walking past military-related factories, power plants, military induction offices, cars belonging to Russian online war propagandists, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not opposed to finding ways to reduce the alarmism and to keep them concise, factual and up to date. I just find it challenging to keep up when a user can casually revert my contributions with little explanation (a sarky edit summary), all with a similar goal in mind, without being held to the same standard of explaining their decisions individually. I have not opposed most of the other user's edits because they are so numerous and in some cases, I agreed with them. However, the inability to discuss a thematic grouping of edits, many of whom have limited context, puts other editors at a disadvantage in these conversations when trying to get to the root of an issue, and discourages newer editors like me to meaningfully engage and work towards consensus. I'm not saying that individual page discussions are out of the question - but it feels like there's a larger conversation to be had first.
I'd really either like to resolve this constructively with compromise or I'd like to see consensus that the community wants for it to be easier to remove WarningBox than it is to add them.
But I don't think it's ultimately reasonable to proclaim that traveling to Russia and Socotra is totally safe - everyone's just overblowing it, or to reject the assessments of national governments telling you not to go there as being hysterical. Cyali (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any edits done en masse are problematic, for the reason you bring up, unless they are obviously good, with no urgent need for checking or tweaking.
For Russia: yes Russia is at war and the government is cracking down on any critics, the latter an issue for anybody interested in politics. Regarding the war, a warning is needed, for those who may be interested in affected installations – but an average tourist is very unlikely to be hit by a drone in Moscow, let alone in some random other city. The mobilisation issue is severe for dual citizens, but it affects a limited group. Thus I would be fine with confining the warning box to Stay safe.
LPfi (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-08

MediaWiki message delivery 15:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reversion

Why this reversion? Text looks good to me.

Is it Brendan? Pashley (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sadly. Text resembles his, ISP is Telstra and IP geolocates to Brisbane. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-09

MediaWiki message delivery 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

San Diego International Airport Page Banner

Hello, Its been about a week since there has been any progress on the talk page for the San Diego International Airport for a custom page banner. Do you think you can help achieve a consensus?

Hi, individual users hold no bearing over general consensus. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I know you dont just choose a conensus. But you think you can say which page banners you prefer? Someonehere12345 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

 
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-10

MediaWiki message delivery 19:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: February 2024

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Tech News: 2024-11

MediaWiki message delivery 23:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi

Hello @SHB2000, Can I have autopatroller rights? :) Lionel Cristiano (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

not yet. You must familiarize yourself with our policies and our Manual of Style, and demonstrate the acquired familiarity on your edits. Thanks for contributing to Wikivoyage. Ibaman (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, autopatroller on this rights are only given after a few months of constructive editing. Do read the links linked by Ibaman, though! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I understand, thank you, can I write to you again in a few months? Lionel Cristiano (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Up to you. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
See you in a few months, I will miss you, have a nice day :-) Lionel Cristiano (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Lionel Cristiano: Do note that it's also generally only given out to active editors too; taking a break and coming back after a few months with few to no edits won't change anything. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You are right, I will try to be active. Lionel Cristiano (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cool and happy editing! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

User relations

Please leave Andrewssi2 alone. You can see that they don't appreciate your interaction, so anything you tell them won't help the situation. I don't know what's going on between you, but I sincerely hope you can get over it. Just try to let things calm down for now. –LPfi (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not when there are six instances of them misusing their admin tools in the last 50 minutes (as of this message's timestamp). Asking to be "left alone" is a snarky tactic to dodge the problem at-hand. On the other hand, I will respect this request once the admin tool misuse issues have been resolved; not before. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
When somebody clearly shows that they have no intension to read or answer messages, adding more messages for them to read helps little. I am all for getting your complaints sorted out in due time, but them wanting a respite from this is reasonable (I don't know what reasons they have, but real-life troubles could be a good one, and overload with the issue here is quite enough). I might not think that rollbacks are a particularly elegant way of handling this, but in the situation where one doesn't want to handle the conflict, one might also not want to think hard about the best way to avoid it.
I left you this message before seeing the nomination page thread and hoped the situation would cool down enough to be handled amicably. There is no abuse that needs to be stopped now, so waiting a few days, several days if needed, would be no problem. I think you should ponder overnight about what is best for the project, and whether you personally need to walk the path to its end.
My impression is that you generally want rules to be followed. However, in most projects there are situations where it is better to ignore the rules in some situations. When a rule is broken, is the situation one that the rule on enforcement was written for, or one that could be better handled in some other way? If rules were broken, were they broken in unforgivable ways?
Enough here. If you still really feel treated badly, you have my compassion, but I hope you can get over it without this issue deteriorating.
LPfi (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, LPfi, thank you for the detailed explanation. I'll consider this after a break tomorrow; I now agree with you about the urgentness given that Andrewssi2 / Asretired has retired (per their username). I'm sorry if my messages to you came out a bit hasty. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi: To minimise drama, I'll bring it up here and with you (since your stance mostly seems to be neutral), but we don't allow Special:Redirect/logid/3824876, right? I thought that user talk pages were to never be deleted (but maybe that is a Commons policy). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Could you also take a stab at "This individual is very unpleasant, unhinged and quite possibly a violent person in real life. This is now a safety issue." on their user page? Aren't attack statements on user pages explicitly banned? I'll leave it to you to interpret foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment: "Threats: Explicitly or implicitly suggesting the possibility of physical violence, unfair embarrassment, unfair and unjustified reputational harm, or intimidation by suggesting gratuitous legal action to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want." (I italicised possibility). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am neutral in the original conflict and the question on who is responsible for the drama, but I didn't see any reason for desysoping him. I think the rollbacks and the action you cite above are non-aggressive self-defence (as I have explained above and elsewhere), possibly excess in self-defence, but as no real harm has been caused (you shouldn't contact him in this situation, and those who need to can reach him anyway), there is no hurry discussing, reverting or taking measures about them. –LPfi (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@LPfi: That is fair; sorry for repeating this but users aren't allowed to delete their own talk pages, right (I thought user talk pages should never be deleted)? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we have such a policy here (we use common sense a lot more than en-wp). If deleting the talk page makes him feel more comfortable, I wouldn't interfere with it for a reasonable cool-down period. At some point it should be restored, probably as an archive, unless he does something along those lines himself. Also the talk page protection should be removed at the same time, if not before. –LPfi (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Understandable (3+3 days as you suggested?) – though doesn't the protection automatically get removed once a page is deleted? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't know, but as page creation can be disabled, I guess the protection entries aren't affected by page deletion (deletion can easily be implemented with a flag in the database, and any action on the page could check or ignore that flag). –LPfi (talk) 09:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
(Thankfully) Asretired has not enabled page protection on their talk page, so I think that is one fewer thing to worry about. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
To my understanding, people have the right to delete the contents of their user talk pages. I wouldn't support restoring content against his will. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK. If there are neither guidelines nor consensus on this, we should let the user decide, unless there are reasons not to. –LPfi (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek: Correct me if I'm wrong – I might be mixing this up with Commons policy – but I thought we let users blank content on their user talk pages because they can still be accessed via the page history. However, by deleting a user talk page, the page history will no longer be accessible hence why user talk pages aren't deleted. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The other issue I see with the page deleted is that oppose voters cannot see what exactly I posted on their user talk page which has (unfortunately) led to some users automatically assuming it is harassment. I presume a screenshot will do, but it is more ideal if all users can see what I wrote instead of being thrown frivolous accusations by 5 different individuals (though not all of it had to do with the talk page messages). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That could be a reason for undeleting, yes. However, the issue isn't really what you wrote, only that you wrote there after him having asked you to let him alone, and that he removed what you had written. I think that is well established, nobody has contested that part and nobody has suggested that you wrote something otherwise offensive. –LPfi (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see the point about deleting the entire page, yes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Tomorrow will be 3 days (UTC+11) since the discussion was initiated, which I think is enough time for Asretired to cool down. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'll mention it while I can, but I feel very uneasy about their userpage, but I trust that Ikan and LPfi are in a much better position to judge than I am, so apologies if I seem quite impatient with the userpage issue. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The nature of Pashley's comment suggests that I did (keep in mind that this user is in denial of Asretired doing anything wrong, which tells a lot). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 19:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
So I think you're right that the userpage should eventually be undeleted, but we shouldn't restore the content we know he wanted deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. It's fine for my messages to not be restored given that they can still be found using the page history. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
It can be restored as a blank page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ikan Kekek, LPfi: Given it has been 3 days since the dispute, could one of you undelete the page and blank it? (and I presume we're giving 3 more days for Asretired to edit out the personal safety issues?) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry you think we don't care about you. My intension was to eventually take care of that bit, but I believe it needed to wait and I didn't see much harm in letting this take the time it needs. Perhaps I was wrong, but if I cannot – or you cannot – trust my judgement, then the best I can do is probably to keep away. I am sorry for that too and sincerely hope somebody else can make the best out of this. –LPfi (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Don't feel the need to apologise; at this point Asretired has left Wikivoyage, so there's nothing much to be said. None of this was your fault, you're a separate individual and cannot control what Asretired/Andrewssi2 does. All I wanted is for all references about me, direct or indirect, to be removed from their page ASAP. None of this would have ever been a problem had they never written those statements in the first place (and the few users that enabled their behaviour). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-12

MediaWiki message delivery 17:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in Education: February 2024

Tech News: 2024-13

MediaWiki message delivery 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

 
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper

Tech News: 2024-14

MediaWiki message delivery 03:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Edits on WP that need removal

First of all, thanks for everything you do! You’re doing great work by creating new page banners, and I do not oppose your efforts in that area at all even if I have some slight differences of opinion regarding what constitutes a good banner.

I contribute on WP but don’t know any administrators over there. Today I was editing and stumbled into some borderline defamatory edits on the history of a page. I was wondering if you know any administrators of that website who could delete some old revisions? I can link to the revisions in an email if you like, with further explanation of the background and why they should not be publicly viewable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SelfieCity: Haha, no worries. Regarding enwiki admins, unfortunately I don't edit enwiki that frequently to interact with admins, but I do know that @Antandrus, Ground Zero, DaGizza: are also admins on enwiki. I'd give you a better answer if it were Commons, but I'm afraid I don't have a better answer. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or you could get a response by contacting WP:OS. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Awesome! Thank you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 11:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @SelfieCity: - if you need help just let me know where and which revisions. Happy to help. Antandrus (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello Antandrus, I greatly appreciate that. Another administrator covered most of the edits, but there are still four revisions by Rupertlover123 to the w:Jeff Rupert article that should probably be deleted. Three of these edits by that account in particular need to be deleted as they are identifying someone who was a minor at the time of the edit (and the statements made in the vandalism are false).
Let me know if you need more information or clarification, and I can email and also explain why I raised this in particular. Thanks again! --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok - I got rid of two more (there are no more un-revdelled edits by "Rupertlover123" now as far as I can see). Antandrus (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Antandrus: Hello, thanks! However there are still https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Rupert&oldid=1063582809 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Rupert&oldid=1063586679 which are viewable to me. Those are the main ones that were of concern to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hm, sorry about that. I have no idea why those didn't appear when I scrolled through. Anyway done now. :) (SHB2000, sorry about all the pings!) Antandrus (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Haha, don't worry – I don't mind the pings the slightest. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

User from IP #107.9.140.157

I noticed that this user at IP 107.9.140.157 had changed the I-90 article to indicate it begins/ends in Portland, Oregon in the west coast going through Pocatello, Idaho. Which is not true. It begins in Seattle and goes through Spokane and Missoula, towards Boston. At the same time he/she created an Interstate 33 article.That Interstate does NOT exist. I believe he/she may of created the I-90 article initially and I made multiple edits to get the information correct. You can always look it up to see who's right and who's wrong. My concern is what other additional articles has he/she created of places or roads that don't exist or which other existing articles may of been changed/edited with misinformation aka vandalism by this user? And to what extent? I am telling you this because based on your interaction with this user regarding the I-33 article, I presumed you are one of the moderators for the board. Anyone150 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I have blocked them for 3 days; will delete the I-33 article accordingly. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Summer of WikiVoyage 2024, Albania and Kosovo

Greetings SHB2000. I am Vyolltsa from the Wikimedians of Albanian Language User Group. Just wanted to give you heads-up about our Summer of Wikivoyage Edit-a-thon in 2024. This year, we are focusing on the North-Central Albania to write about different travel destinations of Albania and Kosovo in English.This is happening from May 3-rd to May 5-th. And, we are inviting everyone to join us online here Saturday from 10:00-17:00 (GMT+2) Time Zone. Could you please update the Albania and Kosovo Expedition pages for 2024? Thank you in advance. --Vyolltsa (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vyolltsa:   Done. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @SHB2000! Vyolltsa (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Glad I could help! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

(redacted)

Hey, thanks for your AI-generated complements. Have a lovely day! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-15

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Taking liberties

I've taken liberties with your draft of a Jökulsárgljúfur article. Ground Zero (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: Hey, thanks for that! I was away on a camping trip (we were very rained out, unfortunately) so sorry for the late response. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not to worry. I was very slow in responding to your request for comments on your draft.
While you were being rained out, I drove 2½ hours to get to the path of the eclipse totality so I could gaze up at the clouds. We saw the beginning of the eclipse, and the sudden darkening of the sky followed by an equally rapid brightening was really cool. And the temperature dropped about 5°C in a mater of minutes.
Also, I started writing a response to CW's ignorant comment, but decided against it as it would just inflame the culture war that I think we should avoid. The anti-non-binary mantra that they know better about non-binary people than non-binary people do is an obviously ridiculous claim. Ground Zero (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, agreed about the culture war – honestly, I've given up on enforcing civility on this wiki (same goes for the comment claiming "anyone who announces 'My pronouns are ...' should be laughed at", which is ignorant of the many who suffer from gender dysphoria). The eclipse must've been cool to see! I've yet to see a full eclipse (only seen a partial before), but it's interesting (but not surprising) to hear about the temperature drop. If you don't mind me asking, where'd you to see the eclipse? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the closest point I can find to where we were standing. I did want to go to the beach, but even in this small town, there were hordes of people. Ground Zero (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 
Map of Archive 2024
  • 1 Wellingon, Prince Edward County.
Yeah, I'm not surprised by the large swathes of people. After all, it's not a common occurrence that you see. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Month in GLAM: March 2024

 




Headlines
Read this edition in fullSingle-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Return to the user page of "SHB2000/Archive 2024".