Open main menu

User talk:SelfieCity

Active discussions


Regarding this edit - WikiVisually is a site that reuses our content (AFAIK with proper attribution per the copyleft license). If you saw something on Wikivoyage that "looked similar to a phrase on WikiVisually", it's almost certain that the text originated here, not there. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Flash floods

Thanks for the lede...

The rewordings attempted elsewhere in the article were so that 'flooding' in general could be covered. Not all flooding is 'flash' in the technical sense, but to a traveller, all floods are a potential issue, and trying to travel through flooded areas has related issues regardless of the type of flood. The rename suggestion was prompted by the comments in the pub, and on the section someone added to York. Floods in York aren't 'flash floods' as such.

Per the comments in the pub there are three types of 'flooding' mentioned :

  • Rapid flash floods - which we have an article on.
  • Storm surges, which typically affect coastal, tidal areas, as a consequence of a "sea swell" during a heavey storm..
  • The 'winter' inland flood caused by prolonged rainfall, in an upland region which then travels downstream above the nominal cpacity of a river to cope with it.

To a traveller there are related risks associated with each, and I'm not sure they are that different, hence a query about widening the scope of the guide. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I explained some of my views at Talk:Flash floods a day ago (I believe it was a day ago), and I am not sure if you have seen that yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


I am starting to find the olive-colored signature overwhelming, so I have changed it back to blue. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


I will take another Wikibreak of perhaps a week or two, starting today. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm back again; actually, I'm a little early (only 5 1/2 days instead of a week). I might not edit quite so much in the near future, though. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


I'm not seeing that filter comment you referenced at Kosovo. Can you give me a pointer, please? Best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: I haven't written it yet. I was asking for permission, because it wasn't vandal-related. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Please don't feel you have to ask permission in future :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's just that it's the kind of thing I prefer to be careful about saying behind closed doors because I don't want to offend or harm any new users with good intentions — for example, if a user found out about text in an abuse filter that seemed mean or whatever. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I still oppose any use of the abuse filter notes to discuss anything but activities of long-term vandals, as I have said in the pub. If the scope of discussion expands beyond that, I will oppose the new anti-vandal measures when the "trial period" ends and discussion is renewed. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 16:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
That's why I asked for permission. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning up vandalism. I would say that the last vandalism on Talk:East Asia is so blatantly offensive that it should be removed from page history. /Yvwv (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done. Just that, when there is that much vandalism, you don't feel like removing it all from page history. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Bad faith beta

About my actions on the filter, I got blocked to make any edit to any page (including my own talk page), and my adjustment got me unblocked. Now I can think it's funny but half an hour ago it was extreme anger. What a relief to be able to write again. Ibaman (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I was so caught up in writing a filter to block vandals that I inserted code that blocked you as well! So sorry --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem, dude. Let's keep on improving our awesome travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Admin nomination

I appreciate your nominating me, but looking at where we're at, I think I'm going to remove myself from consideration. Honestly, I can understand that people would want to see more involvement in policy discussions and so forth to demonstrate broader knowledge before making an admin. While I would have sought to very cautious at first and rely on advice on other editors ( and I'e tried to read a good bit of policy and discussion)... it's clear more is needed. Based on the thoughtful feedback from a couple longtime contributors, I think it's clear where this is going. Please feel free to tell me if you think I'm quitting too soon, but otherwise, I'll make it official on the nominations page shortly. JakeOregon (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and I think if you feel this way about the nomination, it's best not to go ahead with it. I'd say, in that case, you should wait a few months and participate in the pub, dotm, dotm banners, and vfd pages. If you do that and revert vandalism (use recent changes) and I think you'll make fast progress toward a second nomination.
Thanks for your contributions! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@JakeOregon: I've now archived the nomination per user decision. But I hope you stay with us; as long as we know you are actively participating with other users, it will be clear that you are a future administrator. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable decision. Just keep on working, and maybe take some of the objections into account, and we can revisit this toward the end of the year or next year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Hey SC, great job on the banners you've uploaded so far! If you have any basic GIMP or ImageMagick questions, you can ask me in addition to the usual contributors. I wanted to remind you of our Wikivoyage:Non-free content#Exemption Doctrine Policy, in case you forgot, which says that freely licensed works and their derivatives aren't allowed here, but should instead go on Commons. Some banners do get copied here, but only, I believe, if they are selected to go on the main page, as an anti-vandalism measure. There's a FileExporter under Beta tools to easily copy local images over to Commons, if you don't want to go through the hassle of reuploading. Thanks, ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: Should this message bring you over here, mind taking care of the vandal? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 03:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the vandal problem. On your original point, we upload Destination of the Month banners directly to Wikivoyage, as far as I understand. I am not uploading any other pictures directly to WV. I believe AndreCarrotflower uploads them here as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you're right. Seems the policy should be amended. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
And thanks. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, probably it should. It's fine though — we're always learning! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. The philosophy is that such highly visible images should be under local control, rather than subject to deletion by the whims of Commons admins, which happens with depressing frequency. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We go with {{eat}}

Per your comment on my talk page here.

You brought up a good point here. You wrote, we use {{eat}} rather than {{listing|type=eat}}. Not sure if you've seen the discussion, but I'm trying to change that. As you use the visual editor, I believe, the change wouldn't affect you, but, since you would see the markup produced on every page, care to weigh in? As far as I can see, there are some technical reasons to prefer the |type= forms over the alias forms, and I can't think of any downsides to the change, but I'd like to hear them if there are any. Thanks, ARR8 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's what that is about. Changing almost every listing on Wikivoyage would take a lot of work, though, right? I think I'm missing something. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This is only for the default for new listings; the alias format will still be supported. Though, if we were to ever phase it out, the change should be relatively simple with a bot. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 17:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks for explaining. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Water in Italy

Your edits on Water totally changed the description. Was it wrong before? I also do not understand the "universally" in the sentence, at least not after the change. --LPfi (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? I only changed one word. "But except" doesn't make sense grammatically. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If you ignore the "but" and consider the rest, you must admit that removing "except" changes the meaning. (I don't know about English, but in Swedish "men utom", i.e. the literal translation of the two words, is often used, so I suppose I understand what was meant.) --LPfi (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Then, it needs to be clarified. Otherwise, the meaning is unclear, at least to me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Plus, I don't even see any difference in meaning when you compare my edit to the original. What is it intended to mean? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To my understanding

Tap water is drinkable throughout the country, but except in certain towns that use mountain water for their municipal supplies, such as Spoleto, mineral water (acqua minerale) is universally preferred,

means that in most of the country mineral water is preferred, but that this is not the case in some mountainous areas, while

Tap water is drinkable throughout the country; but in certain towns that use mountain water for their municipal supplies, such as Spoleto, mineral water (acqua minerale) is universally preferred

means that mineral water is "universally" preferred in some mountainous areas. --LPfi (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's what those passages mean. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. I thought it was double, as in the passage accidentally included two words that mean the same thing. Has this been corrected yet? If not, I can do it. Sorry for any inconvenience. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Jazz banners

It looks like we have a consensus at dotm that Jazz needs to wait a little longer than a month before being featured. I've replaced it on the schedule with Southern Ridges Walk. As for the banners, I didn't want your work to go to waste but also didn't want the page to be cluttered, so I took the liberty of moving them over to your userspace, along with the user votes underneath. They can be moved back once we find a place for Jazz on the schedule.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry for creating them too early, but I didn't realize that there was still a high chance of the article being postponed or slushed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

9/11 wasn't an invasion

Pancho Villa's raid was an invasion as it happened with military troops carrying military weapons targeting what can by some stretch be described as a military target. Of course the goal of the whole thing was to provoke the US into (over)reacting - which worked like a charm. The only problem was that Villa still couldn't quite capitalize on President Caranza's resulting unpopularity and the rift between Caranza and the US. By the way, I specifically mentioned "mainland" and maybe I should have mentioned "land" (as in "forces arriving by land, not airplanes or watercraft") as there was some isolated fighting in Alaskan islands during WW 2 and of course that thing... that date that shall live in infamy... You know what I mean. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, but the Pearl Harbor attack was not the mainland... anyway, I see your point. Since then, ARR8 has removed the whole section, so probably that's also relevant at this point, and I've brought it up at User talk:ARR8 because I think he may have misunderstood an edit summary of mine. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Sir and ma'am in the South

Re this edit summary, I've never been to Mississippi, but the advice to use "sir" and "ma'am" is right for other parts of the South that I've been to. Of course there's variation between small towns and cosmopolitan cities, but overall it's good advice, which is why I added something similar to South (United States of America) a while back. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been to the South a bit, but mostly the bits I've been to are city areas, where things are more northern in culture. I'm just surprised that 1) this is still the case considering modern culture in other parts of the U.S., and 2) tourists would be expected to use this same language. But as long as it's true, by all means keep it there. I have no objection to the text as long as it's accurate. Thanks for the explanation! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A message to editors

Swept in from the pub

Dear fellow editors,

From now on, I have decided that I am only going to do administrative work on this project, and perhaps some work on articles, like city articles, where I know that my work will not be deleted. After all, I’m an administrator, and the primary job of an administrator is a different kind of work than regular contributing.

The way I feel is that I cannot, and will not, contribute to a project or wiki where my contributions are deleted, or removed in some other way. Since I see Wikivoyage as a way of presenting my work, and showing it to the public, I see deletion of that same material as a complete waste of time, and effort, on my part. Honestly, I’m tired of seeing my hard work get removed completely, on one or two people’s basis that it’s not “travel relevant,” and somehow these people see efforts to improve a wiki, or to have clear discussion about what we should or shouldn’t do, as “not good faith” and “leaving a bad taste in my mouth.”

It has been said that such controversial articles can be merged, but I know that’s not practical. What will happen is that most content will simply be removed in the merge process, again resulting in work being deleted. The result is absolutely no value of the individuals who write the articles, and no value of the articles themselves. It’s not human. Unilateral decisions like one contributor writing, “the work [of creating this article] shouldn’t continue” completely go against the foundational principles of wiki sites in general.

If a wiki doesn’t value its contributors, it should not expect to grow.

This is not meant as an attempt to attack Wikivoyage, but just a decision I’ve made because of a very limited number of contributors (to be exact, most of the time one) who create an appearance of good faith but actually don’t seem to have the interests of the website’s growth in mind. In particular, this user and I can’t contribute together if we don’t believe each other’s intentions are made in good faith.

I thank many of the website’s contributors who’ve helped me become a better contributor and human being. They’ve defended me often and helped me get to where I am. Unfortunately, I’ve done the same kinds of things to others, like welcoming users, making admin nominations (well, only one, really), etc. and the fruits of these labours have not been productive; in fact, they’ve worked against my interests and, in my opinion, those of this Project.

I believe there are some among us who, though they act like they are the same as the rest of us, may be wolves in sheep’s clothing. They do not have the same motivations and loyalties as the rest of us do, but are determined to enforce their views, which may or may not be in our best interests, upon the rest of us. Just because someone appears to be civilized, does not mean that they are with us. Do not let those past individuals, who wrote offensive messages in all caps, become a stereotype for all problem users. There could be more sophisticated, yet still troublesome, individuals in our midst.

In all, I hope for the best in Wikivoyage. I hope that Wikivoyage doesn’t get undermined by those who don’t have its best interests in mind. Therefore, I’m going to try to take a different role, so I don’t have to combat those whose methods and motives are too complex for me, and so I’m not in a role where I cannot be sure that my work is preserved. I see it as very important, personally, that the material I post on Wikivoyage remains on Wikivoyage, not necessarily as I originally wrote it, but that it stays up there. If that’s not possible, then I can’t contribute here.

Thanks for understanding.

--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: I plan to still work on page banners, talk page discussions, and some COTMs—just those larger-scale contributions I plan to stop making. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Contribute wherever you are comfortable. I've seen some good stuff from you & nothing awful, though I have not followed closely. I want to encourage you.
But "I cannot, and will not, contribute to a project or wiki where my contributions are deleted, or ..." does not work. I've sometimes deleted or rewritten other people's text; that is how wikis work. I've been on the receiving end as well:
I've had a whole article that was mostly my writing deleted, despite my defense of it. See Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/March_2013#Marriage_in_China
Recently I've had what I think was useful text taken out of an article for reasons I consider nonsense; see Talk:Philippines#Prostitution. I plan to continue that discussion ar Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy, just have not got around to it yet.
It is difficult, but you have to learn to live with such things. Pashley (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
SelfieCity, it's really not acceptable for you to impugn the motives of other excellent users, just because they disagree with you. I forget where I read this, but somewhere, there is or used to be a note saying something like "Do not edit this site unless you consent to having your work be deleted, completely rephrased, moved or disfigured in any number of ways". We're all volunteers, so participate however you feel like, but I hope you will be able to achieve a little distance and put some of this indignance behind you. No-one's contributions are inherently inviolable or immune from deletion or disfiguring edits on a Wiki, and being an admin in no way privileges your edits over anyone else's. You just have been trusted with certain tools other users have not or not yet been entrusted with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
@SelfieCity: I'm sorry to lose your contributions to articles. I understand that disputes with particular editors can be frustrating -- I have an ongoing dispute with a long-time editor who reverts my edits without providing a reason and without being willing to discuss the edits. But that is part of life in a collaborative project, and I encourage you to look at this as an opportunity to develop your skills in dealing with difficult people. I have to echo Ikan Kekek's and Pashley's comments: your contributions, their contributions and my contributions will be edited. And sometimes they will be deleted. That is how a wiki differs from a blog. No blog is ever going to provide information as comprehensive and up-to-date as Wikivoyage. That's why I use it and contribute to it. I hope that you will reconsider. Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, guys. As I touched upon a little in my letter, I'll do some work on city articles where, while the content may be edited, it is unlikely to be outright deleted. So, for example, city and park articles in California will still get some of my edits. But I'm no longer going to work on those long-scale projects, especially on travel topics. Maybe that makes my stance a little clearer. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Your contributions have been valuable. It is sad to see users quit over conflicts. I hope that these kinds of disagreements can get resolved in the future. /Yvwv (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Although this is an awkward moment to introduce this, I strongly recommend that anyone who cares about our wikis read meatball:GoodBye. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I am familiar with that document, but it's important that I clarify that I'm not leaving: I'm simply changing my role. I have also deleted User:SelfieCity/Projects and other content of mine to make it clear that I really do plan to go ahead with what I'm saying. Those who are sorry to me go, it is entirely their decision to say that. Thanks, though, for mentioning the document; I agree that it's very related to what's going on, and I think contributors should be familiar with it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Traveler's review

Hello selfieCity! I'm here to talk about the suggestion i put in on the traveler's pub- Traveler's review. I really value your opinion, so please help if you can. Arep Ticous 17:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have the time....

There is a panorama photo at Rencontre East that would make a good banner. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, will do. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I've taken a closer look, and the picture is less than 1,800 pixels wide; it's recommended that banners are at least 2,100 pixels wide. Would you still like to use that banner? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, we don't have any other picture, and given the size and remoteness of the community, it seems unlikely that we will get another one any time soon. Our choice seems to be between the less-than-optimal picture, or the blank banner. What do you think? Ground Zero (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's make the banner. It's not terrible resolution. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  Done --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks good. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

California restaurant chains

You might be able to help expanding this new subsection: California#Regional chains. I've added two chains so far—can you think of others worth recommending? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:38, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll think about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I think there's one called Campo de Bocce. I'll take a closer look (my spelling may be wrong)! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
They actually have only three locations (according to Campo di Bocce), so maybe not. If one comes to mind, hopefully I'll remember to post it here. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay! I'll keep thinking too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 45

Swept in from the pub

I have a note there about a potential problem user. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Grand Old Hotels

With reference to the comments you added then deleted on my talk page, my understanding is that listings on the Grand Old Hotels page need to have been operating as luxury hotels before World War II, with a few exceptions that can be decided by consensus. A very old building that was used for other purposes but only recently converted to a luxury hotel does not qualify for listing. Of course, if you disagree, I'm happy to have a discussion on the article's talk page. The dog2 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I deleted my comments because I was mistaken about one of your edits. You don't need to worry about it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Patrollers' edits are not automatically patrolled without them also being autopatrollers. I would have assumed the same as you, but ויקיג'אנקי's edits were showing as unpatrolled.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. That's interesting to know for the future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure I don't mind being a patroller. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


Over the last couple months I have not been contributing much to articles and focusing on elements of the project. I plan to resume contributions to city articles and related articles, though I'll probably not edit travel topics (besides adding banners). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Your contributions to the project over the last couple of months (and before) have been very helpful. I'm looking forward to your contributions to destination articles. Ground Zero (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
You're making the right decision. Contributing content is the best part of Wikivoyaging :) Good luck.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It's good to be improving articles again. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, there is one travel topic I wrote that I'll keep updated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I'll edit itineraries, too, and create them if I see any gaps. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk pages

Where do we have a rule about not deleting stuff from your user talk page? It isn't here. I don't think that's a rule, but if it is, i'd like to know where to find it. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. It's just something I've picked up from other editors with time and then followed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Do you think it might be a bit harsh to roll back a new-ish user's edits on the basis of a rule that doesn't actually seem to exist? The user is making good contributions to articles that could benefit from the knowledge of a local. Ground Zero (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't rollback. I used the undo button and explained my change. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
See the diff. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you think it might be a bit harsh to undo a new-ish user's edits quoting a rule that doesn't actually seem to exist? The user is making good contributions to articles that could benefit from the knowledge of a local. Ground Zero (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Not that I'm going to do this, but if I just deleted this thread, would you be very happy? I don't think so. Again, I'm not concerned about this user or his conduct. I reinstated a discussion and provided an explanation. The user, as far as I know, had no problem with this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
See Wikivoyage:Using talk pages#Etiquette. "In general, conversations aren't deleted from talk pages but are instead archived when they are old or no longer relevant. To archive discussions simply create a new page such as 'User talk:Page/Archive' and copy the old discussions to it." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Also "Unlike everything else in Wikivoyage, it's considered bad form to change someone else's posts on a talk page – even to correct spelling or grammar." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ground Zero: Per above, I have found Wikivoyage content to support the edit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that's helpful, but there is a difference between a rule and etiquette. Bad etiquette is not something you undo. It's something you point out to someone and hope they choose to change. Deletion is not the same as changing text. You should never change someone's comments as it changes the meaning of what they wrote. That's really bad. If that section were intended to include deletion, it would have :included deletion specifically. Ground Zero (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Not to be overly blunt, but I think you're nitpicking here. I didn't do anything to make this user upset. (We're not perfect, but we do our best to do what is in the best interests of the site.) I don't think this user's day is going to be spoiled by my reversion. If his day is spoiled, then tough, because I haven't done him any harm. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I obviously didn't harm him — he just thanked me for this edit. He's not bothered by this; I believe he understands why I reverted his deletion and will follow that etiquette in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


I never suggested that this would ruin his day, but there is a principle of being gentle on newbies. It's a good principle. I don't think it is nitpicking to point out that you made a mistake and suggest that you correct it. It is not a huge deal. This is why I noted that everyone makes mistakes. It is an important away of learning. I felt that bringing it up with you and letting you handle it was better than telling the newbie "SelfieCity is wrong: this isn't a rule." When I make mistakes, I take responsibility and correct them. I don't just leave them there. While I don't understand what is the big deal about correcting your mistake, it's up to you to decide what you want to do. Ground Zero (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If this isn’t a hard-and-fast policy, it should be. The user at issue here was obviously operating in good faith, but overall, a lack of any formal prohibition on editing talk page conversations after the fact is exploitable for too many bad-faith ends to be allowed to stand. The only circumstances under which preexisting talk page discussions should ever be edited is 1) altering one’s own comments before they have been replied to by other users (another important principle of Wikietiquette that IMO is worth preserving is that such comments are treated as having been “taken back” and are not acknowledged going forward) and 2) transferring old discussions in overly lengthy talk pages into archives that are clearly labeled chronologically (i.e. “Archive 2016”, “Archive 2017”, “Archive 2018” rather than “Archive 1”, “Archive 2”, “Archive 3” as you sometimes see on Wikipedia) and linked prominently on the original talk page. — AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is a big deal. However, I think it's common sense to revert an edit that's not right. That's all this is, and that's all it should ever be. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, I think it would be appropriate to make a policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If this were proposed as a policy, I wouldn't oppose it, and I might even support it. That's neither here nor there. It isn't policy, and it is wrong to undo a deletion from a user's talk page made by that user, and it is wrong to claim that it is policy. It is not policy. And if I am mistaken about that, then I will retract these statements. I think it is bad etiquette not to correct your mistakes. But that's just me. Ground Zero (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is it wrong to, in your words, "undo a deletion from a user's talk page made by that user"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
That's the difference between policy and etiquette. It is etiquette to sign your comments, but we don't delete comments posted without signatures. Ground Zero (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It's etiquette to sign comments. If someone does not sign his comment, someone else signs the comment for him. Also, it's etiquette not to delete discussions. So when a discussion is deleted, we restore it. Common sense. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
So what is the difference between etiquette and policy then? "Common sense" is not an argument. Clearly we do not have this opinion in common, even though I respect and admire your work and participation in Wikivoyage, and look forward to continuing to work together. But I disagree with you on this. Ground Zero (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think undoing the deletion was a "mistake", and I don't think the explanation provided was anything but courteous and helpful. Talk page content should remain in situ or be archived; that's always how it's been done, with no problems before, and it's already written down as a guideline. To help avoid this sort of discussion in future, then we could draft a new policy (if we really must), but I personally find this to be making a mountain out of a molehill.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to treat it as policy, then let's make it a policy. Ground Zero (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with writing a policy, as long as the creation of it is a low-key affair. I do not want to create a policy on this if it is going to cause a significant number of disagreements within the community. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For future reference, my edit summary on that edit was typo-ridden! I wrote, "on Wikivoyage, deleting discussions is not allowed unless you planning to move than to an archive page. Thanks" I believe I was intending to say, "on Wikivoyage, deleting discussions is not allowed unless you [are] planning to move than [them] to an archive page. Thanks" --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion at sv-wp's village pump. The consensus was that explicitly allowing deletion of user talk page threads (other than vandalism and off-topic personal attacks) would be abused, while actually deleting borderline cases is unproblematic. I don't think Selfie City made any big mistake here in enforcing the non-policy rule, and undoing the undoing might send confusing signals, but removing a half-year old thread in good faith was not a big deal, so one could as well have left the deletion alone. A key is that if not deleting is etiquette rather than policy, one should not rely on complaints remaining, and for a good faith user them remaining is probably not saving anybody's time. --LPfi (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


  • Hey Selfie. You might want to take a look at this edit, describing your reverts as "vandalism". I've been away, on vacation, and am not sure about the context. Ibaman (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually, consensus was to restore the IP user's edits, even though they are likely AC's. However, my edits to that page are of course not vandalism. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

"Lead" or "Lede" section of an article

Swept in from the pub

What is the preferred name for the beginning of an article — lede or lead? I believe I have seen both. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Both are acceptable; it's a journalistic term: W:Lead paragraph.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wasn't sure whether or not one of the spellings was a typo that someone made. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Abuse Filter 45

Swept in from the pub

I have a comment there. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@SelfieCity: read and responded. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Mobile editing

When I was still new to rollback, I decided against editing WV on mobile to avoid pressing the wrong buttons. Now, I think I have the experience to use the tools without making many mistakes, so I have resumed editing on mobile. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

And every mistake you make going forward can be undone almost as easily as the mistake is made in the first place 😆 ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thanks for updating Wikivoyage:Requests for comment‎. It would however be even more helpful if you used the edit summary. As I watch the page, I see when you make changes, but I have to click the diff link to see what was added, once for each change. Otherwise it is mostly useful for checking what is going on when one has been away for some time. From the summary I'd see if it was a discussion I missed or something I already am aware of through other means, and avoid clicking in the latter cases (and in the former, repeating the link in the summary would be a nice shorthand, although I understand it is sometimes a bit complicated to get it there). --LPfi (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'll write more edit summaries in future. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. --LPfi (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes, I forget to add an edit summary, but when I remember, I add one. I'm doing my best and hopefully I'll soon be into the habit of writing edit summaries. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

pagebanner suggestion

hi! I have been focusing on the article Mannar and i've been thinking that it would need a better banner (besides the temporary banner i've put up.)... care to suggest one? Arep Ticous 10:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

First, we can confirm the Commons image category. Is this the right one? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
sorry it took so long to reply... yes, it is the right one... Arep Ticous 11:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I'll get to work now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Basically, I'm looking for images in the Commons category that are 1) nice, 2) banner-appropriate, and 3) at least 2100 pixels wide. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Closest I have come so far. SC
I'm going with this image, which I have cropped with croptool:
--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha, you took it! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I've added it as the new banner. I think it looks good! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :-), Now i just have to improve it a bit more and move onto improving Chilaw Arep Ticous 11:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • quick request on behalf of Chilaw. Can you please add an appropriate pagebanner to this article as well? Arep Ticous 13:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  Done Options were more limited in that case, so it's not an amazing banner, but it's OK. This time I was smarter and checked that the Commons category matched Wikivoyage by looking at the Wikivoyage link on the right-hand side. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Arep Ticous 14:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the hovercard of Mannar. It currently diplays an image of a train taken in Jaffna. (I used it as an example image for lankan train service) Is there a way to change it or is it not necessary? Arep Ticous 18:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If you like, you could suggest an image and I can see if I can get it implemented. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, but i cant do it right now, my battery is running low and i dont have an extra power port left, can i run by this tomorrow? Arep Ticous 18:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see what I can do in the meantime. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


Munneswaram temple is in the Chilaw article! Arep Ticous 14:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

i took care of it, Thanks! Arep Ticous 14:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Sorry, I'm not from Sri Lanka --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


iam not a vandal or telstra im a user that has skitzophrenia. sorry but my disease is bad. please be kind. Cactusflies22 (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not think I said you were Telstra. I saw connections and said it was possible. In fact, I remember saying in an email (which you would not have seen) that the user is not Telstra. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


Just wanted to say that your comments on the Birmingham Alabama nomination don't make you look stupid. Far from it - they show you have a brain and are capable of independent thought. I neither agree nor disagree with your arguments there as I tend to be neutral on the USA, but you are fully entitled to your view, and even if no-one agrees with you doesn't mean your opinion wasn't worth expressing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'll explain a little better when it is more convenient (busy now). --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
My explanation is that, while I may have been right in my earlier vote, my motivations were wrong — I was trying to push my own nominations against his, while knowing that postponing his nomination would see go far into the future. As it turned out, I still had trouble with the nomination when I re-voted a few days ago, but for genuine reasons rather than personal motives. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the heads-up, and your constant vigilance. Ground Zero (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good job.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, thank you for updating the Alexa rankings for us and the predecessor site. I find that comparison to be fascinating. But you shouldn't stress over it. The numbers aren't changing that much every day, so if you don't update them daily, it's okay. You could probably even update them weekly, and it would still be very informative. Of course, if you enjoy updating them daily, go right ahead. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No, don't worry I'm not too stressed. But thanks for the thoughts. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Meta Wiki

Sorry for bringing along the matter to your Talk page on Wikioyage, but i have been working on this meta-project, named Wikihistoric [[1]], can you give me your opinion if it's no trouble... Arep Ticous 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a few comments which I'm putting here, because they're more personal in nature.
First, it is standard English capitalization that "I", when it is a word on its own, is capitalized. Saying "i went here and i went there" could imply that you can't be bothered to follow English capitalization rules and will be looked down upon by some Wikipedians/Wikivoyagers/Meta-Wiki users. You use "i" quite a lot in your submission and unfortunately, it could give the wrong impression.
Second, you need to make very clear exactly what your proposed website would be. Wikivoyage's "free, worldwide travel guide" gets across the message very clearly using very few words. You can be more detailed if you wish, but that is what you need to say.
Third, I notice an IP address has supported the nomination, along with votes on a few others. That's not you, is it?
Lastly, if your idea makes a lot of sense and is different from Wikipedia, WikiJournals, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity, I would willingly support it.
--Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... i'll modify it ASAP. And no.. that was not me, i am very serious about the sock puppetry rule. That user had supported several other proposals as well... Arep Ticous 14:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. I would not block the IP address because MediaWiki is not where I spend the majority of my time. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
He's so serious about the "sock puppetry rule", that an independent CheckUser has found at least three-four individual socks on Meta and several others on I don't mean to stir up drama but truthfully this IP's contributions generally follows his previous socks' behaviour.
Arepticous, I probably don't need to say this. A few votes from single-purpose accounts does not amount to support. I think that's pretty simple. Hiàn (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Hiàn: After my block in en.wikipedia i have been trying to go back and edit in good faith, i dont do sock-puppetry anymore for such reasons and nor am i willing to act as such. and to add to that... can you please help me with the proposal... i could really use some help. Arep Ticous 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page. Let's not discuss this on SC's talk page. Hiàn (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes. It is confusing, otherwise, since it's not completely clear who you (Arep) are talking to in this case. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I started it and got about halfway through it, but it's too long! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss massive changes on sites?

Swept in from the pub

Unfortunately, I have experienced that some of our contributors here massively change the (new) pages of other authors and thereby prevent further development of a page (current example Anastasiopolis). If the person making the changes knows the area well and can contribute important knowledge, that's ok. But in my (old fashioned?) opinion such a thing should be discussed before the change are made in the respective discussion side. I find that a matter of polite interaction with each other. What do you think, what is common behavior here? DocWoKav 15. Sept. 2019

Are these edits what you mean? Those edits are not destructive; there's nothing "massive," as you say in the title of this discussion, about moving content from one article to another, if that change is sensible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if you've placed a "See" listing in a city article for a nearby location and then someone moves it to "Go next" because that nearby location already has its own article, that's pretty much an open-and-shut case per our policy on geographical hierarchy and there's really not much to discuss about it. My suggestion is rather than getting defensive about the content you've contributed being altered or demanding that every little change be litigated on talk pages - which would grind the development of our content to a halt - you should instead get comfortable with the fact that this is a wiki, and people's contributions are subject to redaction or deletion at any time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Strange? block

You just blocked User:DennisLowelle14 indefinitely for "vandalism" & I cannot see why.

He or she has made exactly one edit, which you correctly reverted since part of it removed a town from a list for no apparent reason. However, the other thing that edit did was add a wikidata link for another town. The link was correct (I checked) so I've put it back. So part of the edit was constructive & the rest may not even be vandalism, just new user clumsiness,

If any block was merited, which I doubt, I'd say it should have been a day at most. See Wikivoyage:How_to_handle_unwanted_edits#Escalating_user_blocks. Pashley (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Telstra. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, when looking at Recent changes, it's not hard at all to see which users are (highly likely) Telstra's alter egos, even without examining the individual edits. Ypsilon (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Pashley, that's also a very typical Telstra sock name. Whether it's worth blocking these often single-use accounts is another question, but they're certainly not worth a welcome message, and the patterns of their usernames and edits are quite undisguised. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


Check out Special:AbuseFilter/47 when you get the chance.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "SelfieCity".