Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Talk:Daejeon

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

Re: Daejeon's infamous Hitler bar. One of the last still open Hitler theme-bars in Korea was located in Daejeon, last confirmed late 2008, in the upmarket area around Seodaejeon Korail station. Given this question gets asked a LOT around town, does anyone know if it is still standing? Snave 10:57, 28 November 2010 (EST).

If you don't know then it should come out, and when someone takes it out please do not put it back in as you did in your edit of (14:20, 27 February 2011). The query and the listing detail, if there is any, belongs here on the discussion page. felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)

It concerns me a little that this page immediately links to another city-specific but otherwise extremely similar community run page instead of having some of that wealth of information duplicated here too. As nice as many of the linked sites are, the wiki format is viewable on Korean phones, even on the very crappy (hire) models if routed through Google first, something next-to-no other Korean travel websites, and NONE of the government operated ones can say. This is far from a trend in Daejeon alone, but across Korea in general. Snave 11:49, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Yes Snave, that is why we reduce the image thumbnnail sizes, so they can load readily on such devices and for those hobbled with slow connections.
  • Please do not revert similar corrective edits to image sizes again as you did in your edit of (14:20, 27 February 2011) of (14:20, 27 February 2011).
  • If you think an external link is in breach of the WT external links policy then just remove the link and state why in the edit summary.
  • The current link however does conform to guidelines so despite your own personal issues with official Korean tourism sites the current link is appropriate to the article. I suggest you do not remove it. -- felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)

I have somewhat apprehension towards suggesting the water is drinkable. I know that's the official word, but locals have told me of a serious incident only a year or so back.Snave 13:03, 22 January 2011 (EST)

Then just don't suggest it. Rather qualify the statement with a caution such as has been done. Second hand anecdote is a bit tenuous and most travellers are already sufficiently paranoid about local water at a destination anyway and most will automatically seek bottled water.-- felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)

To do notes (to move beyond a mere "guide"):

  • Continual propositions to relocate the capital down here away from the border, but sources and research required. Needs minor reference to Sejong city to the north to match claims on provincial page. Inset box if any clear explanations of the unusual history can be sourced?
  • Missing wartime history, located on a large open field hosting a few major battles.
  • Missing local specialty food styles (inland food, nuts) and local soju brand, plus references to local ginseng trade.
  • Minor reference to Daedok Techno Valley needed, even if just on a map.
  • Overview transport map of Daejeon's five gu and relative intercity bus locales with basic insets showing train/bus/subway interchange areas at Yuseong, Daejeon and Seo-daejeon.
  • Secondary attractions / pedestrian navigation map of strip: City Hall -> Dunsan -> Government Center -> Expo Park/Convention Center.
  • Map of subway line (with proposed second line dotted on?).
  • Details of new aquarium on Mt Bomun.
  • Brickhouse Daejeon bar.
  • A rumoured third shisha bar.
  • More unusual restaurant listings.
  • Some notable independant coffee shop listings?
  • Climate date (where from? lack of predence in Korean articles)
I question that this article is even suitable for Guide status, especially if filled up with POV and subjective opinions and lacking in adaquate sleep and eat section detail. felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)

Weather data- World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Vol. 15, No. 3, 259-263 (June 2006)--Gebrüder Borntraeger 2006. Korean meteorological authority. Korean Meteorological Authority-Climate -- felix 21:38, 23 February 2011 (EST)

Water[edit]

I have somewhat apprehension towards suggesting the water is drinkable. I know that's the official word, but locals have told me of a serious incident only a year or so back. No matter how many official sources say so, a good travel article should warn on experience, not cite on quotes.Snave 13:03, 22 January 2011 (EST)

This is the second time you have raised this on the discussion page so it is apparently an issue with you. The introduction of second hand anecdote is of little value. Better to just state the facts and recommend bottled water if appropriate. I think it is borderline Capt Obvious in any case as most travellers are already sufficiently paranoid about any destinations water supply that they reach for bottled water without prompting. The current "Daejeon's tap water is "drinkable" however residents tend to boil their water or purchase afforable bottled water, or fill their own bottles at local parks or at the mountain springs that surround town." appears to cover that quite adequately but if you feel it needs more emphasis just recommend bottled water in the article, it is not really an issue that justifies a lot of rumination. Please do not add any more cites, quotes, (non WT) external links or frontlinked URLs to the article to clarify drinking water or any other issues. -- felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)

Etc[edit]

Dump from article:

Re: Yuseong hot srpings. These hot springs are known to be effective in countering many kinds of maladies. Wounded soldiers of the Baekje Dynasty are said to have been healed after taking a bath in these springs. Kings and presidents including the first King of the Josun Dynasty, have reposed here. Containing alkaline minerals such as calcium, and potassium, sulphur, carbonic acid, silicic acid and radium and are considered to be beneficial in treating neuralgia and geriatric diseases. Accommodations are available nearby.

Unsure where this belongs, if at all. Reads suspiciously like copied off an external site word for word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Snave (talkcontribs) Snave

If you don't know, or you are "unsure" then why provide unsigned commentary that suggests it is a copyvio. If you wish to accuse another established editor of a copyvio have the decency to sign the allegation and provide a source that illustrates the claim. Good luck finding a copyvio source other than in your own imagination. The information was drawn from several separate authoritative sites and formed into prose to give some background information on this frequently referred to and touristic feature of the city. If you wise to dispute the value of the listing and it's worth to the traveller than state that here, otherwise put the slander in your rear trouser pocket and sit on it. felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)

Continual Edit War[edit]

Unfortunately, I'll have to call in 3rd party arbitration on this article due to spammy edits by user User:Felix505. I've carefully reverted spammy edits once and they have all returned the next day with a threatening comment, so this has gone beyond a joke. Editing things under the guise of MoS whilst in fact moving away from WT standards is tantamount to trolling regardless of seeming benign intent. Again, my understanding of Wikitravel is that it is a site that is for travellers to provide useful information in travel guide form to travellers. If one does not travel, then perhaps they should consider the accuracy of their edits. Clobbering existing information about a city you have not visited with dubious stuff sourced online from your bedroom back home (including a lot of Wikipedia info that has been tagged as both lacking citations and incredulous anyway) is a good way to vandalise an article. The present state of this article is yet again incorrect. Some sections have become an absolute mess, others read much nicer than beforehand, but with fictional information.

Examples of petty recent edits have included:

  • Changing romanisation away from local standards used on signage at seeming random.
  • Needless spammy dialectal edits. As much as it pains me to say it as a British English user, this article is in South Korea, a country in which American English (but with SI units and measures) is standard. WT guidelines are clear on this type of edit being banned prior to starnom anyway.
  • Selective removing weak positive and negative criticism (Be Fair) to make entries read strongly positive or strongly negative (yet edit summaries quoting Wikipedia NPOV).
  • Incorporation of non-copyleft sources outside of direct quotes. City guides may be unlikely to contest the use of their material word-for-word, but this does not change the fact. Wikitravel is a guide, with the tone of a guide, not a "collage" of what comes up first in Google. Even more worrisome is the wholesale replacement of more accurate and up-to-date information.
  • Duplicating information.
  • Rotating Stay, See and Do entries.
  • Changing phonenumbers.
  • Editing things according to Wikipedia MoS. This is Wikitravel. Different website.
  • Continual re-addition of closed attractions as present.
  • Needless rewording, often completely changing the meaning of of the sentence.
  • Changing directions to point to the opposite end of town.
  • In contrast to these, genuine MoS issues, such as the WallOfText that is the Buy section remain the only parts of the article untouched.

Honestly, this type of frivilous editing is what makes me steer clear of Wikipedia, and a good way to make me lose trust in what I read on Wikitravel as a user. I know that this article now is blatently incorrect and now contains the type of misleading/outdated advice that would get someone stranded somewhere late at night. I just can't fathom the rationale behind these changes short of User:Felix505 attempting to have his name included as the primary credit on the article. —The preceding comment was added by Snave (talkcontribs)


I have read the comments on the talk pages and attempted to review edits. A lot has been said and it's a bit difficult for me to follow everything, but I'll give this a go with some suggestions:
  • Changing romanisation away from local standards used on signage at seeming random. - If the issue here is that there is a common English name that differs from the Korean name, it should simply be noted in parenthesis. When listings are formatted properly, it can go in the "alt=" section along with the hangul). If the edits are not related to Korean versus common English spelling, then they need to cease or be explained here.
  • Changing phone numbers - Did you check to make sure the numbers have not changed? If you are positive that the previous phone numbers are correct and the new ones are wrong, then they shouldn't be changed.
  • Continual re-addition of closed attractions as present. The best way to deal with this is to move the closed attractions here to the Talk page (with all the information, just cut and paste) with a statement that they are closed. Then, if someone wants to add them, they'll need to come here first and prove that the attraction is open.
  • From reading the user talk pages, I do agree with you that the 8 sites does not make a good heading. The sites should be put in their proper place (See or Do). The 8 sites MAY however, be worth mention in an info box or a brief paragraph at the start of "See".
Some of your other complaints are difficult for me to address without examples. From the talk pages I have a vague idea about some of the things that are happening in this article, but it's difficult to mediate specific content without any personal knowledge of the city or sites.
I know that these are annoying (and I also hate Wikipedia editing for the same reason!), but I hope you'll stick around. You've done a tone of great work on this article, as well as others! Hopefully you and Felix can work out these disputes. ChubbyWimbus 05:43, 28 February 2011 (EST)
Per Paul's request on my talk page, I'm joining the discussion. But first, for the record, I think I have to make it clear that, unlike Wikipedia, we have no official arbitration processes here in any way, so please consider the following a fellow user's attempt at consensus building.
So, I have read all the discussions (both on this page and the prior discussion on Felix505's talk page) and compared the last version which Paul (Snave) thinks is accurate against the last version edited by Felix505 (full revision difference here). I'm totally alien to Korea, so I guess I may come close to what a potential traveller to town might think when seeing this article.
As far as I could follow, here is what I can add to what ChubbyWimbus said above:
  • Railway stations. If official Korean Railways list six stations in town but some (or all) of them are out of operation, I think that should be noted in the article (as a traveller might see those on Korean railway page and plan to use them—which, if I'm not mistaken, as Paul already did). It's best to inform them that no matter what Korean Railways says, they are of no use.
  • Romanization of Korean. I think it would be most useful to use the type that you see on signboards in location. I've also noticed a few misspellings at English words by Felix505 as well, but s/he already made it clear that they are unintentional at somewhere in the previous discussions.
  • Site of station. The station's location was mentioned as on the far north end of town at the Snave's last version, but that was removed somewhere down the line. I actually found that useful.
  • Bolds at bus terminal names. It's OK and indeed useful to bold them.
  • 2500 vs 2.500 vs 2,500 won. Wikitravel:Currency#Decimal says use a ","; but I guess that may be unnecessary if the number in question is shorter than 5 digits long.
  • Likewise, I'd thought the correct style is three subway stations, not 3 subway stations (this was from "understand").
  • If http://tour.daejeon.go.kr/ is an official site, it could be linked per Wikitravel:External links, but not as a front-link (i.e., linking like this [1] is OK, whereas like this is not).
  • South side vs west side of the City Hall. I think local knowledge is important here. If still unsure, it may be checked via Google Earth or other online maps.
  • Subway still not opened. Snave's version seems to be more compatible with lively writing that we should aspire for.
  • 5 PM vs 5PM. Wikitravel:Time and date formats says the latter is correct.
  • Order of listings. The links at Wikitravel:Listings says, "alphabetize them", but I personally think the top attractions should be listed before the other, less-known ones. For example, Balkeshwar Temple should not precede Taj Mahal at Agra article, just because of the first letter of its name when written in Roman alphabet.
  • Eight sights. If that's prominently mentioned in other guidebooks, etc, mention it. But just a mention. Otherwise, divide them among "see" and "do" (and wherever else they should be listed as according to Wikitravel's MoS).
  • Phone number leads to a park ranger. If the park ranger is the most relevant person that a traveller can make a call to, I guess it's okay. But if the phone number is without a question wrong, they should be changed.
  • Over a decade later and the city still hasn't quite gotten over this is perfectly within the policy set by Wikitravel:Tone, so I think should be re-added (I remember having a smile on my face when I first read it about, say, a week ago).
  • All of those museums listed at "do" at Snave's version seemed to be more fitting with "see" to me. Unless they have interactive exhibits which somehow involve the visitor in the "show".
  • "Like all Korean cities...", "As in most of Asia...", etc. I don't see a problem with them staying, although I don't have a strong opinion either way on that. Yeah, that is a bit of duplication, but...
  • Eat listings. As long as we stay fair and avoid no-no words, it's OK to call somewhere overpriced and such (and is indeed encouraged).
  • Theatre vs theater. Wikitravel:Spelling basically says use British English for Commonwealth countries, and American English for elsewhere. I myself have used both on this site, but am favouring British English lately although I know it's against the word of the policy. As long as the spellings within the article is consistent, and we don't stray too far into local slangs and obscure dialects (like Pitkern), I'm fine with either.
  • External links at "contact". Unless official, they are out per Wikitravel:External links. The rationale is that, we want information here rather than behind a link, as the links are useless for, say, travellers with no internet access and using guides as print-outs.
  • No need to link to city website to prove water is drinkable, but that is a pun there, right? If so, that might need to be clarified (especially for non-native English speakers like me), like by saying that is a common, yet incorrect, claim by city council.
  • I'd say, there is no need to link to "get in" from "get out".
Phew, that was long! By the way, I failed to check the differences at "see" listings line by line, since they were so exceedingly moved around (and my eyes have started to ache already), so if there are any specific issues that I might offer an idea (both at that section and others), please let me know.
An aside, not very relevant to this particular discussion (but appeared a couple of times at the discussion on Felix505's talk page) is the issue about how many edits one should save when both adding stuff while reverting some "bad" edits at the same time. The most relevant policy is here (see bullet number 4)—in short, revert in one edit, and then add what you want to add in the next one.
And lastly, above all, let's please assume good faith. – Vidimian 12:45, 28 February 2011 (EST)
Snave seems to be ruminating over some sort of fantasy. I edited the page to remove or tone down POV, opinionated subjective commentary, front linking, random mixed US/UK english, confusing rambling language school promotions and garbled language. I standardised the telephone number prefixes, times, currency style and removed dead URL links. It was all pretty standard editing.
I am quite interested to know what content I edited that is allegedly going to "lead to someone being stranded in the middle of the night" as suggested above. That sort of hysterical nonsense makes an interesting trifecta with the belligerence and pure arrogance slathered around on this page by this somewhat confused Snave individual.
If Snave wishes to linguistically americanize South Korean articles I have no objection. Although it is adding 2 layers of obfuscation to the core language. His assertion that it is most widely accepted (en) in S. Korea is quite reasonable. However my edits were about establishing one version of (en) across article rather than the miss-mash that was prevailing. Personally I do not support linguistic degradation and see no reason to use WT to promote creeping americanization of the (en) language. That however is just a personal view and I am far from convinced that my own view is supported by any current WT policy.
I note that theatres/theatres are referred to as "movie theater" on the Korean tourism website [2] but in common vernacular they generally seem to be known individually as cinemas. CGV Daejeon is an IMAX [3]. Daejeon Art Cinema [4] do not use the word "theatre/theater" at all apparently preferring to use "Cinematheque" or "Cinema". Millennium Cinema Village Academy Cinema is similar in using cinema. Maybe the article should just use "cinema" as that is the more accepted term in the region, then, hopefully Snave should have no further cause for complaint in that matter. As to changing the whole article to (us) english I do not support it but if consensus is there (from other established editors) to do this and Snave does it in a responsible and thorough manner then I do not object as per his comments that (us) language appears to be quite common in everyday S.Korean English usage.
The west-side / south-side of city hall issue was just an artefact from the earlier version and I overlooked Snaves more recent edit to that as it was within a block reversion. If that editor had not performed the revert on my formatting and other corrective edits then such issues would never have arrived. This is what happens when people do silly things like that. Indeed I spent a lot of time trying to extract that editors more responsible and constructive contributions from the edit histories and re-incorporate them into the article.
I have now changed the detail concerning buses at the City Hall to read "south". The accuracy of that is however unknown and with some apprehension I am assuming it was an in good faith edit by Snave.
I corrected a number of spelling, punctuation and sentence construction errors in the previous version of the article when I did my first edits on the article, subsequently the majority of them were undone by Snave. This sort of destructive editing is not welcome at WT and I have already cautioned him on that. I have swept the article and found more, and corrected them also. I have also since corrected the external link in the Get out section that pointed to the Get in section as I had missed that until Vidimian pointed it out. I have since carefully reviewed my first edit to the article and cannot locate any of the spelling errors or changes to names purportedly introduced.
I certainly do not appreciate being held responsible for spelling errors already in the article before I arrived or put back into it by reversions by another editor. In my own initial edit I found one typo, "Airpor" missing a t. Some similar bus information lacked a word space (CheongjuAirport) but that block of content was all revised in one of my later edits. I see no evidence that I introduced any significant spelling errors or typos into the article. In any case despite Snaves distractions any that I may have inadvertently introduced appear to have been swept out in my later edits. I see nothing unusual in my edits or editing behaviour to this article other than that caused by confusion arising from the belligerent distractions and confusion introduced to the process by Snave.
Snave has been piling up a litany of accusations, grievances and protestations on my talk page and seems to have been trawling for support on other editors Talk pages. Apparently this person feels some proprietorship over the article and feels slighted by my edits. I have tried to explain to Snave that POV and subjective opinion is somewhat out of place here but he seems to think his lofty overview of the city in which he is a guest is if dire importance to the traveller. Frivolous accusations include that I have been making "spammy" edits, cutting and pasting from Wikipedia and other insinuations and accusations. Snaves motivations remain unclear and I am tired of reading the rubbish this individual is slathering all over the place and rather bored from responding to it. It is difficult to even make any sense of the perceived grievances. Maybe he needs to exercise his creativity and vent his spleen against the city's municipal authorities on a blog somewhere. I am equally tired of his strange slandering and misrepresentations.
Snave please either give some examples or put a plug in it and try and learn how to read an edit history. Your self-opinionated nonsense is little better than childish attention seeking. That you think I am deleting things that I have not deleted and adding things that I have not added is probably a matter best handled by a qualified health care professional.
As for these 8 sites of touristic interest, I really do not care if they are listed as promoted by the city or not. However the local tourism authorities seem intent on giving them high profile promotion. For that reason alone maybe that should be detailed in the article. Your concept of providing the traveller with information by omission is puzzling, I wonder exactly how that is meant to work. If you have something of value to contribute to those listings by way of useful description or detail then just put it in the article, deleting the attraction because you do not like it is not how things are normally done in WT articles. My normal approach to this sort of listing issue is to do it by ABC down alphabetically. The only reason I have made an exception here is because the 8 sites are so prominently projected by the local tourism authorities and no doubt that is absorbed by the traveller. Hence my listing them here as a group to assist the traveller in understanding what they are. Six of one half a dozen of the other as far as I am concerned.
WT MoS would weigh toward straightforward list most times, so do I. If you feel a walking track is insignificant because it follows a roadway then just describe it as such in the listings detail. That can add value to the article. However removing the listing when it is quite heavily promoted by the regions tourism authorities just leaves an air of mystery hanging over it. It must be remembered that we are doing this to assist the traveller, not to vent our spleen about transgressions by a regional tourism authority as perceived by a short term guest in the city. In regard to the haughty and patronising judgements passed upon my editing by this individual I suggest they might like to dismount from the high horse and give it a rest.
Snave appears to have some sort of issue with information sourced from the official sites of the korean rail system, airport, municipal, airlines and korean tourism authorities. Many countries have misleading information on the official websites of rail and bus systems and promotional, possibly exaggerated claims from their regional and national tourism authorities. I do not understand why Snave thinks there is some unique situation prevailing in Korea. Try testing the claims of some of the other nations tourism authorities and you may find some similar themes; sometimes they are just plain simple errors, other times they are wild exaggerations, sometimes blatant nonsense. I have suggested to Snave that if the attractions listed on the official government websites are worthy of some comment or qualification that he should go ahead.
As for the fantasy about "changing" phone numbers, what is the insinuation here? Is it being suggested that I am deliberately seeding the article with misleading information. Unless there is an inadvertent typo then the telephone number will be accurate as per the source website or the original article content. If there was previously none and I have added one and there is no 1st level website source then it will come from an alternative yet authoritative source. Adding a country and local area code is not changing a number, it is clarifying it.
Snave who on earth do you think you are to throw about such opinionated unsubstantiated and self righteous rubbish. For your information, when I edit I do not just throw in random phone numbers or URLs, I go and look, and check. Perhaps if you thought to check the numbers yourself you might discover they are have been changed by the addition of IDD and area code prefixes in a uniform WT format.
Indeed you might benefit from doing a little checking yourself, then you would not make a complete and utter fool of yourself by complaining about my deletion of dead URL links. If you had any idea at all about what you are doing you would have clicked on one of them prior to reverting my edits and then attempting to slander me on at least three Talk pages. Often, as time permits and especially on a somewhat doubtful article such as this one I will not include a URL in an existing listing I am editing unless I can load the page pointed to.
As both of those deleted links were front linked I checked them both before editing the content, as they gave 404 error pages I deleted them. No mystery in that, just normal day-to-day WT editing, that is, until you came along and reverted them back again, still dead linked and still frontlinked. Then in a preposterous show of self aggrandisement you start claiming I am edit warring. Indeed you have even titled you grievances here "Continual Edit War". This shows my original edit and this shows Snaves reversion undoing the phone number formatting (no numbers were changed as claimed) re-establishing the dead links, front linking, putting back the previous POV content such as:
  • "poxy-yet-comfortable" — (POV in a sleep listing)
  • "the valley contains a tonne of restaurants, hotels and saunas" — (POV using rather odd promotional language)
  • "Quite the sight to see!" — (POV, promotional language, unnecessary use of exclamation mark)
  • "At the time of adding this entry for example, the theme was (an awesomely creative) "art made for under 10,000 won" — (POV and nonsense sentence)
  • "From the subway station, it's on the opposite side of the government complex itself." — (nonsense sentence)
  • "Furthermore, in consideration of this, these courses are also run at full cost, which is still affordable." — (POV, promotional and nonsense sentence)
  • "They specialise in a wide variety of trinkets including from mass-produced to a few bits and bobs from elsewhere in the country".— (nonsense sentence)
  • "As in most of Asia, the traditional market is located by the train station. The market by Daejeon Station is the general market, really nothing to write home about as far as appearances, the specialty stores are excellent, and you can get plants (from seeds to pots) which are not always easy to come by. Some household goods, and really cheap clothes are on offer, too. — (Factual error - some places have neither trains nor train stations yet have traditional markets whilst other places may have train stations but the traditional market is somewhere distant, POV and nonsense sentence)
  • "Timeworld plays host to an array of overpriced brand outlets" — (POV-overpriced by whose standards, normally a more neutral term is appropriate, I often use "full" price as it is descriptive and indicative that it may be "expensive" to many people. Some people may think these prices are just normal, hence I consider it to be POV)
  • Amongst the Korean fare, oddball theme restaurants are scattered around town too." — (nonsense sentence)
  • Note that it is believed Seo-daejeon's infamous Hitler Bar has since closed or been redecorated." — (If it is gone-why re-list it, "believed" - by who?--move to the talk page)"
  • "South East Asian import canned and packet food (including Mi Goreng) and phonecards can be found at the International Food shop" — (I guess Snave means Mie Goreng (Indonesian dried instant noodles), that was reverted as well. "Mi Goreng" is a brand name used by Indomie, they are one of the manufacturers of Mei Goreng noodles sold in Korea. If Snave wants to use a brand name instead of a descriptive term then OK but why remove the clarifying factual detail in parenthesis).
Other edits that Snave evidently decided to leave un-reverted included such comments as " plonked in the middle of some dude's farm", maybe he understands that is a bit odd, then again maybe Korean farmers have a "dude" category. The origin is a slang term that came into vogue in New York c. 1883, in connection with the ‘aesthetic’ craze of the period, a long way from S.Korea in the 21 C. I have no idea how much of this content Snave wrote nor do I care to trawl through the edit histories to find out, however why he is so protective over such dubious gibberish content is a bit of a mystery. The dude had endured more than a casual article edit by Snave and he had never removed or dealt with it in any of his considerable number of edits on the article. I gather the person concerned teaches English in Korea, I will leave that without further comment.
The idea that traditional Asian markets are sited at train stations is a good example of this editors scant understanding. Many places in Asia do not even have rail systems and the logical extension of that is that the edit is absurd, maybe Snave has only visited areas of asia blessed with rail systems and visited markets near train stations. The nonsense POV content was put back in. Even the bits and bobs (sic) was reverted from a more understandable "items" in my edit. The use of "bits and bobs" or the alt. bibs and bobs is somewhat obscure and of limited vernacular, eclectic items. assorted items or just items might be more understandable.
Snave also saw fit to revert all the phone numbers in the article back to a mixed range of formatting, reverted all the time formats to non-WT:MoS, reverted the currency formatting to non WT:MoS. Numbers above 999 are meant to be expressed X,XXX in WT articles. The use of a mish-mash of telephone formatting is not helpful and is both visually distracting and untidy.
I have been taken to task on my Talk page over a listing for the Zoo. I did not put the Zoo listing in nor did I take it out, I know nothing about the zoo or any of the animals in it or if it is open or closed and I have never suggested that I do. The limit of my involvement was probably a phone number prefix edit.
Snave has made some ludicrous suggestions above, I will address some of them, they are all nonsense as far as I can determine:
  • "Spammy edits" I am alleged to have made, what a load of rubbish. — So where are these so called "spammy edits"? Do you even know what "spam" means?
  • "Incorporation of non-copyleft sources outside of direct quotes" — where, is this another unsupported allegation of copyvio?
  • "Needless rewording, often completely changing the meaning of of the sentence." — some of the sentences were bereft of meaning in the first place, some were just gibberish, have you considered this may have been the reason they required "rewording"?
  • "Changing directions to point to the opposite end of town." — where?
  • "Rotating Stay, See and Do entries". — I don't even know what that is supposed to mean, maybe it your own head that is rotating.
  • "Editing things according to Wikipedia MoS. This is Wikitravel. Different website" — Yes it is - so why do you keep on bringing WP up, have you had problems there as well? At WP someone probably would have called you a "troll" by now, it is not a term commonly used here at WT but it does seem to apply to you, funny thing is you accused me of it.
  • Changing romanisation away from local standards used on signage at seeming random. — Can you perhaps supply an example of this? Where are these signs, where has the copy been changed in conflict with them. If is is real then detail it, if it is a fantasy then please keep it to yourself in future.
I have endeavoured to assume good faith with Snave from the outset however that user is displaying somewhat megalomanic tendencies with the article and may benefit from understanding that any regular WT editor has seen it all before. It is becoming increasingly difficult to attribute anything other than time wasting mischief in explanation of his behaviour. Snave just try and settle down. If you want to edit here just do it with care and patience and please stop singing about it, it is a boring song you are singing and one that has been sung by many others before you. As for your slurs against WP and WP editing your naivety and patronising manner are quite silly and frankly I doubt your editing style would receive an enthusiastic reception there. Your patronising criticism and appeals to inter-wiki tribalism is also both childlike and ludicrous.
If anyone here thinks Snave is worth the high maintenance effort then go for it, perhaps Snave can then fulfil his negative fantasies and promote his condescending patronising nonsense with someone else for a while. I can only hope this supercilious bore learns how to read edit histories before he starts holding forth any more. It is a pity as many of the contributions made by Snave have some value and aside from the rambling accusations, slandering and haughty self righteous posturing there seems to be some potential. His reverts have caused a lot of quite time consuming attention to undo and if any of his subsequent edits got lost it arises entirely from his own misadventure and silly behaviour. As for the sycophantic nonsense such as "Unfortunately, I'll have to call in 3rd party arbitration", perhaps Snave would be better served by calling for a doctor. -- felix 11:45, 1 March 2011 (EST)
I'm impressed by the enthusiasm for an article on a city you have admitted no firsthand knowledge of and I wish you the best in your edits mate. Calling in arbitration is as per policy when an edit gets reverted twice. As you seem enthusiastic towards quoting policies in legalese, as is the norm on Wikipedia I think, from my limited understanding, I chose to do it by the book and ultimately, I think the full discussion above sums itself up rather well. Thank you for your contributions.Snave 08:01, 3 March 2011 (EST)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages