User talk:Evan/Jul-Aug-Sep 2007
See also User talk:Evan/Archives
Please direct the following questions to the right spots:
- Technical requests like feature requests or bug reports should be posted using the tool at shared:Technical requests.
- For personal messages, use Special:Emailuser/Evan.
 xtravelguide and stock description do not work on ja:
Would you please let me know whether it is a bug or a lack of my setup ? -- Tatata 01:52, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
- No, there's a configuration step I have to do on the server. I'll see if I can get this working on ja:. --Evan 09:18, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
- O.K. I will wait the configuration. -- Tatata 09:38, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
- Can I see them within the month ? -- Tatata 15:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
 Template:IsIn in Hebrew
- I think you had better to fix includeonly tag, nowiki tag and noinclude tag, first of all. -- Tatata 07:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
 Bot flag
- Hey, Dorgan. Has it gone through the script policy review? What does it do? --Evan 10:02, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
- I transcribed the version. Dorgan 11:16, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
 Image licensing
I recently added an image (Image:373296152 5f5620faf9.jpg) to the Swansea article and later had doubts about whether it had been released under a compatible license. Based on these doubts, I removed the image from the article, and it is currently under review for vfd on shared. Anyway, I've since had another look at the WT licensing policy and think I that I am reasonable clear about it. However, I would feel more confident about uploading images from Flickr in the future if someone could confirm my assumptions. So, if you have the time, could please take a look at the Flickr licensing categories and get back to me. Basically, they have six kinds of CC license (), and based on my understanding of WT's policy, I am assuming that it only the top on the list, Attribution 2.0, and the bottom one of these six, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, that are compatible with WT licensing. Is that correct? In addition, as Flickr is a major source of many of the images, I wonder whether it would be worth adding a note to the copyright policy info on shared that specifically refers to their CC licensing categorization. I appreciate your help. Frequenttrekker 04:20, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
- You are mostly correct. The only tricky part is that by-sa 2.x and 3.0 licenses are technically incompatible with our own 1.0 version. However, we will probably upgrade to version 3.0 at some point, so it might not make any sense to delete images under those licenses.
- I agree that a note on the image policy page might be useful. --Evan 19:35, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
- I apologize in advance for the sarcasm I'm about to unleash, especially because I like you. Why should we technically allow for our users, readers, and distributors to be and remain in violation of our own by-sa 1.0 inspired copyleft for some upgrade that has not been discussed by the community?
- Also, how is there even the feeblest chance that any upgrade is legally permissible!? There's been talk of this off and on now for quite a while, but as far as I can tell (of course I'm not accredited by any bar association) but it's impossible for such an upgrade to take place without 1. deleting everything on Wikitravel or 2. we attempt to do one of those shoddy stunts World66 did and say "Hey, you've got until Month and Day of this Year to notify us not to relicense your work under CC-by-SA 3.0". As long as we wait until the statutes are up then we wouldn't have anything to worry about in the US legal system, but it's still a cheap attempt to force the relicensing of someone's work. Also, how would we handle the objections from anonymous users? -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 22:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
- It's not such a shoddy stunt -- re-licensing from one version of a license to a later, improved one isn't particularly vicious or tricky. If you think about it, it's really about being good stewards of the work that people have contributed here. Keeping our license limited to what's becoming a very old version isn't doing anyone any good, and it's starting to do us harm. I think if we are careful we can do an upgrade with a minimum of difficulty and harm. Here's how it could work:
- First of all, under international law a publisher can act on behalf of an anonymous author until that author chooses to identify themselves. So Wikitravel as a project can probably just go ahead and relicense anonymous contributions unless we hear some squawks from said users.
- Second, we can send emails to everyone who's registered with an email address, and ask them to make a positive checkoff to relicense their work. We can try to spread the word as much as possible.
- Then, we can set a long timeframe for negative checkoffs ("tell us if you don't want to relicense"). When we're done with whatever notification period we go through, it's possible we'll have some number of contributions which haven't gotten positive or negative checkoff from the contributors. Then we have a dilemma: we can either delete their contributions (there are tools to do this), or we can go ahead and distribute the works as if they'd been relicensed by the contributor, until we hear otherwise.
- There are no harm, no foul rules for when a project relicenses work by a contributor without positive checkoff from the contributor. If such a contributor were to go to court, they'd have to show that the new license a) causes them harm and b) clearly deviates from their expectations when they originally licensed their works. The differences between the by-sa 1.0 and by-sa 3.0 are quite small and don't at all have to do with the spirit of the license. (They mostly have to do with getting rid of the "this version and only this version" problem that we're having.) If we have a lot of people who agree positively to the upgrade, this will show clearly that a rational person would not have their expectations violated by the change.
- Finally, we'd handle any objections by any contributors with a delete-first policy. It will be annoying and hard, but I think we can hope that the majority of contributors actually have the best interests of the project and of travellers at heart.
- The advantages to upgrading are many. Probably the most important is that we could have the different language versions use the localized worldwide version for the country or countries that use that language. Also, when upgrading we could use "or any later version by Creative Commons", which would make upgrading in the future automatic.
- When will this happen? I don't know. It's something that a few people have been asking about, ever since CC 2.0 came out. It's going to have to be a community decision when and how to step forward with this -- when the disadvantages of staying with an old version of the license (whose major difference is enforced incompatibility) outweigh the hassles of making this change. --Evan 18:29, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
- I just changed California to usableregion, which makes it somewhat better... that's what we've been using for the most part so far. – cacahuate talk 01:17, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
 Italic romanization?
Hi Evan, could you comment about this on the following talk page please? Thanks.
 web/email format
- No problem whatsoever. I'm going to assume that your username on shared: is the same as your name on en: (let me know if I accidentally set the admin bit for the wrong person). Every admin on every language version is supposed to also be an admin on shared:, but because people don't always have the same user name I don't do it automatically. Anyways, it's set now. --Evan 22:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
 Wikitravel:es wants a visit counter as the other Wikitravel versions.
Neither Texugo nor me knows how to install it on the wiki, that's why I speak to you about this topic. I look for your response. By the way, thanks to the paper El País and a report in the National Spanish TV Antena3 (I'll send you the link to youtube as soon as I get it) about Wikitravel, we've gotten more than 450 users in less than 2 days, and improving! I though it was a great news you'd like to know. Bye Nanow jesús madrid 11:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
- So, the way we do caching, there isn't really a way to count article visits. Whatever is on some of the other versions is veeeeerrrrry old. You can get general Wikitravel Web visit info at http://wikitravel.org/webalizer/web/ .
- Awesome news about es: and the media! And great work! --Evan 14:58, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
 JS and CSS
- Ugh. I'll see what I can do. Can you make a tech request on shared:, please? --Evan 14:29, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
Evan, I recently stumbled across the Russian namespace and wrote up a prototype Main Page in Russian. I would like to see the Russian project start to get off the ground and could work on translating and starting the basic pages and templates, but is there anything that needs to be taken care of first? --Peter Talk 05:51, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
- See shared:Russian Wikitravel Expedition. As far as I know, we just need someone to step forward and be the liaison for that language version to get it off the ground. All I need to do, I think, is unlock the wiki. Let me know if you're interested in the job, and I'll do it immediately. --Evan 14:31, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
- OK, it should be done. --Evan 03:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
 :ru/Recent changes
- Hmm, it disappeared as mysteriously as it came... --Peter 17:27, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
 one more thing
Do you know what this is: ru:Ð¡Ð»ÑÐ¶ÐµÐ±Ð½Ð°Ñ:Mypage and ru:Ð¡Ð»ÑÐ¶ÐµÐ±Ð½Ð°Ñ:Mytalkpage? I don't know what to make of these, and my delete finger is itchy, but I don't want to do anything to them without having an idea of what they are. --Peter Talk 03:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
 Bot flag
- Hmm. I think when I did the "split pages" thing I refreshed the review installation of MediaWiki from the default Wikitravel installation. So the listings thing got lost. I'll see what I can do to switch it back. --Evan 04:37, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
- I think this should really be a priority to get enabled on Wikitravel ASAP -- for one thing, the no-longer-secret books rely on listings for automated formatting. Jpatokal 05:27, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
 :es admin switch
Just a note... Orel wants you to give admin rights to another user on :he... shared:User_talk:Evan#Hebrew_version_.28Yes.2C_again.29 – cacahuate talk 01:54, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
 :ru name change request
 :it attacks
- I'm very sorry for disturbing you while travelling. Please, forgive me. May I use your e-mail address with dominion wikitravel.org for semi-urgent matters? Let me know if I can reach you in your talk page in en:wikitravel or in wikitravel shared Gobbler 14:40, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
Hi Evan, when adding some data to the article about Amsterdam, I was astonished to find a rather extensive elaboration on drugs in Amsterdam, that IMHO could be seen as a direct invitation to use drugs, especially the third paragraph of the section „Cannabis and other drugs”. I’m not advocating for a complete removal the section about drugs but for shortening it to a reasonable size and content, as WikiTravel is not a drug-user guide. In case it hasn’t been done already, I would also recommend to check the wording by a company specialist or lawyer in order to avoid legal trouble for WikiTravel. -- Túrelio 04:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
- Coffeeshops are legal in the Netherlands, so a guide to this country should cover them obviously, and I do not think that there are laws in any democracy that forbid to describe the situation in another country. If you do not think that this paragraph conforms to our policy, anyhow, feel free to change it.
- And I am sure that Internt Brands lawyers are watching WT very closely, because they might get in trouble otherwise. --Flip666 writeme! • 18:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
 admins and bureaucrats
Hey there! Riggwelter's nomination has passed for b'crat on shared, my admin nom has passed on WT/hi, and there are two bureacrat noms on English that you might want to weigh in on. – cacahuate talk 14:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
- On this note, I was thinking that it might be useful for me to be a bureaucrat on :ru, if only so that I don't have to bother you about name-change requests. I think Russian Wikitravel's progress has been pretty good so far and you can read our detailed, first month's liaison report here. Hope you had a good time at Burning Man! --Peter Talk 01:54, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
 New administrator on es:
User:Hwk has been approved as an administrator on es:. Could you please flip his status for us? Maybe I should seek burocrat status there since we don't have one besides you? Texugo 02:50, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
Good to see you back! Gorilla Jones 16:48, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
 Hyatt touts
I don't necessarily disagree with you about the welcomeness of information on Hyatt hotels; I stay at Hyatts quite frequently on professional travel, and they're viable lodging options as appropriate to list in ways compatible with the MoS as any other hotels. However, that guy has been putting toutish listings into articles for months now despite repeated, and originally entirely cordial, requests to read the MoS, do the listings in a way consistent with our goals, and so on. (Check his contribution log and the history on his talk page.) If someone else wants to edit those contributions into something useful, fine, but I have other things to do with my time than de-tout what he writes and we still do have a don't-tout policy.
Incidentally, User:PerryPlanet (his first name is John, btw) isn't an admin (although I think he'd make a good one) and therefore doesn't have the rollback button, so he has to do his de-touting the hard way. Looks like he goofed once, but his heart is in the right place in the struggle against the touts. (P.S. Welcome back, indeed.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 19:17, 14 September 2007 (EDT)
 Help namespace
Hello. Not knowing MediaWiki very much, I am wondering about one thing. As far as I know some implementations of MW use "Help:" namespace. On WT there's all of this subject in "Wikitravel:". Any particular reason for this? (sorry to bother you, but I haven't found anything on that any where else). LukeWestwalker ⇔ 16:24, 16 September 2007 (EDT)
- No problem. We started Wikitravel before the "Help:" namespace became standard, and we really haven't had much need to move our help articles there. --Evan 18:12, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
 Google search form
After the search problem on en:, I'm thinking of adding Google search form to search result page on ja: and shared:. I think there is no technical problem because just adding a form like this. So I'd like to be sure whether there is any other problem or not. Can I try to do this? -- Tatata 10:57, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
- No problem? Maybe I'll start this tomorrow. -- Tatata 04:27, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
- I had a look at SpecialSearch.php and I gave this up. Then, I made a feature request. ;-)
- BTW, I could make ja:Template:Related work. Now I'm thinking of modifying shared:Template:Related to work for not only main namespace but others and add urlencode into it. If I can do it, I may relate tech requests and pages of each common point. -- Tatata 07:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
- →Wikitravel_talk:Recent_changes_patrol#patrolling_is_now_available_for_non-admin --Peter Talk 13:14, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
 "About" page(s)
On pl About there is a statement (English: This is a translation of Wikitravel:About into Polish. For more information see the Polish Wikitravel Expedition.). As I have been recently told to consider this page as obsolete, I wanted to remove the mentioned phrase from pl About, so as not to direct users to outdated info. However I have noticed that such phrase is present on About pages on some local versions (ex. es), while on some is not. So, is this phrase obligatory? LukeWestwalker ⇔ 15:46, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
- No, it's not obligatory. Wikitravel language versions are independent. Jpatokal 03:23, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 interlanguage style consistency
Dear Evan, let me ask much more official question for you are an admin on the Polish Wikitrave. As you may have seen, I volunteered to finish unfinished translation of the Polish Wikitravel. It seemed indispensable as any sensible contribution to PL WT is very difficult without basic guidelines. I have already done some of the translations and was intending to translate Manual of Style to Polish. However in the meantime I learned from one of the admins that PL WT is a separate project so style guidelines from en don’t apply (so for example accommodation listings must not appear in any article). This point of view has been confimed above. Still there is not a page of Manual of style in Polish (except for Bodies of water) so it’s difficult to say what guidelines apply. Therefore I am a bit puzzled – should I translate Manual of Style into Polish (which is a large job)? Or Polish Wikitravel should wait until a group of users is gathered to compose and agree upon brand new Manual of Style, while in the meantime new articles are created without consistent format (eg. containing lots of links to secondary sources)? Thank you in advance for help. LukeWestwalker ⇔ 12:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
You made a joke about it in Puerto Rico, but you can once again follow the exciting adventures of the Bengals again. That's right, I may be 5,400 miles away, but I'm still on top of it. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 19:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 Adminstrator on Hebrew
Hi. Can you please make he:משתמש:zvika an adminstrator? This will help us very much. Thanks Orel Zion