Here are archived discussions on my Talk Page.
Please Reconsider The Inclusion of Coworking Spaces as Relevant Traveller Information
I have twice tried to add what I believe to be a valuable resource to travelers visiting Ao Nang, Krabi and both times it has been removed with the comment (out of scope). I fail to see how listing a coworking space would be deemed as out of scope. Many travelers have the need for such spaces as they travel, either for standard business center services such as faxing/printing or simply just connecting to the internet over a fast and secure network. In fact there's a whole movement of remote working that's happening around the world where freelance/entrepreneurs (digital nomads) travel and work in various places. Most of them specifically travel to certain destinations just to visit a coworking space that someone has recommended to them, usually for the community that's built up around them. This information is now just as important as where to eat, where to sleep and what to do. If Wikitravel is a travel guide, coworking location listings are a must to retain it's value as an up to date travel resource. I do hope that you will reconsider the inclusion of coworking space listings.
Colin Spryfuse (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2016 (EDT)
- Hi Colin! How are you? Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. I see your point, however on WT we try to be concise and aim to keep the most relevant information for our travelers. Coworking spaces just don't seem to me as a something that many travelers would take advantage of. You can of course open a discussion about in on the article talk page or in our Traveller's Pub as the question if we should start adding coworking spaces to our articles will touch not just one page but many. Cheers, IBAlex (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)
Stockholm running tour
I added a guided running tour in Stockholm recently to the "on foot" section which you then deleted with a comment ´no general tours´? I am just seeking clarification on why this is the case and how it needs to be written to meet the guidelines?
—The preceding comment was added by Runwithmestockholm (talk • contribs)
- Hi Dan, please check our Tour page. Regards, GiulioC (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2015 (EDT)
Hello IBAlex! I am not sure if I am using the User talk feature correctly, so please excuse me if this is not the correct location to post this..
- Thanks for the info re:the same external linking. I would still like to make edits to the text of my recent edits, as some of the info is inaccurate/outdated, as well as make updates to the format of the link to better align with the Wikitravel markup guidelines. Am I able to make those edits? —The preceding comment was added by Amartineau (talk • contribs)
- Hello Amartineau! Thank you for your message. Absolutely, feel free to Plunge forward and make edits to the articles that you see are outdated. However, please make sure to follow our policies and guidance. I realize that we have many polices how to edit Wikitravel but just keep in mind that we do not allow multiple External links and admins always remove them.
- Also, yes, user talk pages are the eprfect places to communicate with each other :)
- Looking forward to see you edits. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to let me know. Cheers! IBAlex (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2015 (EDT)
- Thanks very much. I will be sure to review the community policies prior to making edits. —The preceding comment was added by Runwithmestockholm (talk • contribs)
Hello. I'd like to hear how one should deal with CC-by-SA 4.0 license, i assume it is rather new one.
I see it is added as an option in "Upload a picture" page, but only among "Attribution" and not among "Attribution-Share-Alike", which confuses me. I see that CC-by-SA 3.0 remains "default for WT", so this one is clear. Also, "Banner image guidelines" indicates that the source photo "must be compatible with CC-by-SA 3.0 policy" which is not extremely clear as i'm not an expert on licensing at all. So instead i'd ask other way: i assume, any picture from Flickr can be used for banner - any which comes out when you set "Commercial use & mods allowed" (other aspects like quality and aesthetics are not a question). Although most of older photos are licensed under CC-by-SA 2.0 and the new photos are licensed under CC-by-SA 4.0 (unless it is a public domain). So i assume it is enough to set "Commercial use & mods allowed" and this is sufficient and reliable. May i use pictures from Wikimedia Commons for banners? There is no setting "Commercial use & mods allowed". So may i use "public domain" pictures from Wikimedia Commons? Or should i not use pictures from Wikimedia Commons for banners? And - may i use regular pictures from Wikimedia Commons that are licensed under CC-by-SA 4.0 ?
And there is one type of pictures that i came across in Wikimedia Commons, would like to hear how should i behave if i think that the picture may be useful for WT and i already intend to upload it, and it is licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0 - but look at this picture, to me its licensing is really confusing. This is not the actual picture i intend to upload, just an example of licensing. --Local (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2015 (EDT)
- Hi Local! How are you doing? Have you done any traveling this summer?
- Thank you for your message. Commonly used and accepted license nowadays among wiki- based sites is the Attribution 4.0 International. This is the default license for Wikimedia Commons that allow adaptations of your work to be shared and allows commercial uses. I believe that we should also change it as default license on Wikitravel but for that to happen, I would first need to talk to the tech team. For now, feel free to use the "Attribution 4.0". It feels to me that Creative Commons attribution 4.0 makes more sense now as from what we can read here the new licenses are more user-friendly and more internationally robust than ever before and that 4.0 is the most internationally enforceable set of CC licenses to date. The 4.0 licenses are ready-to-use around the world, without porting. So, as I mentioned above please feel free to use license Attribution 4.0 when uploading to Wikitravel and stay tuned as we might make updated our "Upload a file" dropdown menu.
- As for Flickr, please use to option "Commercial use & mods allowed". Yes, you can use pictures from Wikimedia Commons for banners as our licenses are compatible. Look for pictures that on the right hand side have the option: "Use this file on a wiki" (square icon with "W" sign). This is a sufficient information for you that the license is correct.
- I hope everything is clear now. Cheers! IBAlex (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
- Thank you very much, everything is clear now indeed :) --Local (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2015 (EDT)
Spam filter(s) and rotate picture(s)
Hi Alex, this is Shoestring of ja:. It's been a long time since we hear from you last, but how are you these days?
Today I have two questions, about spam filters and how to rotate the picture(s).
Currently we cannot make external links on ja: pages at all, because all the URLs are blocked by spam filter(s). Do you make some additional tuning to (it/them) recently? And if you upgrade those filter(s), could you tell us how to cope with (it/them)?
And next, I would like to know how to rotate the images. For example, look at this (shared:file:RonaldMcDonald Wai.JPG). This image was originally a portrait style. But recently I noticed that it was changed from portrait to landscape, probably due to your recent update of Mediawiki. Do you know how to recover it to its original position, i.e. to rotate this picture 90 degrees counter-clockwise?
Thank you for your cooperation (as always) and we look forward to your response.--Shoestring (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2015 (EDT)
- Hello Shoestring! Thank you so much for your message! Really sorry that I'm just getting back to you now but I was on 2 weeks holidays in USA :) I would be very happy to help you. I would need some additional information and some research before we find answers to your questions, though.
- 1. Spam filters: Could you let me know which URLs you have in mind? We haven't made any changes to spam filter as far as I know. I believe that that the URL you're trying to insert consist of some word that might be on our "black list". Is it just one URL or more.
- 2. This is a very interesting point you raised. I haven't heard of that before and would need to check it with tech. Do I understand it correctly that this picture- (shared:file:RonaldMcDonald Wai.JPG)- was first NOT rotated by 90 degrees (normal way) and at some point you noticed it was rotated 90 degrees clock wise? Have you noticed any more pictures that "behaved" as that as well?
- Looking forward to hearing from you:) Thank you once again for your patience with my answer. Please let me know how are you doing and if there is anything else I could help with. Warm regards, IBAlex (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2015 (EDT)
- Hi, Alex
- Sorry for I couldn’t notice your response, recently I was concentrating on editing ja: pages and not checked the en: so often.
- Speaking of your questions, question 1 has already debugged, thanks to the IBcaldera and other your tech team members.
- Regarding the question 2, so far I don’t know other pictures behaved like this on ja: pages, but I heard that it happens sometime when we rotate camera 90 degrees in order to take portrait pictures and upload them via mediawiki (If we upload the portrait files made by trimming the landscape ones, it doesn’t happen).
- I noticed that the same problem had already been reported on Wikimedia Commons and they seems to know (partially) how to cope with, but unfortunately I didn’t understand what it said, because (as you may know) I am totally NOT a tech-smart. That’s why I need your help. --Shoestring (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2015 (EST)
- Hi Shoestring! No problem at all for the late reply. I passed your message about the rotating images to tech already but they haven't found a pattern in it. I will check on them again sending them the link you gave me. Thank you! Warm regards, IBAlex (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2015 (EST)
Hello. I bothering you again about images, just this time i have no problems – would like to clarify some things :).
1. Not sure if i see same thing as anyone else – one user uploaded several pictures (in the middle of September) and since they were linked directly to Wikimedia Commons they recently were „affected“ in some way and turned blank. For example, here - a 3rd pic from the top. To be sure that you see same thing as i do – here is a „print-screen“ of that thing as seen on my monitor. If you click it (the real pic, i mean) – the modified page „Upload the file“ opens. I have experienced similar thing a few years ago, in the very beginning, just it was slightly different back then – a pop-up window with „warning“ used to appear after clicking it, and the image itself would appear then for a short time. I‘m now aware that images should be uploaded to WT Shared first (you explained me), so my question is – what is that? Is it some automatic setting or something? „Image Policy“ clearly allows to link images directly to Wikimedia Commons, i perfectly understand those users who upload the pictures directly, i previously was relying on „Image policy“ too. So your explanation to me is the only source stating that images should be uploaded to WT Shared first. So i always upload to WT Shared.
2. So, may i delete those „affected“ pictures, specifically from Vilnius article? Images are nice but they all more or less duplicate already existing images, and they aren't more informative than those already uploaded to the article. At least i won‘t upload them to WT Shared. To me It‘s not difficult to delete them, and i understand that admins are quite busy, so i easily could to. Just here i noticed confusing thing: some other user deleted several pictures that were uploaded (directly) by same user in Budapest article, however admins reverted those deletions asking to „leave an explanation in the summary field when removing info“. I understand - but how to call that „phenomenon“ about blank pictures? Hence my 1st question above – what is it? I don‘t know what explanation to leave if everything is obvious – but only to you and me, apparently, since „image policy“ allows to link directly, admins thanked and encouraged that user for his uploads (on his talk page), and i remember my own experience – i linked images directly to Wikimedia Commons and everybody were happy, they edited around my images and even descriptions of those directly linked images, and one day they turned blank. There is no info about that anywhere in the guidelines. The only info was your personal explanation to my question at traveler‘s pub. But it was moved from the archive.
3. Earlier at least 2 pictures (uploaded by me) disappeared from WT Shared, it affected the article appearance exactly like in this case. Just the image was uploaded to WT Shared first then, however now if you click on it you can read „upload images to WT Shared“ :) . And the link to „Image policy“ below. And the statement on „Image policy“ page that images should be uploaded directly from Wikimedia Commons. BTW, on „How to add an image“ page the statement to upload to WT Shared is outdated, the one on „Image policy“ allowing to link directly was added 2 years later, by far it is the most up to date guideline. I return back to my 1st question – what are those „blanked images“, what is it? Sorry for lengthy post, would like it to be shorter. --Local (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2015 (EST)
- Hi Local, how are you? Thank you for your message and sorry for such a late response! I was travelling a bit in the past weeks. OK, so there has been some bugs on EN WT with the images recently. Pictures were not loading properly and they were rendering an error. It should be fixed now though as that's what tech team confirmed with me. Also, I just checked the Vilnius Old Town (Rūdninkų Street) picture in the Get around section on Vilnus article and the picture displays correctly. For you as well?
- Sometime, however, it happens that a picture renders an error and this is considered a normal behavior. There are 2 reasons for that: 1) The image was directly "uploaded" from Wikimedia Commons and somebody deleted or changed it on Wikimedia Commons. 2) Picture that was uploaded on Wikitravel Shared was deleted but the image formatting like [[File:XYZ|XYZ]] still stays in the article. In both of those cases we should find the original picture (either on Wikimedia Commons or Wikitravel Shared) and checked if the picture was deleted/ modified. If yes, we should delete the formatting from the article.
- By saying uploaded from Wikimedia Commons I meant the following. Imagine I want to add to Wikitravel article this picture. I see it is uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and has a license CC BY-SA 4.0 which means this picture is fully compatible with Wikitarvel (because it's from Wikimedia Commons + same licensing). I can press Use this file on a wiki and I will be given the wiki formatting that I can insert in Wikitravel article. In this way I skip the step of uploading the picture to Wikitravel Shared as both Wikimedia Commons and Wikitravel are compatible. All good:)
- Please let me know if now all is clear and if you're still experiencing issues with the broken pictures.
- Warm regards, IBAlex (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2015 (EST)
- Thanks and sorry for such a late response too :) . Currently those images look ok. Those 2 reasons when a picture renders an error are clear, i understand. But i can assure you that some pictures (personally uploaded by me) disappeared from WT Shared without leaving any "traces" in history section on WT Shared. Or could it be deleted by someone? I actually can't tell whether they disappeared, were deleted, were moved elsewhere or anything else - they were among my uploads, and then one day they disappeared. While in the history section of a corresponding article where i did upload those pics (from WT Sh) the records of the upload are present. Basically the problem is not that i can't or am lazy to upload them again - it's impossible to recognize whether it was "some bug" or it was done by admin because i unintentionally violated something. How to recognize that? Or in other words what to think when it happens?
- Do you say that if it "happens that a picture renders an error" - this is normal? If the picture gets blank with file's name in red it is nothing special, but when you click on it you see a peremptory command to delete it. So if it's normal when it's an error and at the same time it's normal if it genuinely is a violation - how to recognize which one it is? Do you mean that this peremptory text should be ignored or what? :) I am used to obey the rules and if i see such text i assume that something is done really wrong. The problem in my case was that this is not described anywhere and it's not clear how to react when i see that. I took that "print-screen" from one of the pictures that disappeared previously, it still remains "rendering an error".
- Now, you say that pics may be uploaded "directly", pressing Use this file on a wiki, i trust you. How about that "peremptory command", it reads "Do NOT upload files here, instead upload images and maps to Wikitravel Shared". It looks official, it's not some comment on someones talk page or something - should it be ignored? Where are the guidelines that tell that? :) . It's very conflicting information, yours and that "peremptory command". You didn't comment that aspect, what one should think seeing such conflicting statements? Actually, when i asked you about that some years ago, you told that i indeed must upload images to WT Shared first. And i assumed that this was why my all uploads suddenly "rendered an error". Links were accurate, btw, there were no any modifications on Wikimedia commons. So, i assume, this was not one of those considered a "normal behavior" - non of those 2 reasons apply. Still, it happens from time to time - should i expect such behavior, be it normal or not, from time to time? I ask because it is not described anywhere. Generally, it is very conflicting - that what you told here above, that what you told previously, and that what one can read on that "command". How to recognize which one is right and when? :) --Local (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2015 (EST)
Tarifa Kite School
I totally understand why the section of our Kiteschool has been deleted due to "touting" the only thing I am wondering why another school (grey) can have a text like this on the Tarifa page. It should be fair,
Kathrin —The preceding comment was added by Kathi0907 (talk • contribs)
- Hi Kathrin, thank you for reaching out here. As a matter of fact, your listing was deleted because you've broken our rules (but Graykite doesn't). Please have a look at our rules about touting and first person pronouns, and maybe revise your listing and publish it again. Plus, you should sign your posts on discussion pages, so people know who they're talking to. Just enter four tildes at the end of your comments ("~~~~"). Cheers! --Binbin (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2016 (EDT)