Hello! Welcome to Wikitravel.
To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.
If you need help, check out Wikitravel:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. -- IBAlex 14:23, 11 December 2012 (EST)
Thanks for the heroic job you're doing fighting spam!
If you have check-user status, I'm wondering if you can block all the other accounts and IPs where this boiler plate "Mendoza" listing was spammed.
I've noticed at least 7 more, but I've given up since I can't delete all his spam accounts... --Ttcf (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (EST)
- Bump! --Ttcf (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)
I'm a bit puzzled by this edit which removed
*[[Kargil (district)|Kargil]] from the list of districts and changed
[[Category:Indian divisions]] to
I'm not entirely convinced that we need to break Ladakh into sub-divisions at all but, if we do, I would have thought a sub-region centred around the second largest town and a pre-existing administrative district is a fairly natural one...
Similarly, I've yet to be convinced that we need categories at all - if we do, presumably it should be categorised as both, because although for all practical purposes, India administers the disputed territory, Pakistani hearts are very attached to this area. If we only have one category then it seems pretty obvious it should be that of the de facto administration: India.
You may wish to comment at Talk:Ladakh... --Ttcf (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2014 (EST)
- Thanks for the thoughts Ttcf I too am not entirely sure about the validity of the edits but I thought with the hot button that is indian pakistani relations someone changing one to the other might not be the best thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrshao (talk • contribs)
- You're not wrong! We do expose ourselves to these sort of political zealots by having visible categories such as "Indian/Pakistani divisions" and my feeling is that they should be "hidden" categories if they are needed at all - see my recent post at the Travellers' Pub...
- Incidentally, it's my dream to go to Antarctica one day. How did you travel there, if I may ask? --Ttcf (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2014 (EST)
- If you google the other two places i mentioned you'll find out that I was not being entirely forthright Ibrshao (talk)
- (Sound of penny dropping) Ahhh, you naughty man! --Ttcf (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2014 (EST)
Sorry to trouble you again, but I was a bit puzzled by your reversion of this edit pair by an IP.
On the face of it, this was a good edit, putting the "Splurge" hotel listings into better alphabetical order - or have I missed something? --Ttcf (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2014 (EDT)
- It's not about the alphabetical order, we don't allow users to arbitrarily move listings from the bottom to the top of the list.Ibrshao (talk)
- That's an interesting new concept that we shouldn't allow users to put listings into default Abc order (or whatever other order has been agreed upon) but rather leave them in some weird (and presumably random order) for ever.
- In the decade or so that I've been editing here, I've never really seen that concept (that listings should not be put into a logical order, with alphabetical order as the default until and unless a better order is agreed upon) proposed before. Where did you get that strange idea from, please? --Ttcf (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (EDT)
- I see no benefit to listings being in Abc order as most if not all pages rarely have enough listing to warrant a sort. To prevent edit wars and misunderstandings, I would prefer that all new edits are added to the bottom of the section irregardless of Abc seeing as how this is how they are added with the add listing feature anyways. Ibrshao (talk)
- I've copied this discussion to Wikitravel talk:Listings#Random order in listings? so that the discussion may be seen by a wider audience... --Ttcf (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2014 (EDT)
I'm relatively new to Wikitravel, so I hope this works (not sure how to use the discussion yet)...
To be honest I'm not sure what I did wrong, and don't understand why you reset some of the pages I edited back to the less informative, less well written previous versions (no offense to the previous editors, I tried to expand and improve on what was already present, and didn't leave any information out).
All I'm trying to do is give an as clear as possible overview of the places/regions in question, which sometimes requires modifying and changing some the categories a bit:
- If it is stated that a towns are in a particular regions, it is best to put the regions category first.
- The category "cities" doesn't make much sense in a region where the biggest settlements are large villages.
- Political, cultural and geographical/geological regions often overlap each other, as much as they usually interact with neighbouring regions. Understanding this is essential to understanding a region and the possibilities of traveling around it.
- A 'stay safe' category doesn't make much sense for an article on region without major hazards.
In this case I am writing about a region that I know well and am passionate about, so I think I also know pretty well how to present/describe it, and this includes a clear overview. (obviously I won't touch articles on places I've barely or never been).
And, please, give me more explanation of what I did wrong next time, so as to avoid future misunderstandings.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruben Alexander (talk • contribs) • 00:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have already replied to your post on my own talk page but it might be better to centralise discussion at Talk:Luxembourg (Belgium) so that future editors can see what we decide and why... --Ttcf (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2014 (EDT)
Please do not add nonsense such as ,  and . These messages are extremely badly written, barely make sense and hardly serve as suitable welcome to new editors.
- User Ibrshao was inserting a template from our Welcome Message page. The template had a grammar mistake which was changed already. If you see a typo or a grammar mistake in our articles please inform administrators about it or suggest changes on the template talk page instead of offending users in our community. thank you, IBAlex (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2014 (EDT)