User talk:Govrin

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 16:48, 16 December 2008 by Govrin (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello Govrin! 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.

Thanks for creating Judean Desert, but this overlaps with the existing regions of Israel, which is a no-no. Our existing Dead Sea, West Bank and Negev articles already cover the area. Jpatokal 22:22, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, but you are wrong about this subject. please see my response is the proper page. Govrin 09:53, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Govrin, and welcome to Wikitravel. Can I just ask that you refrain from removing the vfd tag from Judean Desert. There is a process that has now started under Wikitravel Policy. The nomination should be discussed on the votes for deletion page and only once a consensus is reached after at least 14 days will a final decision be taken. This may be the page being deleted, or being kept. Only then should the vfd tag be removed. Thanks. Nrms 10:00, 16 December 2008 (EST)

thank you, but i'm not new here at all. as for the votes, as i said, this is not a disagreement, his reason is a mistake made by lack of knowledge in the subject we are talking about, the regions in Israel. long story short, the proposal was made because he thought this region overlaps other regions... I explained to him he is wrong, no consensus needed, you can simply look into the geography of israel in any other site, including wikipedia. after all, if there will be a consensus that Israel is in north america, it won't make it right. Its simply a geographical fact. If it was a disagreemet that demands a consensus, i would have agreed with you.

You see what I mean?

Govrin 10:13, 16 December 2008 (EST)

  • Anyone can make an argument for or against anything being an article and vfd any article; sometimes through mis-information, sometimes through malice, etc. This is why we there is a policy to protect Wikitravel's integrity ensuring that no decision may be taken alone by one person. Under this policy, the article is still considered a nomination, therefore the vfd tag MUST remain until the due process is completed. You have done the right thing in stating your case for keeping the article on the Votes for Deletion page, but I do think we need to let the full process run its course before we start removing either the article or the vfd tag. If we shortcut the process in this case, there is no point in having the policy, and hence Wikitravel could be subject to all sorts of dangerous actions.

This is nothing against the article or yourself... It is purely a case of being fair and open-minded (I still havn't made up my mind on the article; partly though lack of knowledge of the area and partly through not yet having the time to do any research of my own) and following established procedure.

So please, can I ask that you leave the vfd tag in place, remain engaged in the nomination discussion and hope that you get the outcome you would like to see through the proper processes.

Thanks, Nrms 10:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. You are telling me yourself that you do not have time to research and look into it, meaning just googling it or looking into wikipedia if its a region in israel or not. I think that if you don't wish to read and check the facts, you shouldn't interfere, just like I shouldn't interfere in matters I don't know and don't wish to know about. If you set something as up for delete because of facts, check the facts first. If the person who proposed it refuse to accept it, then I understand the need for an intervention, but again, this intervention should be in case of a disagreement, not by false facts, and by people who will look into the facts.

I decided to add this topics because as a traveler, I think good information can help a lot. I decided to invest part of my time, which should not be taken for granted, and improve this part of Wikitravel, knowing I can make it better, fix the many mistakes and overlaps in the articles regarding Israel, add intersting and practical information and pictures about the diffrent areas and hopefuly take out the politics from the articles and leaving it for travelers use and not for cyber political wars.

I don't mind spending my time developing parts of Wikitravel and help this community where I can, but I refuse to spend my time defending those improvements from overly-active people in the community itself. I think your approach isn't very good for Wikitravel, I don't think you should first "declare a war" against something, and only then discuss it and check if you are even right. If someone wish to fix my grammer or some facts i might got wrong, even better. If someone disagree with me and wish to discuss it, fine by me. If someone brings diffrent facts than mine and proove me wrong, then the article should be based on those true facts. If someone thinks i am wrong and ask me to explain myself or bring facts, i will do so.

BUT, if someone, without any facts or discussion, just decides a certain region i wrote about just doesn't exist in the world, and declare it should be deleted, i expect the community to calm him down and ask him to bring facts before acting on his own. Like i said, i do not wish to invest my time defending things i wrote ,in hopes of improving wikitravel, that are based on nothing but speculations.

so i will remove the vfd 1 more time. If you decide this is how the community should act, then i prefer to not help develop a community that doesn't want to be developed. I prefer to delete the whole value, and abandon my plans to imrpove the values in Israel, PA, and Jordan.

like i said, i don't have a disagreement. If you want to act in a pro-wikitravel approach that prefer to incurage improvements and new values and discussions over suspicions and a prefrance to keep the old instead of improving, i would be happy to help develop these values. if not, then i guess the values about Israel will stay wrong, undeveloped and inaccurate until someone will come who has the time and energy to both improve and argue and defend his articles.

Govrin 10:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

OK. Here's another voice trying to tell you how it is. The wikitravel way is that for region articles we have this rule for region articles: no overlaps, no gap. If a region organization system that fits that criteria is already in place, then if you think it should be changed, there has to be discussion first. Period. No one is really saying they doubt your facts, or that it can't be changed as you suggest, but simply that we have to talk about it first. Thus, the vfd will stay, and if you want to change things, you will discuss it on the Talk:Israel page, because if the region article you created is allow to stay, it means that the whole region organization for the whole country needs to be re-thought. If you remove the vfd tag again, it is you that is edit warring and not the several others who are trying to do things like we always do. Texugo 11:10, 16 December 2008 (EST)

too bad you have time to read the rules so much, but not the subject we are talking about. the two regions overlaping are "dead sea", and the new "judean desert"... so you wish to delete the new value... the only problem? there is no such region in neither Israel nor Jordan nor the PA that is called "dead sea"... the coasts of the dead sea are only recognized as a part of the Judean desert. but instead of accepting an improvement and keep the new and more correct value, you prefer to keep the old.. not the approach i would have expected in an "open" project like wikitravel, that seem to be open only to a small number of overly active people.

anyway, i didn't come to argue, i came to improve some stuff and invest my time in it. I can see by your aggrassion that its not wanted or needed, since i guess you already know everything.


No aggresion is intended, but as an open community we make these kinds of decisions by consensus, and your opinion is as important as anyone else's, maybe even more opinion since you are educated on the subject. We just don't like individual users to make snap decisions about important organizational concepts, because we often have racist or super-nationalist users come in and try to arrange things according to their non-mainstream political beliefs, so we insist on a bit of discussion first. Just try to be a bit patient. If you'll just have a look at Talk:Israel, you will see that a (long-time) contributor has already started discussion about it which appears to mostly agree with your viewpoint. Please don't take offense at the fact that we like to get the community of contributors to think a little about major changes like the one you presented before allowing them to be implemented. You may very well convince everyone that you are right. Texugo 11:32, 16 December 2008 (EST)

like i said, if this was a matter of opinion, i would have agreed with you. but it is not. the conflict wasn't about race, nationality or anything like this... it was about a simple fact, is there a region in israel called the Judean Desert, or is it not a region and its actually a combination of the dead sea, the west bank and the negev desert.

one simple look in google, the israeli govenment or other israeli geographical sites, or even wikipedia, would have shown you that this region is called the Judean Desert. not "the dead sea", which is a lake and not a region, not the negev desert which is a diffrent region, and not the west bank which is a political area based on truce lines between Israel and Jordan since 1949.

sadly, instead of looking into this simple fact and deciding, people decided to (and as you pointed out - still do that on the discussion pages !!) discuss about it and decide together. Well i'm sorry but i find it absurd... its a fact not opinions.. its like i will write in wikipedia that the sun is actually blue, and instead of checking that fact and changing it back, the community will decide to halt their decisions and make long discussions about it until the wikipedia community will finally determan if the sun is in fact blue, or not. I'm sorry, but thats not the "game" i want to play in. I think you can see why. Wikipedia and in a way Wikitravel is an encyclopedia, its ment to give facts, not to decide on new facts all together.

and again i will say, if it was a matter of opinion you would have been 100% right... but its not.