User talk:RashersTierney/Archive 4

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ath-bhliain foai mhaise dhaoibh a chara.
Have a good new year. BigDunc 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda! and apologies for not getting it in earlier, I took yesterday off! Oh and yes I will attempt the RFA -- Snowded TALK  07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good news. Best of luck. 109.79.75.130 (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Passports
I'm just glad people agree that the sections need to go, I was afraid of an onslaught of "change? oh noez!"-style replies. I agree that maintaining/creating the visa sections has taken over many (most?) low traffic passport articles. It's obvious a lot of effort went into these sections, but it's such wasted, misdirected effort. Think how beneficial it may have been had the effort gone into improving the main body of the article itself. Would you say we've arrived at a consensus? I'm not sure how to attract more editors to the debate though, CENT is just about as public as it gets. — what a crazy random happenstance 14:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just left links at two more eds. (of opposing views) that were previously occupied on this issue. Perhaps links on some of the more active passport articles to the discussion might result in more feedback. I'd prefer if we could get at least tentative agreement on new homes for these sections, where those who regularly contribute only to that section can edit them to their hearts' content. RashersTierney (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest something like "Visa policy of Bhutan" but I still have great reservations about that type of content altogether; and I don't think dropping notes on talks of individual passport articles is really necessary, plus if we do so we risk running afoul of WP:Canvassing. — what a crazy random happenstance 17:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just heading out the door, but I'll get back to you later on this. I'm conscious of my notices possibly being misinterpreted or misconstrued and have tried to keep them neutral and also to inform all those I know to have expressed strong views on the topic (on both sides of the divide, without favour). RashersTierney (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is for opposing eds. to make their case now, which hasn't so far happened. As things stand, I would support deletion. RashersTierney (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. I had a look, the section was created on 8 January 2010 and it shouldn't be de-listed at cent til 30 days later so I think there's enough time to just sit, wait and debate for now. We appear to be coming to a consensus a bit faster than that though, it may just be closed a bit sooner unless no major debate arises. — what a crazy random happenstance 03:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen these articles Physical features of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport ? Seems like a totally unnecessary fork where the only difference between both is the 'visa-free travel' block. It may be an unfortunate portent of things to come. RashersTierney (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The content that was forked would have been perfectly suited for the main article; I agree that the split is wholly unnecessary. You should note this at the vote, it is good proof of the way that visa-free sections have hijacked passport articles to the extent where people feel they need to create a fork just to describe the passport itself. — what a crazy random happenstance 16:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are just wasting your time, because A LOT OF people will undo them. And again because; People like those details. People want those details. People look for those details. They're useful information. Or maybe people visit their passports articles to see some photos and the colour of the passports? Not funny. --Ozguroot (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC) --Ozguroot (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If as you say, this kind of information is important to readers of Wikipedia, then perhaps links to reliable sites such as IATA can be provided within the articles. This body is best placed to ensure that information is accurate and not liable to error, whether deliberate or otherwise. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood, the header was slightly misleading. I agree with you, though that perception is entirely Ozguroot's fault. He inflates his replies in hopes of making them seem to eclipse the previous discussion and relative consensus that had been reached earlier. — what a crazy random happenstance 10:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, by looking at the discussions in passport pages, and the comments I've got from users like this one, I don't think that Wikipedia is a good place to express ideas anymore. I don't want to put anything in the appropriate discussion page because there already is an editors war going on there; but I tell you this, my reason for deletion of the visa-free section is that many people, from the beginning, have let their sense of nationalism conflict with reality and put so much untrue information in these sections. They change the lists and the visa-free images to ones that they like or, better say, dream of. If you thoroughly browse through the history of the passport pages for Iran, UAE, and some others, you can see what I'm talking about. Moreover, I removed the visa-free section for Iranian passport for two reasons: 1. I created that section and edited it so many times 2. I am Iranian/Canadian, so, no one would think it was "the enemies" who did this. Majalinno (talk)


 * I'm sorry you feel that your views are not getting a fair hearing, but trying to express them as edit summaries might not be the best way forward. I totally agree that these flag icon collections can attract a lot of vandalism on certain articles. I still think you should allow others to get an appreciation of this type of behavior, which is why I made my suggestion. We are trying to reach a consensus at Talk:Passport to comprehensively settle this issue and think you are in a position to highlight an issue that hasn't so far been debated there. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ps I don't think the editor in question sees you as the enemy, and I think he might be more sympathetic to your difficulties than you think.

Hong Kong SAR Passport article
Thanks for your message. The reason why I created a new article solely about the passport's physical features was because I thought that including the physical features about the previous versions of the passport would make the main article far too long (it is already quite lengthy, in comparison to many other passport articles!). I admit that the section about the current version's physical layout is the same in both the main article and the supplementary article, but I just feel that including information about tht physical features of the previous versions as well in the main article would simply make the main article difficult to navigate through. Bonus bon (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (On duplication of content between passport articles, Physical features of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport,) I agree with your view that the primary article is far too long. The proposal above on the removal of 'visa free travel' blocks will go a considerable distance in eliminating peripheral material. National passport articles should primarily be about the physical artifact. Issues of visa/immigration/rights to citizenship and other state policies properly belong elsewhere. Your new article more closely resembles how the main article should appear but there really is no need for both. RashersTierney (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I do however think that information about visa-free access is pertinent information and ought to be included, as I think that the article should be about the physical description as well as information about its use.  Bonus bon (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep that discussion centralized at Talk:Passport. Your views there might help in resolving this issue. RashersTierney (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

IP's suspicious edit
I was not sure what they were up to, honestly. But, the edit I reverted followed immediately on the heels of a reversion by ClueBot of another edit by the same IP. So, I decided to err on the side of caution. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My trigger -finger was hovering too. Ta for reply. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Breaking the impasse
Much of the support hinged on the fact that passport articles are wholly unsuitable for such information, I would agree with having those sections at 'Visa policy of XYZ' by not 'XYZian passport'. I don't think there is an impasse, the debate is judged on the strength of the arguments, not on the number of canvassed users, and I think we've reached a consensus that where ever they ought to be, it's not on the passport articles, with only one or two major dissenters. — what a crazy random happenstance 02:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I too was under the impression that consensus had been reached and that Blue-Haired Lawyer's bold edits were in accordance with that. Am a bit perplexed why things don't seem to be advancing. Would not wish for 'no action' to be misunderstood as consensus for the status quo. RashersTierney (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing is to wait until the poll naturally closes as it is delisted from CENT (that should be Feb 7), before moving on to any secondary compromise measures. Currently it stands at support for removal, but a few more editors coming by and agreeing with the proposal couldn't hurt. — what a crazy random happenstance

74.59.88.57
Hi there,

The above IP is a sock of indef blocked. Can you please block the IP? He is being quite disruptive. Athenean (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Ckatz took care of it. Athenean (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You must be confusing me for one of these. Anyway, it was only a matter of time before the IP burned his bridges. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing
The canvassing issue is quite obvious and noted by others users too. Did you notify regular editors? No. Did you post a notice on all passports talk page? No. Did you stop removing content with "per consensus" once it was clear there was no such consensus? No. Not to mention that the consensus was not built per rules meaning per arguments but per votes. So please, instead of arguing with me over what I've said, better accept that as a good advice from me to you and especially pay attention to the advice saying to concentrate on upgrading articles that you find to be of not so good quality instead of concentrating on destroying good articles so that the bad ones wouldn't look so bad. That is the core issue, instead of blowing up months of efforts and in some cases even financial efforts of certain users in one click try to update those articles to see how difficult it is, how much more difficult than clicking erase. Also it is quite difficult to understand why would all articles be encompassed, yes they all talk about passports, but just like not all articles on for an example presidents of the USA follow the same fate, not all articles on passports have to be equal. Your assumptions were not based on any WP rule, if we followed the idea that the assumption that some article might not get updated means it should be erased we would have at least 75%, if not 80% less articles. Finally it would be the best for any future discussion on this matter, meaning if you hope to actually change the established consensus and remove certain parts of articles, if you apologized on that talk page but that is completely up to you.--Avala (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Veni, vidi, visa


Hello RashersTierney, Paradoctor (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Never had one of these before. I think I Like it. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint
Why the hell did you contribute to the removal of all the Passports, that information is very useful. You had no right to piss around and delete stuff without people's consent, I highly doubt most people would consent to their work being destroyed cause you destroyed people's work that they put so much effort into. I do travel and tourism I need to know this stuff.

I spent so much work alongside my Wikipedia colleague El Otro (I do not know him or her personally but we worked together on the Romanian EU Passport section nearly all of the countries listed on there had valid sources that came from Embassies, Foreign Ministries, Consulates etc. They were sources that were up to date and authenticated. He is pissed off just as much as I am and a lot of us are. Your account should be fucking deleted. I demand that you apologize to the people's work that you destroyed. I am Australian and therefore I hold an Australian Passport and that information on the Australian Passports section was very useful.

I don't give a fuck about the so called etiquette on Wikipedia regarding communication I have a right to be angry and so do most people's whose projects you destroyed. Most people who strongly disagreed with your actions would agree with me and support you facing some sort of sanction.Pryde 01 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Might I remind you that "deleted" text is not gone, but preserved in the edit history? And while I'm not sure, I believe Wikitravel would be more than happy to have the "deleted" text. Paradoctor (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
Yes, we have a consensus to move visa information to separate articles. I don't see that it anywhere says that we've reached that the articles should not be linked to, made into orphans or alternatively buried in the see also section. I am puzzled why are you so intensively fighting this (and against the community)? I can't imagine myself spending so much time on wiki trying to remove something that I happen to dislike (not talking about insulting or completely against basic rules but that wouldn't require much time I guess). Can't you just accept we've reached a compromise and not pick yet another fight?--Avala (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn
Articles for deletion/Mongolian passport - just so you know. --Jubilee♫ clipman 05:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Visa edits
Actually, looking at it closely, the see also links you have added to tourism articles are irrelevant. While adding the visa requirement links to passport articles makes sense, I see no reason to include it on tourism articles. Other countries that Costa Rican citizans can/can't travel to without a visa has absolutely nothing to do with non-Costa Ricans visiting that country, as the visa requirements may be completely different. Besides, laws about foreign passport rules is completely unrelated to a country's parks, museums, and sights. I will be removing these irrelevant links from 'Tourism in' articles. Cheers, Reywas92 Talk 00:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for your notr. I do understand where you're coming from but would ask you to consider that 'tourism in the UK' is about much more than just foreign visitors coming that country. These articles are after all titled 'Tourism in State X' rather than 'Tourists in State X'. A significant amount of the tourist industry in the UK relies on UK citizens traveling abroad, making their bookings with agents, arranging flights etc. For this aspect of the tourism trade the simple link is useful for guidance on visa requirements of this class of tourist. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how it's relevant. None of the Tourism articles I saw had a single word about bookings with agents or arranging flights. That's just not what the scope of these articles are; it's things to see and do within that country. Tourism in the United Kingdom is not for UK citizens going to other countries, it's for them staying within the UK and citizens of other countries going there. Reywas92 Talk 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may or may not be right. I'm not really in a position to give this a considered response at the moment. Do you mind if we resolve this a little later? RashersTierney (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)