Links for data mining:
Fastestdogever 21:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)
- I have removed the above link, both to discourage linkspam on talk pages, and because it will likely be blacklisted. --Peter Talk 13:15, 15 February 2010 (EST)
Who ever is changing our website addreses please stop. Thank you. Grand Islander & Islander Inn Put-in-Bay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
I undid the edit on Put in Bay Resort Hotel, under sleep. It is a legitimate place to sleep and the Island is lacking in rooms. this has been a great addition to the Island. 2old 09:40, 29 November 2008 (EST)
Added back vandals removal od Meetings. people who travel do plan meetings, weddings, reunions so it is therfore relevant content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- I've reverted your last changes. "Meetings" is not a section header used on wikitravel, and the insertion, multiple times across the page, of content about your hotel, as well as moving your listing to the top of the section, violates our Wikitravel:Don't tout policy. --Peter Talk 12:17, 29 November 2008 (EST)
- It's not "my" listing and if you look back in history it was always at the top as other listings were never there to begin with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- Entries are listed alphabetically, not by who got there first. Knock it off. Dguillaime 18:22, 29 November 2008 (EST)
- Not true see http://wikitravel.org/en/Key_West As you can see this is not the case. Knock it off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- You're making a mess of the formatting here. Aaaanyhow, Key West does indeed need some cleanup, but one random article also does not define the standards. What does is the accommodations listing policy, under "listing order". Dguillaime 02:15, 30 November 2008 (EST)
Within each subdivision, when no other standard of ordering listings is used, alphabetical order should be the norm. If another standard is used, it should be clearly stated so any new listing can be added to the appropriate place.
Another standard is being used. Now that we are clear on that, Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
The continual changes of the hotel links in this article to what appears to be a third-party booking site violates several policies on this site, most notably Wikitravel:Don't tout and Wikitravel:External links. To the anonymous user who repeatedly makes these changes - please stop. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:29, 30 November 2008 (EST)
Our Grand Islander and Islander in site are directed to our main site which is all of our properties. Please stop disturbing our sites and this is getting very frustrating. This is the URL we want these to point to. Thank you. PS Why would you want to blacklist www.grandislanderpib.com and our www.islanderinnpib.com sites just because we want it pointing to our main site??
- Please read the policies linked above, specifically Wikitravel:External links. The site being linked to is not a web site for the hotel, it's a general Put-In-Bay reservation site, which is explicitly called out in our policies as something NOT to link to. Even if this new site is owned by the same company the Wikitravel policies are designed to prevent spamming, and redirecting official hotel/restaurant/whatever links to bucket sites is a favorite tactic of spammers. -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:44, 30 November 2008 (EST)
- The hotel links are being changed to a general Put-In-Bay reservations site again. http://www.grandislanderpib.com/ is CLEARLY the home page for the Grand Islander hotel, and http://www.islanderinnpib.com/ is CLEARLY the home page for the Islander Inn. The link that they are being changed to is a general Put-In-Bay reservation site, which is not a valid primary link per Wikitravel:External links. If the hotels are using this new site, please update the http://www.grandislanderpib.com/ and http://www.islanderinnpib.com/ pages to link to this system, but that reservation link should NOT be used on Wikitravel as it violates policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:08, 2 February 2009 (EST)
For what it's worth, Edgewater Investment spam has plagued Wikipedia for several years, too. See:
--A. B. 09:14, 26 May 2009 (EDT)
I'm from Cleveland and just spent this past Saturday at Put-in-Bay. I enjoyed it so much that I figured I'd spend some time cleaning this article up and adding some listings of things I enjoyed while I was there. Being a neutral third-party, I'm happy to tone down some of the shameless-sounding plugs and turn them into an honest evaluation. To those of you doing business on South Bass, you have something special--so stop fighting over customers and work together to keep giving them more cool stuff to come and see!!! That having been said, I wanted to mention that the Eat section is not sorted alphabetically, because I'm hoping I've got these in about the order they'd need to be in to split the section into Budget, Mid-range, and Splurge categories. If someone would help fill in a few more restaurants with price details to better cover the spectrum, I think we'd be able to do it. I'd like to flesh out more of the Understand, Get Around, See, Do, and Get out sections so that we can hopefully get this article up to at least Usable status. If anyone can help, that would be great! Thanks!!! Lee 19:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
- Not to discourage anything, but I'm afraid being a wikitraveller is for the most part the job of a lone wolf, and unfortunately business owners (with the almost sole exception of User:WineCountryInn) are never interested in promoting anything but their business, even though a well developed Wikitravel guide will probably drive more traffic to the area, than most on-line advertisement they might engage in.
- One thing you can do, is to check through restaurant review websites, form an opinion of the place, and make your own description of the place. Of course it's more ideal with direct experience, but wiki entries can always be changed by someone else who has such experience afterwards. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 19:46, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks, Stefan! What I was thinking was that this is a rather small island, but there are really TONS of restaurants. I just hoped that someone remembered some idea of what the prices were so we could eventually break them down--and add some other details as well, of course. I think it's totally realistic to see at least five restaurants under each of the three headings and still have missed a bunch more. Hopefully someone (preferably a neutral third-party like myself) will be interested in helping me out! Lee 20:22, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
Whr2: I like some of what you did to clean up the listing here, but I would like to discuss a couple of things:
- I think it's important that people see a "Get in By Car" section, rather than have it show up under "get around". I intended eventually to return to the "Get Around" section and add a list of the bicycle, golf cart, and moped rental companies on the island so folks would be better advised of their options, since there are several for a tiny island. I would also add your words about getting around by car, since they are fairly true, but really only for Downtown Put-in-Bay. Another thing I would like to do is add a list of docks where private boats can dock, since a lot of people like to make their own way over to Put-in-Bay if they have the craft to brave Lake Erie. This would be an obvious option to the Ferries.
- I was curious what prompted deletion of the Dairy Queen and Subway listings, since they are selections that some would want to know about if they were on a budget, such as if they had kids.
- Also regarding restaurants, even though Tippers and Beer Barrell Pub are connected and operated together, they are VERY distinctly seperate and discrete businesses from each other, with seperate web sites, menus, and COMPLETELY different atmospheres. It does not seem to make sense to me to split them, anymore than one would separate two of Michael Simon's retaurants in Cleveland or a bar in Cedar Point or Disney that happens to be right next to a quiet restaurant. I was there this summer, and I personally wouldn't find BBP all that interesting because I'm not into loud all-day partying...but I am interested in good steak and/or a live band, which I would find at Tippers.
- Lastly, it might have been nice to leave a listing for the Sonny S on the page, since it is an alternative to the Miller Ferry for getting to Middle Bass for those who would like to go.
At some point soon, I hope to return and make some additional adds and additions. Let us hope the war of small minds ends where people are contantly reversing edits meant to benefit a specific party, and that some actual content is added that is useful for travelers. I look forward to coming to Put-in-Bay again this summer and having a jolly good time!
Lee 12:58, 25 February 2010 (EST)
- Most of the changes that I've made have had two goals:
- Merging content from the South Bass Island island, which now redirects here.
- Removing questionable content that appears to be aimed at promoting businesses rather than educating travelers.
- Regarding your specific comments:
- "Get in" is generally about how to get to a destination; having a "By car" section for an island seems fairly odd, although it's fine to mention that you can take a car on the ferry.
- We don't normally give individual listings for chain restaurants like Subway - it's generally sufficient to note that they are available (example: "Put-in-Bay has a wealth of dining options, including chains such as Subway and Dairy Queen. Additional choices include:").
- I consolidated the two establishments per Wikitravel:Don't tout - a business is usually listed only once in an article unless there is a very good reason for listing it twice. The Wikitravel:Don't tout guideline goes into more detail on this.
- I don't know what the Sonny S is and don't think I removed any such listing. Feel free to add additional info if needed.
- -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:08, 25 February 2010 (EST)
To the anonymous user changing the link for Put-in-Bay - see Wikitravel:External links. http://visitputinbay.com (the Chamber of Commerce tourism site) is the official link for this destination. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:06, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
- The link putinbay dot com has been for many years the link displayed in this section. While one might consider a link an official in some sense the purpose if Wiki Travel is to provide information. In comparing the two sites it is clear that the original link provides the traveler a much broader spectrum of information including entertainment schedules, history, maps and directions, airport information just to name a few. Please debate and resolve changes here rather than randomly making changes. With this in mind I have restored the link to it's orginal URL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- Wikitravel:External links is extremely clear on this case:
- Using only primary sources makes our guide more succinct: where there is usually one or sometimes two primary source links for any subject, there can be hundreds or thousands of secondary source links. We also avoid subjectivity and conflict. It's difficult to decide collaboratively which of the thousands of English-language newspapers, magazines, and Web sites has done the very best travel article about New York, but it's quite easy for everyone to agree that http://www.nycvisit.com/ is the official city visitor's guide.
- Wikitravel talk:External links would be the place to discuss changing the site's external link policy. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:31, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
The purpose of Wiki Travel is just that, travel. The primary role of a Chamber of Commerce is just that, commerce. The primary role of the original website that you keep changing is tourism. If you simply tale a moment to compare the two you will find one is more complete and offers much more information.
In addition, the Chamber of Commerce is a ad driven web site as they only permit members who pay dues and fees to be displayed. The original web site putinbay dot com is free to all who choose to participate at no fee therefore is a more unbiased resource for travelers. Time and time again I have read in discussions where it has been stated that web site that promote in return for fees to generate advertising revenue are not appropriate for Wiki Travel. Therefore I have restored the original link that has been in place for years. Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- Regardless of the utility of the site you would like to add, it is outweighed by the effect of the rules established at Wikitravel:External links, as well as a general refusal to weaken that policy by making exceptions—that policy is the principal rule we use to keep a lid on spamming and business touting sitewide. If you would like to better understand the reasoning behind this policy, you can take a look over the extensive discussions at Wikitravel talk:External links. --Peter Talk 18:06, 1 August 2009 (EDT)
While a general policy may provide guidelines, there are always exceptions. When there is a poorly designed site that lacks quite a bit of information, it appears it would be in the best interest of providing an alternative resource or perhaps both. Example of this in Wiki travel may be seen here:
In this example http://www.catalina.com is not the Chamber of commerce site and in comparing the chamber site to this resource it appears we have the same situation. An alternative site provides much more information and appears as the primary resource.
In this example the web site http://nycvisit.com then redirects to http://nycgo.com which again is not the Chamber of Commerce but a self admitted consortium of local business working together to promote the city.
This is exactly what we have in this situation. For several years putinbay dot com has been the accepted standard on this page. Now as a result of an edit, it appears to now be controversial.
Finally, while I understand Google and other search engine do not dictate how Wiki travel is operated, a simple search of Put in Bay show in each and every case all major search engines rank this web site over the Chamber due to the content and depth of the information contained. In fact Google even grants it authority status by sub indexing the pages.
Is not providing information what we are trying to do here verses promoting a restrictive organization that does not allow all the information to be passed along unless you are a paid advertiser or member? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- Our interest is in providing information on the Wikitravel page Put-in-Bay, not linking to where information can be found. You're wasting your time with these lengthy rationalizations — this is cut-and-dry. Had anyone noticed sooner that putinbay dot com was not the official site, it would have been changed sooner. If promoting your business on Wikitravel is a priority for you, I suggest contacting Internet Brands about ad rates on that sidebar to the right. Otherwise, there isn't really anything left to discuss. Gorilla Jones 09:22, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
There is no one business being promoted here. This, as the examples above are a consortium of busineses working together to promote tourism. Why rather than take a "cut-and-dry" position, do you not look at the examples cited, the websites in question and offer an opinion as to why it is approprite in the examples cited to devite from the norm but not here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- Most people learn at an early age that "He did it, too!" is not an effective way to get out of breaking the rules. Feel free to discuss on Talk:Catalina Island or Talk:New York City about anything you think should be changed there. Gorilla Jones 09:41, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
Most people also learn that it's better to address a situation at hand than hide behind a cliche. I also noticed that you had made comments on the page there as well. Looks like your tacit approval there endorses my opinion here since you took no corrective action there in the similar situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- Looks like giant fluffy balls of cotton are floating in the sky, too. Gorilla Jones 09:56, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
What about http://wikitravel.org/en/Wikitravel:The_traveller_comes_first
"The traveller comes first" is an underlying principle that Wikitravellers use when making decisions about Wikitravel. The idea is that all our work should be guided towards serving the travellers that are our readers.
We make our navigation as "intuitive" as possible, in order to help readers find what they're looking for .
Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals
Jump to: navigation, search
The mission of Wikitravel is this:
Wikitravel is a project to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide.
Wikitravel articles should be useful for at least the following purposes:
For on-line use by travellers on the road, huddled in a late-night Internet café in some dark jungle, who need up-to-the-minute information on lodging, transportation, food, nightlife, and other necessities;
For off-line use by travellers on the road sitting in a train with a subset of Wikitravel on their PDA, laptop, mobile phone, iPod or digital camera.
For on-line use by travellers still planning to review destinations, plan itineraries, make reservations, and get excited about their trip;
For individual article printouts, that is, for printing a list of museums or karaoke bars and putting it in your back pocket for when you need it -- or making a photocopy when someone else does;
For ad-hoc travel guides, small fit-to-purpose travel books that match a particular itinerary;
For inclusion in other travel books, giving up-to-date information for travel guide publishers.
The web site putinbay dot com is CLEARLY a more comprehensive and information resource than the chamber of commerce site. It is open to all to participate without fee or membership. It meets the goals laid out above.
Perhaps a compromise of featuring BOTH web sites and allowing the traveler to decide on their own which resource best serves their needs. After all serving the travelers needs appears to be what we are here for.
No fluffly clouds here, its sunny clear and 86 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
- Seriously: Wikitravel:External links. We're here to serve travelers by putting information on the Wikitravel page Put-in-Bay, not pointing to other places where it can be found. Go enjoy the nice day outside. Gorilla Jones 10:12, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
It's worth noting WikiPedia:Talk:Put-in-Bay, Ohio#4 years of Edgewater Investment Group (Ohio) spam on Wikipedia, where after several years of edit wars, roundabout arguments, and general bothersome-ness the site currently in question and others were all blacklisted by Wikipedia. I suggest that if the current argument continues that Wikitravel take a similar approach as this discussion is moot according to current site policies and is distracting people from creating useful travel guides. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:38, 2 August 2009 (EDT)
Edgewater Investment Group
While it is unusual for us to specifically call out a business for questionable practices, this talk page is evidence of the problems that have been occurring with edits from Edgewater Investment group to this article for years now. At this point I suspect that a revert-on-sight policy may be warranted. For reference, here are a few additional links that cast further doubt on whether we want this company editing articles about its own properties:
Based on a whois search, this company is the owner of at least 84 web sites including:
- mangobay dot tv
- ohio-put-in-bay dot com
- ohioputinbay dot com
- put-in-baygolfcarts dot com
- put-in-bayonline dot com
- putinbay dot com
- putinbayrentals dot com
- putinbayresort dot com
- putinbayvillas dot com
In my experience on Wikitravel it is unusual to have a company be so aggressive about promoting their interests over a period of years, so this article is probably worth watching closely. -- Ryan • (talk) • 12:23, 14 February 2010 (EST)
- That's pretty egregious. Since the Edgewater hotel gets such bad reviews, not even counting the reported scams and the poor on-wiki behavior, it has no place in our travel guides. I'd be tempted to get rid of all the businesses listed above, but for the fact that the resort is clearly the main hotel on the island. --Peter Talk 16:42, 14 February 2010 (EST)
Despite your personal feelings which should not be expressed here as to what YOU feel is a hotel with acceptable reviews, these are seperate hotels. It is not up to you to determine what is an acceptable number of complaints. You could not form this opinion with any sense of reason without having all of the data such as how many guests have stayed at this hotel over the last 12 years? What percentage does a few bad reviews equal?
If one Marriot hotel has bad reviews (in your opinion) do you remove all Marriot hotels from Wikitravel? After all they are all owned by the same group? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
- Please take a good look at Wikitravel:Welcome, business owners#Cooperate. Your continued poor behavior on-wiki is just one more metric by which Wikitravelers will decide whether to list or patronize your business. Anonymous virtual temper tantrums do not and will not reflect well upon your business or upon the businesses for whom you work.
- To be clear, though, this is not a business directory; it is a collaboratively written travel guide. Travel guides offer business recommendations, based on consumer experiences. Travel writers do research to see what to recommend—I'm basing this removal on two sources: terrible reviews around the web, and your own unsavory marketing practices. --Peter Talk 17:01, 14 February 2010 (EST)
Well then to be clear since Islander Inn and Grand Islander are owned by the same company lets delete one of them as well. AS you can see here: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g50874-d579318-Reviews-Islander_Inn-Put_in_Bay_Ohio.html They have bed reviews as well. If you are going to apply rules then apply them equally to all and you might find more people would support your position.
Further more, of all the hotels and rentals even listed on the travel guide there are actually only three seperate owners. So what now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- Despite the strawman arguments, the bottom line is that for several years there have been edits here and on Wikipedia that do not appear to have been made in good faith. I've personally spent a significant amount of time trying to work with this particular business to help them edit within our guidelines, and after several years no longer have any interest in doing so. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:20, 14 February 2010 (EST)
Ok so based on your approval of Peters arguments it will be ok to delete the other hotel with negative reviews. Thanks
There is no "strawman argument" any more than Ryan is peters strawman. The facts are this. If you look at the domain registrations for all the websites listed in the hotels section you will find are listings are owned by three entities. All three entities have multiple listings. All three entities have both positive and negative reviews on Peters quoted source Trip Advisor which anyone with any interent savy knows can be manipulated.
Therefore, all sites by your own statements must be treated in the same manner. If you want to end these ridiculous edit wars, try practicing what you preach. Until then, I doubt you will have much progress in resolving this. Your own bylaws address how this should be managed and either apply all the same rules to everyone or expect it to go on.
- The community has every right to make decisions on a case by case basis, and have done so in the past. Your continued behaviour on this site, is more of a deciding factor, than what reviews your website gets elsewhere - though, it's another nail in the coffin for sure. Listings on Wikitravel should be considered a privilege, not a right. And on that basis I'd also like to point out, that Ryan has been championing business owner's opportunity to list themselves on Wikitravel for a long time, in opposition to other users, like myself, who believe our lenient stance on business owners are harming Wikitravel in a great way - in that light Ryan's stance on this should put things into perspective.
- Judging from the latest reaction here, I'd be in favour of a blanket blacklisting on all the groups websites, though, that probably hardly comes as a surprise to anyone. --Stefan (sertmann) talk 09:18, 15 February 2010 (EST)
Since our anonymous friend has now tried to delete the links above at least four times, it's worth leaving a pointer to Wikitravel:Using talk pages#Etiquette, specifically "it's considered bad form to change someone else's posts on a talk page". Unless a comment is hate speech, a copyright violation, or vandalism then it's not going to be removed; posting links in support of an argument that a business isn't editing in good faith meets none of those criteria, so please stop wasting everyone's time by trying to remove them. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:46, 15 February 2010 (EST)
- Having just read through all of this, I would also consider supporting a blanket blacklist of this company, and its various urls. Stefan hits the nail on head with the privilege point, and this organisation clearly has little respect for that. Ryan has been a champion of the rights of business owners at Wikitravel, and often I have not been too far behind. When a business shows so little respect and understanding of the ethos of this site though, they do not deserve our support.--Burmesedays 11:09, 15 February 2010 (EST)
You have brought up a good point, according to Trip Advisors website it IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION and I have cut and pasted their terms and conditions so you may see them, thus the removal
TripAdvisor Website Terms, Conditions and Notices
Welcome to the TripAdvisor.com website (the “Website”). This Website is provided solely to assist customers in gathering travel information, posting opinions of travel related issues, engaging in interactive travel forums and for no other purposes. The terms “we”, “us”, “our” and “TripAdvisor” refer to TripAdvisor LLC, a Delaware corporation and/or our subsidiaries. The term “you” refers to the customer visiting the Website and/or contributing content on this Website.
This Website is offered to you conditioned upon your acceptance without modification of any/all the terms, conditions, and notices set forth below (collectively, the “Agreement”). By accessing or using this Website in any manner, you agree to be bound by the Agreement. Please read the Agreement carefully. If you do not accept all of these terms and conditions, please do not use this Website. Be sure to return to this page periodically to review the most current version of the Agreement. We reserve the right at any time, at our sole discretion, to change or otherwise modify the Agreement without prior notice, and your continued access or use of this Website signifies your acceptance of the updated or modified Agreement.
USE OF THE WEBSITE
As a condition of your use of this Website, you warrant that (i) all information supplied by you on this Website is true, accurate, current and complete, (ii) if you have a TripAdvisor.com account, you will safeguard your account information and will supervise and be completely responsible for any use of your account by anyone other than you and (iii) you are 13 years of age or older in order to register for an account and contribute to our website. TripAdvisor does not knowingly collect the information of anyone under the age of 13. We retain the right at our sole discretion to deny access to anyone to this Website and the services we offer, at any time and for any reason, including, but not limited to, for violation of this Agreement.
The content and information on this Website (including, but not limited to, messages, data, information, text, music, sound, photos, graphics, video, maps, icons, software, code or other material), as well as the infrastructure used to provide such content and information, is proprietary to us. You agree not to otherwise modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell or re-sell any information, software, products, or services obtained from or through this Website. Additionally, you agree not to:'
(i) use this Website or its contents for any commercial purpose;
(ii) access, monitor or copy any content or information of this Website using any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means or any manual process for any purpose without our express written permission;
(iii) violate the restrictions in any robot exclusion headers on this Website or bypass or circumvent other measures employed to prevent or limit access to this Website;
(iv) take any action that imposes, or may impose, in our discretion, an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure;
(v) deep-link to any portion of this Website for any purpose without our express written permission; or
(vi) "frame", "mirror" or otherwise incorporate any part of this Website into any other website without our prior written authorization.
(vii) attempt to modify, translate, adapt, edit, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer any software programs used by TripAdvisor in connection with the Website or the services
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- There seems to be some irony in trying to claim that linking to a site is a copyright violation and then supporting that claim with a cut & paste copy from the same site... anyhow, I'm not going to feed the trolls anymore after this, but for anyone who might be questioning the legality of deep links, see Ticketmaster vs. tickets.com for a ruling that clarified that linking to a web site "is neither copyright violation nor trespass". See also the EFF's position on this issue. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:05, 15 February 2010 (EST)
The initial suggestion of a revert-on-site rule for Edgewater edits, including adding a few links to other sites to support such a suggestion, was made only after years of abuse from this particular business. Since then our anonymous friend continues to remove those links above on a regular basis, and while it's unseemly to do so, I'm getting tired of the constant reverts and propose the following: STOP changing the comments on this page, and I'll refrain from expanding the list above with additional links that would allow editors to better understand why I would like to see this business blacklisted altogether from Wikitravel. Since our anonymous friend is obviously web savvy, I'm sure you're well aware of some of the reports that are online that make bad tripadvisor reviews look flattering in comparison, so it's up to you. If you'd like to continue abusing our site, consider yourself warned. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:03, 20 March 2010 (EDT)
- As the links above continue to be removed, I'm going to get rid of all mention of these businesses from Wikitravel. For anyone who thinks this is overly harsh, the links in this post (some NSFW) should make it clear that, at a minimum, there are some very serious questions out there about this owner that, in addition to his abhorrent on-wiki behavior, merit removal from our site. Should we continue to face abuse from this owner then I'd go so far as to suggest a warning be added to either the "Sleep" or "Stay safe" section of this article noting problems that other travelers have reported. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:42, 1 April 2010 (EDT)
- This seems a reasonable move, and I'd support adding the warning straight away, actually. I can't think of a more egregious case of bad faith business-touting on Wikitravel, and that's saying something. --Peter Talk 22:47, 1 April 2010 (EDT)