Thanks for all the good edits! --PeterTalk 10:39, 2 March 2008 (EST)
The proper name for Kyiv is 'Kyiv' not 'Kiev' which is the Russian translit.
Thanks for your edits to Manali, but I noticed that you removed a few hotel extlinks that (at least to me) appears to be the hotel's own site -- was this intentional, or am I missing something? Jpatokal 06:43, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
I probably botched a search-and-replace when going through the URLs. Thanks for catching the mistake. Dguillaime 15:10, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
Thank you for your hard work reverting all those edits by 126.96.36.199. :) PerryPlanet 23:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. JYolkowski 10:09, 30 November 2008 (EST)
removal of links
We would like to know why you removed the links for the Las Vegs MealTicket and Las Vegas Power Pass? They are both popular products that include admission to many local attractions and meals at restuarants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VISITicket (talk • contribs)
These are primary links to attraction passes that provide admission to many attractions at a discount. There are numerous instances of similar products throughout wikitravel that have not been removed. If you think the wording sounds to tout-y that can be edited and perhaps they were just categorized incorrectly. Some of the other similar products are under both see and under do as well as in itineraries. If you want to provide a comprehensive travel guide, people should be aware that these and similar types of discounted attraction passes are available in many cities around the world from different companies. If you highlight a number of museums for example, why would you not want to point out that there is a pass that can get you into many of them at a discount? Perhaps you can create a subcategory of see or do so that there is consistency throughout different cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VISITicket (talk • contribs)
Please respond to these last comments. Specifically, why do you think there should be similar product listings in some cities but not others and why do you think travellers who want to visit many of the highlighted attractions shouldn't be made aware of products that include admission to many locations at a discount? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VISITicket (talk • contribs)
I will do you the courtesy of overlooking your attempts to put words in my mouth. The links you have added are not primary links to tourist activities - by definition, travel booking services, aggregators, other guides, etc. are secondary sites and typically not linked. They are certainly not attractions themselves, and hence do not belong in the "do" sections. Any other products of that nature that are similarly listed in other articles would, of course, also be eligible for removal - you didn't cite any examples, so I can't really check. Discussion for better locations to put them would be better suited for the Travellers' Pub, but it appears at first glance to be a product that's not appropriate for linking. If it's available at a physical location in the cities mentioned, that could be substantially more useful. Dguillaime 22:39, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Hi! Anyways, about deleting listings, the reasons why I deleted ones in Seattle were because:
1. They were empty.
2. They are in the district articles.
3. We do not need that many listings now that it has been districted.
Not strictly true, since the highlights of a huge city should be represented in both the top-level page and the suitable district page - preferably with only brief details at the top level, as per the huge city template. Hence my confusion as to why you're removing top-level entries that do have brief details (Central Library), and adding district-level entries with no information whatsoever (Columbia Center). -- Dguillaime 19:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Well we have different views. Not all listings need to be filled right away in districts. Anyways, thanks for the help on that metropolis! I was there once and only saw 2 things so I am not really familiar, I was trying to help and learn. I might go next year (with Vacouver). edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 20:15, 9 December 2008 (EST).
"Brevity is a virtue. "Don't make fun of Canada in Canada", very sensible; hundred-word highly subjective diatribe on top of that, better suited for a personal blog."
What does that mean? What are you meaning? Do you live in Canada? If you don't, then I would rather you not keep reverting my edit in Canada because clearly you don't seem to realise we are brutly made fun of by Americans - and, now, how does that relate to a traveler? Well, if an American goes to Toronto and starts making fun of Canadians with his Swedish buddy who just moved to Canada - well, wouldn't the American be in trouble. That's why it is basically saying, don't make fun of Canadians and explaining why Canadians don't like being made fun of. I know there are other examples already there, but I thought I'd share 1 more as it is big. Anyways, if you are Canadian, explain to me why you don't think that's an issue that travelers should know. Thanks. edmontonenthusiast [ee].T.A.L.K. 19:01, 30 December 2008 (EST).
Related project removed
Can you please let me know why you removed the Ruba addition on the List of Related Projects page? I read the guidelines and didn't think I had violated any. I also noticed that TripAdvisor is on the page which, like Ruba, features travelers' reviews, so I'm a little confused.
Thank you for your feedback!
ErinK09 15:24, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Hm. An excellent question! I think the answer is "not paying enough attention to what I was doing", so it's back now. Thank you for pointing that out. - Dguillaime 15:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Ah, it happens to us all. No worries and thank you for responding! -ErinK09 15:48, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Thanks for handling the vandalism earlier. -- Sapphire • (Talk) • 00:52, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
Great work, keep it up! It's great to see that article finally being whipped into shape. Jpatokal 00:09, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Actually, much credit is due to ChubbyWimbus, whose ongoing work on the See sections motivated me to start some rehab work as well. - Dguillaime 00:43, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
Sorry for deleting the Kyoto content prematurely, but thanks for organizing the hotel listings! You had already finshined Kyoto/Central while I was trying to organize it myself! ChubbyWimbus 01:32, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
After realizing with some surprise that you aren't an admin, I've nominated you to be one — please let us know on the nominations page whether you'd be willing to accept. Gorilla Jones 01:18, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Maybe I jumped the gun — I'll unblock and we'll see if they've changed the pattern. Gorilla Jones 21:55, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
Thanks — hopefully the article & map are clearer on that point now. Gorilla Jones 01:24, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
Why did you delete the info I posted? Do you work for the hotel and not want the truth published? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
I really have no idea what you're referring to, since you don't mention a specific article and there are no previous edits from your IP address. Since you refer to a hotel entry, chances are I made an edit to bring it in line with the site's accommodation listing policies or other style guidelines. - Dguillaime 14:16, 15 June 2009 (EDT)
Hi, Dguillaime. I've edited for years as an unregistered user, signing myself as "Michael." I appreciate the good work you've done on the New York City pages and see you have the power to block users. I didn't see in the FAQs how one could request for a vandal's account to be blocked, so I registered and am posting my request here. 184.108.40.206 has done nothing but vandalize: See http://wikitravel.org/en/Special:Contributions/220.127.116.11 I've felt for a while that administrators should permanently block vandals' accounts more quickly, when it's obvious that their sole intent is to vandalize and waste the time of good-faith volunteers. Feel free to reply here or on a user page for my new account, if you like, and thanks for all you do. Ikan Kekek 23:00, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Sorry to but in ;) It's our policy to use user bans as an extreme last resort (especially since users can simply change their ips). If you would like to nominate a user or ip, you can do so at Wikitravel:User ban nominations. But before you do, note that we have AFAIK banned ips for any length of time beyond one day only for spambots. Generally, vandals see that their changes get reverted sooner or later, and then get bored and move on. --PeterTalk 23:48, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
Looks like Peter beat me to the links. The "boredom" reason really is key - the address you posted is a good example of the form: made a half-dozen petty vandalism edits in the span of ten minutes, but hasn't come back since. I'd estimate that most vandals only mangle one or two pages before wandering off. There are exceptions, and I don't think any of the admins have any qualms about promptly banning an address causing trouble on many articles with no signs of slowing down, but (fortunately!) those are infrequent. Most of the blocked IPs right now are spambots, where there's no human directly behind them to take notice.
Perma-blocking IPs in a dynamic range (such as that one, which is in Verizon's New York-area pool) also runs the risk of blocking innocent users later that happen to get reassigned that address. Usually ban durations somewhere between an hour and a week get the point across. There's just no way to block a determined user permanently if all they have to do is reset their cable modem or find a different wireless access point. - Dguillaime 01:11, 19 June 2009 (EDT)
My user page also "lost" its protection autonomously. I'm not sure what's going on, but I guess it's something we'll have to look out for. --PeterTalk 15:33, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
Ditto the pub. The only thing that these have in common, it seems, is that I was the one to instate the protection? --PeterTalk 15:36, 27 June 2009 (EDT)
Hi, I fixed some grammar problems and also added some more information that I gathered during my stay there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarahhasan (talk • contribs)
Message For Dguillame
I wanted to speak to you directly before placing a link on this or any other city page, as I want to abide by the Wikipedia rules. I work for an apartment rental site - citybaseapartments dot com, and would like to know if we can place our link in the Sleep / Apartments section?
I've read the External Links policy and believe we qualify as we actually own the lease on a a few apartments in each city (more in the UK) - so we're not a secondary source - whereas I know at least one of the links on the page currently are just an agency.
The apartment listings policy in specific and Wikitravel:Welcome, business owners in general should cover your needs. The most vital item on the apartments policy is the first one - you should have a physical office address in that city. As an additional general rule, it's bad form to add listings across a lot of nearby articles, though it's not possible to base that on an exact metric - for example, adding a listing to every article in London would be bad, but one in London and another in Manchester would be entirely reasonable if they each met the other guidelines. Where exactly that line falls is a matter of opinion, I think. - Dguillaime 14:30, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
Thank you for responding. I've just looked in the guidelines and they state as the first point:
"1. The agency must have a 'real world' office with a phone number and physical address (not a PO box) where the keys will be picked up, and that information must be included in the Wikitravel listing and on the agency website"
We have a physical office in the UK, with phone numbers and a customer service team of over 20 staff (just trying here to emphasise that we are a 'physical' company, not just an affiliate). We have long term leases on apartments in pretty much every one of our European cities (barring Russia), and the keys are picked up there in reception - would this mean we would be 'allowed' to add our listings?
I wasn't thinking of adding a listing to lots of different articles, just one link in the Sleep section of the cities that we effectively 'own' apartments in...
Apologies for the long missive, I would imagine your time is valuable - I just don't want to go adding my link to the cities and then found out I broke the rules
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CityBaseApartments (talk • contribs)
Again, I think the guidelines are fairly straightforward... a pickup address in that city, and seen on your website. If you don't have a business presence in that city, it probably wouldn't be appropriate. - Dguillaime 15:35, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
OK, well thanks for your time DGuillame, all of our apartments have the address on the top of the individual apartment listing. Just so you and your fellow editors know, I'm going to be posting links in the Sleep sections for Leeds, Glasgow, Manchester, Edinburgh, London, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Rome, Dublin and Berlin - we have many more locations / cities but these are the only ones where we actually 'own' apartments - the rest we are just agents for...
I am new to Wikitravel and I don't understand why you undid my postings.
I have a website that promotes the magnificent Mornington Peninsula and I don't see why I can't link to it from a travel page that is supposed to be providing information on the Mornington Peninsula.
I am not selling anything - all I am doing is promoting the Mornington Peninsula.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiscoverMorningtonPeninsula (talk • contribs)
Also, I saw that you copied quite a bit of text from what I assume is your own website. This is fine if you hold the copyright to it, and you're okay with it being available under a Creative Commons license. However, if you don't hold the copyright (or you don't want the text placed under an irrevocable public license), you can't copy it into articles here. Just something to be aware of. - Dguillaime 15:33, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
I have masses of information that I would like to include, however, I do have a full time job as well as my website. I worked out a systematic approach of starting with the basics and then expanding, however, you keep deleting my basics. Yes, the website is mine and yes, I am happy for anyone to use the information. The idea is to promote the Mornington Peninsula. As far as the links are concerned, why is the No: 1 link to Visit Mornington Peninsula permitted? This is nothing but a glorified booking agency, which I thought was not permitted. Why is the Frankston Visitor Information Centre permitted? This has minimal information and half of it is still under construction. These websites are promotional websites (advertising driven) and only promote businesses that pay. Link No: 3 gets redirected to a website company, Links 5&6 have no information, it just goes directly to another website. I could go on, but I am short of time.
The information that I have put forward is a whole lot more that was there initially and yet it is the only information being removed. In all fiarness, if my information is incorrect, then 99% of the information listed is incorrect and should be deleted, therefore I would appreciate you either replacing my information that I will build on as time permits, or removing other information that is less pertinent and relevant than mine.
Please take my comment as they are written - I am not attacking you personally, I just believe in a fair go for all - and this is definitely not.
The initial link does appear to be the official tourism site for the area, inasmuch as the shire government links to it . This is specifically covered under the first "what to link to" bullet point of the external links policy.
Two and three are transportation providers, which are reasonable (three was a dead link as you say, but easily corrected; both links could be replaced by specific details in text); four might belong in a Frankston article if there was one yet (again, appears to be the official site according to Frankston City government ); everything from five down appears to be the official website for their corresponding destinations, as per the fourth bullet point on "what to link to".
Critically, all of these are primary sources. The links you have added are not. Additions to (for example) Tyabb should be added to the Tyabb article itself, not to a secondary source. This policy is explained further on Wikitravel:External links. Towns that don't have articles can be given new ones, using the templates.
It's worth mentioning again that the article, as it is now, isn't well structured -- it would truly benefit from some TLC that takes into account the town articles as well. At the moment, the See and Do sections are rough, and the Sleep section should ideally be replaced entirely. Specific attractions and establishments should usually be listed on the most specific possible article (city-level), with a regional-level article like this one only giving the brief highlights. (To date, this has not been possible since not all of the town articles are in place -- but it's made harder because the MP article doesn't even link to the articles that are started!) For an example of how a regional article should look, take New South Wales. - Dguillaime 22:42, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
NSW is hardly a relative comparison. NSW is the most populated State in Australia, the Mornington Peninsula is a small province in the State of Victoria. Regardless, I will use alternate methods to promote the Mornington Peninsula, as I am sure a lot of others do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiscoverMorningtonPeninsula (talk • contribs)
Oh, no argument there. I'm merely promoting the style in which NSW's article is written, not the sheer volume of content. Most regional articles should be shorter than that!
(P.S. You can sign your posts with four tildes at the end, ~~~~ . - Dguillaime 23:33, 11 August 2009 (EDT)
This is not a Joke
Great! rather than addressing the issue you delete it so no one can comment or even research the facts. It makes you look like you are hiding something. Please address the following:
All your "concerns" have been addressed at Talk:Qingdao, particularly this section, and I have no interest in discussing them on any other page. I still find your allegations unconvincing, your standing nonexistent (as you repeatedly claim no affiliation with TQD), and in summary consider the matter closed unless something new is brought to the table -- which, again, should take place only at Talk:Qingdao. - Dguillaime 01:41, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
Understood, will continue this on Talk:Qingdao. I wish I did get paid by QCG, why do you call them TQD? I have used there site extensively in the past. I have traveled throughout Asia & South East Asia and have spent some time in QD. In general, Google indexes the original text first, and if other sites copy the same text they are most always found much lower in the search results. In the above case http://wikitravel.org/en/Qingdao is not even indexed. Google also penalizes sites who practice this sort of behavior. It is quite obvious that Google's servers know which sites posts original text and which sites copy them verbatim. Thanks. I'm off to the beach.--18.104.22.168 02:27, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
I unprotected the article we both protected simultaneously, as the abuser is now using an unlocked registered account. By stopping anons we block others without blocking him. Of course, if the user was blocked, then an anon block as well would work, but at the moment, it is a little pointless. Will keep on monitoring.. --inas 05:16, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, I saw he was back up to his old tricks. By now it seems like a bunch of us have Coimbatore and its neighbors on our watch lists, so at least we can keep it under control. - Dguillaime 14:26, 1 October 2009 (EDT)
Muang Ngoi Neua
I undid your edit on the MNN page, as it is the official name for the town. Muang Ngoi Kao is an informal name meaning old muang ngoi which is less correct, as the town is still part of muang ngoi.