User talk:Veillg1 Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

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 are a Wikipedian then you may notice some differences in policies and the style of our articles. These include:

• NPOV → be fair (not quite the same thing!)
• be bold → plunge forward
• Village pump → travellers' pub
• External links → We do not use a separate external links section, but incorporate primary links only into the text itself.
• sandbox → graffiti wall
• stub tagging → Article status

It may also be very useful for you to check out Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians. If you need help, take a look at Wikivoyage:Help, or else post a message in the travellers' pub or on my talk page. Thanks for contributing!

And now some specific comments: Des Grèves Régional Park of Contrecoeur looks like it was directly copied from Wikipedia without any acknowledgement in an edit summary or on the article's talk page, though since I can't find the article at English Wikipedia, I suppose it was copied to French Wikivoyage from French Wikipedia - in which case, the copying needs to be acknowledged there but also should be mentioned on this article's talk page and otherwise will have to be deleted and restarted from the beginning, due to this site's copyleft policy and the terms of Wikipedia's Creative Commons Copyleft. The article also needs to be reformatted and copy edited for Wikivoyage style, which does not include encyclopedic facts like the exact number of hectares in it to two decimal places, ref tags, endnote-style links or links to secondary sources (see Wikivoyage:External links), and has different sections and section headings (see Wikivoyage:Park article template). Thanks again, and please reply below after you've read this post and include any questions that come to mind. Fair warning: If not, we'll probably have to delete the article soon, but you can always restart it without copypasta or move the raw copy to your user page and edit it suitably before moving it back to articlespace.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek. Thanks for your feedback! Well noted. Your right, the article "Des Grèves Régional Park of Contrecoeur" (or "Des Grèves Regional Park of Contrecoeur") does not exist on Wikipedia, neither in French and in English. Nevertheless, this is part of my editorial projects, given the importance of this regional park for the Montérégie, particularly for the Sorel-Tracy region. -- Veillg1 (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Was it copied from somewhere? If you wrote the whole article yourself, you presumably retain the copyright to it unless you had to give it away due to the terms of a contract, so hopefully, there are no copyright issues and you can just work on editing it for Wikivoyage style and format. Thanks! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, User:Veillg1, and thanks for working on an article about La Tuque! A couple of things to watch for: Some of the templates in use on fr.wikivoyage do not work here. For example, opening and closing times have to be written out. Also, Tourist information offices belong in "Understand," as they're usually not sights in themselves. The template you're using for Wi-Fi doesn't work on this site. Check out what red-links by looking at the article in reading mode.

All the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah from experience, fr.voy seems to use much more templates than any other Wikivoyage (which does give a good result). We do technically have a template for opening and closing hours ({{time}}) although it's not really used much on this site. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Veillg1,

Thanks for all the work you've put in so far :). One thing though, unlike the French Wikivoyage which uses CAD to refer to Canadian dollars, we simply just use $100 for 100 Canadian dollars since the likelihood of Canada accepting foreign a currency that uses dollars is almost zero. Thanks! --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. I understand that fr.wikivoyage allows inline links. We generally do not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah fr.voy uses links to Wikipedia and Wikispecies all the time. We usually don't. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek and @SHB2000 -- Thanks for your feedback. Well noted. -- Veillg1 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tolerating the idiosyncrasies of en.voy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, I'm not sure why, but the French Wikivoyage feels like going to a completely new WMF project instead of another language version of the same project. Probably because the French Wikivoyage uses a lot of templates, but it does give you a nice organized result (it even has an automatic currency converter to either USD or CAD) or even more unusual, what this exact thread is about, linking to sister projects. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder about this. Happy New Year! Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Best wishes for the New Year. And good continuity on Wikivoyage. Veillg1 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Veillg1,

Thanks for creating the Lac-Édouard article. A couple of things to note though, the first being is that when writing prices, usually the dollar sign goes before the number (the French language uses xx$, but it's always $xx in the English context) though Ground Zero fixed it here. The second, is that usually we don't include postal info (I made this mistake as well when I was still quite new), although that's not as big of an issue as writing "xx$". But apart from that, thanks for improving our Quebec articles. If you want, feel free to join the Wikivoyage:Canada Expedition. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 - Thanks for your comments. I will apply myself to it. -- Veillg1 talk 4:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And thanks for your great work on La Tuque and other articles. Ground Zero (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero - Thank you for your appreciation. And good continuity in your written projects on Wikivoyage. -- Veillg1 talk 04:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

And same to you as well. It's nice to have more articles about Quebec :-). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’ve seen you make many large articles recently by translating French wikivoyage articles which is great but I’ve noticed they have a section called “managing daily” which we don’t have on English wikivoyage, these should probably be placed in either cope, connect or do, based on the content I’ve seen so far. Please check our small city template to see the way we properly do things. If you don’t know where to put it you can always check Wikivoyage:Where you can stick it.

Thank you for your great work! Tai123.123 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tai123.123 - Thank you for your feedback on the "Managing Daily" section. Although the English version is a translation of the French version of this section, it is not unreasonable to question the relevance of this local municipal services information on Wiki-Voyage. It is understood that municipal services in municipalities are also accessible to visitors; and generally, the websites of municipalities describe them. Perhaps a link to the municipality's site would suffice for the needs of the readers. Perhaps also the information on the main municipal services to public would suffice. -- Veillg1 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Managing the daily can usually just go in the cope section. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Wikivoyage Barncompass

This Barncompass is to show appreciation for your fantastic work on articles about places in Quebec! I look forward to consulting these articles whenever my girlfriend and I have the chance to go back to Montreal by car and have some extra time to visit other towns on our way there or back. (My girlfriend is American but went to graduate school at McGill and has several close friends in Montreal and environs, and some of my friends from my own graduate school on Long Island live and work in that pleasant city.) --Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek -- Thank you for this recognition. The merit must be shared with the people who are dedicated to making the regions of the world known. There is teamwork because the information comes from various sources. The themes remaining to be published are numerous. Your feedback on the articles is appreciated. Good continuity in your contribution to the advancement of the encyclopedia. -- Veillg1 (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

	The Canadian Barncompass
	Thanks for all the work you've put in on articles about Quebec. I've never been to Quebec, but it's been on my top to-go list once the pandemic turns into an endemic and I'll most likely be using those articles. But regardless, merci beaucoup :-) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@SHB2000 -- Your mark of recognition touches me deeply. Thank you! You are welcome in Quebec, particularly in the Mauricie region. Visitors are surprised by the immensity of the Mauricie and Quebec territory. Wikivoyage makes us travel through the Internet and makes us discover the attractions of our own region. Thank you for your contribution to the enrichment of the encyclopedia. -- Veillg1 (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

:-) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Salut Veillg1. I have been revising some of the excellent articles you have created in order to reflect English Wikivoyage policies. These differ from Wikivoyage français, so you may not be familiar with them.

In particular, we generally only include "Buy" listings that are relevant for travellers (Wv:relevant). I have removed some listings that typical travellers would not use when the are visiting these towns, like quincailleries, for example.

Also, we generally don't include chain restaurants (wv:boring) unless there is nothing else available, or if the chain restaurant is particularly interesting. (The first Tim Hortons shop might be a "See" listing.) But it is usually not difficult to find a MacDo, Subway or Tim's in a Canadian town, so we usually leave them out. It is much more interesting to go to a local casse-croute anyway.

Merci pour ton travail içi. Il sera très utile aux voyegeurs. Ground Zero (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Merci Ground Zero! Well noted! Your observations are common sense. It is not obvious in the application given the distinctive guidelines according to the various Wiki projects. I will pay more attention to it. Thanks!Veillg1 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please remember that this is a travel guide, not a directory of businesses. Travellers are not going to be visiting firewood merchants, farm supply stores or greenhouse businesses that sell to farmers and florists. Let's focus on businesses that travellers are likely to be interested in. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well noted. Merci! Veillg1 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Salut Veillg1,

Thank you for your articles about Quebec you've made so far. However, I have had to do some fixes in the #Go next sections, particularly because there's a different map format we use for the go next section, and it's not very commonly used, but there's still the templates to support it. The explanations on both the relevant pages aren't so straightforward, so I'll do my best to explain it on how it works here.

So there's two major parts to this, the go next listings, which we use {{mapgroup-item}} and the map itself, which we use {{mapgroup}}. I'll start of with the listing template {{mapgroup-item}}. So generally, it's treated very much like {{marker}}. If you add the wikidata item, it should generally add all the relevant coordinates, Wikipedia article, mapshape etc. Generally the content goes outside the template, however, I did some modifications to the template (see Special:Diff/4333603 for the change) and so you can now add the relevant content in the content parameter. We don't generally include phone numbers or tourism urls in the template, merely because it should be in the linked article.

Now to the second part, the template used for the map; {{mapgroup}}. That is fairly easy and simple to understand, and the only parameter that you'll need to know is the target parameter. All you basically need to do is to insert the Wikidata item and it should work.

An example of where I've ended up doing this can be seen at Mungo National Park. I've also done this on Saint-Boniface (Quebec), although I have not removed some of the parameters not used yet, but Mungo National Park should give you a fair explanation of how this works put in an actual article.

If this sounds very confusing, I understand this, as this does sound quite complex at first, especially given that it has quite some new things that you may not have had previous experience of. I found it hard to grasp at first, but I learned it within a week of using this, and it didn't seem as hard to use after gaining some experience with this. You may also notice that most uses apart from Wrh2 may not be familiar with this template, as it's only used in 139 articles, but it gives a nice result. Feel free to leave me on my talk if you need any help with any of this, and I'll be sure to try and help.

Sincèrement, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Veillg1, and continuing thanks for your amazingly prolific work in creating articles about places in Quebec! I notice that you sometimes put disambiguations in article titles. Like, for example, you just created an article titled "Saint-Barnabé, Quebec." However, when I put the search term "Saint-Barnabé" in the Search Wikivoyage box on the upper right, the only article that comes up is the one you created. So no disambiguation is needed. In addition, we don't use the format used in Wikipedia. If a disambiguation were necessary, the format here would be "Saint-Barnabé (Quebec)". This isn't a big deal, but since it's come up a few times, I thought it would be worth mentioning.

Thanks again, and all the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback will be helpful. Thank you. The rules specific to each Wiki project create some confusion. It's not easy to remember all the rules or guidelines, especially when you're used to contributing on a specific project. Nonetheless, I will do my best to apply it. Note: Note that there are several municipalities (in Quebec) or communes (in France), which are designated Saint-Barnabé. Veillg1 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If en.wikivoyage articles are created for any of them, we will need to disambiguate then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, don't worry too much about any of this; what's most important by far is getting the content down. All these kinds of questions can be dealt with later. I just thought it would make sense to mention this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This long later, you should please omit these kinds of unnecessary, incorrectly formatted disambiguations in article titles. Try to remember. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, why did you include a disambiguator for Bonne-Espérance when there is no other article named as such on Wikivoyage. Please stop doing that. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good question. According to the register of the Commission de toponymie du Québec, there are five "Bonne-Espérance" toponyms: canton, municipality, bay, boulevard, harbour, island... Wikidata and Wikipedia make the distinction by adding "Québec" after "Bonne-Espérance". For the sake of editing efficiency and harmonization with other encyclopedias in wiki mode, I really want there to be a single standard in the titles; and not that the title is changed after the creation of another homonymous article. Veillg1 (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please stop trying to harmonize all Wikivoyage titles with Wikipedia titles! It's been explained to you repeatedly that this site has its own house style. Just stop. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1: care to explain why you included an unnecessary disambiguator for Rivière-Saint-Jean? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

On the subject of homonymous titles, your point of view is clearly expressed. In summary, you rely on the rule specific to Wikvoyage (in English) to the effect of not disambiguating in the title of an article, until a homonymous article is created. And you take a draconian position based strictly on the rule. On this subject, your position is inconsistent with the list of articles posted on Wikidata, on Wikivoyage in French and the other projects of this Wiki group. This current WV rule is proving confusing and unproductive, as it will eventually need to be harmonized by changing the title and hyperlinks as new homonymous articles are created. In the case of Rivière-Saint-Jean, there is in Quebec the municipality in Minganie and the unorganized territory in the MRC La Côte-de-Gaspé; the reader is often confused between the two. In short, for the sake of efficiency and clarity for the reader, I prefer to do things the right way by initially creating a title that takes disambiguation into account. And I sincerely hope that the rule on WV (English project) will be amended accordingly. Veillg1 (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Veillg1: as you point out, the WV rule says one thing and you are doing another. You can propose a change to WV rules. If your proposal is accepted, the rule will be changed. Until then, you are not doing it the right way. You are doing it the wrong way. And you are creating work for other editors by refusing to follow WV rules. Your position may have merit, but if the rules are not changed, it is the wrong way of doing things. You must stop doing things the wrong way. Ground Zero (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

We're going to have to start giving you timed blocks if you continue deliberately violating the rules and guidelines of this site. Applying rules and guidelines that were arrived at by consensus is not "draconian," and how many damn times do we have to say over and over again that you don't have the right to unilaterally violate consensus? Shape up now! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@IkanKekek, SHB2000: I have been struggling to figure out how to deal with this situation where someone who is contributor useful travel information thumbs their nose at the rest of the community by ignoring community rules. It seems the escalating blocks is the only tool that we have available to us. It would be much better if Veillg1 would accept the way things are done here, and participate in developing our policies by proposing the changes they think would improve them. If they refuse to do so, as an alternative to blocking, could we consider listing the policies they are consciously violated (e.g., those identified on this page), and then revert any edits that violate them? Ground Zero (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

How about deleting any deliberately misnamed articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a good idea. I'll start a thread at WV:UBN once I get home. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ here is a list of issues on which Veillg1 appears to be uninterested in respecting Wikivoyage policy:

1. using unnecessary disambiguation in article titles
2. including postal address information
3. Minimal use of images
4. including information that is relevant to residents, but not usually to visitors

I have not included policies that have been raised with Veillg1 that they seem to be respecting.

Do we agree that these are problem areas in Veillg1's contributions? Are there any that I have missed? Ground Zero (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yep, those are exactly the policies that Veill1g knowingly violates. Also to Veillg1, please see Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Speedily delete any articles that Veillg1 consciously violated?. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1 reminds me a lot of User:W. Frank, aka User:118.93nzp and User:210.246.47.112, and also User:Alice, who may or may not have been the same user but behaved in the same ways - a mixture of a lot of good work but persistent violations of policies and guidelines they didn't like. Both of them ended up permanently banned, as you can read about in Wikivoyage:User ban nominations/Archive. And the reason we banned those users is that they wasted lots and lots of time causing us to edit their work and constantly arguing about the policies they didn't agree with. Veillg1, would you like to end up permanently banned from participating here? If you continue this way, I predict that our extensive patience will end, and you will be subjected to increasingly long blocks until you are banned from the site. Wikimedians need to be willing to collaborate and cooperate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I really hope we don't go down the French Wikipedia route because per the logs, Veillg1 was blocked per w:fr:WP:POINT (or w:fr:Wikipédia:Ne pas désorganiser Wikipédia pour une argumentation personnelle) at least per a quick skim read of w:fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2021/Semaine 37#Veillg1. Technically per Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#User bans, Veillg1 can be indefinitely blocked without nomination – something I really do not want to do or even think about. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1, two years later and you do the same with Chambly and Rigaud? Come on, you know better than that, I thought we were done with this 2 years ago and can't believe we're still having this discussion now. Competence is required, please. (cc @Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero:) --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The next time Veillg1 repeats a mistake that has been discussed on this page, an administrator should impose a temporary block on editing without further discussion. This is our only warning. Ground Zero (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please have a look at Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia. I understand that fr.wikivoyage allows inline links. English Wikivoyage does not, and it is a pain to remove them. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat connected: Pontiac (Quebec)#Towns. Why are these markers linked to Wikidata instead of listings with links to Wikivoyage articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Veillg1: it appears that you are trying to get blocked for intentionally violating Wikivoyage policies. Is that your aim, or was this an oversight? Ground Zero (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please don't include postal address information in listings. Nobody writes letters anymore. Including a postal code for a bus stop, a boulangetie, or a gas station seems particularly unnecessary. Also, if a listing is for a place in the locality the article is about, English Wikivoyage doesn't list the locality in the listing. Repeating "La Malbaie" for every listing in the La Malbaie article doesn't serve any purpose. Thank you again for all of your contributions. Ground Zero (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

What is the point of including the postal code of a bus stop? Please stop doing that. Ground Zero (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero. Thank for your feedback regarding postal code. It is a fact that the use of letters in the post has become rare today. Some people use the postal code for their GPS application and the civic number of the destination; rather than writing the long address on the keyboard. The postal code is commonly displayed in addresses of public places on the Internet. Depending on the country and the navigation system, the postcode is of some use. Certainly, for the purposes of Wikivoyage, it is generally not essential; especially in small Canadian communities where the same code is in use for the entire community. If this is Wikivoyage's editorial policy, no problem not indicating it in the articles. Veillg1 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It hasvtaken me some time to find the policy, but here it is: Wikivoyage:Listings#Template parameters. Ground Zero (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Veillg1 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Veillg1, and thank you for your continuing prolific work on places in Quebec! I don't know if you noticed, but I deleted a section you included on a YouTube presentation in one of the articles you created. The rule on this travel guide is, if it's something you can do at home without traveling, it is judged not to be about travel and can't get a listing. The one gray area is that online content can be very briefly mentioned in a listing for a brick-and-mortar tourist information center, but only as part of a "content" tab that concentrates on what you can do, see and get there in person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kekek -- Thank you for your feedback. Certainly, your initiative stems from the current editorial policy of Wikivoyage. I understand. Let's see another way of looking at things and imagining the future of assisted travel in a different way. Let's put into perspective that more and more tourists travel physically with their GPS activated (with pop-ups of places of interest), following tours guided by YouTube or using other interactive Internet applications (ex.: Tik-tok, Instagramme, Facebook) for visits (e.g.: Church of Champlain, with augmented reality) or by management guides (e.g.: Bixby). I dream of designing tourist circuit guides in the encyclopedia, with interactive tools (e.g.: displaying a gallery of photos or videos describing a site, or story told orally; thus allowing the visitor to navigate through various eras of the specific site according to its interest). How could Wikivoyage be more oriented towards these new cybernetic and interactive opportunities for tourism? -- Veillg1 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to start a thread at Wikivoyage talk:External links. But in the meantime, we should observe existing guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Eventually, there is a possibility for me to initiate this discussion. Thanks! -- Veillg1 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain under what circumstances a traveller would write a letter and mail it to the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu municipal airport? Is there something unique about this airport that justifies making an exception to the en.wikivoyage rule about not including postal address information? I have raised this issue with you before. Ground Zero (talk)

@ Whom? - Thank you for your feedback. It is understood that generally the address at length is not essential; however, in the case of towns in Quebec that have been merged (e.g. in 2002, in the case of Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu), the partial address, without the sector, may prove useful, in particular for deliveries of parcels, mail, etc. In this case, the displayed address has been reduced to the civic number and the street. It's not easy to pay attention to this galaxy of rules. -- Veillg1 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I neglected to sign this. As a travel guide, Wikivoyage does not concern itself with providing information for the delivery of orders and mail as delivery companies and the post office have better sources of information. I realize that there are a lot of rules, but you will also note that I have cleaned up after you in dozens of articles.

You are adding a lot of great content to Wikivoyage and improving its coverage of Quebec in an amazing way. You can make things easier for other editors by paying a bit more attention to the corrections that other people make after you contribute. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wv:Sections#Go next explains that this section should briefly introduce nearby destinations. It should not have detailed encyclopedia entries about places. Population statistics, industrial profiles, and the addresses of municipal offices do not belong here. Ground Zero (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've explained this to you before. I won't again. Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am commenting these sections out so that they cannot be seen by readers. If you want to include Go next destinations in articles, you can do so in the style of English Wikivoyage, not in the way you have been doing. Ground Zero (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well noted for Go Next section. Veillg1 (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1, this long later, care to explain why you've ignored Ground Zero's comments above and butted on with writing encyclopedia-like information on Pointe-Fortune? I've removed that section for now. Feel free to readd a go next section that complies with WV:GONEXT, but don't write encyclopedic content – that includes the phone numbers of municipal offices. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Veillg1,

I don't know if you've had the chance to look at this site's image policy, but please take the time to familiarize yourself with it. I'll particularly mention the following points, which bear on edits such as the one in which you started the Laprairie article:

• Short articles (less than 3,000 bytes) should usually have no more than 1–2 images, including a map.
• For longer articles, 1 image per screen (1,000–2,000 bytes) is generally adequate.
• Images should be distributed throughout an article, not bunched up in any section.
• Try to avoid having more than 2 or at most 3 successive images without space between them.
• By default images in Wikivoyage articles should be right-aligned.
  • Don't use left-alignment just to squeeze more images into an article. A likely indicator that you're doing so is that vertical overlap seems necessary.

Please take these guidelines into account.

Thanks and all the best,

Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Following your comments regarding the layout of the photos in the article, here are some observations. The photos in the "history" section have been placed in the perspective of adding a text on the history of Laprairie. This city has a great history (military, river, railway...), both at the time of New France and at the time of the English regime. And this local history is a tourist attraction in Laprairie. When the text on this "history" section is added to the article, the 3 relative photos of the historic area of Laprairie will be better associated with the new text. As a result of the new layout of the photos in the article, the photos do not match the neighboring texts. Thus, it would be better to wait for the "history" section to be developed before deciding on the layout of the photos. Thanks and all the best, Veillg1 (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is at variance with Wikivoyage's image policy. The images need to be distributed throughout the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, please stop having images on the left and right across from each other, as in Mont-Saint-Hilaire. There are too many images on that page! Please choose the most important few and keep them on the right. It's important for you to pay attention to the style of this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your reply at Talk:Mont-Saint-Hilaire‎‎ is not acceptable. I don't know what your level of English comprehension is, but you have to be able to understand what "blatant violation of Wikivoyage:Image policy#Minimal use of images" means, and trying to talk your way out of compliance with a universal policy adopted by consensus on this site means you are engaging in a form of sabotage and is unfortunately likely to result in blocks to your editing privileges, so I suggest you change your approach. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1, why did you ignore Ikan Kekek's comments above and add a ton of images in Hudson (Quebec) when you've been told time after time about Wikivoyage's image policy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

A lot of energy has been devoted to choosing photos that represent the community of Hudson well. The new photos published in this article were attractive to tourist readers. There were also enough of them. With regret, after publication in the article, these new photos have been erased in their entirety indiscriminately. Readers prefer better illustrated articles. Veillg1 (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The simple matter of fact is, articles will need to comply with Wikivoyage:Image policy until the policy is changed. You do realise that you could propose changing the policy by starting a discussion on Wikivoyage talk:Image policy, right? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking at Laprairie#Cope. I feel like everything but the library and dog park probably belongs in "Do" or otherwise should be deleted. Keeping in mind that Wikivoyage guides are for travelers, not residents, is this listing for the Community Gardens useful?

Residents have access to community gardens to practice urban culture: La Citière park, Léo-Rouiller park and Aulnaie park. A space is provided for participants with a functional limitation. Free.

If only residents can visit, I'd say no. If the gardens are open to all visitors, the word "residents" should not be used because it's misleading.

What about the listing for the Guy-Dupré Multipurpose Center?

Inaugurated on April 8, 2017, this multifunctional center offers various multipurpose rooms of varying sizes, adapted storage spaces, an enclosed interior courtyard located between the two buildings (allowing them to hold thematic exhibitions), an entrance hall , a multifunctional kitchen, soundproof music studios and audiovisual systems adapted to new technologies. Its name evokes the merit of Guy Dupré (1934-2016) who administered the city from 1965 to 1989 and served as mayor from 1991 to 2005. Free.

Doesn't seem relevant to a visitor.

The dog park might be worth a listing, but if someone needs to read a description of what a dog park is, the listing wouldn't be relevant to them, so I'd say list it under "Cope" but delete the text in the "content" tab. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank for your feedback. Here are some comments that follow my checks with information from the city.

• Dog park: according to my checks on the municipal by-law, the city of Laprairie does not restrict the use of the dog park to residents. Visitors can make use of it. Thus, access to the dog park is a point of interest for visitors who own a dog. Good to move this paragraph to the "Do" section; but, it is not a mistake to keep it in "Cope" since it is a service of the city. So my recommendation is to keep this paragraph in the article.
• Community garden: The city's website indicates that the community gardens are for use by residents for the seasonal reservation of a site. Nevertheless, visitors can visit them or participate in gardening with a resident who rents a site. Sometimes there are educational tours of community gardens for visitors.
• Guy-Dupré multifonctional center: The Guy-Dupré multifunctional center is a building serving residents and visitors. This center is a point of interest for visitors, especially for regional thematic exhibitions which attract many visitors, as well as meetings and congresses. Thus, my recommendation is to keep it in the article.

In short, it is up to you to judge on these points. Veillg1 (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think a paragraph explaining what a dog park is is needed in the "content" tab of the dog park listing? I don't understand that. A question about the multifunctional centre: do they keep a schedule of events on their site, and are there enough events for the centre to be listed? My feeling is that most of what's covered in the listing is not relevant to visitors. Mentioning that there's a calendar of events on their website, that there are many events in the summer (if that's true) and giving examples of kinds of interesting events they host might make it useful to travelers.

Basically, my suggestion would be to try to make your content tab text briefer and more focused on things of specific interest to travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your discussion of multipurpose centers is commendable. In Quebec, multifunctional centers under municipal jurisdiction are generally very useful for the general public, including tourists. Excluding the pandemic period (2020-2022), many events or activities (sports, cultural, social, community) are organized in these multifunctional centers. We understand that their use varies according to the involvement of people in the area and the times. In my book, these centers are frequented by tourists during organized activities. In general, multifunctional centers are part of services to the public (including tourists). They must be listed among the services available to tourists. Veillg1 (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

You need to stop ignoring the points you prefer not to engage. For example: "Why do you think a paragraph explaining what a dog park is is needed in the 'content' tab of the dog park listing?" Talking past others is not respectful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re your edits to Forteau. Can you explain why a traveller would write a letter to Robin's Donuts or to the local arena?

Stop adding this, and remove what you have added.

Your refusal to listen to the requests being made by more experienced editors is really pissing people off. Please work with us, instead of treating this like a personal website. Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the postcode reminder. I'll try to think of it, among the many generally accepted rules and guidelines. You are right to say that WV is not anyone's website, neither yours nor mine. However, one should not overreact to the slightest detail. For my part, I continue to write with rigor and as a team. - Veillg1 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

"one should not overreact to the slightest detail". My response to that is, what??? These are often a pain to remove, and it gets particularly annoying when this is happening repetitively. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

The issue is not overreacting to the slightest detail", but rather a pattern of behaviour. I appreciate that when someone asks you to make contributions more constructive by following Wikivoyage style, you commit to doing so. However, it is clear that the commitment doesn't last very long: soom you revert to making edits that are too encyclopedic, include postal codes, include listings that are relevant to residents and not visitors, etc. And when other contributors point this out, you leave the clean up for them to do instead of cleaning up your own edits. I do hope to see you contributing mire as a member of the team, and listening to what your teammates are telling you. Ground Zero (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re Côte-Nord-du-Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent. Now it just feels like you are trying to be rude. Stop adding postal address information. No-one is going to write a letter to a depanneur or a hardware store. This isn't the 19th century. Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again in Gros-Mécatina, please ask yourself if anybody is going to write a letter to a gite? (and it would be kinda pointless anyway) Please stop walking past others and doing your own thing. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Displays of postal codes in my writings on WV are only occasional, and even increasingly rare; usually by forgetfulness. Postcode display is a detail. It is wrong to claim that the postal code is only used to send letters; it is essential for the delivery of a purchase made online (ex.: on Amazon) and to deliver to the vacancy site. Please stop this harassment on the postal code on WV. Veillg1 (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

You've been blocked for an initial period of 3 days for persistently claiming that efforts to enforce Wikivoyage policies and guidelines are "harassment." Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Asking you to respect the policies and styles chosen by the Wikivoyage community is not harassment. You have been including postal codes less than in the past, and I appreciate that. (SHB2000 posted this comment almost three weeks ago.) Please continue your efforts to follow Wikivoyage style. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your block has now expired. Feel free to constructively contribute but please don't ever call a simple request as "harassment" again. If you do want to change Wikivoyage's postal code policy, you can make a proposal at Wikivoyage talk:Postal codes. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the follow-up on these articles under construction on the Montérégie. It's an exciting region that I know relatively well for traveling through it regularly; and I would have much to write about these picturesque localities and/or RCM. Nevertheless, I take a lot of pictures in this area for Wikicommons. As you can see, my editorial enthusiasm for WV was high until an abusive blocking occurred. The premise that led to this blocking was based on the erroneous assertion of a display of postcodes in the articles originally created by me; let's get the facts straight, only two postal codes were listed in the forty or so articles of my previous creation. Contrary to the reason given for this blocking, I never claimed that efforts to enforce Wikivoyage policies and guidelines are "harassment". This unwarranted blocking has led me to focus editorial efforts on other publishers where editors can fulfill themselves with respect; as well as preparing an important journalistic file on my experience with Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Admittedly, my editorial zeal on travel is still there, but conditional on a constructive climate. In short, the door is not closed with WV, but I am thinking about my future. Veillg1 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Based on your recent editing activity and your non sequiturs, it's giving a signal that you seem to need some guidance on what Wikivoyage is, and here it is.

Now firstly, please remember that Wikivoyage is not your own travel blog. This means that we have a set style that we expect editors to follow. While the community is a bit lenient towards new editors, you have 2687 edits under your belt and have editing since October 2021, so you are nowhere near "new". I hope you don't mind this being brought up, but I hope you reflect on your fr.wikipedia block, as you were banned by the French Wikipedia community for a similar reason. Several of us have become sick and tired of having to MoSify your edits to comply with the manual of style, and in future, we won't be MoSifying your edits, instead it'll just be removed. I hope we don't have to go down the route that fr.wikipedia did. If you want to ignore the manual of style, you can create your own travel blog, but that's not on here.

Secondly, Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia!. You seem to have an obsession with adding municipalities and municipal boundaries, but if you've somehow managed to miss or dodge reading this fact; travellers don't give a shit about municipal boundaries. Please ask yourself, do you think any traveller will say "Let's go to the Urban agglomeration of Montreal for the semester break"? Travellers won't care that Argenteuil Regional County Municipality contains eight municipalities. In fact, only in rare circumstances are municipality boundaries interesting to read.

Please also remember that Wikivoyage is a guide for travellers, not residents. Please don't list gardening or hardware stores. When you travel to a neighbouring province or anywhere else that's not your local area, would you be interested in going to a hardware store, or would you dismiss that store as it's "centred for locals"?

Finally, please remember that refusing to listen to other experienced editors and dodging questions that you don't want to answer is not on. As mentioned above, talking past others is plain disrespectful and that pisses others off.

Regards, --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the time to share your observations. Here are a few items.

You are right:

• to point out that Wikivoyage is not anyone's travel blog, neither mine nor yours;
• to indicate that Wikivoyage is a guide for travellers, not residents. That's always been on my mind. What is a Traveler? How to define activities or service points for a traveler? In the regions, travelers and vacationers often need to go to the general store (often referred to in French Canada as a hardware store) for sports, leisure or travel accessories (or equipment). Hardware stores are often general stores serving travellers;
• to signal the posting of the municipal limits. In hindsight, the indication of municipal boundaries would be more useful in other types of media. I retain not to publish them on WV, except occasionally the limits in relation to activities or points of tourist interest (ex.: limit on the river for pleasure boating);
• to follow the WV style manual. Yes. And I think more reference is required to remember the guidelines.

Please do not mention:

• the gardening; I have not used these elements for a long time in writing articles;
• unjustified blocking of WP-French. The last blocking concerning me was based on a trial of intentions following my votes to keep articles of which I saw an interest for the readers and for the encyclopedia. Having conscientiously voted in favor of keeping these articles (therefore against blockers), I was blocked for life. In addition, some of my votes for retention of articles have been tampered with to override them. One would expect this kind of anti-democratic measures under the Russian regime; but not on Wikipedia. I am very proud of my editorial contributions on WP because I put a lot of rigor and depth into them in accordance with generally recognized standards. Today, these writings prove to be interesting and useful documentation for readers; moreover, they are the subject of few very few amendments from the WP community. Too bad that this dictatorial and unjustified blocking has stopped the advancement of the design on these subjects;
• the RCM (regional county municipality): these articles are under construction. It is premature to assess them. There are great things to write about tourism at the regional level. Some regions are easier to describe in an article; for others, the reference documentation is less accessible.

Regarding Canada, in my humble opinion, the content of WV deserves to be developed further. Nevertheless, I am very happy with my editorial contribution made so far on WV and with most of the revisions made by my colleagues. In summary, editorial rigor has always been a concern. If my editorial contribution doesn't do the trick, there are plenty of other editors who would like my contributions.

Regards, Veillg1 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

A few reactions, which I think SHB will agree with: (1) There are a couple of issues with the RCM articles. First, we like to avoid unnecessary region articles on this site, and region articles with all or mostly red links don't seem needed. However, if they're big rural areas that should be covered in one article without "Cities" or "Other destinations" sections, I'm not sure if you're aware of this site's Wikivoyage:Rural area article template. Look at Rural Montgomery County for an example of that template being used. (2) The titles. I'm guessing you understand by now why we don't like bureaucratic article titles. (3) If a store that's called a hardware store really functions as the general store for a community, you need to make that clear and emphasize that "although called a hardware store, they also sell groceries such as food", or whatever the case may be. But be careful: just because you can get Scotch tape in a hardware store doesn't mean it's really travel-related. If stores called hardware stores are really very different in character in Quebec than they are in the neighboring state of New York, you should explain that in Quebec#Buy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Your comment is very diplomatic and clearly expressed. Well noted. You give me the opportunity to take a step back and explore these elements further. Veillg1 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Glad to help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

In this diff on Labrador City, you removed a listing, marked it as a minor edit but did not provide a reason why? If you did forget to add an edit summary, what was the reason? Is that listing now defunct? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your question refers to the content of the article "Labrador City". Subsection removed from article is for "Wabush Hotel"; this hotel establishment is part of the town of Wabush and not of the twin town "Labrador City". Wabush Hotel is included in the article "Wabush". - Veillg1 10:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay thanks for the clarification. If it's in Wabush, then I agree with you that it doesn't need to be mentioned in Labrador City. Regards, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Even after the endless amount of warnings given to you, you've still had the courage to defy the policy and include the postal code for ZEC Iberville. I would ideally assume good faith, but several editors have become sick and tired of cleaning up the mess you make. I hope we don't go down the same path as we did in July, but please stop having others have to clean up after your edits. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, why did you include the postal code for Centre d'accueil des Monts-Valin in Monts-Valin National Park? I've removed it, but you need to stop walking past others and doing your own thing. Otherwise, we're going to have to go down the same path as we did in July. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes. Please please PLEASE start reading and following WV:MoS, WV:SH, WV:tdf and so on. Please abstain from using Words to avoid. You've been here long enough and should be familiar with them already. Ibaman (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adding in the postal code for a bicycle path here tells us that you are just doing this to spite us and Wikivoyage policy. That is not a constructive way to contribute. Could you remove it please? Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

In your example, the postal code does not refer to the bike path; it rather refers to the "Reception and information point" (or tourist/cyclist information center). The postal code appeared in English as a result of the translation, despite my vigilance. I disagree with this policy on not displaying postcodes; but I am forced to apply it that the rule is in force. The postal codes that appear in my writings in English articles are extremely rare. I'm fed up with this whining to the point that my participation in WV(English) has become minimal. It's more interesting to work on other projects and/or other publishers where colleagues don't make a mountain out of small details. For my part, I continue to work constructively and as best as possible in compliance with the rules. Veillg1 (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

You do realize we could have banned you back in July for not cooperating. The community chose not to ban you with the hopes that you'd be constructive by starting a discussion on Wikivoyage talk:Postal codes and so on. Anyway, you've earned yourself a section on WV:UBN#Veillg1. (cc Ground Zero) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1, I disagree with some of Wikivoyage's policies, but I accept that they were developed by the community, and I can propose changes to the policies. I don't refuse to respect the community's decision.

This is a collaborative project, not a solo project, so everyone has to accept that they cannot always do things their own way.

You make good contributions to Wikivoyage, but by choosing to do things your own way, you make a lot of work for other editors: continuing to add encyclopedic details about municipal administrative structures, writing long paragraphs with location details in "Go next", and yes, the postal code thing. There are many other style issues that I have been correcting in your contributions that I haven't raised with you because it has been so much effort to get you to accept ghe few issues I have raised.

We are not persecuting you; we are just asking you to respect the community's decisions about how to make this a useful travel guide that people will enjoy reading. And you can propose changes to policies that you don't agree with, but you should be prepared to accept the decision of the community. Ground Zero (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

In your consideration, following your n...th assertions on the display of postal codes... I have invested time in going around the last 50 articles initially of my creation on WV (English); and excluding the Redirect and Disambiguation page. Contrary to your insinuations, only 6 of these articles have had their postal codes erased: Monts-Valins National Park (1), Marieville (1), Longue-Rive (1), La Tabatière (2), Gros-Mécatina (2), Côte-Nord-du-Golfe-du-Saint-Laurent. In short, after July 27, 2022, there were only three postal codes deleted in this series. Your discussion launched on Sept. 21, 2022 on the display of postal codes turns out to be greatly exaggerated. My previous comments are clear, for my part there is no more inclusion of postal codes in my writings on WV(English); if, inadvertently, a postal code would be displayed simply delete it without complaining in the talk pages.

Please keep only one subject per discussion, and clearly indicate it in the title. Veillg1 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

>Please keep only one subject per discussion, and clearly indicate it in the title.

What a sneaky, furtive, and guileful way of getting out of this issue. You should probably defend yourself on Wikivoyage:User ban nominations#Veillg1, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Postal codes are only the most obvious issue. Adding encyclopedic details about municipal administrative structures and about geography, writing long paragraphs with location details in "Go next", adding listings primarily of interest to local residents, and formatting issues create a lot of work for other editors to bring these articles up to Wikivoyage standards. Here is are two recent examples: [ https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Monts-Valin_National_Park&type=revision&diff=4557206&oldid=4544341 1] and 2. I would be sorry to see you reduce your contributions here, but I wish that you would take note of the style that English Wikivoyage uses, and try to write in that way. Thank you. Ground Zero (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Veillg1, I've listed this article at Votes for deletion. Feel free to weigh in. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Once again you return to completely ignore the Wikivoyage community's decision on how we write articles.

• Per Wikivoyage:Links to Wikipedia, en.wikivoyage does not allow inline links.
• In city markers, we link to the en.wikivoyage article and Wikidara, but nit to external websites or Wikipedia.
• As SHB2000 explained above, "Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia!... travellers don't give a shit about municipal boundaries. Please ask yourself, do you think any traveller will say "Let's go to the Urban agglomeration of Montreal for the semester break"? Travellers won't care that Argenteuil Regional County Municipality contains eight municipalities."
• postal codes (yet again). see Wikivoyage:Listings#Template parameters.
• The region is called Eastern Townships in en.wikivoyage, not Estrie.

You know all of this stuff is wrong, but you keep doing it. The next time you do thus, I will block you for two weeks, and re-open the User ban nominations from two years ago. Ground Zero (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why do you thumb your nose (faire pied de nez) at the Wikivoyage community by making edits like this? It is a pity: you are providing useful information, but it looks like you are intentionally trying to mess up Wikivoyage. Please work with us instead of just doing whatever you feel like doing. Ground Zero (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Veillg1, you know this is wrong – you can't just forget after being told umptillion times. As a result, I've blocked you for 2 weeks, due to expire on 03:16, January 2, 2025. Please take the time to take a deep reflection as blocks will be escalated further – and being blocked on two wikis is never a good look for you. (cc Ground Zero) --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 03:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

For those who are interested, Veillg1 was blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia in September 2021 for the same sort of behaviour that we see here. Furthermore, there was a discussion about a user ban here in Wikivoyage in November2022 that petered out when Veillg1 stopped editing. I do not think that we will succeed in getting this contributor to begin following Wikivoyage policies. Ground Zero (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

We definitely could apply the one-strike rule (which in this case is more like eⁿ-strike, really) the next time Veillg1 does something like this. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 04:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I hope he will return after two weeks and contribute in a constructive way. If he returns to his past behaviour, would support re-opening the user ban discussion immediately. Ground Zero (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)Reply