Welcome edit

Hello! Welcome to Wikivoyage. To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page. If you need help, check out Wikivoyage:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub. If you are a Wikipedian, or have previously used Wikipedia, then you may notice some differences in the style of our articles. These include:

Thanks for contributing! —The preceding comment was added by CatDog1234539 (talkcontribs)

I blocked you for two hours for your vandal warnings. It seems you know your way around the wiki technique, but as you are new here you should be cautious about reverting or warning other users. As long as you don't know the community you should concentrate on own contributions, perhaps kindly asking users you see doing something odd. And don't welcome other users before you have a good editing history and some time in your meter.
LPfi (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi:Ok, I will be cautious when reverting edits and get to know the community more. CatDog1234539 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see you today welcomed a user with no contributions other than those disallowed by the abuse filter (spam for a law firm). I think you should wait with your welcome messages until you have got quite a lot more mileage. –LPfi (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(I see no problems with the other user you welcomed, but no contributions there either.) –LPfi (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi:I'm not trying to argue or anything, but the edits I have been doing are constructive and I don't think those would be in the abuse filter. However, if you think I should get more experience in, then that's fine. CatDog1234539 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not complaining about your other edits, but your welcoming Nduniversal, who was trying to advertise their law firm, with no other edits. As the edits were caught by the abuse filter, you cannot see them, but I do not want to see such users welcomed. –LPfi (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, ok. I'll wait till I get more experience in before welcoming users. In the meantime, I have been fixing articles and making constructive edits. CatDog1234539 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's good. –LPfi (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interstate edit

Hello :) What's going on with Interstate 10? You (re)created it less than an hour ago, started filling it out, and now you've done this. Do you not want to work on it anymore? If so, we probably don't need a vote; an administrator (such as myself) can just delete it. Let me know what you want to happen. All the best, ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThunderingTyphoons!:I looked at the talk page for the article and decided it should be deleted. CatDog1234539 (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. The comment on there was made 10 years ago, and I do think there could be a decent travel itinerary written about I-10, but if you don't want to work on it, I'll delete it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThunderingTyphoons!:Ok. CatDog1234539 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shortening lists edit

Yes, it's true that this site discourages long lists . However, when you shorten a list, you don't seem to be indicating what criteria you're using in choosing what to delete and what to keep. That's problematic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm deleting the lists that are not very useful in information or if there are duplicates, like for example there doesn't need to be 15 places with the word "Monastery" in it, only a couple could be fine. The stuff I'm keeping are those with descriptions about the place and those that are useful in information. CatDog1234539 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that we can arbitrarily decide to delete x-number of monasteries. All 15 could be well worth visiting. I'd also suggest that when you delete lists of attractions without sufficient information, you move them to the talk page of the article in question, so that they can more easily be restored to the article when someone has more information to add about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. CatDog1234539 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The value in ignoring vandalism edit

Hi. Re:edits like yours at User talk:, please read Wikivoyage:Deny recognition. It's not helpful to call attention to dumb vandalism. Just revert silently. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global block edit

Sorry to see that you have been globally blocked. I checked some of the contributions that got you blocked and have a hard time understanding why you did those things. We, and the people on the other projects, are seriously working on making good information available, and trying to be funny with that kind of edits is certainly not something we appreciate. –LPfi (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, these things aren't funny at all and I'm reluctant to even trust your WV edits. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletions to check edit

Swept in from the pub

The account of User:CatDog1234539 (contributions) has been globally locked. Before that they appeared to be doing good-faith editing of articles that were tagged as needing some sort of clean-up. In some cases they got carried away and simply deleted large chunks of problematic material, which was not a good solution. I have reverted a few obvious cases. I may have missed some. Someone might like to check Tehran (province), for example, to see if they deleted too much, which should be restored and cleaned up. Nurg (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems a shame. They did seem like a good-faith editor on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW some of the user's first edits set off some alarm bells for me. They reverted a random useful edit by Yvwv, accusing him of vandalism - and using (or attempting to use) a vandalism notification template to boot. What kind of "new user" behaves that way (and "happens" to be familiar with that kind of templates), I thought, but kept silent because the user did appear to want to contribute constructively here. Ypsilon (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you may have noticed, I blocked them for those edits and commented on Vandalism in progress, where a third user had raised an alert. Clearly the user had experience from en-wp under another name, enough to know the template, but whether the user was still an overentusiastic novice or is a seasoned troll is beyond me. –LPfi (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May we revert all his edits? I'm not sure if they're trustworthy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]