Hello, Willywill9876! Welcome to Wikitravel.
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 Wikitravel:Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.
Thanks for taking the time to search for those spelling mistakes, a worthy cause, and very nice to see someone taking the time to do this. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 07:20, 17 February 2009 (EST)
I reverted a number of your edits today that added listings, or extra external links, for NH Hotels. First, such listings belong only in individual district articles, not in the overview page for large cities. There were also problems with promotional language instead of descriptive language, and with Wikitravel:External links—in particular, it is against Wikitravel policy to put multiple links to one site/per one listing in one article. You might want to take a look at Wikitravel:Welcome, business owners. --Peter Talk 12:10, 18 February 2009 (EST)
- To re-iterate Peter's comment, please do not include two URLs in any listing, and please avoid adding referral codes in URLs. See Wikitravel:Accommodation listings for details about proper formatting. You've added a lot of good information, but given the amount of changes you've made many editors may decide it is easier to revert your additions rather than trying to clean up what appears to be advertising (note Wikitravel:Goals and non-goals explicitly states that the site does NOT want to be an advertising brochure for any company). We very much appreciate having useful information on the site, but at the same time everyone here is a volunteer, and spending hours cleaning up tout-ish additions isn't a task that anyone looks forward to. -- Ryan • (talk) • 11:11, 23 February 2009 (EST)
- Exactly. And I have rolled back all your edits today, because I think the net advantages of having that information are outweighed by the net disadvantages of having what appears to be advertising spam spread far and wide throughout the site. Moreover, the patterns established in your edits mirror those of this user closely enough to seem suspicious. I don't have time to separate the wheat from the chafe, but if you or someone else does, please feel free to do so. It would be nice if you would respond to these comments on your talk page, so we know you are reading this. --Peter Talk 17:29, 23 February 2009 (EST)