GoldenArchimedes
Welcome!
|
_Logo.jpeg){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free image File:Crescent Heights (company) Logo.jpeg
edit_Logo.jpeg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Crescent Heights (company) Logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
_Logo.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
_Logo.jpeg){kind=link}
Managing a conflict of interest
edit
Hello, GoldenArchimedes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Crescent Heights (company), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Reservations.com
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Reservations.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Athaenara ✉ 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
GoldenArchimedes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no reasonable basis for blocking this user. The contributions across a wide variety of pages in all different subjects (political, arts and entertainment, real estate, travel) are clearly indicative of general editorial and contributor interest, not promotional. In addition, the reasons provided for deletion of the most recent page are not supported by the facts. The contributed article is materially different from any or all prior contributions and directly responsive to the feedback and comments provided in Wikipedia discussion groups. GoldenArchimedes (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I noticed that you are referring to yourself in the third person("this user") and that combined with the fact that this account has largely edited about businesses or business-related topics leads me to conclude that there is more to this situation than stated in this request, be it that this account is used by more than one person or represents a business of some kind(PR or SEO). As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
GoldenArchimedes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Let's try this again. My account was blocked only after I respectfully questioned the reason for article deletion, the block was punitive in nature, which seems to be a common theme among editors when people question their editorial decisionmaking. Using a third person description {"the user") is certainly not a legitimate reason for maintaining a block, nor is the fact that many of the contributions are business-related, some are not. To the next administrator considering my unblock request, first look over the new page that prompted the block request in the first place before making such an arbitrary decision to block my account. I again respectfully request reinstatement of my account. GoldenArchimedes (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
GoldenArchimedes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for constructive feedback @Dlohcierekim I can confirm that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. The most recent contribution of a new page, is not and was not damaging or disruptive and based on a prior request I have shared the draft with Wikipedia editors for support and feedback. The individual who instituted the block has not suggested any edits or contributions were damaging or disruptive, however I will remain especially mindful of these concerns in the future. The block is not necessary because I understand the reasons for the block, I will not cause damage or disruption to Wikipedia and will make useful contributions. GoldenArchimedes (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am unconvinced. The structure and phrasing of your draft was remarkably close to the previously deleted version, which was created (more than once) by members of a paid editing ring (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Japanelemu). The simplest and most obvious explanation is that you are also working for the same group of undisclosed paid editors. Yunshui 雲水 14:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.