User talk:Alliecave

Your submission at AfC Charlotte Olympia was accepted
 Charlotte Olympia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Charlotte Olympia Logo.pdf)
Thanks for uploading File:Charlotte Olympia Logo.pdf. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note re possible conflict of interest (as implied by edit summary)
Hi Alliecave!

Your recent edits on Charlotte Olympia appear to imply that you are personally or professionally associated with Charlotte Olympia or editing on behalf of the company (particularly as you are only editing their article). In particular, your edit summary here sounded like a statement that would be made by the company's PR or publicity. If this is indeed the case, then you need to be upfront about this, and state your connection to the firm, as continuing to edit your employer's page can be problematic. There's no reason you can't continue having an input, by requesting particularly complex or involved edits on the talk page (see Talk:Louise Kennedy for how this can work successfully in a way that benefits both subject and Wikipedia). Some relevant guidelines include Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view.

I don't see a problem with removing the web reference in itself, although it is quite widely reported on and appears in many sources, making it a well-documented statement. It would have been useful to know earlier what the exact issue was, though, which is why an accurate edit summary for the first edit would have been helpful. Mabalu (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)