User talk:GoldenArchimedes

Orphaned non-free image File:Crescent Heights (company) Logo.jpeg
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).

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)

Managing a conflict of interest
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


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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. – Athaenara ✉  18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=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 = 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)}}