User talk:Glyphodon

September 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Curtin, you may be blocked from editing. for this edit to many former Australian PM pages Gnan garra 01:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra why did you post this threatening message for someone adding links to the National Archives to Australian prime ministers? Not appropriate. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your messages. My edits were not meant to be disruptive. I simply added resources to the bottom of the relevant pages - in this case, research guides published by the National Archives of Australia, outlining records that are relevant to Australian Prime Ministers. Glyphodon (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Peter[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Artefact Heritage Services for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Artefact Heritage Services is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artefact Heritage Services until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for creating the spammy Artefact Heritage Services article after a year in which you didn't edit at all. If you would like to return to editing, please provide an unblock request which demonstrates that you will not use Wikipedia for advertising purposes in the future. Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glyphodon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I must apologise, I didn't meant to contravene Wikipedia policy. I did try to keep the entry descriptive rather than promotional. The reason I haven't edited for over a year is that my previous edits to other articles, which simply added pertinent, published references, were all reversed. I'll leave it to you as to whether you wish to unblock me Glyphodon (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you call descriptive is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject like an organization. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. To be unblocked, you will need to explain any connections you might have to the topics of your edits, and tell what edits you are interested in making if unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.