User talk:Krosier

July 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to LW Hospitality Advisors. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Also, the article gave no indication that the business it was about is significant enough to justify its being the subject of a Wikipedia article. For both those reasons, the article has been deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the person who previously edited under the user name "LW Hospitality Advisors"? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: No, however I am new to Wikipedia and editing its pages. I do not understand why the page was deleted as it does not contain any promotion material and the article throughout contain objective prose. I have used similar existing Wikipedia articles as a guideline to create this page. Additionally, I have found many credible sources that come from reliable, third party sources Could you provide some more information in order to make a more acceptable page? -- Krosier 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:LW Hospitality Advisors (logo).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LW Hospitality Advisors (logo).png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of LW Hospitality Advisors (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 18 July 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe the reasoning for my account being block is incorrect. I have been familiar with LW Hospitality Advisors for a long time and have worked with them in the past. I wanted to created a Wikipedia article for them it helps serve the intentions of Wikipedia: to provide information for those who wish to see it. I have tried to labeled the article with the WikiProject Companies as I beleived this is correct for similar companies. Furthermore, there are a significant amount of sources about the company and it's founders. When the page was deleted I have ask the user who deleted it to provide suggestions so I can edit my source code in order to create a neutral, informative page. I am new to Wikipedia and although I may have came across to you as promoting him, my intentions were not. Krosier (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly a violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, making the exact same copyright-violation edits. Block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2016 (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.