User talk:Rdn1979

November 2015

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Tourism in Namibia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Philip Trueman (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement completely Phillip Trueman that Arebbusch Travel Lodge should not be listed on Tourism in Namibia. It is as relevant as Windhoek Country Club and Hilton. It opened in 1993 - before either of them and I will gladly provide you with a list of tourism statistics and a list of notable events which it has hosted. Looking forward to your reply. Rdn1979 (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Rdn1979 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTADVERTISING now. In particular, please read the sentence "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.". Philip Trueman (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phillip - a link to arebbusch travel lodge does exactly what you have mentioned above - it identifies a notable organization which is the topic of that article - or more specifically that paragraph. Herewith follows that section of the paragraph in question: Windhoek Country Club Resort (opened in 1995 as host to the Miss Universe 1995 and is one of the premier hotels and golf tournaments in the country), Zoo Park and other places. Windhoek also has the first five star hotel in the country known as Hilton Windhoek (opened in 2011 marking Hiltons 50th hotel in the Middle East and Africa.) - Arebbusch Travel Lodge - which opened in 1993. Is completely relevant along side Windhoek Country Club and the Hilton Hotel. It is as relevant as both of these establishments. Rdn1979 (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC) Rdn1979 (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - the words mean what they say - the topic of the article. If your organization is sufficiently notable to have an article about it, then there's no problem having an external link in that article. It is obvious that you are simply not listening, and so, as I am required to do, I am giving you formal notice that I am bringing your actions to the attention of the administrators at WP:ANI.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip - I have not added back the link that you removed - so I am not acting contrary to your instructions. I am merely trying to gain a better understanding. I am not trying to offend you or attack you in anyway. Rdn1979 (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Max Semenik (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an advertising account - I am a human being. My name is Robert Nienaber and I have held posts on the Hospitality Association of Namibia's executive committee. I have also operated in the tourism industry in Namibia and South Africa for the past 10 years. I believe that all of the contributions that I have made have been valid and substantiated. If there are any contributions that have I have made that have not been sufficiently substantiated, I will gladly provide whatever references are still required. I will also gladly provide whatever proof is required to substantiate my authenticity as well as background knowledge. You will notice that I have made contributions regarding Windhoek tourism, cape town tourism, city accommodation, safari hotels, avani, etc Rdn1979 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2015 (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).

Rdn1979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To further add to my reasoning for unblocking me - I would like to add the further additional explanation. I was trying to add an article about City Accommodation - a hotel chain in the southern african region. Wikipedia does allow for this as wikipedia does have an article for hotel chains as well as the individual hotels within the chains. I am very happy to substantiate why this hotel chain qualifies as noteworthy. I was in the process of creating links from other wikipedia articles back to the City Accommodation article - so that it would not be seem to be an orphan - when I was flag by Phillip Trueman. In hindsight I believe that my error was that I created and external link rather than an internal link as I should have done. I unreservedly apologies for this and put it down to the fact that I am new to wikipedia and I am still learning the differences between external links and internal links, etc Rdn1979 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time please. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not automatically make the article you would like to add valid. Articles created on Wikipedia may be deleted if they don't appear to meet WP:GNG standards. We don't need advertising-only accounts on Wikipedia, so there's not much point in blocking you if you're only here for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 20 November 2015 (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.