User talk:Pokelova

I see you are changing Sharma's status from representing the Labour Party to being an independent. He was expelled from caucus, not from the party, although the latter may happen later. Have I got this totally wrong?-gadfium 06:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He may still technically be a member of Labour but he is officially sitting as an independent per the parliament site. --Pokelova (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll revert my recent edits.-gadfium 06:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invercargill Central Mall, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Poke, So I Wanted to let you know that I have tagged the local elections pages on Wikipedia for current events meaning that you have to put a lot of effort by updating the live blog which usually start after 2pm. You and I would be a team together. Villian Factman (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pokelova. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kiba Walker, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pokelova. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sophie Handford".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please never post at my talk page again. Thanks very much. -Roxy the dog 14:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied. --Pokelova (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pokelova, per WP:NOBAN, If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. Also, a user cannot avoid administrator attention or notices and communications that policies or guidelines require to be posted merely by demanding their talk page not be posted to. Still, repeatedly posting on a user's page after being asked not to, without good reason, may be seen as harassment or similar kind of disruptive behavior. When in doubt, ask for help from another experienced editor or uninvolved administrator. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for tips on resolving disputes. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. Though their edit summary directed towards me is still needlessly WP:UNCIVIL. --Pokelova (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and I also saw it as a sign of a potentially escalating situation, so perhaps a reasonable time to share what I have found in my exploration of the labyrinth of the policies and guidelines, with the hope of avoiding further conflict. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Beccaynr (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the endorsement? Like seriously what if your beef? Luke Stockstill (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a noteworthy organization and the source you gave does not appear to be legit. --Pokelova (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing the article about Phillips family disappearances. I see it as an excellent start about this situation. I have made some comments on the article's talk page that I think you should be aware of. Also, since you have obviously read many of the sources, perhaps you might want to consider covering the underlying parental care of children dispute, too, if the sources support this. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, appreciate the support! I would have to go over the sources again, but unfortunately I do not recall there being very extensive discussions of parental law in relation to this outside of maybe one expert suggesting it's legal because he has full custody? But if such sourcing were to appear, I would prefer to leave it someone else to write up, as legal stuff is not my forte. --Pokelova (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Independent MPs of New Zealand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the ip block has now expired, and the user is making an attempt to source their edits, I will not take further action at this time. If you see edits which are not supported by the sources, feel free to revert them with an informative edit summary.-gadfium 17:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, but there does appear to be yet another new account despite not being banned at this time. Worth keeping an eye on. --Pokelova (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, certainly worth keeping an eye on them. There is nothing to stop an editor from abandoning one account and starting a new one, so long as there is no intent to deceive, and I don't see any ill intent in this. I see a new editor who started out provocatively but is learning how to edit constructively.-gadfium 17:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For fixing my Url error at Killing of Brianna Ghey. Ward20 (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how the birth name of the subject of a biographical article is irrelevant/taboo to state? There seems to be much discourse about the use of 'deadnames' and I feel like an encyclopedic source should be above this. Why should it "Absolutely not" be included? I would like to hear your take on the issues. Thanks in advance. CzarJobKhaya (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it extremely disrespectful to a trans person, it is against Wikipedia policy. Please read MOS:DEADNAME. --Pokelova (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you need additional context, JobKhaya, take a look at this link, which includes the widely participated discussions that produced MOS:DEADNAME in its current form. Newimpartial (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand.CzarJobKhaya (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know somemone who had their jaw broke at a drag show. It happened very recently and im lashing outm. Sorry.

ETA Ill stop everything 2600:1012:B00F:30E3:D96D:41BB:5C11:248E (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you just can't post unsupported statements about a recent death, anywhere on Wikipedia. It violates fundamental principles. Newimpartial (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand but the same friend lived in a buidling where there were Muslim families who fucked with his car. Wouldn't let their kids TALK TO HIM. Would not park their car next to his, would not use the pool if he used it, etc etc. This shit happens I swear to God it does. Thats all.

Eta - LAST comment ever I promise, when you see.the aftermath of a 130lb kid who was jumped by two dudes with a tire iron, the aftermath is not pretty. The ONLY reason they didn't kill him is because a cop happened to drive by and even HE was sympathetic to the guys who jumped him - like a good ol boy thing. Nthats it I'm done i.promise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B00F:30E3:D96D:41BB:5C11:248E (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pokelova. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2022 United States immigrant relocations, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've violated the current 1RR restriction with these two edits, as justified as you may have considered them. Please revert one or the other of these edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I misinterpreted what your reversion did. soibangla (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I'm sure I've made similar mistakes before. --Pokelova (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 March 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Georgina Beyer, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I was hoping you could clarify something. In this edit you added text that implied a causation between the Rainbow Greens' campaigning and Immigration New Zealand's announcement of a review of Keen-Minshull's NZeTA. However the source as I read it does not imply such a causation, and instead with the statement from the Immigration NZ general manager implies that the review is in relation to Keen-Minshull's Melbourne event. I just wanted to check, is this something that changed in the source at some point after you made the edit to the article, and that an earlier version of the source implied the causation but the current version does not? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t recall, may just be poor writing on my part. --Pokelova (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If you have a look at the original citations in the lead you will see that 'gatecrashed' is used. Our article doesn't mention that an gives the impression that she was attending with those people.

Also you mentioned me quote (in bold below). If you read the background to this her party leader proposed her expulsion because of the Nazi issue. This quote is directly relevant and follows from the paragraph above.

I think it gives far more accuracy.

Anti-trans rally[edit]

On 18 March 2023, Deeming spoke at the "Let Women Speak" anti-trans rally that was "gate crashed" by the neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network and its leader Thomas Sewell, with the neo-Nazi's repeatedly engaged in Nazi salutes, and carrying far-right extremist banners.

In a public statement describing Deeming’s position as “untenable” due to her “involvement in organising, promoting and participating in a rally with speakers and other organisers who themselves have been publicly associated with far right-wing extremist groups including neo-Nazi activists” Liberal opposition leader, John Pesutto moved to expel her from the party. An attempt was made by fellow MPs Brad Battin and Richard Riordanto delay the expulsion a week, but the move failed, losing the vote 18 to 11. It's believed that Deeming was also supported by Chris Crewther, Matthew Guy, Bill Tilley, David Hodgett, and Ann-Marie Hermans.

Speaking in support of Deeming Jacinta Nampijinpa Price said ‘Mark my words, this will be the first of many attempts of character assassination. That’s all this misogynist has when faced with a strong woman who undermines his leadership with reality.’

Liberal MPs are reportedly pressuring Pesutto to find a less severe punishment over her role in the anti-trans rights rally due to the in-fighting the rally has caused in the party. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told you, the Spectator article with the quote existed before the rally, it is literally not possible for it to be a result of the rally and if you actually read the article you will see that it is about controversy in relation to her maiden speech. As for the "gatecrashed" verbiage, the reason it is in quotations in that Guardian article is because that is Deeming's own description of what happened. Certainly it can be included as her response in the article if attributed to her, but it is not neutral or the type of phrasing found in the other sources. --Pokelova (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no edit warrior and I always look for consensus.

I take your points but ask you to consider if there is a fair representation given here of Deeming and the sources cited in relation to this new nazi thing which is becoming (has become) something that is used to denigrate - often with weasel words.

There is nothing factual to associate her with any form of Naziism, only things like "Pesutto said it took his team about 20 minutes to investigate the organisers’ links to extremist groups, so he “can’t be satisfied” Deeming didn’t know about their associations.

That is the type of phrasing found in the other sources.

My inclusion of the pre event Price quote was to give some context to the efforts to slur by association - which turned out to be true?

Surely we need to be vary careful with this kind of innuendo. It might be good for politicians but not for an encyclopaedia.

If you disagree then what would you be happy to see included as her response Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note the effect https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moira_Deeming&oldid=1145645636 Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relating the past Price quote to the current issue would be WP:OR I think. It's not really up to us to make connections like that. As for the rest, you may think it unfair for Deeming to be associated with Nazis, but as has been discussed on Posie Parker's article, that is currently the mainstream narrative and we follow what the reliable sources say. That Guardian article contains her statement disputing the connection, and we are not opposed to including that in the article at all. I encourage you to add a sentence or two in the article quoting relevant parts, it just can't be used to frame the whole thing. Hope that makes sense and I appreciate your willingness to talk. --Pokelova (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply also.

I've just read the Posie Parker piece and realise that I'm swimming against the tide. Sadly I have to accept that these terms have become virtually meaningless.

Reductio ad Hitlerum and Holocaust Analogies say most of it. Not much read by the media we rely on to provide sources I think. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad Hitlerum does not really apply here, and no holocaust analogy has been made. --Pokelova (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should be mindful when we are dealing with biographies of living persons not to only give one point of view, and currently Moira Deeming is being tarnished on Wikipedia. We need to be very careful about that, and doing such things as falsely accusing her of being anti-trans and falsely accusing her of attending an anti-trans rally, which was per their own words a women's rights rally is very dangerous. I was told not to revert these obviously false claims any further, and my citations were not permitted to be used, but it is very clear that there are at least two competing viewpoints on this, and it is not up to Wikipedia to choose which side to take. Wikipedia ought to present both viewpoints and show a neutral perspective. This is particularly important with BLP articles. Moira Deeming is right now fighting for her seat in parliament on the basis of Wikipedia getting things wrong about her. Let's not make it any worse. Blissyu2 (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a misunderstanding of what neutrality means on Wikipedia, please read WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I am very amused by your baseless assertion that Wikipedia is the cause of her current situation though. Even if it were true, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, we will not ignore reliable sources to spare her feelings or her career. --Pokelova (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved talk page watcher here. Note that I haven't read the article or the sources, and I have no interest in the person being discussed here. What interests me is the following statement: "Wikipedia getting things wrong about her" That absolutely cannot happen. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources and reflect those. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and reporting what those sources say. If the article says negative things about a living person that aren't based on reliable secondary sources, that would be a serious matter indeed. Schwede66 06:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The speaker was assaulted, this is not a neutral opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillickK (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, assault is not neutral as it a legal term not used in the source provided. So I have reverted you again. Stick to what the sources say. --Pokelova (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! Thanks for adding things to catturd. I was literally thinking of returning to the article because I am reading a tweet about him, and when I opened up my watchlist you had moved it. Completely forgot about it. Hope to see you in mainspace. :) SWinxy (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the draft! --Pokelova (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the correct protocol for withdrawn candidates, as the election box template referred to them as retired, which is usually the case when an electorate MP does not contest again. But thanks for sorting it out for me. Ajf773 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pokelova. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ted Johnston".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pokelova. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Peter Wakeman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen of the Universe contestants has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --woodensuperman 10:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pokelova. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kiba Walker".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Candidates in the 2023 New Zealand general election by electorate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:IAR evidence off-wiki.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: I've redacted your off-wiki evidence. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 § Special Circumstances Blocks, if you haven't already done so, please notify ArbCom of this IAR off-wiki evidence block ASAP. (This is a procedural note and not a comment on the merits of the block.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom are aware. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, the off-wiki evidence is still visible in the block log. Schwede66 23:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it while you were writing this, but thanks. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:28, 15 June 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

As alluded to in the thread, there are many different Pokelovas online. The evidence isn't evidencing. I don't want to be punished for choosing an unoriginal username when I was a decade and a half younger, and participating in a deletion discussion for an article I felt was clearly notable despite the feelings it elicited. One of you deciding to use a blank account to harass me before even posting the block notice does not scream good faith either, it seems like you're just taking delight in punishing anybody who was on the losing side of that debate. --Pokelova (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. Per the ArbCom statement linked above, blocks such as these should be appealed directly to ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:30, 15 June 2023 (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.

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

---

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

Hello, Pokelova. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Weston Kirton, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ONE Party logo.jpg. 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) 17:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Building collapses on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. + Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hamish Campbell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New Zealand politician Hamish Campbell is a cancer researcher and runs a flower-delivery business? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hamish Campbell. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hamish Campbell), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Independent MPs of New Zealand 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, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 January 7#Template:Independent MPs of New Zealand. 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]