User talk:N.Cooksey

Hi N.Cooksey! I noticed your contributions to Nick Watson and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Joyous! Noise! 23:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit on this article. Wikipedia has a policy for names that discourages adding a nickname at the title like that. You can read more at this page. No worries, though. We have a lot of "manual of style" policies, and it's easy to trip over them. Enjoy your time editing here! Joyous! Noise! 23:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you N.Cooksey (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Hawthorn Football Club have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Hawthorn Football Club was changed by N.Cooksey (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950633 on 2025-09-17T01:12:10+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to Mount Lilydale Mercy College appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. And please read WP:MINOR Meters (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm QuicoleJR. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello there

I reverted your edit because the United Nations was formed after World War II, not World war I. The UN is also discussed in the article already. Before you add content, it's a good idea to read through the whole article to see if the content is already there. You can use a word search to help you do this.

All the best Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit that restored the above info. Again, the content you added does not belong in a post-World War I section. It's also already covered at World War II#Aftermath. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It was good info, I will revert it again untill you stop reverting it. N.Cooksey (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Please read the policy on edit warring and disruptive editing, Consider this an official warning. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do I need a warning, I thought It was needed info on the article. Can you please tell me why, Thank you N.Cooksey (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

"It was good info, I will revert it again untill you stop reverting it" You won't, because I (or any other administrator) will have blocked you from editing to stop the project being disrupted in this way. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not get how it is being disrupted. Were is this info in the article N.Cooksey (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Top 10 most liveable cities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

• Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
• Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
• Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. Wikishovel (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Top 10 most liveable cities. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello N.Cooksey! Your additions to Take On Me have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it wasn't copyrighted, thats why I added it. Thank you N.Cooksey (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Top 10 most liveable cities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

• Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
• Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
• Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions.

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted this and salted it from recreation. Please don't submit AI slop as articles. BusterD (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I used Chatgpt but I thought if I edited it enough, It would not be classified as AI N.Cooksey (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Scam, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 03:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Seasider53. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Seasider53 (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know N.Cooksey (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

A younger wikipedian inevitably needs to face simply making an error is not the end of the world. Smart people often disagree. Just admit to it when pointed out and endeavor not to repeat the same mistake more than once or twice. It's easy to receive feedback and take it as personal. Learn not to do that. I make mistakes all the time. Look at my talk page. Sometimes I read the discussion incorrectly. Sometimes I have a varying opinion. Sometimes people are just mad I deleted their pet page. But in each case when I am wrong, I confess to my foible, and then move on, as an adult does. Don't be shy about asking for help here. Lots of nice people to help keep you out of trouble. But DO TRY to follow the feedback folks give you on talk. If the feedbackers didn't care, they wouldn't have bothered to stop by. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop using Reddit as a source as you did here and here. Reddit is not a reliable source as it is entirely user generated content. Would it also kill you to use a spell check/grammar check when you're editing articles? Other editors like myself shouldn't have to go in and clean up your mess. You should seriously consider taking BusterD's advice above. GSK (talk • edits) 22:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving advice but next time, can you tell me a nice/ calm matter. Thank you N.Cooksey (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, If you are considering giving me advice on my wikipedia talk feed, please do it respectfully. I only started editing last month and I don't know every policy or every user on the platform. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to give me feedback but if it is mean or meant to hurt my feelings, please think to yourself if you would like it if someone posted something like the above message on your talk feed. Thank you for understanding and please refrain from posting hurtful comments online. Thank you. N.Cooksey N.Cooksey (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Kinley Estate. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi N.Cooksey. Have a look at WP:GNG and the kinds of sources that are needed to establish a subject like this as notable. Feel free to improve the sourcing in the draft and let me know when you think it's ready to resubmit. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kinley Estate and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by that N.Cooksey (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I added over 20 differant referances that are all in depth, reliable citations. i used a mix of Primary and secondary souces. What more do you want me to add. I bet that if I added a citation for every word, you still would reject it. Why N.Cooksey (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, N.Cooksey! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Unblocked games. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of excessive synthesis and original research. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@N.Cooksey: See also Educational video game, an existing article closely related to what you just wrote. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lilydale Marketplace, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refurbishment was added. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Little Saint James, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (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) 00:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Monster Jam, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A 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) 22:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lilydale Marketplace, 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) 04:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, in your recent edit to Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Additionally, you cited IMDb, which is not a reliable source per WP:IMDB. You are welcome to restore any of your edits which you feel are not problematic and which do not involve linking common terms. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to CTGP Revolution. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on CTGP Revolution 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 []. 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.

Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CTGP Revolution 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/CTGP Revolution (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Mariamnei (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Tuck Stand 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/Michael Tuck Stand 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 until the discussion has finished.

λ NegativeMP1 17:53, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi N.Cooksey. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. I'm a bit concerned to see so many warnings on your talk page. There seems to be some recurring themes here - concerns about not using reliable sources, not following our notability standards, and/or using AI to write articles.

Is there anything I can do to help you? I understand that it can take some time to learn how Wikipedia works. And we all make mistakes. But if you keep making the same mistakes, and don't give any indication that you're listening to feedback or working to do better...that's often when editors start getting temporary blocks on their account. And we're probably headed in that direction pretty soon if you don't change how you edit, unfortunately. Its basically, if you won't slow down and learn how the website works...you'll be blocked in efforts to force you to slow down and stop making edits that don't make our standards.

But lets see if we can avoid that. What sort of things are you struggling with? I can link you to help pages/guidelines, etc, that may be able to help you. Let me know. 21:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC) Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out to me about this issue. I have had a pretty rough time on wikipedia in terms of editing. People accuse me of Using AI when I simply did once before I found out about the policy, so I stoped. I get accused of misspelling words and get tons of grammer corrections but i'm 13 years old and haven't completed school or uni. My citations that I add get deleted because there not reliable, even though I have checked what sources are acceptable or not. I get your trying to do the right thing and I respect that, however, I feel the Community is a bit harsher on me then other editors. Please link me to the guidline/help pages so I can work on improving my edits.

Thank you

N.Cooksey N.Cooksey (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, if writing isn't your strong suit, you may want to keep to simpler, smaller edits. I understand you're still in school, but But regardless, here's some helpful links:

• The WP:WIKIPEDIAADVENTURE is a good interactive learning thing you can do to help you get started with the basics.
• The standards for whether or not something should have its own article is called the WP:GNG. Generally, speaking, it requires that multiple third party sources writing detailed articles about you subject.
  • Let's pretend we're writing an article about a new Mario game. A third party source would be something written by IGN - a website that has nothing to do with the creation of the game itself.
• Sources used on Wikipedia must be reliable. When we say that, we generally means its from a professional website, not social media, forum posts, or other wikis. Until you understand which ones are usable or not, there are a lot of already established lists of articles to use or avoid.
  • WP:RSP - a general list of sources
  • WP:VG/S - a list of video game related sources.
  • WP:RSMUSIC a list of music related sources.

I know this may seem to be a lot, but that's just part of the responsibility of editing the website. Sergecross73 msg me 14:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Following up on this. A bit concerned that after this talk, you're still deciding to try to publish entire articles on your own. This was absolutely not ready to be published, its riddled with typos and issues. If you can't stop doing this sort of thing on your own, your account is going to be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, N.Cooksey,

Thank you for creating Hawthorn centanary match.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page needs correcting for format, grammar, and above all, spelling. It also has no categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Hawthorn centenary match. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and The page has already been moved to correct a spelling error in the title.. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lilydale Marketplace 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/Lilydale Marketplace 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 until the discussion has finished.

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Giraffer (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit was either done by you or someone else on your behalf. It is sockpuppetry and not allowed, especially in projecspace discussions. I've blocked you for two weeks as a first time offense -- sockpuppetry is serious, and any repeats are likely to lead to a much longer block. You are welcome to appeal or sit out the block duration; it's your choice. Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am assuming you are talking about someone defending me on the Nomination for deletion, Lilydale Marketplace talk page. I have no clue who they are. eaileir on my talk page, user GSK said "Would it kill you to use a spell check/grammar check when you're editing articles?". This persons grammer was all correct and both at My School and now on Wikipedia, I am known to make grammer mistakes. If you look closly, you would probibly see a few mistakes with my grammer. User @BusterD also pointed this out. The fact that I was wrongfully accused of Sockpuppetry, the policy states that

Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following:Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot).

1. Links should ideally take the form of all three of the following:
   1. Similarities in the username (for example, User:Example might have User:Example public or User:Example bot).
   2. Links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative registered account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{User alternative account | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{Public user}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{User alternative account name|OtherName|...|OtherName[n]}}.
   3. Links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.
2. Links on both the main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose. To link an alternative registered account to a main account, use the main account to tag any secondary accounts with {{User alternative account | main account}} (using the main account shows it's genuine) or {{Public user}} if the account is being used to maintain security on public computers. The main account may be marked with {{User alternative account name|OtherName|...|OtherName[n]}}.
3. Links in the alternative account signature: if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account, and if necessary provide a note there requesting contact be made via the main account, or simply redirect the user talk page.

There are no connections between me and the user that defended me. He was just trying to help me out. I do not have a second account , Try serching my second account up, It will not pop up on the search bar, since I do not have a second account. The third dot point above says that "if not linking to both the alternative and main account, link to the alternative account". Once again I have no alternate account and therefore, I have been wrongfully accused of Sockpuppetry. If you have anything else to say, comment on my talk page. Thank you. N.Cooksey (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I blocked you for sockpuppetry because I believed that a temporary account geolocating to exactly where you say you are from, making the same formatting mistakes as you and holding the same view, made its only contribution to an AFD to explicitly support your opinion. I also find it curious that you say I am assuming you are talking about someone defending me on the Nomination for deletion... despite me explicitly linking the diff. If you haven't looked at it, how would you be able to assume what I'm talking about?

I have no idea what the middle portion of your message is trying to say, but if you believe my block was erroneous, you are welcome to write an appeal. Giraffer (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have the ability to unblock. plus, I do not know where this user is from and you have no evidence to say were this user is from. The grammmer was better than mine and I highleted other peoples opinionns to further prove my case. I do not know how to appeal because this is my first block. N.Cooksey (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Plus, I have looked atr it, I Agreed with User @ AJF773. I said ," I get your points and that sounds like a solution so the centre is still mentioned in Wikipedia, provibng I veiwed the page N.Cooksey (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I do have real technical evidence for the geolocation of that temporary account, as anyone with TAIV can verify. You can appeal your block with the template {{unblock|your reason here}}. Giraffer (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)