User talk:AriNikoBradshaw

AriNikoBradshaw, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi AriNikoBradshaw! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Phoenix Sister Cities

Template:Phoenix Sister Cities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Fram (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Fetty Wap discography, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Davis (activist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Stephen Davis (activist), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CUPIDICAE💕 21:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more sources this weekend. Thanks, @Praxidicae AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello AriNikoBradshaw. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:AriNikoBradshaw. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AriNikoBradshaw|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. CUPIDICAE💕 21:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not taken a dime from any of the people I have posted about. I have zero financial stake in my recent edits and this is evidenced in the federal disclosures. I am heavily involved in the AZGOP culture and have been to many events and know many journalists. I appreciate the concern as we strive to keep Wikipedia as strong a source of information as possible. Cheers ~ AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to re-read the policy, it also includes conflicts of interest which you very clearly seem to have. CUPIDICAE💕 21:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to prove these things, you seem to assume much. I would gladly be the media contact for opponents on both sides of the aisle of the people who I have uploaded photos of. I actually have some photos of their opponents I was going to upload next week when I work on other articles. I want Wikipedia to be a good resource of notable figures with accurate information. Cheers AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luis Pozzolo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luis Pozzolo 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/Luis Pozzolo 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.

CUPIDICAE💕 21:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address any concerns this weekend. Thanks, @Praxidicae I appreciate the help! AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue editing without disclosure and restoring your promotional, poorly sourced edits, you're going to find yourself blocked. CUPIDICAE💕 21:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What disclosure do you need?

I am making no promotional edits.

Bring it to the talk page of the article and let's create a good article. Your deletions appear to be politically motivated.

Cheers

AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep accusing me of political motivation in tagging your poorly written, poorly sourced articles, so I'll tell you once only: read WP:ASPERSIONS and substantiate it. Feel free to take it to WP:ANI, otherwise redact your statement. CUPIDICAE💕 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AriNikoBradshaw. 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 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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no sockpuppet account. The other account editing the pages is not me. I am being accused of things which I am not doing. AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to specifically address the WP:MEAT part. Yamla (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2022 (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.

Correct, the other person does not appear to be you. What they do appear to be doing is editing to support you in a dispute. Experience has shown that a brand-new editor who "just happens" to jump into an editing dispute like that is either someone making another account to support their argument or someone asking other folks to jump into the discussion to help them. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... can I be unblocked? GeneralNotability I am not being paid by Jerone. The sources in that article I thought were decent sources. I would love to, over the next few months, develop great pages for all notable candidates involved in Arizona. I do not take money from anybody who I post about. Cheers AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that merely being a candidate does not merit someone a Wikipedia article, see WP:NPOLITICIAN. They must win their election or actually hold public office. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I acknowledge the meat part. I did not understand the rule. I will refrain from touching those pages and will try better to follow the rules as I had for ten years prior to this incident on Wikipedia. I still firmly believe that many of the edits made by the person who started this scuffle were politically motivated, but that is neither here nor there. I'd like to be able to access my account again and I'll stay away from controversy. Cheers. AriNikoBradshaw (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: You were only blocked for 1 week; it expired months ago. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 4 August 2022 (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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:American politicians of Uruguyan descent

A tag has been placed on Category:American politicians of Uruguyan descent indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Stephen Davis (activist)

Hello, AriNikoBradshaw. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stephen Davis (activist), 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) 23:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm Vacant0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, New Ecological and Social People's Union, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]