User talk:Kiwisheriff

This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

calderbank v calderbank

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Kiwisheriff/Calderbank v Calderbank has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calderbank v Calderbank, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calderbank v Calderbank.
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Chzz ► 23:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of EFSTRATIOU

A tag has been placed on EFSTRATIOU requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Σ τ c. 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dundee farms

A tag has been placed on Dundee farms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Σ τ c. 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Conlon v ozolins

A tag has been placed on Conlon v ozolins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Σ τ c. 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Boyd v mayor

A tag has been placed on Boyd v mayor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Σ τ c. 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Frazer v walker

A tag has been placed on Frazer v walker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. →Σ τ c. 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia!

The reason that your articles are all being marked for deletion is that they're not explaining enough about the subject to people and they're not stating why they're notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Your first article to make yourself familiar with what can and can't be included and then maybe create any articles using the article wizard?--5 albert square (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dunrae manufacturing v C L North

A tag has been placed on Dunrae manufacturing v C L North requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. 5 albert square (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Boyd v Mayor of Wellington

A tag has been placed on Boyd v Mayor of Wellington requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dundee Farm Ltd v Bambury Holdings Ltd

A tag has been placed on Dundee Farm Ltd v Bambury Holdings Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice

Speedy deletion does not apply to these articles, and should not have been used . It is only for articles " about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content "

Niugt the articles as written will not stay in Wikipedia Two things are missing. First, an indication of why they are notable; for legal cases, this is usually because they are a standard precedent, a standard textbook example, or of particular historic or social importance. Second, this hads to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For legal cases, this is normally either newspaper stories if of social importance, or to textbooks or subsequent appellate decisions showing that they are a major precedent. (In addition, you need to link to the published case itself.) I advise you to fix the problem, and do this very quickly, before the articles gets nominated for deletion by a regular deletion process. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Boyd v Mayor of Wellington

The article Boyd v Mayor of Wellington has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article appears non notable. Posting a legal case should include why it's notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob Banzai (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dundee Farm Ltd v Bambury Holdings Ltd

The article Dundee Farm Ltd v Bambury Holdings Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This legal case appears non notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rob Banzai (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dunrae manufacturing v C L North

The article Dunrae manufacturing v C L North has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of why this case is impt, and I can find nothing in the literature.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

I see you have been adding for each of the article a general source for a textbook, but this is inadequate. First, you need to give more specific information: the pages in the textbook that cover it, at least, and full publication details, including the isbn or other book number. Second,you need to give a specific reference to exactly where the case can be found reported in online and print sources. If you are basing your information entirely on the textbook, this is a little less research than usual for an article of this sort; it is usual to show specifically that it is generally cited as a precedent.

You're doing a good service to Wikipedia by adding this material, but please do this right. And, please do not add additional poorly sourced articles, but get it right the first time. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v. Viko New Zealand Ltd you give no source at all. If this is based on a textbook, please give that as your source, and include page numbers. It is also desirable to make clear in the lead paragraph when this case took place; there is a mention of 1997 in a quote in the body; without this (and the mention of a fax) it would not be clear even which decade this related to.-gadfium 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I cam here because of that problem: it wasn't even clear when the case took place (and this is critical to understanding the significance of the amount of money involved). And you say "last of a string ocf cases" -- you have to link to the other cases, even if they are in other articles you're writing at the same time. Really, we want these articles! They're important. But you need to do them more completely. For most topics, it doesn't matter if you're incomplete, because many people can fill in the rest--for a specialized subject like this, you've got to do them right yourself. As you've seen, there are people prepared to jump on you for any deficiency and try to remove the articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Credit (Repossession) Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for writing the article on the Credit (Repossession) Act! I give you the secret handshake of the fellow legal eagle. Let me know if I can help in any way :). Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Manu v Steelink

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Manu v Steelink requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Gaurav Pruthi ^talk 04:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Renshaw Edwards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TAB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 01:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Child Support (New Zealand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Family Court (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 00:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fair trading (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Calderbank v Calderbank may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| image = [File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg|150px|link=|alt=]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Veda (NZ), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Privacy Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Veda (NZ)

The article Veda (NZ) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company. Fails WP:CORP.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SL93 (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calderbank v Calderbank concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calderbank v Calderbank, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

advice

As reviewing administrator, I'm a good deal concerned about the articles you've been submitted, including the ones mentioned above. We will keep articles on cases that are important precedents, but this has to be demonstrated in the article. You can;t just asset it, you can;t even just show it has been used as a precedent--the evidence usually necessary is that a standard casebook or othe rtext has said its an important precent, or that a court of appeal has said similarly. I'd hate to see these deleted. (incidentally, you need to specify right in the first sentence the legal system in which it is a precedent--if it has been used as suggestive in other jurisdictions, that;s relevant, but it needs evidence. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Calderbank v Calderbank

Hello Kiwisheriff. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Calderbank v Calderbank.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Calderbank v Calderbank}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm Stuartyeates. I noticed that you made a change to an article, General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Collection House (NZ)

The article Collection House (NZ) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable small company. No independent refs.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Young v Hunt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Holland J stated “The use of the world ‘essential’ in [s 7(4)(a) of the Contractual Remedies Act [1979] must mean that the party would not proceed with

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Couch v Branch Investments (1969) Limited

Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating Couch v Branch Investments (1969) Limited!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding references to this page in order to help other readers verify the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Mall Finance v Slater

Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating Mall Finance v Slater!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding sources to this page so that other users can verify the notability of this subject.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Nichols v Jessup

Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating Nichols v Jessup!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding sources to this article so that other readers can verify it's content.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Young v Hunt

Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating Young v Hunt!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding additional references to this article so that other users can verify the notability of this topic.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose

Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding additional sources to this article so that we can verify it's notability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose

Hello, Kiwisheriff,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Salimfadhley (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing tags without discussion!

Hi, you have removed the unreferenced tag I recently placed on one of your articles. The article was tagged because by Wikipedia standards the article has no references. You might wish to refer to WP:CITE - this page contains guidelines which will allow you to cite sources correctly and prevent undesirable deletions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Everet v Williams

Hi, I'm Civeel. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating Everet v Williams!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider adding references to the article you just created.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Civeel (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barsdell v Kerr may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice under the Illegal Contracts Act [1970]),<ref name="Chetwin, Graw, Tiong">{{cite book |title=An introduction to the Law of Contract in New

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dale v Trustbank Waikato Limited, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Human Rights Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peters v Collinge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Automobile Centre (Auckland) Ltd v Facer

Hello, Please write the article in an encyclopedic manner and add some references.--J Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 09:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC) I find your request to delete this posting as "nonsense" itself. I doubt you have much knowledge of the law, and as your articles suggest you reside in India, I doubt you have even less knowledge of NZ law. You have said this article is unreferenced, when I have cited the well recognized New Zealand Law Reports reference in the article. Granted, the article is not a large one, but that is largely a reflection of the fact that the judges ruling was only 2 pages long.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Automobile Centre (Auckland) Ltd v Facer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jorgensen v News Media (Auckland) Limited (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alfred North

Mainguard Packaging v Hilton Haulage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Peter Mahon

Peters v Collinge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Robert Fisher

Wakelin v R H & E A Jackson Limited (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Henry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harding v Coburn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Validation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chiswick Investments v Pevats

Hello, Kiwisheriff. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Chiswick Investments v Pevats, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kiwisheriff. You have new messages at Talk:Chiswick Investments v Pevats.
Message added 22:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McCarthy v Wellington City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Causation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand case law

I notice that you are no longer adding a summary of the dispute in the articles you add on New Zealand case law. I have found your summaries interesting in the past, although I am not a lawyer or law student. I am not sure if there is much value in your adding these cases without at least a short explanation of the circumstances.-gadfium 01:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment G-Dawg.... I can assure you that it is my intention to do full summaries in the future, but I am limited by holding down a 12 hour a day job, and limited legal materials. Rather than just do articles on a case by case basis, a rather slow process, I am in the interim now just doing limited summaries in the meantime, until time allows me to finish them properly. This allows at least a stub, that might encourage other edits (yet to happen!), gives a google search result, and also gives a link to any NZLII copy of these judgments, which for some reason does not come up on any internet searches. I appreciate your edits, and enjoy reading them. I contrast that with your fellow editors in of all places Serbia and India whom I have had to defend notability/unreferenced challenges, even though I have cited the proper NZLR quotations, if not the full judgments themselves. It does seem strange that despite NZ having 10,000 lawyers, and 1000's of law students, that until I started editing, there was only 2 NZ law articles on Wiki. Anyway, thanks for your help, and I am sure I am going to give you plenty of articles to spell check in the future!

Proposed deletion of Scott v Wise

The article Scott v Wise has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of WP:notability. Completely unsourced report of a court case.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Money v Ven-Lu-Ree Ltd may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

3 NZLR 129 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the issue of certainty in contract formation.].<ref name="Chetwin, Graw, Tiong">{{cite book |title=An introduction to the Law of Contract in New

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jenkins v NZI Finance Ltd

added a link pointing to Rectification

Pendergast v Attorney-General

added a link pointing to Rectification

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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. --SineBot (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advice

I repeat my advice given above; I think it still holds. Those of your articles supported by some degree of exrensive text have been kept; the minimal ones have not. There needs to be some context beyond a one-sentence statement. Inabout a week I'm going to check back on the ones that have just been entrered bt not improved. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? I don't know what the previous advice you have given me? are you really planning to remove all my stubs?

Nomination of Dehn v Attorney-General for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dehn v Attorney-General 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/Dehn v Attorney-General until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Court of Appeal case in itself, should be proof enough for notability. But as I have stated in the article, it was cited in a study guide book for trespass, a book that is used by most university students in NZ studying tort law. And as the judgment link supports, the transcript is listed on the NZLII law database, which only does tis for notable cases.

With regards the "dysfunctional" claim, I believe the book states this (I will have to check), but surely where the court records clearly state that one family member phoned another family member saying their mother and her grandchildren have just been killed (when they hadn't), and when the police turn up to check on the welfare of these family members, they instead call the police Nazis and gestapo, surely gives an arguable claim for "dysfunctional" does it not. If anything, it is, for this family, a positive statement

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boat Park Ltd v Hutchinson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Raymond |publisher=Thomson Brookers |ISBN=0-86472-555-8 |year=2006 |page=209|date=January 2014}}}}</ref> It follows the English case of the [[Investors Compensation Scheme]].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bird v Bicknell may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Raymond |publisher=Thomson Brookers |ISBN=0-86472-555-8 |year=2006 |page=243|date=January 2014}}}}</ref>. It is contrast with [[M E Torbett v Keirlor Motels Ltd]] where is held that an exclusion

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chatfield v Jones may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Raymond |publisher=Thomson Brookers |ISBN=0-86472-555-8 |year=2006 |page=423|date=January 2014}}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jetz International Ltd v Orams Marine Ltd may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Raymond |publisher=Thomson Brookers |ISBN=0-86472-555-8 |year=2006 |page=238|date=January 2014}}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pharmacy Care Systems Ltd v Attorney-General, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Affirmation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stieller v Porirua City Council may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

decided [[Stieller v Porirua City Council]] on the same day as [Brown v Heathcote County Council]] and [[Craig v East Coast Bays City Council]] which also involved negligent council building

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Producer Meats (North Island) Ltd v Thomas Borthwick & Son (Australia) Ltd

Hello Kiwisheriff,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Producer Meats (North Island) Ltd v Thomas Borthwick & Son (Australia) Ltd for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Mr RD 20:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Welch v Jess) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Welch v Jess, Kiwisheriff!

Wikipedia editor DocumentError just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on DocumentError's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haines v Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Affirmation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd

A tag has been placed on Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 10:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Speedy deletion of Knyvett v Christchurch Casinos Ltd

My bad, was an honest mistake in judging the credibility of the article. Please accept my apologies for nominating it. Have a nice day! →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 16:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Midland Metals Overseas Pte Ltd v The Christchurch Press Co Ltd) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Midland Metals Overseas Pte Ltd v The Christchurch Press Co Ltd, Kiwisheriff!

Wikipedia editor Fiachra10003 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Fiachra10003's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nomination of Catley v Herbert for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catley v Herbert 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/Catley v Herbert until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd 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/NZI Bank Ltd v Euro-National Corp Ltd until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hart v O'Connor

I submitted this article as O'Connor v Hart, and someone had changed this to Hart v O'Connor. Whilst the final decision is was filed under Hart v O'Connor, I have never seen it cited as such, and I can cite 3 university law books that cite it as O'Connor v Hart. I tried the undo function, but it said this had already been actioned. Any suggestions????

You can ask the editor who moved it, @Wikidea:. See MOS:LEGAL#Article titles which says that articles are titled according to the jurisdiction they are filed in; in NZ that's the Law Style Guide. Section 3.2.1 of that says to use the form in the law report, and I think that it is usual to have to order of appellant v respondent. You can certainly challenge this; perhaps the Law Style Guide is not the most appropriate document to follow or this case is exceptional. Talk to Wikidea in the first place, and ask at WT:WikiProject Law if you need further guidance. I don't have the expertise to help further on this.-gadfium 04:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the actual report of the Privy Council, here. Often before, names in cases swapped as they went up the appeal chain. So, if authors of books became acquainted with the case further down first, they may have preferred to stick. But both names redirect to the page, so everyone will find it! Wik idea 10:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd 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/Paulger v Butland Industries Ltd until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bfpage |leave a message 16:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatroller

Hi Kiwisheriff, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm... ^—X— 18:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ross v Henderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Russell of Killowen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

A v Bottrill

added a link pointing to Lord Hutton

B v Attorney General

added a link pointing to Lord Hutton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Oxborough v North Harbour Builders Ltd

added a link pointing to Repudiation

Sew Hoy & Sons Ltd (in liq and in rec) v Coopers & Lybrand

added a link pointing to Causation

Stephenson v Waite Tileman Limited

added a link pointing to Causation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hamilton v Papakura District Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord Hutton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Vula

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Operation Vula, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/12/operation_vula.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Operation Vula

A tag has been placed on Operation Vula requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/12/operation_vula.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Crow^Caw 22:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Boyd Knight v Purdue

added a link pointing to Peter Salmon

Clearlite Holdings Ltd v Auckland City Corp

added a link pointing to Peter Mahon

Fleming v Securities Commission

added a link pointing to Geoffrey Ellis

Frost & Sutcliffe v Tuiara

added a link pointing to John McGrath

Midland Metals Overseas Pte Ltd v The Christchurch Press Co Ltd

added a link pointing to John McGrath

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Boat Park Ltd v Hutchinson

added a link pointing to John Henry

Tri-Star Customs and Forwarding Ltd v Denning

added a link pointing to John Henry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tool Metal Mfg Co ltd v Tungsten Electric Co Ltd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lord Reid and Lord Cohen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yu v T & P Developments Ltd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Repudiation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Takaro Properties Ltd v Rowling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lord MacKay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack v Guy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Young and Robert Chambers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Commonwealth v Verwayen

added a link pointing to RAN

Hughes v Huppert

added a link pointing to Affirmation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Elders Pastoral Limited v Bank of New Zealand

Hi, I'm Robert McClenon. Kiwisheriff, thanks for creating Elders Pastoral Limited v Bank of New Zealand!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This doesn't really say enough to be a stub, and needs expansion or it may be deleted.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kiwisheriff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kiwisheriff. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lord Reid and Lord Pearson

Courturier v Hastie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Justice Williams

Guinness plc v Saunders (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Griffiths

McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Reid

Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Watson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Foskett v McKeown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Hope

Re Endacott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sellers

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Reid

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Foskett v McKeown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Hope

Re Endacott (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Sellers

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

J & H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lord Hope, Lord Brown and Lord Scott

A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Griffiths

C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Morris

Derry v Peek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Watson

Henry Kendall Ltd v William Lillico Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Reid

Lee Ting Sang v Chung Chi-Keung (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Griffiths

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Clarke

Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Griffiths

Wilsher v Essex Area HA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Griffiths

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

C Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Morris

Derry v Peek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Watson

Henry Kendall Ltd v William Lillico Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Reid

J & H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Brown

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lord Clarke

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kiwisheriff. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited McDonald v Attorney-General, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Banking Ombudsman Scheme (New Zealand) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Banking Ombudsman Scheme (New Zealand) 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/Banking Ombudsman Scheme (New Zealand) 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mountain v Styak for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mountain v Styak 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/Mountain v Styak 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.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd

A tag has been placed on Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd 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/Wilkinson v ASB Bank Ltd 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.

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bills of Exchange Act 1908

The article Bills of Exchange Act 1908 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fun Is Optional (talk page) (please ping on reply) 00:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mahoe Buildings Ltd v Fair Investments Ltd

The article Mahoe Buildings Ltd v Fair Investments Ltd has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Watch Atlas791 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede 66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2) 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/Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2) 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.

—Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]