Hi. When you upload images, please be sure to include info on the source and copyright status on the image description page, and mark it with one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags as appropriate. Here's an example I took care of for you: on Image:Barbara's album.jpg you already noted the LP the image came from, so I added the ((albumcover)) tag. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 17:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowmanrecording.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use ((gfdl)) to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use ((fairuse)).) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Thanks so much. --Michael 05:36, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Barbara's album.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add ((Replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackofalltradesmasterofnone 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Barnardo's.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Snowmanrecording.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Petulainbatterseapark.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Petulainbatterseapark.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lovestory1944.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TrottieTrue. 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]

Hello, TrottieTrue. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Distant Voices, Still Lives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Shelton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TrottieTrue. 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]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fifty-state strategy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry A. Wallace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Wallace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Emily Thornberry, 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. 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It’s quite easy to see the election results on the relevant Wikipedia articles. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:CIRCULAR. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there are so many unsourced facts on Wikipedia - one simply cannot reference everything. Are you going to reference every sentence? These results are readily available online. I can add references, but it seems over the top when the information is already there. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midge Ure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tim Firth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you want to make edits to the List of transgender people, please just edit the list directly instead of duplicating the entire list and editing the duplicate. If you’re not sure how to edit the list, perhaps you can test your edits out on your sandbox first or just go to Talk:List of transgender people and tell other editors what changes you want to make and let someone else do it for you. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think this has happened because I was attempting to edit the list on my mobile device. I originally noticed a repeated section and deleted it, before realising that had deleted the whole list and I reverted it. The article then seemed to have the list repeated every time I made a change to the article. I've made the last edits I want to for that article on my desktop PC now.--TrottieTrue (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 February 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul Flynn (politician), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lance Price, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westminster University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Labour for a Republic.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Labour for a Republic.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Doomsdayer520)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: I assume the line “thank you for your new article...” is the review, in which case, thank you for reviewing it. TrottieTrue (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rick Stein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Port Stephens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe "Mr Piano" Henderson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dance band (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of advocates of republicanism in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Frost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gospel Oak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Matthews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ann Davies (translator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unity Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page BuzzFeed has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have been using Wikipedia for quite a while. My edits did involve grammatical corrections but also fixing links. If I’m using the mobile app it’s a lot quicker to just select one of the suggested reasons for editing. There should be the option to add more than one reason, and more reasons available. It’s time consuming to summarise every edit accurately but I will bear it in mind. TrottieTrue (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry about the template, but it was the quickest way to explain it. The main effect of self-isolation on me is that I'm busier than ever. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 15:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Rosindell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leader of the Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camden New Journal

added a link pointing to Kensington and Chelsea

Eddie Linden

added a link pointing to National Portrait Gallery

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic scarf controversy in France, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kabyle.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at Carrie Symonds. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry, I'm not sure why I reverted your perfectly innocuous edit to this article - it may have been a slip of the finger. In any case, my apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying - I did find it rather odd! --TrottieTrue (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had encountered another user with a penchant for edit warring... --TrottieTrue (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Villikins and his Dinah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...this edit], punctuation goes before references, not after. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. My mistake, as I was well aware of that already.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the case. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dearie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Ray.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Royal Mail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish Crown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hartlepool (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blair ministry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Companies’ House information on the U.K. government website is a primary source, and is therefore totally unacceptable form of DOB verification. Please read the guidance on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:54C2:B625:37B3:FA9A (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY here is the information you should be familiar with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:54C2:B625:37B3:FA9A (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Primary sources are the best for date-of-birth if they are official. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I'm not sure that's the consensus, sadly.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. You should see WP:BLPPRIMARY and learn the policies and learn your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:D435:A5A9:3725:34EA (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you should learn the policies at Wikipedia:Civility.—TrottieTrue (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you at the meetup just now. Feel free to get in touch if you need help with anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, likewise, and thanks for your view on primary sources!--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to meet you today. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too, I've learnt a bit now, and re-assessed my articles so that none are Stub or Start-class. Look forward to future meetings.--TrottieTrue (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alan A. Freeman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North West London.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just before anyone gets in any replies, have you considered having a single strawpoll with numbered options? I don't see the advantage in having separate strawpolls and !votes for mutually exclusive options, and it makes it a bit more difficult to contribute. Ralbegen (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't originally my post - you'd be better off recommending this to the user who first made the proposals, User:Doktorbuk. Thanks.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, sorry. Bad comprehension on my part, forgive me. Yours was the only signature I could see! And it looks like it's too late now. Ah well. Ralbegen (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it seems the original post wasn't signed, so no wonder there was confusion.--TrottieTrue (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I already fixed your uncited additions to Chiswick by adding suitable sources. I note you have now attempted to provide citations, thank you, but unfortunately you added Ancestry.com links which are not considered reliable, accessible sources, so please don't use them. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the references because Notable Abodes seems to be down, and it looks like it may not come back. There has been a recent discussion of Ancestry as a RS here, and I’m not sure there’s any consensus about it yet. The site is available as part of the Wikipedia Library membership. Notable Abodes uses Ancestry as the source for the Pearsons living in Chiswick, and it’s a user-generated site. Ancestry itself is simply publishing the original historical records, so is more reliable than NA - plus it’s still online. TrottieTrue (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Notable Abodes was not a RS either. It clearly asks people "do you want to add an abode?" Nothing that is crowdsourced is ever considered reliable. We don't use IMDb, Ancestry.com, Findagrave, etc. We use only sources that have at editorial oversight -- someone is in charge of checking the work of others -- and that's pretty much a bare minimum requirement. If you go to a site's About Us page and can't find a link to a list of editors that indicates there's an editor in chief, a source almost certainly is not reliable. You can find more information at WP:RS. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TrottieTrue, a late reply regarding adminship visibility, in my case this is intentional due to the understandable misunderstandings commonly associated with this, as seems to have been proven by the asking for a "comment from an administrator" and the term "staff". The decision was made from the very beginning (Special:Diff/925568723). The "recall" text is furthermore hidden from non-extendedconfirmed users as it isn't relevant to them either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I couldn’t tell if you were an admin when I first saw your user page. I think it’s helpful to know who is who. I used “staff” and “administrator” interchangeably, since the average person would assume that administrators are indeed staff. What “recall” text? TrottieTrue (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus at this discussion, you are the subject of a one-way interaction ban relating to FDW777 (talk · contribs), for an indefinite period. This will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Please read Wikipedia:Banning policy for further information, including the precise restrictions that exist for an interaction ban (relevant section), as well as exemptions, appeals and enforcement.

Regards
Daniel (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks...to my thanks. The Kindness Campaign is always in need of editor-diplomats and peacemakers. There are also lots of great tools there, I personally find the ((Calm)) template very useful.

I am saddened to see that you have fallen down the rabbit hole of ANI and ArbCom. In your statement you mentioned that you suffer from chronic health problems, and that these administrative proceedings exacerbate the issues. So I highly recommend that you simply disengage, whether right or wrong, just let it go. You already made your case clearly and defended yourself admirably. If you genuinely made your edits in good faith then those edits will speak for themselves. So take no further action and just wait for the Arbs to close the case. If anyone approaches you with further questions or allegations regarding these matters, then excuse yourself explaining that your health takes priority and that you will comment no further. If necessary, take a Wiki-Break and log out for a full week. All the best, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 17:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding and support: it’s nice that someone is able to empathise and see things from my POV. TrottieTrue (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you signing up for the last London Wikimeet but we didn't seem to be online at the same time. Having observed your good work at Bob and Alf Pearson, please consider signing up for the last Coventrypedia session, which is this coming Thursday. Pigsonthewing is the organiser and can tell you more. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andrew. Details are here: https://dmll.org.uk/coventrypedia/ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew, I’ll take a look. Unfortunately my Wikipedia experience isn’t very pleasant at the moment, which is greatly putting me off being more involved. I actually feel like I am being sent to Coventry! TrottieTrue (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That was my little joke. It's better to laugh than to cry over Wikipedia, IMO. See also WP:DGAF. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but that’s not always as easy in practice. Thanks though. I guessed the headline might be a reference to my situation! TrottieTrue (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, TT! Are you interested in learning a bit about how to assess sources?

First, if you haven't yet, do the tutorial at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure. That'll give you the basics, and we can work from there. Ping me when you get through it, it could take you several days or weeks depending on how fast you move through the lessons. —valereee (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts in improving the quality of many articles featuring UK politicians -- these improvements are greatly appreciated by many! Denham331 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning biographies of living persons. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for the problems reported at WP:AE permalink.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think you'll get the t-ban lifted without editing for six months first and showing no sourcing problems. And I don't think you'll get the i-ban made 2-way while you have an appeal pending of the t-ban. So you'll have to decide what you want to do, but if you want some advice: forget about the t-ban for at least six months. Ask for the i-ban t be made 2-way so that the two of you can just go about your separate ways, since neither of you wants to continue to engage. —valereee (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that I have edited for years without sourcing problems. The fact that at least two editors disagreed with the topic ban is indicative that it was not inevitable. Also, how will editing in other topic areas without sourcing problems show that I am capable of doing it with BLP? The policy violation specifically refers to BLP. As I said at Daniel's page, I am not particularly keen to advance an appeal against the I-ban, or even propose it be made 2-way. I feel that asking for the I-ban to be made two-way would be stoking the fire, for the reasons I have previously mentioned: WP has an apparent tendency to enact judgments based on the court of public opinion, which has already ruled against me. The same editors would simply respond to object to a 2-way ban. I know how this game works now. The odds are stacked against me in such arenas, but I strongly feel a topic ban is unjust and unfair. What's more, it doesn't help WP (although my goodwill towards the project is diminishing fast).--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —valereee (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. TrottieTrue (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the other editor has agreed to stop patrolling your edits, which means you probably won't run across them again for as long as you're t-banned. So the next things is the Wikipedia Adventure. I am willing to help you learn policy, but I want to make sure you have the basics down. If that's what you'd like to do, ping me when you've finished the tutorial. I recommend you don't make further mainspace edits for now. —valereee (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the message. At the moment I’m quite busy, and would rather step back from what has become an unpleasant environment on Wikipedia, so I may do that exercise in future, but not at the moment. TrottieTrue (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, as long as you aren't editing articles, you can do it whenever is convenient for you. Just ping me when you're ready. —valereee (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, TT, Girth Summit reached out to ask me to clarify my last post. You are not forbidden from editing articles, other than those covered by your t-ban. It's only my very strong recommendation that you not do so without finding someone with expertise in assessing sources who can teach you about that area of policy. I'd offered to be that person, and asked you to complete the tutorial first so that I knew you had the basics down, but I know you're no longer interested in working with me. Best wishes to you. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I do think it’s best that someone else teaches me about assessing sources, especially as you feel I lack competence. I will keep in mind your advice, though not all of my edits involve adding new information. Many are improving spelling, grammar and formatting. Best wishes.TrottieTrue (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]