User talk:WelshDragon18

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, WelshDragon18. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! 5 albert square (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emyr Humphreys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Welsh (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) 18:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angela Wynter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vera and ITV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dana Morgan.jpeg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dana Morgan.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. funplussmart (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Henry

Hello, can you please explain this edit and this edit? You have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that simply saying in an edit summary that you are in contact with the husband of the article subject is not a reliable source. The edits are in complete contravention of WP:BLP.-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Louise Mitchell: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi WelshDragon18,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi WelshDragon18,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi WelshDragon18,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julie Morgan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AM (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) 07:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Main by-election?

I don't see anything in the article indicating that Anne Main has stood down or a by-election is in progress. What's your source for those edits? —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament has dissolved and therefore there are currently no sitting MPs.

—User:WelshDragon18 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to a style guide that says to remove the MP notations from incumbents during a general election? ~~Also, what's your source for it being retroactive to last month?~~ —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wow, I knew I'd tuned out the news at some levels, but I didn't realize they dropped the writ a month ago. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at any article about any UK MP, the same has been done to all of them by various different users. As Parliament dissolved on 6 November, that is when MPs ceased to be sitting. —User:WelshDragon18 (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peterborough (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2019 general election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Walker

Hello. I've reinstated ″OBE″ after Rudolph Walker's name in the first line as the CBE doesn't replace it (which you have given as the reason for deleting it). He still has his OBE and doesn't lose it on receiving the CBE. Thanks. Cybersub (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't strictly lose it, but he no longer uses it. It is superseded for all purposes by the higher honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I understand that a CBE is higher than an OBE. However, surely the fact that Walker was also awarded the OBE should still be there after his name, if only to make people aware straight away that he hasn't just entered the honours system at CBE level. By your argument, entries for people such as Elton John should also lose other honorifics after the first mention of their name.-- Cybersub (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Davis (British politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Bryan Kirkwood (producer), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Rain the 1 23:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Keir Starmer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Mahmoud Jibril

On 5 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mahmoud Jibril, 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Katherine Parr (actress), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks so much for your help and kind words. Much appreciated WelshDragon18 (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Erdman

Greetings! I saw that you reverted updates to her article regarding her death. I think your reversions were appropriate. I can't find any reliable sources (really, I can find ANY sources, much less reliable ones) that indicate her death. Given the uptick in edits on the page claiming she has died, combined with her age, there's a fair chance she has died. But, we need reliable sources per WP:BDP. I'll continue to monitor. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WelshDragon18 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support that's fab 👍 WelshDragon18 (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Judi Patton. All indications I can find show that she was born in 1940. I can't understand why you would change it to 1939, especially without changing the previous source. Knuthove (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Monique Gagnon-Tremblay, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop arbitrarily changing years like this! Knuthove (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I completely understand, thanks for your help WelshDragon18 (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you do. You have been warned about this before, and yet you have made many more edits doing the same thing. To me this seems like it can only be vandalism, and I now have a bunch of work to do going through all your edits and reverting the arbitrary date changes. Please really stop this time. Edits like these hurt Wikipedia and the people involved in the articles. Knuthove (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These random date changes go back years! Why do you do this? Knuthove (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change all of my good work over the years. Most of these changes were correct, it is clear to me that you are the vandal not me! You are deliberately trying to antagonise me and this will be reported. WelshDragon18 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relax! I am not changing everything. The reason it is a lot of work is because I have to go through each edit and see if it is vandalism or a good change. You really have done a lot of good work over the years, which is why it is baffling to me that you also do these destructive, deceptive edits. Knuthove (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you, I appreciate that. I've never set out to destruct any article deliberately, if it appears that way I apologise. WelshDragon18 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Direct, reliable sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello.

I just went through your recent edits, and again, while you make a lot of good changes, you are still mostly not using sources or writing edit summaries, and making some inexplicable and wrong edits. Especially this edit: [1], where you commendably used a source and wrote an edit summary, but what you wrote is clearly not correct, as can be seen from several of the existing sources and a quick google search. The source you used is behind a paywall, so I don't know what it said, but as you can see your edit has already been reverted by another user. I hope this rare use of a source and an edit summary was not a deliberate attempt to evade scrutiny. Also this edit: [2], where I see you have a long history of trying to change the head teacher against the obvious contrary evidence on the source page. This is clearly vandalism, and I reverted it.

You seem like you enjoy editing Wikipedia. If you do, please stop making edits like this, and please start sourcing all factual claims you make with reliable sources and writing a short edit summary for every edit. As it stands, my clear impression is that you are hurting Wikipedia more than you are helping it. The kind of erroneous changes you make are very hard to detect and damage the hard won credibility of Wikipedia. It is much better to not make an edit if you don't have a good source, than to write up wrong information that might be very hard to scrub from the internet later. I have seen users indefinitely blocked from editing for less than you have already done, so please please exercise more care in the future. If I find another vandalous or disruptive edit from you in the future, I will not give you another warning, but simply make a case to the administrators noticeboard that you should be blocked from editing, and I think I will have a good case. Knuthove (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, most of these so called "disruptive" edits have been done by mistake, as you can see I reverted them straight away as soon as I realised. I'm starting to feel a bit targeted now so, while I respect your good work for Wikipedia, I hope we can come to a civil agreement and not have to resort to complaints and banning. WelshDragon18 (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the edits I mentioned were reverted by you, as we can all see in the article's histories. After my previous post, you changed several dates without providing a source on Priscilla Presley, which you then reverted. Had you let those stand I would have made a case for you to be blocked from editing. Even in your very most recent edit [3] you insert a piece of information (that the divorce "was finalised in 2016") without any source or even an edit summary.

In the first post on your talk page, the "five pillars of Wikipedia" are linked. The second pillar says in part "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person." This edit was about a living person, and you mostly edit articles on living persons making the onus to always source the claims you make even more important. A stricter editor than me could have reverted that edit for being unsourced.

I have targeted you because I believe that if you read and understood the articles that were linked in that initial welcome post on your talk page and took more care in your edits, you could be a great resource for Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia survives because it is able to weed out wrong information faster than it can be added, and if you keep adding wrong, unsourced information, especially about living people, I believe the administrators will agree with me that it will be better to stop all your edits. So that is the civil agreement I am ready to make. Stop adding or changing information in articles on living people without providing a good source. Take more care in your editing so you don't make as many mistakes, and I will not complain or argue for you to be banned. Knuthove (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Danny Flanagan article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Giant Snowman 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kennedy

Dear WelshDragon. Just hearsay can never be a valid source for a claim in a Wikipedia article, sorry. Please provide a valid source (obituary, newspaper article, video, whatever) or remove her death date. Thank you, --Gereon K. (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Frost

Although none of the gov.uk pages have been updated, nothing suggests that he is now not taking up the post until tomorrow. Please don't change information without citing a source. 1234567jack (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no problem --- WelshDragon18 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at February 25. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do NOT make wholesale changes to the structure of articles without reference to the project concerned. You need WP:CONSENSUS before such changes can be introduced. The structure of the date articles has been agreed at WP:DOY. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so stupid. I did nothing wrong - no other date articles are laid out this way or separated out like that. I was changing it to make it like all the others - it was me who was being consistent. I'm afraid I'll be reporting you --- WelshDragon18 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:WelshDragon18. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed with your report. It will make interesting reading after the ANI people are belatedly informed of the many issues raised on this page, especially the appalling hoax you perpetrated at Linda Henry. I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before going to ANI.

For your information, although I did make this point earlier, WP:DOY has discussed sub-headings and has reached a WP:CONSENSUS to introduce them across the whole project. That, however, takes time and only a small number have been actioned to date, including 25 February. Among the others (despite your denial) are 1 January, 23 April, 6 June, 14 July and 13 December. You have already been told (above) about WP:DOYCITE and this is all part of a long-term initiative by the project to upgrade and eventually standardise the calendar date articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. The Linda Henry thing I was given wrong information about - I didn't intend to inaccurately report her death at all. Why it's still being brought up after 2 years I don't know. You could have simply let me know politely about the changes but you didn't it came across as abusive and I shall be reporting you WelshDragon18 (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pattern of disruptive editing with you. Recently I've had to revert some of your minor edits, @WelshDragon18:, which have included but are not limited to adding age templates to people in the Possibly Living category, and adding unsourced categories to pages. But that's nothing compared to this, where you killed off broadcaster Sarah Kennedy last month. Your "inside information" turned out to be completely false, which goes to show why Wikipedia is not built on hearsay, but reliable sources. Perhaps more damagingly, your edit was noticed and picked up on elsewhere online. I can't begin to stress how damaging this type of editing is for not only Wikipedia's reputation, but potentially for the friends and family of the individual(s) concerned. Not the first time you've done it. Pinging @No Great Shaker:. --Jkaharper (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkaharper. I'm afraid my availability has been limited of late but your ping reached me and thank you for sending it. This has got to go to WP:ANI with a request for an indefinite block because this person is irresponsible and, as you say, a disruptive editor. Whether they are a troll (per the forum site), I'm not entirely sure, but if not they fail WP:CIR and are in serious breach of WP:BLP. I'm short of time just now but should be able to come back this afternoon. If you raise the case at ANI, please ping me again from there and I will reinforce you. Thank you again and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkaharper: I would also support you in an ANI case. I took these exact problems up with WelshDragon18 in June, and I see that he is still making the same extremely negligent or malicious edits. The clean up job from this is going to be enormous. Knuthove (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting beyond ridiculous. Sarah Kennedy was known to both myself and my friend and we were among the limited number attending her funeral three weeks ago, the family simply wish for the news to remain private for now. Concerning my other edits, I've always meant well and while I've made some mistakes which I readily admit to, we've all got to learn somewhere and if you look through my vast number of edits you will see most of them have been good. WelshDragon18 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that really is the case then why did you violate their wishes by releasing details of her death in the public domain when you edited her page? Serious violation of WP:BLP for starters and an invasion of privacy. --Jkaharper (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely – Wikipedia, after all, is only the #1 site in Google search results. This is an irresponsible editor who deliberately chooses to ignore our policies like WP:V and WP:BLP. We need an indefinite block on this account because they cannot be trusted and, as I mentioned earlier, there is a real concern about WP:CIR. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you why - because I didn't realise at the time that was their wish. I do now and I apologise for that. But if you block me you will lose some good contributions. I feel that I'm being put on trial in a way and I am not being fairly heard or given a chance to have my say. WelshDragon18 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have the chance to have your say and be fairly heard here. Knuthove (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sarah Kennedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Murray Walker

On 13 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Murray Walker, 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPN

See this report which concerns you. You may join the discussion if you wish. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. You have added more than one unverifiable death claim, and you stated your account was compromised despite previously defending the edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Fences&Windows 14:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]