User talk:Isabela84

License tagging for Image:Izzy1.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Izzy1.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the image, which might not have been a good idea. Isabela84

Fair use rationale for Image:Mitch.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mitch.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 14:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sussex county flag.JPG
Image:Sussex county flag.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be a joke of some sort. Izzy (talk)

It appears to be no joke. I have designed a new flag for Sussex and inserted in place of the old one. Izzy (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake
Sorry that was a mistake. I reviewed the article below it and deleted the article title without deleting the hold. I'll try to review your article in the next few hours as a make good.User:calbear22 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Joe. Thankyou for that.Izzy (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article and put it on hold. The write up is on the article's talk page.  Thanks.User:calbear22 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Geograph Images
I disagree with your revert on Seaford, East Sussex, which also wiped out the rest of my update, and the anon editor valid edits. You will see I have put those valid edits back. As far as I am aware the attribution goes on the image page Image:Seaford.jpg and there is no need to display it on the main article page. I have not seen any other articles where the photographers name appears. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * MortimerCat. Sorry if I was a little too hasty and indiscriminate - I should have conferred with you before doing anything. The Geograph Creative Commons Licence requires that uses of its images are attributed to the authors. The appearance of a Geograph image in an article is a discrete "use" and should strictly be attributed. In any event, if someone has been generous enough to make their work available for use then they should be recognised. Izzy (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There was nothing wrong with reverting my changes if you felt that there was something was amiss. Thats why I re-reverted (if thats a word) but left the photographers attribute intact. I agree that the the picture needs to be attributed. My opinion is that this is done by the image page, reached by clicking on the photograph. I am not personally going to remove them again though, they do no harm on the main article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gowcar.jpeg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gowcar.jpeg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your contributions to Baccara over the last few days. Looking through your edit history, you've made many valuable edits, so I just thought I'd let you know that your work on Wikipedia is much appreciated ;) EyeSerene talk 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * EyeSerene. Thanks for the appreciation. I first came across Baccara last year when I was travelling in the bible belt and kept hearing Somewhere in Paradise on evangelical radio shows. The song stuck in my head and I had to find out more about it and the singers.Izzy (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh - my involvement was because I tagged the article as needing cleanup back in June 07, and was asked by its Spanish author to help out... which in all conscience I couldn't then refuse :P The sourcing still needs work, but it doesn't get much attention so your edits are very welcome! EyeSerene talk 10:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bacc303.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Bacc303.jpg. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lord Moore image
Carnildo. The image is taken from Lord Moore's biography in the House of Lords website. It is covered by British Parliamentary copyright, see : http://www.parliament.uk/site_information/parliamentary_copyright.cfm

Note the following extract "All Parliamentary copyrights are reserved. The material listed may be reproduced without formal permission for the purposes of non-commercial research, private study and for criticism, review and news reporting provided that the material is appropriately attributed"

In particular "Use of parliamentary photographic images - The photographic images featured on this website are covered by Parliamentary copyright. They may be downloaded and reused without permission in any format for non-commercial use, including publication on a website ..."


 * Key phrase there: "non-commercial use". That's far from being public domain.  Since Wikipedia policy requires that images be commercially usable, I've deleted the image. --Carnildo (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Carnildo. In view of subsequent discussion and decision on Mitch, I think it is clear that the LordMoore image is OK for use in this article, and I have restored it. Please take the matter to the IFD forum if you still want to remove it. Izzy (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Mitch.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Mitch.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Password Request
Hi, I'm (Englishprince (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)), the head administrator of the English Wikipedia and I have received a number of classified complaints from other users, that you have made no serious contributions to the English wikipedia. As a result, I'm going to have to ask for your username and password so I can see if you have actually made any serious edits. If it turns out you haven't, you will be issued a warning and told to do some serious editing or you will be blocked. You have a deadline of 24 hours. Thank you for your cooperation and only I and other administrators will see your password. It is recommended you change though, once I have a finished looking at your previous edits.

This is not an admin and his account has been blocked. Please do not give out your password to anyone. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Shoreham2001.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Shoreham2001.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a picture taken of me with my own camera and I own the copyright. However, it isn't used anywhere and is redundant. So, you can delete it. Izzy (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Colin Campbell Mitchell.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Colin Campbell Mitchell.jpg. 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 "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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ZooFari. The image is used in Colin Campbell Mitchell. Its apparent "orphaned" status is incorrect. I suspect it is a system fault related to a recent attempt by someone to change the image's name. Please leave this image. Izzy (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gow2.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gow2.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think an adequate 'Fair Use' rationale has been given in the statement under the heading 'Licensing'. Izzy (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

First ever Brighton Wiki Meetup
You are invited to the first Brighton Wiki Meetup which will take place at The West Quay, Brighton Marina Village, Brighton BN2 5UT on Sunday 28 April 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Brighton topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ian Gow circa 1983.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ian Gow circa 1983.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator 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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Specific issue raised has now been addressed by an addition to the image FUR. Izzy (talk)

Please learn to indent
Isabela, can you please indent your posts on talk pages? Per Indentation:
 * ...it should be noted that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are expected to follow. Such guidelines may be enforced by administrative action, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. The guideline should never be used to bite newcomers who don't know how to indent properly, but experienced users are expected to comply with it, to facilitate threaded discussion on talk pages.

Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire. Indentations are not my strong point. Izzy (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read the above again. You need to make it your strong point. It is disruptive not to do it and I will not hesitate to ask for admin intervention if you continue to edit disruptively. Scolaire (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Scolaire. What do you mean by "editing disruptively"?. In regard to this accusation, please explain yourself. Izzy (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Read the quote again. Refusing to indent when you know how to do it is disruptive. It says right there in the quote that if other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by the guideline, it may be enforced by administrative action. I have done my very best to persuade you. The next step will be to report you at the administrators' Noticeboard. Scolaire (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No acrimony and trouble from me. As regards the current issue on the Ian Gow article, please bring the matter to a close, one way or the other. It seems to me that there is a consensus in favour of referring to the car in which Gow was blown up. This is the same consensus as there was on previous occasions when the matter was raised. Izzy (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to go that far, I hope. Isabela, please read Talk page formatting. Your lack of proper indentation is causing a bit of a headache and it makes it very, very difficult to figure out what you are responding to. Yes, that is a bit disruptive and it's easy to fix by the judicious insertion of colons. PLEASE read that guideline; we don't need any more acrimony and trouble on that talk page. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian Gow
Izzy, I take your point re reverting my edit but the difficulty is that (a) if Ian Gow were alive the existing sentence would potentially be libelous. Hansard isn't a reliable source (other than as a source for what was actually said in Parliament) because of Parliamentary Privilege. I can't find any alternate sources that repeat the five pound allegation. There are a few (e.g. and  that state that John Bodkin Adams was a constituent of Ian Gow, but none that illuminate the donations point.  Your thoughts?  Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fiachra, the source cited is the official transcript of words spoken by Nicholas Soames in Parliament, being ".... Dr. Adams used to send our late friend [Gow] £5 at every general election for the Tory party fighting fund, which used to cause our late friend great embarrassment?". This indicates that the money was sent to Gow personally. I don't see why that could be libelous. My understanding of libel is that it occurs where you publish something about someone which is (a) untrue and (b) likely to cause that person loss in terms of money or social standing. I am pretty sure that Soames's report is true. Even if it isn't true and Gow were still alive then how could such a report (a constituent donating £5 to his election fund) cause Gow any loss?. Izzy (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am conscious that Nicholas Soames and Ian Gow knew each other socially, in and out of parliament, so Soames wouldn't have said it lightly (or in fact may have said it lightly, out of fun). But the present sentence says "His local supporters included the infamous John Bodkin Adams, who regularly donated to his election funds" .., not an WP:NPOV paraphrasing of the Hansard record. My suggestion is that we paraphrase Hansard more closely. For instance: " ... Adams who, according to Nicholas Soames, used to send Gow £5 at every general election for the Tory party fighting fund, to Gow's great embarrassment?" Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fiachra. OK, I accept what you say and have revised the text to give a fuller attribution to the information source. As an aside, Bodkin Adams was very well connected with the establishment in Eastbourne. The point relating to the donations is not the trivia that it might appear at first glance.Izzy (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the change you made - thanks for putting up with my nitpicking. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MadMitch.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:MadMitch.JPG. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:B-bot. I have no problem with the image being deleted. Apart from the matter of copyright, the image is of very poor quality. Izzy (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ian Gow circa 1983.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ian Gow circa 1983.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with removal of the image. It has been superseded in the article Ian Gow by a better quality one that appears to have adequate copyright status.Izzy (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to access my Wikipedia account
I keep getting repeated system warnings that failed attempts are being made to access my WP account using an unfamiliar device. I guess it may be that someone is trying to hijack a seemingly unused account for their own purpose. To who it may concern : Please note that although I have not been very active on WP for the last couple of years, I still own and maintain this account. I will resist any attempt to hijack it. Izzy (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RfA
Izzy, are you going to strike your vote at the RfA? It would be better for that to happen than for someone to do it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

No Bbb23, I will not strike my vote. Any election where a candidate attracts >99% support is questionable. In this case it suggests to me a particular pattern of editing by the candidate. I have been a WP editor for over 10 years and I believe that this is the first time I have ever contributed to an Rfa debate. I expect my contribution and vote to be taken seriously and left in place. Izzy (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * At a minimum your attitude is disappointing for an "experienced" user. More bluntly, it's disruptive. However, given your sporadic contributions to the project in recent times, I'm not taking any action. However, consider this a warning that similar kinds of disruption in the future may result in blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEnterprisey_2&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=880255268&oldid=880253961

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FEnterprisey_2&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=880227099&oldid=880226471

people here think you are not allowed to have an opinion they disagree with Libby Kane (talk)

Appreciated Libby. Much of the comment on my vote looks like pure harassment. Izzy (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

So long as you let my vote stand then I guess there is no problem Bbb23. But please note my comment immediately above concerning harassment and have a think about it. Thankyou Libby and Feminist for your support. Izzy (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's my thing. I looked at your userpage and thought "ah great, here's somebody who can help me clean up Sompting Abbotts Preparatory School, beef up Haremere Hall to cite more then three sources, or - if I'm really lucky - kick me up the backside to make West Pier a featured article". Then I saw "oppose - there must be something wrong with him" and winced. I used to work with a guy who had a speech impediment; nice guy, just I had to concentrate to understand what he said. How do you think he'd react if you said "there must be something wrong with you" to his face? Please don't do that again. As for "Any election where a candidate attracts >99% support is questionable." - it could just mean that lots and lots of people have seen the user around and really think he deserves the admin tools - see Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl for example. There's no grand conspiracy theory behind this and we don't sit behind closed doors in dark robes around pentagrams. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, so long as my vote stands then there is no problem Ritchie333. A >99% support rate may indicate a great Wikipedian. It may also indicate a pattern of safe and bland edits - and a 'special purpose account'. I am not implying any wrongdoing and anyone is welcome to make bland edits or set up a special purpose account if they so wish. If any person offers themselves for election then they have to accept comments about themselves which are both negative and positive. I thankyou for your note which I recognise is both polite and reasoned. Izzy (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * As you may have seen, the closing bureaucrat struck your vote as "in bad faith". Personally I think the difference between 253 support / 3 oppose versus 253 support / 2 oppose is trivial, but that's the decision that has been made. I would recommend reading Advice for RfA voters carefully before you participate in RfA again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall. Apparently not a value shared by all Wikipedia editors and admin. Levivich  16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Levivich . Much appreciated. Izzy (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Free speech on WP
I apologize if being perceived as disturbing, and, please, feel free to remove this any time.

I felt urged to come here to express my strong disagreement with calling your opposing !vote "silly", "disruptive(", ")nonsense", intended for a "for a quick laugh", "frivolous", "not ... legitimate", and finally, with utmost bureaucratic emphasis "not in good faith". Additionally to this overt offenses I denounce the behind the scenes exhortation to strike your !vote.

Sadly, voices defending freedom of speech are rare, not from the highest ranks and drowned out by those who prefer ridiculing Miklejohn, and this when confronted with evenly strongly reasoned support-!votes. Just to be explicit: I agree with your motivations to oppose, not with the !vote per se.

If all of this would not get increasingly characteristic for the Wikipedia: Silencing non-mainstreamed opinions. Cheers, Purgy (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Your support is appreciated, Purgy. As indicated in the previous thread I had a rational reason for my oppose vote on the Rfa in question. Striking that vote is clearly an oppressive act. Freedom of speech is a precious thing and we must always be on our guard to defend it. Izzy (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for information, pages WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:FREESPEECH may be of interest. Take care! ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ——. WP:HARASSMENT may also be relevant here. best wishes. Izzy (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You should defintely take any harassment to WP:ANI; I believe that organ is best suited to such needs. Take care, ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I replied to the first discourtesy at SN#54129's TP. Purgy (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about this—loose ends and all that. Just to remind you that I and other seasoned editors replied to your points, such as they were. The thread's been archived now, but it's easy to find. Ciao. ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou for your concern Purgy. —— 's earlier comment was vaguely threatening, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that. I am sure he meant to be helpful but the "Take care!" carries a certain resonance that he didn't intend. Izzy (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Somebody shrunk my final comment. I have restored it to its original size. Izzy (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence
Hello Isabela84, Trust you are well. I thought it wise to let you know that the Romanian "editor" is again changing the description of Claudia from "was" to "is". This is the third change, all from different IP addresses. I attempted to get the person rangeblocked before, but was told "not enough activity". Can I ask you to keep a eye on this problem, as I am having technical difficulties at the moment? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Will do, David. But only as regards this particular article. The article is on my watchlist and I am planning to add material to it some time soon. Izzy (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail reference at Claudia Lawrence
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Claudia Lawrence. It is not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, please don't use blogs - eg this - and, despite what is said in the above section, Lawrence is not dead until the courts legally declare her thus & so the tense should indeed be present, not past. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2022
When you changed content at Special:Diff/1081463396 you changed prose referencing a 2022 date which was supported by a 2016 dated citation. This cannot be anything than an unsourced WP:HIJACK on a WP:BLP article. Please do not add unsourced content to articles. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)