AndrewJFulker

Welcome

Hello, AndrewJFulker, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your post at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Hi Andrew. I have moved your post from here to our technical village pump as I believe you will get a better response there. Best, — Joseph Fox 03:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Staines 'Editing War'

Hi Andrew. Firstly apologies for writing this here. Although I've made small revisions to Wikipedia articles on various topics over several years, I've never been involved in anything 'technical' before, nor learned about references, not been involved in dialogue about my edits. However, this gentleman Morioni seems to be using some bullying tactics to ensure that his misleading point gets put in. I am not sure if you can see it, but I got a message from him saying I would be blocked if I edited again. And yet, he insists on quoting this "70-80%" figure which does not seem to appear in the reference he uses to 'support' it, and he will not accept that my figures - although taken from an official source - are relevant. To my mind, the responses of the people OF STAINES are the most relevant of all, yet this group of people was barely consulted, and the split even among those who were is being glossed over by Morioni's continual removal of my points. I accept that "mere" and "pitiful" are perhaps inappropriate (though accurate!) but I don't feel that I should be blocked and not him. I am really just a novice in all of this: I sense that you may be more of an authority, and clearly Morioni is since it seems he has the power to block. I would have no idea how to block anyone, nor would I wish to do so, so long as they weren't abusing Wikipedia. I don't think I am doing that. I strongly suspect that Morioni is. I dont know whether you can help, but I feel better after getting that off my chest! I have not amended the page again yet, because I don't want to get blocked, not because I am in any dount about my stance (excepting the 2 words mentioned above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northern winter (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not removed referenced material

With this edit you removed referenced information from the Staines article, and I have reverted you. Your edit summary -- "Removed reference to percentages in favour - because if one persons maths is pov, then anyones maths is pov, surely" -- was woefully inaccurate/irrelevant. Let's examine what you removed.

"Information presented at the council meeting indicated residents of many electoral wards in Staines were up to 70-80 percent in favour of the change." ALL of that information was contained in the accompanying reference, it is POV free, and it is not the result of mathematical exercises of a Wikipedia editor.

In graphic contrast, the information it had replaced included edits from User:Northern winter which indicated either a COI or anti name change POV. His figures resulted from computations in breach of WP:OR which prohibits "....any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Moriori (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Do not removed" is very bad grammar.

I see that you are still intent on your little edit war. The section that I removed was one side of a story, putting forth the point of view of one un-named person, reported in one news article. This information had not ‘replaced’ the section you removed; both were contained side by side. It was a well-rounded paragraph that showed clearly the two sides of the story. You removed half, and I removed the other half. However, if you wish the Staines page to reflect your views and nobody else’s, then so be it; I'll leave you to it.

On another matter, as a more experienced Wikipepia user than me, perhaps you could advise me on who I should contact when I find that someone who appears to have some level of authority is acting in a controlling and bullying way toward myself and other editors. For example a person who reverts edits regardless of content, blocks others from editing on very little notice instead of helping those less experienced or someone who seems determined to leave in material that is questionable even when the validity of the quoted figures is called into question in the relevant talk pages. Perhaps you could advise me as to who can adjudicate in such a situation. AndrewJFulker (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not comment on my last sentence. Here's a refresher -- User:Northern winter's "figures resulted from computations in breach of WP:OR which prohibits ....any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." That is the crux of it. Moriori (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

‘Maybe this is British bias, but ...’

♥

 — Breadbasket 21:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the complex vandalism on the Fifth Amendment etc. page. I was just about the click the save page button after I identified the last good version - but you beat me to it! Well done! Metricopolus (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Pilaz (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)