User talk:Andrewduffell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page belongs to Andrew Duffell. Please help me keep it organised by putting your messages under appropriate headings, and signing your posts.

Contents 1 Myton Park School 2 Ingleby Barwick article 3 Image:Image057.jpg 4 Out of curiosity 5 Sharon Beshenivsky article 6 Jesus 7 Switchfoot GA 8 Unblock My IP 9 Image:NE1.svg listed for deletion 10 Image copyright problem with Image:Image057.jpg 11 Image:Allsaintschurchhouseplan.svg listed for deletion

[edit] Myton Park School

Andrew, your page is full of inaccuracies. Myton Park will NEVER be part of All Saints! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narroway (talk • contribs).

It isn't my article. Change it if you want, but please cite references. Andrew Duffell 16:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ingleby Barwick article

Andrew, I don't know how much clearer I can make myself. If you say Ingleby Barwick is in Thornaby, cite your sources. My removal of this erroneous information is not vandalism and in fact is encouraged by wikipedia guidelines as I explained on the articles talk page. Unreferenced material should be removed aggresively, especially if, as in this case, it is incorrect. If you wish to continue constructive debate I am more than happy to return to the table so to speak. I propose we take this to the arbitration committee, but I need your consent to do this. If you could confirm your feelings towards this either way I would be grateful. I will not place a vandalism notice on your page as I feel this is petty, however I ask that you examine your motives for pushing your POV on the page and remember that you do not own the page, this is a community driven project. Thank you. Super Ted 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew I hope you are aware of the 3RR rule WP:AN/3RR. Logging out of your account and reverting anonymously also adds to your total. You are now at your limit. Please do not revert again or you will be in violation of this rule.

I also notice you continue to revert without adding a source for your information. Please do not do this as it means inaccurate information such as this gets into the article. Super Ted 18:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrew. If you wish the article to state that Ingleby Barwick is in Thornaby, you need a source, its as simple as that. If you can't quote a source, its original research and not permissible on wikipedia. If you have any questions regarding these policies, please feel free to message me.

Also, the source I quoted was not inaccurate, it clearly stated that Ingleby Barwick is in Stockton-on-Tees borough, which was reflected in the text of the article.

You don't seem to understand the concept that you need to find a source to say IB is in Thornaby. It is not my responsibility to find a source saying it isn't, despite the fact I have done so. By the logic you are using, I could say IB is in Doncaster, and editors would have no come back. This is why everything needs to be verifiable. I hope this clears things up.

I will give you until this evening before reverting to give you time to find some council minutes or other official document that clearly states IB is in Thornaby. I must say though, I doubt it exists as I have hunted high and low for it. If you do find something though, please be assured there will be no hard feelings. I wish the article to be accurate, and at present the balance of evidence indicates it is not. If you find anything extra though, I would be very interested in examining the said document, and would be more than happy to reconsider my position on this matter. If you disagree with anything I have said, please discuss this with me. I also ask that if you still disagree with what I am saying, that you agree to take this to ArbCom. Thank you. Super Ted 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey again. Only just got chance to spend a few hours doing some more research. [1] makes for interesting reading. It clearly shows IB had previously been a township a long time ago, independent of Thornaby, long before the estate was built. The map you are currently using as your source was a registration sub district used for the purposes of collecting the 1901 census. This classification has long since been abandoned. I will look into writing a section on the ancient history of IB in the near future. I hope this will be the end of the matter. If you still wish to contest my edits, please explain your reasoning and I will be more than happy to discuss the matter with you. Super Ted 20:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Image057.jpg

Andrew, I noticed you removed the public domain tag from the image you uploaded following my correction of the annotation. Just for reference, I don't think this can be done. Once you make something public domain this decision is irrevocable. It could be in use outside of wikipedia already owing to the terms of the license you gave the image. I would ask you to reconsider your detagging as I see no reason for you doing so in the first place. I would appreciate your comment on the matter. Super Ted 18:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of curiosity

Hi Andrew - seeing your contribs, wonder if you recognise this pic Image:Amateur footballer.jpg one of the All Saints' Church, Preston-on-Tees players (they had a game up here 9 Sep.) - MPF 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Not sure what he's called though. I think he is one of the non-christians in the team. - Andrew Duffell 21:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Beshenivsky article

Hi Andrew, You reverted an edit I made over a POV issue, and commented it as 'revert vandalism', you also added the Blatantvandal template to my user page. I notice from your editing history you have been involved in disputes with other editors where you have reverted their edits (clearly not vandalism) with the comment 'revert vandalism' or similar.

Whatever you think of my edits to the Sharon_Beshenivsky article, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not

If you controversially revert a valid edit and describe this as 'revert vandalism', then in the short term others may be tricked into not reviewing it, but it can also give the impression you have no real justification for the reversion.

Of course, it also gets you off to a bad start with another editor, and makes the situation more likely to result in a revert war.

I may be new to wikipedia, but please take the advice, sincerely given, of someone with a long experience of usenet and other debating fora, that strawman arguments do *not* help you win disputes.

For the edit I have made to the article I have given a reason in the talk page for why this is a valid edit, and removes a POV. You have done no such thing for yours.

For this reason if no others, my version of the page is more valid than yours. If you disagree, please explain why before reverting my edits again. If you can give a convincing argument why your version is NPOV and relevant, I will willingly revert my own edits. Plastic rat

Hello again Andrew

Firstly: I edited the wrong page before, if this caused any problems I apologize - I am not expert with Wikipedia. The right thing for you to have done would be to move the comment to the correct place.

As you choose to delete my comment entirely rather than answer it, I have repeated it above. HTH.

Since I have written that, you have reverted the edits yet again, again with no reason or explanation for this despite being asked. As I have told you before:

For the edit I have made to the article I have given a reason in the talk page for why this is a valid edit, and removes a POV. You have done no such thing for yours.

For this reason if no others, my version of the page is more valid than yours. If you disagree, please explain why before reverting my edits again. If you can give a convincing argument why your version is NPOV and relevant, I will willingly revert my own edits.

You have repeatedly reverted valid edits, with no justification despite having been asked for one. Your edits are at best churlish, at worst vandalism. Please stop doing this.

Plastic rat

[edit] Jesus

I recently found that the Jesus article on Wikipedia is the first item that comes up when you search for "Jesus" on the world’s most widely used search engine, Google.

Please edit the Jesus article to make it an accurate and excellent representation of Him.

The Jesus article may be a person’s first impression of Jesus. It would be nice if their first impression was from a Christian or the Bible, but for so many in these new days it probably comes from the Internet. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thanks a lot.

Also, watch out to follow Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. It is especially hard for the Three-revert rule and the Neutral point of view policy to be followed because of the nature of the article, but please follow these policies along with citing sources so that the article does not get locked from editing and can't be improved further. Thanks again. Scifiintel 17:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switchfoot GA

[edit] Unblock My IP

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): IP unblocked Request handled by: —Pilotguy go around 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NE1.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NE1.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Thank you. BigrTex 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Image057.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Image057.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. BigrTex 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Allsaintschurchhouseplan.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Allsaintschurchhouseplan.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Thank you. BigrTex 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)