User talk:Andrew dingley

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew dingley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! VViking Talk Edits 22:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Hi Viking, Thank you for the feedback I will re-edit the page to try to make it conform as closely as possible to Wikipedia's standards. I contribute both time and money to Wikipedia and believe wholeheartedly in the need for complete and accurate information. After I have re-edited, please let me know what else I can do to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Sincerely, Andrew dingley (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at James F. Jones. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I strongly advise you not to keep re-adding your material unchanged, but to debate on the talk page, as other editors have stated they are willing to incorporate the better-sourced parts of your content Noyster   (talk),  19:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Noyster, Thank you for your feedback, it is helpful. My question is this, I keep adding back factual information and the other person keeps removing it. I am happy to re-edit the article and will do so shortly but I do not believe it is either fair or in the public interest for people to edit out well-referenced and important factual information. Any guidance you can provide in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Andrew dingley (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Andrew, it is not always necessary or desirable to include all possible referenced information that presents one view of a topic. What we aim for is "neutral point of view", and that doesn't have to mean exactly 50% positive content and 50% negative, but rather to reflect the balance found in "reliable sources". In assessing the weight to place on a source, "secondary sources" are preferred over "primary" (defined here). In the event of disagreements with other editors, you would be expected to attempt to resolve the issues on the article talk page before turning to other channels. The final point to make is that articles about living people are regarded as particularly sensitive, with much insistence on good sourcing and justifiable balance. These links contain a good deal of reading matter, but I'd say it will be worth your while to take note of our policies and guidelines before continuing. With regards Noyster  (talk),  10:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)