User talk:Andrei-Williams-2005

November 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Gisela Stuart—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei-Williams-2005, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Andrei-Williams-2005! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Alex B4, please don't edit my articles on Lord Reid and Smith. Because I think the articles look better.

Thanks for your contributions however some of them do violate Wikipedia policy, for example MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I like many of your edits but they do need to be copy-edited regardless of how you think they look. See WP:OWN. Please carry on editing but prepare to have a few of your edits copy-edited/reverted in your early days. Also use {{ping| to ping people in talk pages and ~~~~ to sign your comments. Alex (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DISRUPTIVE and try to understand that I'm not looking for a fight. I just want engage in good faith to make sure we abide by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:CAPS. However, I have had to warn you because you are not following due process by not discussing on our talk pages, abusing the revert function and edit warring. Alex (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex B4, I can tell it is you who is doing the disruptive editing, don't you dare try to blame me, I'm only trying to make the sites I am editing cleaner. - (talk) 8:25, 9 December (UTC)

Okay so from what you've said on the noticeboard, I gather you don't understand why I made the reverts in the first place. They were made because MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states how and why infoboxes should be concise. This is why "Sec. of State" and "Shadowing" parameters have been removed from or not added to other articles. The changes I made due to MOS:CAPS because that policy advises unnecessary capitalisations. Then, there are just technical things like Shadow Cabinet posts just not being official offices but rather posts assigned by the Leader of the Opposition. Alex (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex B4, Thatcher still has the "Shadowing" parameter on her site, I can tell that you don't like it, it is not illegal to add the "Sec. of State" and "Shadowing" parameter, the sites I edit (the ones with those parameters) already look concise, and I believe Wikipedia would agree with that. Plus, could you please show me proof that there has to be the term "posts" because I have checked everywhere if it had said posts and it didn't, take a look at Thatchers', she has the term "offices" on the Shadow cabinet section. So Alex, please stop lecturing me about what you don't like, the things you are saying are only on your interest, not Wikipedia's. Andrei (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up an RfC discussion on Thatcher's talk page so we will abide by the consensus of that discussion, whatever that consensus will be. Alex (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, you are not answering my question, please show me proof that there has to be the term "posts" because I have checked everywhere if it had said posts and it didn't. Andrei (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dawn Primarolo, 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. Please do not add or re-add deprecated sources to BLPs. David Gerard (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Alex (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Alex B4, please stop your disruptive editing.[reply]

5 December 2020

Alex B4, please stop deleting the term "Shadowing" from Chris Smith, if you look on Thatcher's site, she also has the term shadowing, so why do you keep deleting this, is it just because you don't like it?

I have addressed this in both your talk page and mine, as well as in my edit summaries. Alex (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrei-Williams-2005 reported by User:Alex B4 (Result: ). Thank you. Alex (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi there, just wanted to drop by and say that you’re an amazing editor! Keep up the great work! Ciaran.london (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran.london, Hi, many thanks to your lovely comments about me. I have a question for you, do you think AlexB4 is deleting my work just because he hates it or because I am breaking Wikipedia rules? Take a look at the December 2020 section so you understand. Kind regards. Andrei (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! I’ve seen December 2020 and I just think personally Alex doesn’t like it and he thinks it’s against wiki rules. But no Andrei, you’re not breaking any rules whatsoever and you’re not a disruptive editor (that is really not fair). Wiki rules says infoboxes should be concise with key facts, we’ve not been doing illegal by adding what’ve we’ve been adding! It’s just Alex is a very opinionated and strict editor. Just keep doing what you’ve been doing!! :) Ciaran.london (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Ciaran, you are absolutely right! Andrei (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well my big issue is the reverting to the new changes while we're awaiting consensus. That's what I mean by disruptive editing. (Again please read the policy pages I link.) You're meant to reach a consensus through talk pages before implementing a change if there is a dispute. However, I should point out the policies and guidelines aren't rules as such. They're advisory but we should strive to follow them. Remember I also try to follow WP:IDONTLIKEIT so it's not that it's that I "don't like" the changes, it really is because of the policies I try to follow and respect for process. Hope you can understand and that can all work together constructively once the RfC is resolved. Alex (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Kenneth Baker, Baron Baker of Dorking, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]