User talk:AndyAndyAndy

Pottery Related articles

Hi Andy. It is not often I get to be the first on a talk page. So, even though we have been talking elsewhere, welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your efforts on the pottery related articles. I hope you understand that it was not the content of your initial edits that editors questioned, just your method of editing. Have left a few notes on some talk pages and looked over some of the more recent edits. Your points on Pyrometric cone look like they will be very useful. In particular, adding other modern suppliers/links to Orton would be very appropriate. Look forward to working with you. Best wishes. WBardwin 05:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, AndyAndyAndy, 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 Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links to help you get started:

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 Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Srleffler 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I left you some comments at Talk:Earthenware. --Srleffler 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pottery article and ongoing discussion

I'm sorry I have not been more involved in the ongoing, and somewhat difficult, discussion on the Pottery page. I am only on Wikipedia for short bursts, due to ongoing illness in the family. I do try and read the comments there (and leave something) every once in a while. From my last posts, I hope you understand that I generally agree with most of your statements and that I intend to be more involved in editing when time becomes available. I would encourage you to edit when and what you can. Hope to talk to you again soon. WBardwin 04:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese porcelain article

Hi Andy, I've left some comments for you on the Chinese porcelain discussion page. Regards, Nick. Nick 10:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AndyAndyAndy for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Please could you explain? What is sockpuppetry? What is it that I'm being accused of? Thanks,

Andy

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AndyAndyAndy has confirmed through technical evidence (primarily your computer's IP address) that you have been using the same computer as Dannyfloyd (talk · contribs). Using multiple accounts is frowned on, as is creating a second account to write an attack article aimed at someone with whom you are in a disagreement. You really should deal with your problems in a more mature way. Dannyfloyd has been blocked, and you have been warned not to do it again. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thatcher131 for the repy to my question, I have bee pushibg for a personal response for sometime. Leaving aside that I find the phrase `you have been warned` to be offensive the originally allegation remains unfounded: I am not Dannyfloyd. A check of my records will reveal I have made extensive contributions on a narrow field of subjects, and of course this is something I have done for the good of thw wikipedia project. I did not expect to be subject to a campaign of allegations. Not being wholly ignorant of IT issues I have within the last day made enquires with colleagues in the IT department who have confirmed that on a system with > 10,000 users routed through a central hub the I'd of individual machines is impossible to identify. It however will be possible for you to confirm some of this explanation as I am based in the UK the hub is continental Europe. I can only speculate that Dannyfloyd is routed through the same hub

I ask for this case to be reinvestigated

Regards,

Andy

You should ask Mackensen (talk · contribs) who performed the check, either on his talk page or on the checkuser page. Users and even admins have no ability to examine user's IP addresses; it has to come from one of the few people with access to the checkuser tool. Also, you should be aware that the sockpuppetry policy (at WP:SOCK) does not require technical proof, as there are various reasons, including the one you mentioned, why IP addresses are not always conclusive. I believe you will find that many editors will choose to disbelive your explanation, finding it highly unlikely that somone in your organization would pop up to create an attack article (albeit a relatively mild one) against someone with whom you have been having a dispute, purely by chance. If your technical explanation is true, that would probably reduce the checkuser finding from "confirmed" to "possible" which will not dissuade other editors from their opinions as I just outlined. If this situation is truly a mystery to you, I don't know what else to tell you. I suppose someone in your organization, trying to be helpful or funny, has had the opposite effect. About the only thing I can suggest (and this applies whether or not you created the Dannyfloyd account) is be nice to people and they will be nice to you, and continuing to make good contributions will eventually override this relatively minor incident. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thatcher131, Thank you for your prompt and detailed reply. However I wonder if you can appreciate that I am getting so weary of this fiasco that I am very seriously considering cease any contributions to wikipedia: and not wishing to sound arrogant I believe this would be a loss to readers (albeit in a very specific discipline) I accept that organisations have policies but am disappointed that what amounts to unsubstantiated allegations can be allowed to stand. I would like to comment about your suggestions of me being in `dispute` as this is something I do not recognise. I am however aware that it may well originate from another particular user; and if this is correct a quick check of records will reveal this not only to be quite some months old (why would I wait to leave a fake entry if I was so inclined) but show that I remained polite despite on one occassion publically being called a liar. Returning to the burden of proof the only evidence I have seen relates to the use of such very common words as which & regards. - I did speculate that if the accuser thought something significant that cultural differences in language use may be present: I have tried to be helpful. Again I even offered to post my email address to allow private communication to attempt resolution. It is further speculation on my part that a shared IT hub with other contributors may also be giving confusion; I am of course unaware of what others are posting. Nevertheless a `joke` by others can not be discounted

I have certainly been left with a bitter taste in my mouth as my sole wish is unchanged: to make contributions to a subject on which I am experienced from which others may benefit. This has given me no personal gain: finanicially of course but not even self promotion by the listing of a personal page

I will contact Mackensen within the next few days, the weekend fast approaches, and hope communication will be conducted privately as I am tired of defending myself in a public forum

Regards,

Andy

Admittedly, it does not seem like the conversation at Talk:Pottery (some months ago) would be worth creating the article Brunnock to attack User:Brunnock. However the article exists, and seems to have been created by someone at your institution. As I said, if you just ignore this and move on, it will eventually be so much water under the bridge. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Thatcher131,

Thank you for I think is the most rational contribution to this saga. I fully accept your pragmatic advice to ignore and let it become water under the bridge. However as I do admire the wikipedia project and take pride in the very tiny part of it to which I have contributed, with some considerable effort, I am somewhat defensive when I am publically humiliated

Regards,

Andy

Porcelain

Hi Andy -- sorry to have been away for so long, --very busy but managed to go on a nice vacation to Alaska. I noticed on the Porcelain article that you, on Sept. 20th, made additions to the topic paragraph defining porcelain. Unfortunately, the paragraph ends with a incomplete sentence. Would you like to fix? Sorry to read about the sockpuppetry issue above -- I know about the difficulties that sometimes arise from shared IP numbers. Thanks. WBardwin 02:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneware

Hi AndyAndyAndy -- About your removal of "Crocker Farm, Inc." from the External Links on the stoneware article, I understand why it was done, but just to take the discussion to a higher level, sometimes you have to go into the commercial realm for information. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how hardline the no commercial promotion policy is when it comes to using commercial websites for purely informational purposes. In this case, just as an example, high-quality photographs of American stoneware are very scarce on the web, so you have to go to the commercial realm to get them. Also, sometimes seemingly purely "commercial" websites fall in a gray area, when the company itself engages in independent research, etc. to further the advancement of knowledge in a certain field, as an adjunct to its commercial endeavors. Just food for thought...not arguing for the reinstatement of the link, per se. Cheers! Billyshears 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

Hi there. It is good to see someone else out there doing what they can to get rid of the linkspam that is continually added to articles. Just thought I would give my support as you will undoubtedly get people telling you that you have no right to remove it...

--Bcnviajero 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Linkspam

I would love to see someone address my question / comment posed above under "Stoneware," because, as I said, I am new to Wikipedia and would like a definitive answer on this. I understand that promotion of commercial enterprises is forbidden, but at what point does providing information become promotion? If I put a link to an institution on here, is that always okay? What if the institution is funded by a commercial entity? What if, say, General Motors puts up a website dedicated to an exhaustive history of the automobile, or, even, their automobiles? Can I link to that page? I hate to say it, but a lot of the so-called purely informative websites out there are somehow selling something. I just want to get a clarification on this because the area is often very gray. And to Bcnviajero, I would just say that I find it pretty accusatory to use the taboo word "Spam" here, when you probably aren't informed enough in this instance to realize that for the topic in question (American stoneware) there isn't a website out there more informative than the one I linked to; while a commercial enterprise, this company provides tons of free information (much not available anywhere else on the web) to the public on a regular basis. Cheers! Billyshears 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I was not making any reference to the specific site being discussed by the two of you, as you are entirely correct that I have no knowledge of it. I was making a general comment to AndyAndyAndy to congratulate him on his work against spam. That was why I made a new heading. --Bcnviajero 14:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great pottery debate

Hello Andy, this is just to let you know that the great pottery debate has started up again on the Pottery talk page. I don't see why you shouldn't join in, but from reading some of the words written above I can understand why you might not want to. Regards, Nick. Nick 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Based on your edit history and pattern of perpetually removing external links from articles with no regard for concensus, I believe that you are a sockpuppet of User:AndyAndyAndy. Please comment if you belive that I have this wrong. AndyAndyAndy (talk · contribs · count) 86.151.154.235 (talk · contribs · count) 62.206.150.138 (talk · contribs · count) Theriac (talk · contribs · count) 202.149.77.132 (talk · contribs · count) Jerry 23:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]