Hi Dr.AndrewBamford! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Grimes2 (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sanctions available on Wikipedia for people who misuse multiple accounts and IP addresses in order to escape censure for 'edit warring'. Perhaps the appearance of this approach in your edits of the University of Manchester page was the result of mere accident, but you should be aware that this can be construed as an abuse of editing privileges: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Urselius (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dr.AndrewBamford. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 09:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the unsuitability of the present duality of 'academic' and 'administrative' staff wording in the university infobox here: Template talk:Infobox university. Any argument in support of more accurate categories for university staff numbers would be useful in trying to get uniformity across articles. Urselius (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Greater Manchester, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please read MOS:BOLD for use of bold font in Wikipedia articles.  Dr Greg  talk  13:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! this is nonsense: "Restored rankings following an attempt to omit notable rankings, presumably for personal gain" Spike 'em (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are also edit-warring on UK University rankings : discuss your changes rather than just repeating them after multiple other editors have reverted you. Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Dr.AndrewBamford reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: ). Thank you. Spike 'em (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Please be aware that this kind of thing won't be allowed to continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended your block to indefinite, due to your apparent use of Special:Contributions/185.104.136.29 to evade your block. If you change your mind and decide to start following Wikipedia policy, this block can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]