User talk:Northern winter

Welcome, and....

Welcome to Wikipedia. You will find some helpful material at this page.

I have reverted your change to Staines. The information you removed was adequately referenced, but your information was not. If you continue with such editing you risk being blocked from editing for vandalism. Moriori (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again

I have reverted your even more recent change to Staines. The previous information, except for a minor change which has been incorporated in my edit, was adequately referenced. References for the information you added do not seem to stack up, or are very difficult to access if they actually exist. Please do not remove information which was in the article, and do not replace the information you added without adequate, accessible referencing. Moriori (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your call

. You never responded to the message above, and have since reverted the referenced information again. It seems you are not getting the message and may just continue on reverting, so I am blocking you from editing for a period. You will be able to communicate here on this page if you think you can explain your edits. Your call. Moriori (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In defence of Northern Winter

The references they provide seem to make mathematical sense of the councils own official figures and the published responses to the consultation. Whereas the references for the opposition point to a local newspaper story that states “Attendees of the meeting were told that residents of many of the town's wards were 70-80% in favour of the change”. It seems that this could be a case of local councillors pulling the wool over the eyes of the electorate and ‘massaging’ the figures to back up their own ideas. Northern Winter seems to have a legitimate, and factual, case for declaring their ideas. The question should be whether Wikipedia is the place to publish these ideas. Equally, publishing the opposing ideas, and not these ones, does not show neutrality. I suggest we all read the note that I have put on the Staines talk page, find some middle ground, and move on. AndrewJFulker (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many things wrong with what you wrote at the Staines talk page. I will comment after Northern Winter responds. Moriori (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on the Staines talk page. Moriori (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have left a response to the post you made at the Staines talk page. You will be blocked from editing if you yet again remove verifiable sourced information. It has also been demonstrated at the Staines talk that the stats you insist on re-adding to the page are terribly unbalanced, and therefore unencyclopedic. Moriori (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another

Your recent edit to Staines was appalling, and I have reverted it. You left the following edit summary -- "Removed an incorrect assertion that the Council Meeting was presented with 70-80% support for the plan, and a citation which does not refer to this."

The article says "Information presented at the council meeting indicated residents of many electoral wards in Staines were up to 70-80 percent in favour...."

The reference says "Attendees of the meeting were told that residents of many of the town's wards were 70-80% in favour....."

Can't be clearer than that. Despite all the warnings, you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by removing referenced material. Moriori (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have again been blocked from editing, for this abuse of editing privileges, the removal of adequately sourced text. Please read WP:V where you will see the following -- "Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article" and "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia....". If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Moriori (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Northern winter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is unfair. It stems from my attempts to remove the following text from the Staines page: "Information presented at the council meeting indicated residents of many electoral wards in Staines were up to 70-80 percent in favour of the change providing it would not cost them money.[5]" The over-riding reason for wishing to remove it is that it's not true (I attended the meeting, no such claims were made, and a review of the local press and opinions would back this up). However, I accept that this cannot be substantiated - it's my word against Moriori's, and he is an established Wikipedia contributor, whereas I am inexperienced and don't really know my way about. Therefore, I based my formal objections on two grounds: (1) The website cited is little more than a blog, written by an individual, and lacking rigour: certainly the statement about "70-80%" does not appear in the Spelthorne Borough Council official minutes: however, I have tried referring previous arguments on this topic to documents on the Council's website, but because they come up as PDFs with ungainly URLs, and they are apparently unacceptable, but please have a look at it at http://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/15dec11_mins.pdf - it's minute 322/11 on pages 6-8 of the PDF document. (2) The wording "indicated residents ... were up to 70-80 percent" is misleading: even the Council's own study only elicited 453 responses, from residents of Staines wards (including Riverside & Laleham) with 68% in favour across all three wards (falling to 63% if the split ward is excluded): not only do both of these figures fall below the "70-80%" stated by Moriori, but it is statistically unjustifiable to extrapolate this poll covering only 2.2% of the three wards' 20658 residents to represent a groundswell of support for a name-change. At one stage I stated that "less than 1% of the Staines population expressed support for the name change", basing this on the council's consultation showing 310 favourable responses from a population of 20658: I accepted Moriori's advice that this was a skewed way of looking at the data, and apologise for my doing so, but I contest that my skewing is no better nor worse that that perpetrated by the wording to which I have objected. (3) The reference to "many Staines wards" is just plain wrong, misleading, and propogandist. There are only TWO Staines wards (entitled Staines and Staines South), and one other ward that covers a part of Staines (Riverside & Laleham) - see http://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/your_council/cou_about_borough/cou_statistics_homepage/cou_about_borough-keystatistics.htm. Referring to "many Staines wards" when there are only two-and-a-bit has about as much validity as saying "70-80% of people of many genders": it gives emphasis where none is due. I would add that I think the "Staines Day", as it was known when originally proposed, remains a great idea and a way of boosting civic pride - but what a shame that it has been made divisive by linking it to this name change which cannot be denied is at least controversial.

Accept reason:

At first I was planning to decline this unblock request. While I understand everything you say, and have some sympathy with you, you have been edit warring over a period of several months, which justifies a block. However, looking further, I found that you were blocked by an administrator who had also been taking part in the same edit war, which is completely unacceptable. Using administrative powers to maintain your own preferred version in a content dispute in which you have been involved is an unambiguous abuse of administrative power. I have, therefore, decided to remove the block. However, I will emphasise that your edit warring does warrant a block, and that if you continue you are likely to be blocked again. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth

Firstly, I cannot believe that this is still going on. And secondly, this looks like bullying to me. Calling someone’s posts ‘appalling’ and repeatedly pursuing them on a contentious issue seems like victimisation. This decision should be opened up to a different administrator to ensure that it is treated with impartiality. AndrewJFulker (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, AndrewJFulker for your comment. I have no idea how this works, or when and by whom this appeal will be reviewed, but I do hope they read your comment along with it. I admit I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and am finding my way with its procedures, but the whole experience has left me rather sick and not well disposed towards the whole project. I have only pursued it because a certain user seems to want to put what I think most Staines residents would regard as a biased slant on this story, backed up by a reference that is flawed and by no means 'official'.

Talk:Pah Tum

Hello Northern Winter;

I saw your comments on the Talk Page of the Pah Tum article. You list a huge number of games resources that you were able to consult. I wonder, if you have time and inclination, to take a look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Canary page and see if you can turn up anything about this game in any of those resouces? I suspect it's also a made-up game, but some extra eyes on it might be useful. Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 21:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]