User talk:Nigel C. Fortune

Welcome!

Hello, Nigel C. Fortune, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 01:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Hopkins[edit]

Hi Nigel, further to the discussion of creating an article on Mr Hopkins, I would like to flag up this page on creating a Wikipedia article. Some detail under the page 'Writing an autobiography' also seems useful to highlight, as the subject of Sydney Hopkins is very dear to you. It says:

"Please note that anything you submit will be edited mercilessly by others. Many (auto)biographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in at least four instances have been listed for deletion by their original authors… If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If [the subject does] turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay—you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absolute and non-negotiable, and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia."

This underlines that once an article is created it becomes fully a publicly owned work under a commons licence and ceases - entirely - to be under the control of one person or a specific group. Sheila in Brisbane, Ali in Calcutta or Mr Ling in Beijing all have perfectly equal rights to edit, ruthlessly add or cut the article, whether they know anything about Mr Hopkins or not. The Wikipedia community judge whether their contributions are useful. No one person retains a veto. Hurt feelings or an appeal to misrepresentation will hold no water. Whether a piece of information can be verified by a solid source is the only measure of inclusion. If you don't like something, but it can be verified, it may well stay in, indefinitely, for the world to see.

I just flag these points up as I have been involved over the years with many editors who wish to write articles about notable loved ones or family and have been deeply hurt when negative things have been included by others. This was not part of their original vision at all. Some have wound up being blocked from editing Wikipedia because they did not wish to cede control of material they had written. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia and articles are first and last intended to be neutral encyclopedia entries.

I hope that helps to clarify things a little.

All best wishes

Anna

Prestbury, Gloucestershire[edit]

Hi Nigel,

Thanks for your edits.

Re: The entry on Pluckley in Kent lists its ghost stories, as it also claims to be the most haunted village in the country.

Isn't this a case of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists -- i.e. it is equally just as strong an argument for trimming down the ghost stories in Pluckley to a size proportionate to the rest of the article rather than enlarging the stories in Prestbury?

I think there is considerably more to the village than a few ghost stories, so the emphasis on this small facet in the article is disproportionate.

Hi Anna,

Nice to hear from you again. I take your point. I just felt that as i have personal knowledge of the sheer amount of ghost stories associated with Prestbury, it was unfair to leave Prestbury's reference to being haunted as it was, whilst however wrote the Pluckley article had listed their stories and claimed it was the most haunted village in the country.

92.238.100.194 (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That map is purely for an LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership). A Business initiative and they have just used Black Country as the name, however it is just the four metropolitan boroughs. The Black Country has no actual boundaries and is an ambiguous term used to describe the old industrial towns such as West Bromwich, Smethwick, Dudley etc. Furthermore people in Black Country have a different accent (Yam Yam) which is quite profoundly different to the accent of Streetly which is more Brummie. I am born and raised in streetly myself. With regards to streetly and it's history, yes obviously it goes further back than the 50s/60s however it was mainly woodland and pubs as opposed to a largely residential area which it is now. With the urbanisation of Birmingham and greater need for homes to be built Streetly had a huge boom of houses being built in 50s/60s. My parents were also both born in Streetly in the 60s by the way. Barlow95 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peace sign[edit]

Please see Peace sign Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1[edit]

I started the procedure to have the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article promoted to WP:FA. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 needs discussants. Since you were a contributor to the article and to the Talk Page discussion, I am hoping you might give some comments. Lewismaster (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A debate has risen during the review about the term "movement" used to describe the NWOBHM. It would be greatly appreciated if you could add your opinion on the matter. Lewismaster (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term New Wave is more accurate rather than movement, as that is in the title itself.N. C. Fortune (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a new wave of metal bands, but I don't think that "new wave" can also describe the thousands of young people that supported heavy metal and gave birth to the subculture. It's the combination of bands and fans that should be called "a movement". Lewismaster (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would contest that 'movement' is more accurate than 'new wave'. At the time it was categorised as a wave of new metal bands coming on the scene from all over the UK in a short space of time. The 'new wave' in NWOBHM refers to the bands, not fans. The fans came on board as the new wave of British bands gained momentum. N. C. Fortune (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Nigel C. Fortune. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nigel C. Fortune. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nigel C. Fortune. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]