User talk:Jivebaby

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I notice that you and another user are having a disagreement over some of the content of the Haywards Heath page. This disagreement should be carried out on the article's talk page, and not as a constant revert war on the article itself. For the record, while your addition to the article may be factually correct, it does NOT represent a neutral point of view. I would suggest you place the "Referendum" information as a subsection under the "Future" section, and tone down the language to indicate simply that the future plans are meeting with some resistance. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for you to espouse your own position in this disagreement, but merely to present facts. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I understand that you may feel strongly about the cause of the Haywards Referendum Group, the existence of such a group is not really notable outside of your own local area, and is not really "encyclopedic" according to Wikipedia's standards. You may have to find another venue to publicize your cause. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit War
You have engaged in an Edit War on the Haywards Heath page, in violation of Wikipedia policy. I encourage you and Entrain to engage in the approved Dispute Resolution process, rather than continue this dispute in the page itself. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Message to Jivebaby
As indicated above, the information being posted about the Haywards Referendum Group does not conform to a neutral point of view. There is already a factual reference to the referendum requesting plans to be put on hold in the 'future' section of the page. Please discuss. Entrain

Dsicussed and esolved. Many thanks--Jivebaby (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Message 2 Entrain/Mike
Not sure how to use this -You have made a deletion of text agreed with a Wikipedia editor whilst asking me to discuss the item which you have already unilaterally changed. This ia about as neutral as declaring war and then asking the country you have invaded to discuss!

The wording (that you have deleted) was agreed with a Wikipedia editor and will soon have the inline citation to the news item to provide verification. There was NO suggestion in the item that HHRG should be contacted to verify the facts(you must have picked that up from the discussion pages which you have not previously used) - that would be firstly inapprorpriate and secondly unecessary as the information is already in the public domain.

Your asertion that readers should not have to contact HHRG to verify facts is however valid and I agree with you on this point which is why it was removed.

The point regarding the referendum being mentioned above is interesting and perhaps that part of the item should be amended - I do not intend to do that as I am sure that whoever inserted the original item did so in good faith, but the item itself is rather dull (IMHO) which as far as Wikipedia goes is not a fact, just an opoinion.

I hope that you are able to see my point of view and balance them with your own.

Meanwhile perhaps it would be appropriate for the deletion to revert until we have a balanced dialogue? Jivebaby (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Haywards Heath. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean regarding the Braodway Group. ( I have some difficultly with language as I am asn Asperger, and read most things literally) I am trying to ensure that the posting is neautral and I am happy to remove the link to the website which I quite understand. The entries regarding the HHRG were agreed by a wiki editor a considerable time ago and the two issues are not linked in any way.

Appreciate further advice and help thanks.--Jivebaby (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be OK:

Normal 0          false  false  false    EN-GB  X-NONE  X-NONE                                       MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

-

The Broadway Group
TBG was formed in November 2009 by a group of local residents living close to the Broadway in Haywards Heath.

The group was formed initially to co-ordinate resident responses to planning and licensing applications, widening its scope to include raising awareness of noise and antisocial behaviour together with objectives to broaden and improve social and cultural amenities in the area.

The group is actively engaging with MSDC - Councillors and encouraging officers enforce local government policy.

See Policy here = NB: Section 1.5 details the consultation process.

TBG have held meetings with MSDC and Town Councillors, candidates for MSDC district council, Police, local residents, businesses and council officers responsible for policy implementation.

Recent consultations resulted in a record number of resident objections (42) being lodged against applications to increase opening hours and to allow the change of a shop from A1 to A3 (Bar/Restaurant) - In a landmark decision the council supported local resident opposition unanimously rejecting several applications.

MSDC public noise advice

--Jivebaby (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jivebaby

I have replied to your post on my talkpage. I did not know about the Aspergers and I apologise if my edits seemed rather harsh. Experience has taught me that when dealing with agressive point of view pushers and spammers like the one you found in my archives it is usually more effective to meet then head to head rather than going softly. They do not listen to reasoned discussion and take it as a sign of weakness. If you need editing advice do ask me.--Charles (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)