Welcome!
Hello, Northstar456, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Racklever (
talk) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Northstar456. I have just been looking at your recent edits to articles on bridges across the Thames which rang a few alarm bells so I have reviewed further back in your contribution history and on first sight it looks to me like you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote a cause, specifically anti-motor vehicle/pro-cycling & pedestrians. I must remind you that this is an encyclopaedia and thus all edits whould be encyclopaedic; the key policy areas which you are transgressing are maintaining a neutral point of view and no original research which in layman's terms mean that your personal opinion and personal observations should not be introduced in to articles. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help, kind regards, nancy 06:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there again, I'm not sure that you have completely understood how maintaining a neutral point of view and no original research relate to your edits. An example would be your insertion of a imprecise personal observation at Richmond Park. Kind regards, nancy 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Again you have added uncited personal observation/opinion in to an article in support of your anti-motor vehicle POV
[2] and in the next edit removed cited text which did not agree with your pro-cycling POV. Both done without comment, explanation or justification. It is clear now that you are unable to take heed of the advice and guidance proffered concerning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so in line with my warning above I have no other option but to suspend your editing privileges for a short time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Kind regards,
nancy 07:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep [3] [4] changing SW postcode area to alter the name of SW20 from "West Wimbledon" to "Wimbledon"? As I made clear in the edit summary when I reverted your first change, there are two reliable sources for "West Wimbledon" [5] [6] and I'm not aware of any sources for the official name being "Wimbledon" (which is of course the name for SW19). — Richardguk ( talk) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- That you are continuing this behaviour despite warnings ages after being warned is totally unacceptable. I'm reporting you to WP:ANI.-- Laun chba ller 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
m.o.p 22:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Disruptive edits to Richmond Park and Bushy Park Please stop these disruptive edits immediately
Your repeated removal of sourced material on Richmond Park and Bushy Park and its replacement with uncited material constitutes vandalism. Please stop these disruptive edits immediately. Headhitter ( talk) 11:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made with
this edit to
Team Sky, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Excirial (
Contact me,
Contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
copied explanation of edit reversal Hi, I have noticed you have been making edits to the United Kingdom local elections, 2014 article whereby you tried to remove UKIP from the infobox. This is not appropriate as it is not reflected in our reliable sources or indeed in terms of the actual result it's self. Our reliable sources have been treating this contest as a four party race and reflected the result as such. It is true to say that our reliable sources have reflected the fact that the Greens have made gains but they are not treating them as a major party. Indeed if we look at the results: the Greens gained 16 councillor across the country with a total of 36, to put this into context local residents associations gained 14 seats, totalling 53, ahead of the Greens. The Greens achieved a projected national share of the vote of 9%, however the Greens in Scotland are a completely separate party so in actual fact the projected national share for the Green Party of England and Wales would indeed be lower than 9%. UKIP have achieved a projected national share of the vote of 17%, ahead of the Lib Dem's 13%, similarly last year UKIP achieved a PNS of 23% ahead of the Lib Dem's 14%. We're talking about a party that is actually beating a party of Government in terms of national vote share. Indeed if we look at their gains in terms of actual seats, they've gained 161 this time (total 163), in 2013 they gained 139 seats (total 147), never mind all the second places they've achieved. May I remind you that the info box is only a national summary and that that summary should reflect the actual result and indeed our reliable sources coverage of the event. I would kindly ask you to desist from repeating this edit on this or any other article. I take your edits to be in good faith and trust you will not persist in making such changes. Thank you, I just wanted to make sure you had an explanation as to why your edit was inappropriate. Kind Regards Owl In The House ( talk) 13:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Northstar456, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Racklever (
talk) 10:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Northstar456. I have just been looking at your recent edits to articles on bridges across the Thames which rang a few alarm bells so I have reviewed further back in your contribution history and on first sight it looks to me like you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote a cause, specifically anti-motor vehicle/pro-cycling & pedestrians. I must remind you that this is an encyclopaedia and thus all edits whould be encyclopaedic; the key policy areas which you are transgressing are maintaining a neutral point of view and no original research which in layman's terms mean that your personal opinion and personal observations should not be introduced in to articles. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you need any help, kind regards, nancy 06:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there again, I'm not sure that you have completely understood how maintaining a neutral point of view and no original research relate to your edits. An example would be your insertion of a imprecise personal observation at Richmond Park. Kind regards, nancy 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Again you have added uncited personal observation/opinion in to an article in support of your anti-motor vehicle POV
[2] and in the next edit removed cited text which did not agree with your pro-cycling POV. Both done without comment, explanation or justification. It is clear now that you are unable to take heed of the advice and guidance proffered concerning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines so in line with my warning above I have no other option but to suspend your editing privileges for a short time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. Kind regards,
nancy 07:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep [3] [4] changing SW postcode area to alter the name of SW20 from "West Wimbledon" to "Wimbledon"? As I made clear in the edit summary when I reverted your first change, there are two reliable sources for "West Wimbledon" [5] [6] and I'm not aware of any sources for the official name being "Wimbledon" (which is of course the name for SW19). — Richardguk ( talk) 15:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- That you are continuing this behaviour despite warnings ages after being warned is totally unacceptable. I'm reporting you to WP:ANI.-- Laun chba ller 14:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
m.o.p 22:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Disruptive edits to Richmond Park and Bushy Park Please stop these disruptive edits immediately
Your repeated removal of sourced material on Richmond Park and Bushy Park and its replacement with uncited material constitutes vandalism. Please stop these disruptive edits immediately. Headhitter ( talk) 11:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of
your recent contributions, such as the one you made with
this edit to
Team Sky, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Excirial (
Contact me,
Contribs) 19:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
copied explanation of edit reversal Hi, I have noticed you have been making edits to the United Kingdom local elections, 2014 article whereby you tried to remove UKIP from the infobox. This is not appropriate as it is not reflected in our reliable sources or indeed in terms of the actual result it's self. Our reliable sources have been treating this contest as a four party race and reflected the result as such. It is true to say that our reliable sources have reflected the fact that the Greens have made gains but they are not treating them as a major party. Indeed if we look at the results: the Greens gained 16 councillor across the country with a total of 36, to put this into context local residents associations gained 14 seats, totalling 53, ahead of the Greens. The Greens achieved a projected national share of the vote of 9%, however the Greens in Scotland are a completely separate party so in actual fact the projected national share for the Green Party of England and Wales would indeed be lower than 9%. UKIP have achieved a projected national share of the vote of 17%, ahead of the Lib Dem's 13%, similarly last year UKIP achieved a PNS of 23% ahead of the Lib Dem's 14%. We're talking about a party that is actually beating a party of Government in terms of national vote share. Indeed if we look at their gains in terms of actual seats, they've gained 161 this time (total 163), in 2013 they gained 139 seats (total 147), never mind all the second places they've achieved. May I remind you that the info box is only a national summary and that that summary should reflect the actual result and indeed our reliable sources coverage of the event. I would kindly ask you to desist from repeating this edit on this or any other article. I take your edits to be in good faith and trust you will not persist in making such changes. Thank you, I just wanted to make sure you had an explanation as to why your edit was inappropriate. Kind Regards Owl In The House ( talk) 13:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)