User talk:N0t8r1ght

NOTBRIGHT is dedicated to keeping verfied facts visible and transparent:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Haywards Heath. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haywards Heath Referendum Group

WikiDan61 - You are perfectly right - it seems a disgruntled group member is perhaps intent on removing reference to the HHRG -I have taken great care to esnure that the item is entirely factual, informative and verifiable but it still gets deleted. The offending "editors" are Entrain and Pw555.

I should add that I am an Asperger and find it hard to navigate no logical/intiuitive to find oput how to discuss as suggested -I and my friend have left message on the back/chat page asking for non deletion or dialogue but with no success. I cannot force people to either enage or behave reasonably nor would I want to, however I would like to ensure that the page remains visbile and current.

Many thanks for your input and for anything that you can perhspas do to make life easier.

I'm not sure how this chat funtion works as I can only input using edit -is there an input chat icon?

PS Would you like me to change my signature as you have removed it?

Kind regards...NotBright

The section on HHRG is really not appropriate on the page. The neutral point of view fact is that the future plans for the town are disputed and no resolution has yet been reached. The HHRG group can be cited as a reference for this fact. HOWEVER, the HHRG position is NOT NPOV, and does NOT belong in the main Wikipedia article.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm struggling to comprehend how facts can be anything but neutral - The item only consists pf facts which are verifiable in the form of council minutes issued by the town hall/town clerks, correspondence and TV footage. Im more than happy to work on the language and HHRG are now an important aspect of the current and future development of Haywards Heath.

Can you please confirm that this user talk page ilo email is the appropriate and correct way to discuss this issue with you?

Are you saying/implying that it would be OK as a seperate entry toehther with perhaps a heading in the Haywards Heath listing indicating that this is an important "sister " page?

Many thanks

Will this do please? I have carefully removed opinions: However it doesn't seem fair to hide a sentence under "The Future" especially as

"A further 685 homes are due to be built in the final phases of Bolnore Village (phases 4 and 5) NOT VERIFIED, and new homes are also expected to be build in the town centre as part of the Hayward Heath Master Plan." OPINION

If completed, the Haywards Heath bypass will eventually divert the A272 traffic south of the town through Bolnore Village, which the district council hopes will improve the current traffic situation through the town centre. ???????????

Haywards Heath Referendum Group:

A group of residents have formed The Haywards Heath Referendum Group, a strictly non-party political association with members drawn from the local community.

Following a local Referendum which is very rare in the UK, 95% of voters supported the motion which was subsequently adopted during a Special Meeting of the Town Council on 21st July 2008 when members agreed the critical landmark motion: To "adopt the local Referendum result which asked MSDC to put development plans on hold. "

The deputy Mayor confirms that the motion was taken as a “recorded” vote which was carried 9-3 with one abstention, however members have yet to agree the minutes. This has led to extensive debate and the resident mandate from this meeting been delayed.

It is alleged that control and leadership issues continue to undermine credibility with widespread debate following a BBC TV News item on Saturday 13th September 2008. The Mayor has advised that members will again try to agree minutes from the 21st July at its next meeting on 27th October.

Information verifiable from Council Minutes and HHTC correspondence. Email info@HaywardsHeaths-Referendum.com

I have placed a suggested copy on my user page. Please review it. I have added references where appropriate, and removed the "this information is verifiable" line -- that part is inappropriate for main article content. If you agree to the content, I would place it as a SUBSECTION of the "Future" section.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as to your comments about how facts can be anything but neutral -- it is a FACT that opinions were expressed at a town council meeting. That does not make the opinions expressed facts, and the FACT that the opinions were expressed is not, in itself, encyclopedic. However, I believe that between us we may be able to present these facts in as neutral a manner as possible. Again, please check my suggested rewrite on my user page.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks I can live with that, although I would have preferred a seperate entry. Once it's up what happens about Etrain and Pw555 deleting it?

Once again many thanks... and the year needs to be addded to the 27th October jsu in case it drags on longer!

ATB..NB

I note that the text agreed with Wikipedia has been amended to indicated that the referendum turn out was "only" 21% - this is true ( but misleading) as it is taken out of context: Voting hours were reduced from 08:00 -20:00 down to 16:00 to 21:00.

In other words electors normally have 14 hours in which to vote instead of the 5 hours granted in this instance. Moreover postal votes were not permitted as is the case for local and general elections this further diluting the democratic process. I hope that my amendment is accepted as a fair adjustment to rectify the alteration and to provided balanced context.

N0t8r1ght (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]