User talk:Lylefor/Archive 4

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Freedom Party of Austria

The article Freedom Party of Austria you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Freedom Party of Austria for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Finished the copyedit; it's a good-quality article and very well-researched. Best of luck! Wi2g 19:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your excellent copyedit of the article! Much appreciated. – Bellatores (t.) 20:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your reversions

Instead of constantly reverting on English Defence League, please use the talk page to discuss issues. Thanks in advance. Prioryman (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did that now. It seems there is concensus for my reverts, or actually it went further than what I initially suggested. I won't disagree with it though. – Bellatores (t.) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass reversion

Stop your series of mass reversion against Wikipedia policies. Your recently gained autopatrolled priviledges should be revoked.--Sum (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your creation of articles such as "Resurgence of racism in Europe 2008-2011" is blatant violation of Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV (as noted by other editors). The fact that you added links to the same article in a bunch of serious articles serves as WP:DIS. – Bellatores (t.) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please don't re-PROD articles

Without reaching a conclusion on the merits of keeping or deleting Resurgence of racism in Europe 2008-2011, which you re-prodded after the author removed the first PROD -

It's our policy that if the proposed deletion is disputed, that it be taken to the Articles for Deletion pages and considered under that procedure. Readding a proposed deletion is not ok and is in fact not allowed.

I have removed your re-prod'ding of that article. I encourage you to articulate your objections to the article on its talk page and / or in Articles for Deletion.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I simply didn't think twice about how the deletion policy worked here again. – Bellatores (t.) 02:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no harm done or anything, and Lihaas has filed the AFD already. The ANI discussion is progressing. Please just keep in mind not to personalize it against the other editor etc.

Thanks, and happy editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbian Radical Party

You may be able to suggest this for DYK as a recent expansion

btw- im just about to start the GA review.(Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).

 Done 1st round, something o t do.(Lihaas (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).

Okay then, give me a shout. b/c my 2nd response is obviously after yours ;)(Lihaas (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)).

I know i forgot sorry. just logged in to check that out ironically enough ;) im going there right now.(Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)).

So we only need the source for the List of Presidents and sort out election section and we should be done, i beleive. Anything else there?

Also have you got a source for the president? (its the only deficient on a well-sourced article)Lihaas (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

seems ready to me, check the page and the review.Lihaas (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

cool, we should done it eaerlier.

one thing though vague terms "generally been strong" is/can be povLihaas (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you reciproate review for my nom Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Politics_and_government(Lihaas (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)).

I actually have an exam in a few days, so my activity on WP will be rather limited during this time. I can thus not promise that I'll start on it before then, but I can (at least) see to do it afterwards. – Bellatores (t.) 13:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Finland elections GA

Not sure what you meant by "Is the stock market arrows really needed for the table of election results?" dont see arrows. except for perhaps the economic subsection?

ps- ill get to your SRP review in a day or so to check the changes too. been kinda busy last few days ([per my contribs)(Lihaas (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)).

just added a few more things to teh SRP review and it should be good to go then.(Lihaas (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)).

All issues done.(Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)).

Kingdom of Sardinia

Hi Bellatores, our boring friends are unfortunately in action again. They think they are the lords of wikipedia.... Can you help us to stop them? Thanks!--Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A new Good Article

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Serbian Radical Party a certified "Good Article"! Your work is appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

FPÖ

Hello Bellatores,

I know you are an experienced Wikipedian, and I highly respect you for the work you invested in promoting a number of Good Articles. Would you like to discuss our latest edits at the FPÖ article on Talk:Freedom Party of Austria? I would like you to know that I do not have a clear agenda except trying to improve the Wikipedia as well as I can. I also try to be as neutral as a human being with a personal opinion on political subjects can be. If I fail, could you please tell me personally, instead of talking about me on article discussion pages?

God bless you. -- RJFF (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of writing a reply on the FPÖ-page, just hang on a bit. I appreciate this approach of yours, and hopefully we can get some sort of understanding. Regards, – Bellatores (t.) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bellatores,

I would like to invite you to share your opinion and arguments on the talk page of the Freedom Party article. Have a nice day. -- RJFF (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

KoS

According to you, Bellatores, I restored the usual referenced version of the page about the Kingdom of Sardinia. --Jonny Bee Goo (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the KoS article is one of the sadest examples of systematic pov-pushing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. It should have been picked up a long time ago by administrators or something, but those that have been involved seem to not understand the issue. Needless to say, I still support your efforts in correcting the article, but I myself am much to "exhausted" to continue for such a long time just reverting the article back over and over. Best of lucks though, and I'll continue to monitor the situation, perhaps give you a hand when necessary. – Bellatores (t.) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Hello Bellatores,

I have learned that often the talk page can be the more helpful tool than the revert button, especially in controversial issues. You might want to use the former more often, and the latter less. Reverting where there is no consensus while rejecting the invitation to discussion is not very co-operative and can create an impression of being rather impolite. I regret that I have to tell you this, because I really do respect your work, your diligence, and your commitment. And I am honestly interested in learning your rationale for not including the political position of the Party for Freedom in the infobox. Looking forward to more and better co-operation with you. Best wishes --RJFF (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there was an ongoing edit-warring between whether to include "right-wing" or "far-right" in the infobox. When consensus has not been reached, it would be best to just remove the parameter, at least until a possible consensus has been reached. After all, the parameter is not vital for these articles, and should in controversial cases best be removed, and instead let the issue be discussed within the article prose, i.e. "the party has been variously described as "right-wing" and "far-right"." In some cases, strict and definite one-term labelling in the context of infoboxes is not appropriate. – Bellatores (t.) 19:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Queen Maud Land

The article Queen Maud Land you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. Please see my review here. I've added the page to my watchlist, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions or clarify some of my statements if needed. Nightw 21:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination has passed. Well done! Thanks for having patience. Nightw 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Antarctican Penguin Barnstar
		For making Queen Maud Land a certified Good Article. Lovely work, hope to see more such articles from you. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving me my first ever barnstar! Perhaps I might just have to do another Antarctic one now! – Bellatores (t.) 12:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making National Front (France) a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Lylefor/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

National Front

Please have a look at this article. I don't know what happened, but I can't figure out what the "Shields" footnotes actually refer to -- I can't find the of the referenced work. If this is due to my unfamiliarity with named references, please enlighten ahd forgive me. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jo3sampl. The Shields footnote refers to the book "Shields, James (2007). The extreme right in France: from Pétain to Le Pen. Routledge." You can find this book under the bibliography section. —Filippusson (t.) 07:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim cat

I see that you also removed this category from a number of other pages when it can easily be substantiated, for instance Vlaams Belang or Party for Freedom. At any rate, "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islam" appear to be synonymous for Wikipedia purposes (check out the category structure) - if you believe this is incorrect, removing articles from appropriate categories won't solve the problem. Have you considered CfD? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a distinction between "anti-Islam" and "anti-Muslim". The first implies that one are against a religion, whereas the latter implies that one are specifically against the people who subscribe to that religion. In any case, the term "anti-Muslim" isn't supported by any of the articles which was wrongly put in that category as far as I know. —Filippusson (t.) 23:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, that's not really a distinction Wikipedia currently makes. There is no "anti-Islam organizations" category, there is only "anti-Muslim organizations." You may be right about the distinction (though not about some of the things you removed, per my links above), but the category serves a useful purpose by allowing a reader to find in one place articles on groups with similar ideologies. Have you considered beginning a discussion at CfD as to whether there should be distinct categories? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We already have Category:Anti-Islam and its many sub-categories, under which most of the groups are included. The parties you point to above is for instance found under Category:Opposition to Islam in Europe. Nevertheless, I might agree that the titles of the categories could be clarified in a better way. —Filippusson (t.) 23:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There, I think I got them all. It really would have helped to look for sources before removing the category, ie. do the work yourself rather than making other people do it for you. Again, you should begin a discussion at CFD, because while it was very easy to find sources describing these as anti-Muslim as well as anti-Islam, they don't seem to be viewed as distinct by most Wikipedia editors, and a discussion would clarify the community position so that in future, you will know if you are right to remove such a category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider your point of view when practically all your attempts of labelling (smearing) various organisations as "anti-Muslim" has been speedily reverted by several different editors. Your personal opinion that the term anti-Muslim supposedly is just the same as anti-Islam bears no weight. Kind regards, —Filippusson (t.) 15:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whine, whine, complain, whine. It's in reliable sources. That's how we roll. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

By doing a random google search, you can find all kinds of labels for PVV used in media sources, from moderate right to far-right. We don't collect just anything one or two people have mentioned passing by, but try to find how's a consensus to label a party. There clearly is no consensus to label the PVV as strictly anti-Muslim, which would entail opposing not just the ideology of Islam, but the people, too. Stop trying to push through your non-conensual changes by edit-warring. Estlandia (dialogue) 16:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't whine about my trying to push through changes without consensus. Filippuson unilaterally removed a long-standing category from nearly every organization in it, counter to an apparent community consensus that does not make a distinction between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim (as evidenced by the lack of similar country-specific categories for anti-Islam), and upon my making the effort of finding sources (not, contrary to your rather silly and easily disproved claims, just one or two, nor passing mentions) to suit your special little argument, you reverted it anyway, because it's "POV." If you think it's inherently POV to describe anyone as anti-Muslim rather than anti-Islam, you shouldn't be wasting everyone else's time; consensus-building will just have to move on without you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up at the noticeboard. Pass a Method talk 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for keeping a steady head through the pressure. Pass a Method talk 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian Social Movement

The article is within the scope of WPConservatism. We have justed started a Review dept., and it may help accelerate getting a reviewer for your GAN. More info here: WP:WikiProject Conservatism/Review. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyright inquiry

I've replied to your Copyright inquiry at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Deceased person. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Little Green Footballs and Template:Islamophobia

Did you miss out a "not" from your edit summary [1]? Perhaps you could put a clarifying comment in Template talk:Islamophobia.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Calhoun County, Hillsborough County and Leon County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tverrpolitisk folkevalgte logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tverrpolitisk folkevalgte logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Defence League

As I wrote in my edit summary "It looks like you have written your own article and simply want the present one replaced. Also, an AfD is underway. Please discuss major changes on talk page. Reverting to previous version per WP:BRD." __meco (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As your elaborate rewrite appears to my immediate analysis to be motivated by a need to bury some, and remove completely from the article other information that could be perceived damaging by the organization itself, I would like to request that you disclose your incentive for endeavoring the considerable task of this rewrite. Specifically, I would ask of you that you state any affiliation with the NDL, its leadership, or whether you have received any requests or had discussions with the organization about the need to present the NDL in a "different light", so to speak. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page concerning your attempted rewrite, and your input would be appreciated at Talk:Norwegian Defence League#Possible COI major rewrite reverted. __meco (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have also notified Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. __meco (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention to you that you are being branded in today's Klassekampen ("Kampen om sannheten"). __meco (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Norwegian Defence League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vårt Land (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)