User talk:Lylefor/Archive 2

Question about edit
In this edit (which doesn't appear to fall within the definition of m) you change some text while removing one reference. Could you explain what the basis is for this edit? __meco (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't write a summary. Nevertheless, the reason I removed it was because it was included in the sentence quite arbitrary and borderline OR. The only party to have a continous steady increase in membership (over many years) is the Progress Party. The text had also included the Labour Party on a basis of a short increase for one, two or threee years, but if you look at the article for the party, it had 200,000 members in the 1950s, and around 50,000 today. That is NOT a continous steady increase. -TheG (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, but the information was referenced. didn't the Lahlum article state this? __meco (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As said, it is plainly wrong. I cannot imagine that this could be disputed. Also, I don't know what Lahlum article you are talking about. But if the same info is written other places too it should be removed asap. -TheG (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference you removed was an article titled "Lettvint fra Lahlum". Although I agree that the information would be easily dismissed as "clearly wrong" from someone with one eye on Norwegian society and politics, you did remove a reference obviously without knowing what that source wrote. If some other editor than a fellow Norwegian queried you about this, you'd be in some trouble over this, I believe. __meco (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah. But the fact is that these are the membership numbers for the Labour Party. That it has seen a slight increase in members for one year, does not take away the fact that it has lost three quarters of its members since 1950. I've also had this exact same discussion with Trust Is All You Need (creator of much of the SV article), and he agreed. That time it regarded the FrP article, but the same issue. I don't know why it hasn't been removed in this one before. -TheG (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If any of us should have the motivation to do so, we ought to see how both that statement and the reference got into the article (in which edits and by whom) to try and erradicate the source of these erroneous insertions. I'm mostly curous though about what exactly that newspaper article, which apparently isn't available online, has to bear on all of this. __meco (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress Party (Norway)
Hi there. I see you have this nominated at GAN. It is an interesting article, and I have been working on an extensive copyedit to improve the English. There appears not to be great consistency in the citations, and many of the online references lack a retrieval date. To help prepare the article to pass GAN, you might like to tidy up the citations. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. I saw that you did some nice work copyediting the article, which is very much needed and appreciated. If retrieval dates must be included, shouldn't just today's date be added (given that I check them before)? Otherwise, I don't quite understand what you suggest should be done by "tidy up the citations". With consistency, if you mean that they largely include few and single events, I think it would be somewhat hard to find sources which give very much consitency; encyclopedias for one are often very little detailed. -TheG (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Regarding retrieval date: as long as you check them today, yes, just put today's date. Regarding "tidying up", I meant adding those dates, but also checking other aspects of the completeness of the references. Every news article should have the date on which the story was reported, for example. Please also see my comments at the GA review regarding seeking English-language news sources. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
Hello. You have removed several times the "conspiracy theory" label about Eurabia (in Eurabia and in Template:Conspiracy theories). You didn't this before 2010. Could you explain? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Because, as it says in the lead, it is a political neologism; not a conspiracy theory. It is mainly a theory which speculates about future European demographics, and does not have any particular "conspiracy" as its main premise. -TheG (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your fast answering. The beginning currently says also that "The term was publicized by the writer Bat Ye'or, especially in her 2005 book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, referring to joint Euro-Arab foreign policies that she characterizes as anti-American and anti-Zionist." Have tou read Adi Schwartz's The protocols of the elders of Brussels? Do you agree that some part of Eurabia thesis have been called conspiracy theory? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is a controversial move to definitely call it a conspiracy theory, but I don't think I will intervene further in the discussion about this. -TheG (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you are the one who removed Eurabia from Template:Conspiracy theories and Template:Conspiracy theories from Eurabia. Iwill not take them again soon, but I would have prefer to discuss with you. See you later, and good luck for your article labels (including Sweden Democrats). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweden Democrats
I am totally agree with your last modifications about Sweden Democrats. As you were cancelling the recent and partial adds made by Anarchovegan (ambiguos nonsense claims from foreign leftist pov sources), I was doing exactly the same thing so that there was a conflict of modifications. So I restored involuntaraly the precedent litigious version that you removed 30 or 40 seconds ago. I feel sincerely sorry for that. For some days, some people try to insert libellous informations. The most important is to avoid polemic sources or partial informations, keeping a neutral point of view and using reliable sources. Comment added by Jeromemoreno (talk • 15:43 in western France on 19 September 2010.


 * No problem. It is easy to mix up editing on pages with many edits at the same time. Besides that, I agree fully with your last sentence; that is the important issue. -TheG (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've unprotected this per request at WP:RFUP (see here as well); just watch your edits :). That's what the talk page is for! I'm sending this to the three other users who seem to have been involved as well. Best, Airplaneman   ✈  23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I added again the actual SD symbol (anemone hepathica, blåsippa) in a more appropriate place (history) than the general introduction. Without this photo in the general introduction of the article, the presentation is now better. In the same time, I think important to keep this photo in the article since it reflects concretely the evolution of the Sweden Democrats during their history. Some time ago, I had added a reference about the choice and the symbol of this flower. --Jérôme MORENO HERRERO talk page 09:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

Censorship/vandalism
please dont censor/vandalise the pages. Did you read the note before removing it wholescale? it doesnt seem so, becasueyou have reufed to discuss on talk the addition/removal thereof.Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

hello, you are very active on the Danish People's Party (english) page. But your edits seem to have a political agenda, namely to eliminate any mention of the highly contentious nature of DF, which involves - weekly, if not daily- taking an extreme standpoint on the immigrant / Muslim issue as a means to polarize the Danish electorate. By constantly editing out sourced references to these controversies - which are the ESSENCE of the party's political strategy & hence its success, and without reference to which it would be impossible for an outsider to understand Danish politics - you are revealing your personal political bias. No more censorship please. (07:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptomania (talk • contribs)

Progress Party (Norway)
Hi there. Can you see if you can find a native English speaker willing to do a copyedit on this? I admire your work in pulling in new sources and working things out, but your English just isn't quite sufficient to get it passed at GA and i don't have time to work through it at the moment. See what you can come up with and hopefully it will pass GA. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if I can find someone, but I'll try. If it hasn't been resolved in some days it could be nice with some help. -TheG (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on!!!
Come on! I mean seriously, I don't care how right-wing you are, but when you add controversial claims such as Hagen is the "greatest politician" since Gerhardsen you are wrong.. This claim is supported by a small local newspaper in Buskerud which doesn't even name those who call him the "greatest politician". Second, your post on the talk page shows your personal point of view very clear. Let me quote; "Regular contemporary career politicans who almost by accident happen to be elected as Prime Minister or whatever, are not even close to match Hagen's accomplishments." This is POV, and shows very clear your stance on the subject.. Either write neutral or not write at all on PP-related articles, it is your choice, but stop POV-pushing your view onto wikipedia.


 * I mean seriously, you wouldn't like it if i found a local newspaper which called Kristin Halvorsen or Jens Stoltenberg the "greatest politician since Gerhardsen" would you? No, you wouldn't. Second, Hagen is very controversial, and calling him the "greatest" when he is still alive makes it even more controversial.... But again stop your POV-pushing here on wiki!!! --TIAYN (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What my personal opinions would be is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Your aggressive CAPS LOCK rhetoric on the edit commentary is neither helpful, and suggests you have strong emotional feelings about this subject (which might disturb your ability to be "nonbiased"). Nevertheless, I will change the sentence a bit, and add more sources; Kyrre Nakkim; "Even in the European context, he is unique in that he has built up a party from scratch", Harald Stanghelle; "...And in the sense of making a difference in politics, the political editor believes that Hagen must be compared with political greats as Gro Harlem Brundtland, Willoch and landsfaderen himself, Einar Gerhardsen." -TheG (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Request

 * File:Roman HanEmpiresAD1.png
 * File:RomanandHanEmpiresAD1.png
 * File:KhitanAD1000.png
 * File:MongolEmpireDivisions1300.png
 * File:MongolEmpire1300.png

Excuse me? I request that fix to you about korea part of up-file. According to korea histroy book(ex: Samguksagi) and china history book(ex: History of Yuan), Goryeo(old country of Korea) is independent state, thus no colony.(You can find to true or false for wikipedia data.) Therefore, please close the edit warrior in commons. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

--- Hi there -- sorry if I am posting this in the wrong place. I made a sketch for my dissertation incorporating some information from your Xiongnu empire map, and I wanted to credit you by name. Can you please email me? I can be reached at indianajoe (at) bellsouth (dot) net. CHEERS! Joe Wilson Nosliw1 (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)