User talk:MaesterTonberry

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Gasta220 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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

BNP Revert
Hi could you explain what you mean and expand your explanation of why you reverted my BNP edits for ease of reading as im abit confused by the lack of information in your original Revert comment. Thanks

Johnsy88 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I think it's important to have a paragraph summarising the BNP's current political representation (lack of MPs, MEPs, councillors etc) in the lead, especially for a reader from outside Britain who may have no idea how big or small the party is in the UK. So I didn't agree with you moving,

The BNP is not represented in Parliament. In the 2005 UK general election, the party received 0.7% of the popular vote, the eighth largest share. The BNP finished fifth in the 2008 London mayoral election with 5.2% of the popular vote. Mayoral candidate Richard Barnbrook was elected to one of the London Assembly's 25 seats. In addition to already holding several metropolitan borough council seats, the BNP won their first county council seats and European Parliament seats on 4 June 2009, winning one council seat in both Lancashire and Leicestershire, and one European Parliament seat each in Yorkshire and the Humber and North West England.

out of the lead and into the article, where it's a bit redundant as we already have sections and sub-sections giving their representation in full detail.

I also thought changing whites-only to party with a restricted whites only membership policy is a bit unnecessary as it basically says the same thing in the next paragraph. MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

agreed and fair enough. Many thanks for taking the time to reply Johnsy88 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate some advise for dealing with a troublemaker
On the NPD article there was an empty assertion that they deny being a Nazi(or as some choose to say for some odd reason "Neo"-Nazi) party when there are no references provided for this claim. They were not disbanded because the German government did not want to disclose who were infiltrators sent by the government into the party and for that reason they could not decide which statements were made by genuine supporters and which were made by government infiltrators and subsequently no proper assessment could be made on the party. That does not mean they emphatically deny being Nazis or neo-Nazis, it just means there are loopholes in German law that has prevented the government from disbanding them. If references can be provided, as you stated it is necessary for such things, then I have no objection to that being included but until such is done it does not belong. Now, someone named Princeps insists on keeping that assertion in the text and only provides childish comments like "you know why".I would appreciate your insight on what to do when one encounters such a troublemaker on wikipedia--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Spitzer19, it's probably best to assume good faith and discuss this issue with Gaius Octavius Princeps personally. I don't know much about the NPD or the article's history but you're right; statements do need to back upped by reliable sources and if the NPD deny being Neo-Nazis then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference stating so. Nevertheless I don't know much about this disagreement so I'm wary of sticking my foot in. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. MaesterTonberry (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your reluctance to step in, I just would like to know what to do if civil discourse with someone has failed and if they persist on making unsubstantiated edits or insist on having unsubstantiated edits in an article.--Spitzer19 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well barring vandalism it's best to discuss content disputes on the article's talk page first to get other editors involved. Failing that you may want to see seek dispute resolution. MaesterTonberry (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for you help transforming the sections in List of films in the public domain in the United States into sortable tables. --Bensin (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And for your work in LGBT rights in Albania (I didn't want to open a new section).sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)