SEMI-RETIRED

Your autoblock should be cleared now. Edit the sandbox or something to be sure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maunus is only human)) sometimes mistakes happen lol. Alexandre8 (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops again. I guess I am All too human!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexandre8. You have new messages at Steven J. Anderson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up trying to formulate a good article from that one, as those editing it seem to have an agenda against the article subject. Seems a game of fitting in as much "right-wing extremism", "xenophobia" and "racism" remarks as possible, rather than writing a NPOV article. Sad really. You and I both said a passing reference (from a source who has a political bias) wouldn't do, but the agenda-squad don't seem interested in quality sourcing, only enforcing their BBC, career politican created narrow view of the subject.

What you've put on the talk page of the article is spot on! If you already have a hatred of something, then how can your work possibly be neutral, let alone used a source on a site which is meant to be neutral?!?!?!?! Having been through the "reknowned" British education system, an "educator" becomes respected by the establishment for simply having pro-establishment, often socialist leanings. If you hold such views, you'll become "respected"! I do love the "racist" remarks though. Guess that's why the nephew of the former Prime Minister of Guyana has recently joined the party. I guess when people fear a movement, they lie about it and try to paint it in bad light. Regards. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-islamic is sourced in the main body of the article. Its not normal to put sources in the lede. You might want to self-revert --Snowded ^TALK 00:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My computer is playing up massively, I just was just writing a longish piece and it just crashed. My ability to get this done quickly is now jepordised, will get a technician to have a look at it over Christmas. Every time I open up a few pages or more for quoting it just freezes. Will try my best for the moment with just opening two at a time. If you could removed the offending material yourself I'd be much appreciated. Thanks Alexandre8 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have just had a look and can't find the sources in the main body. Could you show me please. thanks. Alexandre8 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Xijky (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]