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 but sources in the lede. You might want to self-revert --Snowded ^TALK 00:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]