User talk:Saalstin

My Talk Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Link

You reverted much of the information I deleted from the entry on United Kingdom Independence Party. This is not a neutral entry. The bits I deleted refer to people who are no longer party members, and whose cases were hugely distorted by the press. Both of them were victimized for small technicalities or on trumped-up evidence and branded as criminals, as part of a systematic victimization of any anti-EU political parties. The EU has its own intelligence network and dirty tricks department which works to discredit any opponents. It plants or forges evidence if necessary. Meanwhile major examples of corruption in the pro-EU political parties are not prosecuted by the legislature or addressed by the Electoral commission. In the recent British election, the three biggest parties all had huge amounts of illegal funding. Labour gets it by selling peerages, and from foreign donors; Conservatives get millions from non-domiciled peers such as Lord Ashcroft; the Libdems accepted £3.5 million in illegal donations from tax-evaders, non-doms, non-citizens and in one case, a common criminal who obtained the money by illegal means in the first place. Your article gives the impression that the United Kingdom Independence party is less ethical than the others, whereas in fact it is considerably more ethical.

A fair and neutral article should reflect that.

HenriettaVanLaer (talk)HenriettaVanLaer —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi HenriettaVanLaer,

I've reverted the changes you've made again, as, whilst no article is perfect, your changes seem to make it significantly less neutral than it currently is. The people to whom you referred were party members, and were variously expelled, jailed, or resigned due to their disputes, and in at least one case, criminal acts. Our article states the facts - a person can then make their own judgement. Hiding these things would contribute to creating an artificially positive impression, which we have no business doing. Whilst all of the content of the article is sourced, your assertions are not. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Mind if I move this to mainspace? Pichpich (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have history merged the article from Bradley Schneider into Brad Schneider. I have taken the liberty of striking (but leaving in the message box) your comment about their being a duplicate article, since the former is now a redirect to the latter. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks --Saalstin (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you said that UKIP is a right-wing party. Do you have any idea which specific party policies make UKIP right-wing? Pass a Method talk 10:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Where did you get that ludicrous label from? Far right? Are you seriously calling them fascist? Please don't do it. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexandre8 - the threshold for Wikipedia is verifiability - I have called them nothing, Professor Margetts from the University of Oxford, Professor Beradi from the Open University, and various newspapers and respected magazines have called them far-right after analysing their policy platform, and voter behaviour. If you can find alternatives, please do so, but you shouldn't remove sourced material simply because you don't like it. All the best --Saalstin (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Uni is quite, well, crap...a gimmick really. new age internet "biz of education" org. (and i met 2 profs on an international marketing gimmick who had no idea what to talk). But youre right, it should stay, if only by the caveat that "x..." labeled them as such,.(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Hey - in our article on Bristol, you say "should it say "estimated for/by the unitary authority"? i can't understand it". Presuming you mean the sentence, it's correct as 'for' - "an estimated population of 433,100 for the unitary authority in 2009" means there are 433,100 people inside the area covered by Bristol City Council ('the unitary authority'), but that doesn't cover the whole of the urban area, which spills over into South Gloucestershire contiguously (Bradley Stoke, Filton, Kingswood, and Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset with varying gaps - together, the entire population of the 4 unitary authorities is around 1m people, of which around 600k live in urban Bristol, of which 433,100 live in areas covered by Bristol City Council. Hope that helps --Saalstin (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(i took the liberty of moving your comment to me over here to your page as i'm just an ip_add :) OK, thanks. The part that is confusing to American ears is, the "authority" part which sounds like it's a government, not a geographical area, and indeed, now reading again i see that this "area" usage is also proper in Britain and shown earlier (and linked!) in the article on that same page... so my link was not really necessary, and I understand your "common usage" so the clarification would perhaps be nice but is not strictly necessary. cheers. 71.190.77.86 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You realise that UKIP are a centre-right party? Their policies are centre-right and Nigel Farage has said they are a centre right party. Judging from your page I see some biasy? 78.146.107.168 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you might want to look at the talk page for UKIP on this topic. Whilst their leadership likes to claim "centre right", academic analyses have found them to be "right wing", and "far right", all of which have been sourced to the article before, and removed by party supporters. You're correct from my userpage, I reject their extremist separatism, and am very open about this - from your attitude, I see the opposing bias? --Saalstin (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has a different view but calling them a right wing populist party is unture. UKIP support in the euro elections was 2nd in the country and this was at a time when conservatives weren't frustrated with Cameron's leadership. All I'm trying to do is add some balance to the article, sourcing for these pages shouldn't just come from socialist websites like I have seen here. 78.146.107.168 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer you back to the article talk page, which is rather more stable than the article itself, and contains a number of debates, containing the sources which show them described by reliable media sources, and research universities, as "right wing", and "far right", whereas their own supporters tend to believe that they are "centre right". (I'm not aware that the Daily Telegraph and the University of Oxford are usually described as "socialist"). All the best --Saalstin (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, remember me? You helped me out with asking about a display in the Museum of Tahiti awhile ago. Can you help me as if Malik Joyeux (fr:Malik Joyeux) was a native indigenous Tahitian (Maohi that is, not a resident or descendant of a settlers). I know he was born on Moorea. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Information: on the discussion page of European Union exist voting: Talk:European_Union#Definition_of_the_European_Union. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alpes-de-Haute-Provence Senators has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]