User talk:Olehal09

Refs

High quality refs required per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

get consensus first Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Circumcision. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Human sacrifice. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Also, please read WP:PSTS and WP:SYNTH regarding this further. Primary sources (such as the Bible) should rarely be cited, except perhaps when providing relevant quotes or summaries -- but rarely for anything as complex as statements of religious doctrine, and never in combination with other parts of the text to make statements that the work doesn't explicitly state on its own. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:PSTS. Wikipedia sticks with secondary sources, such as books by scholars who have studied the history of beliefs and summarized them in as neutral a manner as possible. For example, if you look at the Christianity article, you'll see that it cites The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity, and other academic works.

If we allowed people to make statements based on their personal interpretations of the Bible, this site becomes an overglorified blog. For the record, I do also believe that Jesus is God, that He died for our sins, and so forth (but I don't pretend that my personal understanding of the Bible is anything like a neutral academic summary); and this site reports that those are basic beliefs in Christianity -- but Wikipedia covers those issues using academic sources instead of original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian thomson is absolutely correct. That is the way Wikipedia works. If you can't work this way then you'd probably be happier elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

War on Women

Hello, I'm BullRangifer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to War on Women was undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Olehal09. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please respond

Please respond to my request at the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits / Language question

I notice that sometimes you mark edits as minor, and they aren't always minor. You don't ever need to mark an edit as minor, so it might be best that you either not do it at all, or be more careful. If your edit isn't considered minor by other editors, your marking it minor can be seen as deceptive, and I'm sure you don't want that to happen!

BTW, are you Norwegian? I speak Danish and understand some Norwegian and Swedish. I realize that English isn't your mother tongue, so I'm trying to understand how I can best communicate with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought those changes were minor, because I just tried to polish the text, but since it's not necessary I will not do it in the future. I'm Norwegian yes, if you can write Danish it had been easier for me to understand. Olehal09 (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Det var interessant. Jeg kan forstå norsk i en vis grad. I fremtiden, hvis der opstår oversættelsesproblemer, måske vi kan brug dansk/norsk til at opklare meningen, men det må ske her eller på min talk side, da det her er den engelske Wikipedia og andre redaktører kan ikke forstå os. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I see above that more than one editor has already discussed the issue or original research with you. It is not allowed on wikipedia. Editors who continue to engage in such practices after being warned can become subject to blocks. Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please Epeefleche think for a moment. This it wasn't new reserch at all, it was only that I read about the people who had won the nobel prize from the wikipeida article, and some of them had more than just jewish origin, and some were atheists and christians. Olehal09 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, since the conversation started here, it makes little sense to bifurcate it. If you wish to add your response here, do so.

Second, I routinely delete non-warnings from my talk page, as is acceptable. I read it -- you know that because I deleted it.

Please read the links that you have been pointed to on original research, and citing sources, to understand why you adding "what you know" as unsourced edits is not appropriate on wikipedia.

Plus, of course, saying someone is Jewish is not the same as saying that they practice Judaism (and of course, as is obvious as we have an entire article on them, we have Jewish atheists) -- but that's not a subject we need get into, as you are just adding unsourced OR, which is verboten. Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem a little reluctant to discuss this with me, why? And with the verboten remark, do you think I have anything against Jews. Because I've not. I just try to point out a factual falicy in the article, and we both know it to be a fact. Don't use the victimization tactic, it don't work on me.Olehal09 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I am reluctant to keep on asking you -- as three of us editors have already done, over a period of months -- to read and respect and edit in accordance with wp rules that prohibit the OR and synthesis you insist on engaging in. And no, I do not think you have anything against Jews. The fact that you keep on speaking about what you "know" to be a fact, in obvious ignorance of our rules of OR and synthesis or else willfully ignoring them, after all this discussion and all these editors pointing you to our rules, is troubling. Also, your comments reflect a lack of understanding in any even as to the fact that there are such animals as Jews who don't practice, Jews who are atheists, etc -- it doesn't make calling them Jews incorrect, as you seem to believe. In any event, please desist with the OR and synthesis. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal accusations

Please don't make personal accusations about me, and please stay off my talk page. Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Supremacism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The white genocide

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The white genocide requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cahk (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Racism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You seem unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality. Also we as editors do not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Before censoring any mention of white supremacy on Nazi-related articles, please read the articles in whole, especially references to the influence of white supremacy in Nazi ideology. Pause and consider why so many articles describe the Nazis as a white supremacist movement - it's because this is a description used by academic consensus. We don't generally add citations in the leads of article, since we are summarising the main article.
Pleased discuss your changes on Talk:Nazism, since your proposed changes are quite radical. -- Hazhk^Talk 17:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Then come with the sources. There are none because nazism were an ideology very different from white supremacism. An ideology that says whites/europeans are superior and should rule over other races because of this. Nazism were an ideology where they belived germanians and particualry Germans were a pure form of Aryans (caucasians), and the the best race of men in the world. Slavs, with other words Russians, Ukranians etc. were sub-human. We can all se that white supremacism has nothing to do with this ideology. So please, stop. Olehal09 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. There is no agenda to associate Nazism with white supremacy. -- Hazhk^Talk 23:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Then please point it out. Because it don't make much sens out of the history of the nazi movement. They might be talking about aryan superiority and whites/europeans are a part of this group. But also the Saudies, Iranians, Turkish etc. By the scientific defenition (aryan were just a term for caucasians) also the slavs were aryan. Still the nazis thought they were sub-human. To call them white supremacist (people who belive whites/Europeans are superior to other races and therefore should rule over them for their own good - Ref. dictonary) is factually wrong. I can not see that they want whites to rule, as the word "supremacy" indicates. It were the germans who should rule acording to them. They were the master race. As you've probably understood, I can't accept the logic that they are WS Olehal09 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your recent editing history at White genocide conspiracy theory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Aryan, white supremacy and Nazis

Please discuss this on the talk page and get consensus, as you have 2 editors diasgreeing with you. Doug Weller (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It really don't matter. The definition of aryan = caucasian acording to the books and texts they use in the article. The nazis hated the slavs just as much as the jews. And seem to love the Iranians and muslims (mediterraneans as they called them). Olehal09 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Olehal09 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irish slave trade, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages European and America. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

STOP!

Take it to the talk page. I've asked for full protection. If you continue I'll ask for you both to be blocked. Doug Weller (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Note

I'm about to report you for sockpuppetry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not use so called "sockpuppetry" by intention. I could just as well have been loged in. You don't need to make any trubble. Olehal09 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Affirmative action in the United States. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Affirmative action in the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

But you do not know or have any proof about the idea that women and minroties (from all peoples) are facing discrimination today? And in every part of America? You and your peers did not have any sources on that and only used one source. Don't that violate no original reserch rule? It should, but this is not a neutral site. And it is not an edit war when you argue two times mr. As said, you don't need to make unecessary trouble. Take it easy. Olehal09 (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited White slave trade to North America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Affirmative action in the United States

Please don't add your own analysis to Affirmative action in the United States—and especially don't delete sourced material and replace it with your own analysis. Doing so violates our policy against original research. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If it's not original research, please cite a reliable source for your proposed change. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please joing me for a debate, if you have the time. Olehal09 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a debate. I replied to your message at Talk:Affirmative action in the United States. I think it's best to keep the discussion in one place. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks

The last portion of this edit was way out of line. Please read WP:No personal attacks and abide by it, or you will be reported and may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Reinforcing Malik's concern, you have no business asking questions like that or insinuating that any religious group should be excluded from participation in discussions. If you continue along those lines you may expect sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It is nothing wrong with being Jewish. So it's nothing wrong with asking if someone is Jewish. Just as I can say I'm a Norwegian. If you have a problem with Jews, please read something that can shange your minds. Olehal09 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically, the section can be found at WP:ANI#Behavior of User:Olehal09 - T-ban request. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of White slave trade to North America

The article White slave trade to North America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a copy paste job from the recently AFDd Irish Slave Trade in North America [1]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of White slave trade to North America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White slave trade to North America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White slave trade to North America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your contributed article, White slave trade to North America

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, White slave trade to North America. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Indentured servitude in the Americas. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Indentured servitude in the Americas – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - MrX 22:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015 2

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a timesink: uninterested in contributing to an encyclopedia, only interested in pushing a POV. Also, competence issues.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Olehal09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not going to add any POVs anymore, nor add anything, even with proper references, without a discussion on the talk page. I had already stoped edit waring. From now on I will focus on articles about Economics, as I am taking a masters degree in. Mostly on the wikipedia in my native language.

Decline reason:

I've studied your userpage and talkpage, as well as this recent ANI thread, and I don't see any understanding from you of the problems with the agenda-pushing you've been doing so far. For instance, at ANI you offer a nonsense defense of having called an editor a Jewish supremacist: "And it is a problem when you can't say anything anymore"…"I'm clearly from another culture than you, where these things you call personal insults are not viewed as such." Different culture? Not viewed as insults? You're Norwegian! (I'm Scandinavian myself.) In my opinion, you have wasted the time and energy of constructive editors — what the blocking admin calls being a timesink — and therefore it would be against the interests of the encyclopedia to unblock you. You say "I'm not going to add any POVs anymore", but I'm afraid I'm not convinced that you can recognize your POV as such. For instance, you said on ANI, just a few days ago, that you don't see anything wrong with creating an article sourced exclusively to the White genocide project, a site that you claim "do[es]n't say anything extreme".[2] I'm afraid I find that very telling, and I don't believe you can edit neutrally about economics either. As for editing mostly in your native language, fine; you're only blocked from the English Wikipedia, not Nynorsk Wikipedia nor no.wikipedia. (I checked.) There's nothing to stop you from editing them. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When it comes to the editor I asked if she were a Jewish Supremacist (asked, not called!!!), you must remember I was arguing for with her for some time . Even when wiki pages stated, with references, that they were for example half Austrian and jewish, she did not want to change it. I am human, that's the simple explentation and I got irritated.

Much of what I have added is POVs, I agree. And my article were meant more as a scenario, where whites stoped existing, and were written with a terrible title. This theory were held by writers of the "whitegenocideproject" (if you read what they say, they might be paranoid about anti-whites, but to cal them extreme is a real strech. Such a scenario is not unlikely acording to statistic bureaus in many countries, exept in Eastern Europe. The reason I used the word genocide, were because it would not happen if not for todays immigration policies.

You might be Scandinavian, but countries like Norway and Sweden can't be compared. Where I come from, western coast of Norway, we don't get offended as easily as you. But I personally get offended by being "dishonored" by authorities.

Economics is supposed to be a science, there shouldn't be room for bias. Great that I can edit norwegian wikipedia, but this still bother me.Olehal09 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Olehal09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For the user reading this reqest, please read my answer to the last decline above. As stated, I know I have added POVs, that is obvius based on my stated "mission". I have angered many people who are in a certain political sphere too, and that was stupid. I will cooperate and stop adding povs, and also keep away from these groups I just mentioned. Meaning, to stop editing the articles I have been doing. Olehal09 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You asked us to read the statement above your unblock request. I did. The explanation indicates that you don't recognize extremist sources as extremist, which shows that you lack the judgment or detachment from the subject to edit here. I also note the recent activity along the same vein as your earlier edits from IPs from the west coast of Norway this weekend, which you've failed to mention. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Olehal09 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To the request reviewer, please read the conversations above. The western coast of Norway have a population of around 1 million people. If someone edits from the western coast of Norway, it don't need to be me. It's not like your local town. I know the whitegenocideproject goes against many peoples political and personal views, that immigration policies will lead to a world without Europeans as a people, as statstics show might happen. But when you use terms as extremist, I think of violence, or something that might lead to something bad. To be paranoid about "anti-whites", should not be called extremist, but paranoid. Anyway, I will not use shuch sites, but academic sources. And the only reason I used that site, were because they thought the scenario would become a reality. As I do too, and is the only reason why I tried to remove false claims about people who try to protect them. Like nazism (german nationalism, racial hirarchies and a hatred towards slavs and jews) being the same as white nationalism, which it isn't, it's only demonization. But I won't edit articles the group I have had problems with before edit, meaning articles about white people and race. Olehal09 (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's unlikely you can persuade admins that you've changed your approach to editing sufficiently to be allowed to edit here. I am removing your access to this talk page, since we are not seeing any progress in these unblock requests. For any further appeals, use WP:UTRS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AFD of interest

Hello! As a participant in previous discussions about a related topic, you may be interested in commenting on this AFD. I am notifying everyone involved in previous debates on the subject. Thanks! Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of White genocide conspiracy theory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article White genocide conspiracy theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White genocide conspiracy theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)