User talk:DharmaDreamer

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, DharmaDreamer! I am EuroPride and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

EuroPride (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party[edit]

I will reply to your question at Talk:British National Party#"Extreme views". The Four Deuces (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at British National Party. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Snowded ^TALK 14:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you add an npov tag then you have to explain why on the talk page or it can be reverted. Applying one to the whole article, when you are just concerned with one section is not good practice, you should tag the phrase itself. I suggest you self-revert --Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on British National Party. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

You have reverted text four times in a 24 hour period while discussion continues on the talk page. Further your inserted text is only supported by a reference to a television show and cannot be validated. At 4 reverts a report would earn you a block - please self-revert and engage on the talk page --Snowded ^TALK 17:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are at it again. I strongly recommend that you do not make any controversial edit again without explicit consent on the talk page. An ANI report or 3rr report at the current time would probably get you a ban. You have used an RFC which is the appropriate action to take (unlike your mediation request which was premature). Let that run its course. --Snowded ^TALK 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taunton[edit]

Thanks for your review (& edits).— Rod ^talk 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BNP[edit]

See the talk page. Don't remove far-right from the lead because there's no consensus for such a move either.UBER ^(talk) 19:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of collecting citations from reputable sources right now. You'll see them soon in the lead. In the meantime, see the talk page for your confusion over Wikipedia policies.UBER ^(talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence has to reflect the sources. You said the party disputed the characterizations, but any added no source for that claim. I'm fine with adding something like the "party disputes all this," but the version prior to that should remain as it is now.UBER ^(talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you did change content in your last edit, even thought you blatantly claimed you didn't. Please restore Yorkshirian's version for now.UBER ^(talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my problems with your changes: you went from is a nationalist and far-right political party (Yorkshirian's version)...to...is a nationalist political party that has often been referred to as far right. Do you not notice how you're fiddling with content, and hence with reality, there? Yorkshirian's version says the party is nationalist and far-right whereas your version says it's nationalist and described by some as far-right. You clearly weaken the latter claim when you present it like that. I suggest you go back to Yorkshirian's version, which coincidentally also had correct spelling and grammar (it's "referred" and far right needs no capitalization).UBER ^(talk) 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the lead now and see what you think. That's how you do it without fiddling with content.UBER ^(talk) 00:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary. We're just starting. What do you think of the current lead? Yorkshirian's structure, your content (at the end).UBER ^(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully it becomes the working consensus for now. It's absolutely unacceptable for the long-term, as the party needs to be identified as white supremacist (and potentially outright racist), per numerous reputable sources.UBER ^(talk) 00:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if fascism is identified as its ideology in the infobox, it also needs to be described as fascist in the lead sentence.UBER ^(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reports on reputable secondary sources, not on what people or their opponents call each other. Stalin claimed he was in favor of free speech, but no one would seriously suggest claiming that Stalin supported free speech in his article. The best thing to do, when unsure, is to follow reputable and professional scholars who have made it their life's work to study this kind of stuff. They do it so we don't have to. Why reinvent the wheel?UBER ^(talk) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry but Wikipedia is not the place to discuss personal opinions, and I hold to this policy even on user pages. WP:RS has far more details on this subject than I care to provide right now. The gist is the following: if you can, use reliable secondary sources and structure the article around those. Primary sources should be avoided on controversial subjects, in which the potential for manipulation and deception increases exponentially.UBER ^(talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not impugn my sources. I provided five reputable books written by nearly a dozen scholars calling the party "extremist" or "white supremacist". I've satisfied WP:RS about as much as you can before ruining the visual appeal of the article by stuffing it with redundant citations.UBER ^(talk) 00:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would endorse saying the KKK is a racist organization. I mean, wow did you ever bring up the wrong case, since a cursory glance at the Ku Klux Klan article reveals this little gem in the lead (among many others):

Today, a large majority of sources consider the Klan to be a "subversive or terrorist organization".

So much for NPOV, which I think you also misunderstand. When something is overwhelmingly regarded as something else, Wikipedia needs to note it. The BNP is overwhelmingly regarded as a far-right, racist, white supremacist hate group, both by the public and by professional scholars. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that on Wikipedia.UBER ^(talk) 01:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's not a good indicator of biased terminology. Sure, the terms racist and far-right are offensive, but they need to be included if mentioned in multiple and (highly) reputable sources, which is exactly what I provided.UBER ^(talk) 01:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...we're not getting anywhere here. You can claim victory in this discussion if you so wish. Have a good day.UBER ^(talk) 01:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI notice[edit]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DharmaDreamer. Thank you. Auntie E. (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, DharmaDreamer. You have new messages at Talk:Steeple Aston/GA1.
Message added 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Intelligentsium 00:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COME BACK[edit]

Don't let the fools stop your work.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]