User talk:Multiculturalist

Welcome!

Hello, Multiculturalist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Galloglass 09:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Party (UK)

Hi Multiculturalist.

I see you have made several changes to the above article. For them to stand and not be reverted you need to add a reference for each change and statement made to the article. Otherwise its very likely that someone will roll back your changes. Thanks - Galloglass 09:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Galloglass. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any website references for the changes I made to the SDP article - my amendments are all based on my own involvement with that party in the '80s: I'll see if I can find any hard back books that might provide suitable references. Most of my amendments are fairly non-contentious but I realise some of them may be rolled back. Cheers. Multiculturalist (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Norman Tebbit, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Off2riorob. Have now added internet source.Multiculturalist (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Norman Tebbit. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Legion fi (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Heath

You appear to be involved in an edit war with another user over statements about Enoch Powell in the article on Edward Heath. I have added some citation needed tags to some of the statements. Please give the other user some time to find citations. If he/she fails to provide citations within a reasonable period, then deleting the statements would be reasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddy1, thanks for your comments. There are two minor reversions I have now made (one week after your comment) because not only has citation not been added but even if it were added it would not justify the impartiality of Schrandit's edit. The reference to Heath being a "confirmed" bachelor is meant as an insult, because this teminology is frequently used to imply a person is gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay, but there is still a social stigma attached to it (especially from people who occupy Schrandit's part of the political spectrum). Further more, it is not commonly held to be true that Heath was gay, yet the paragraph begins with the words "Publicly noted for his..." The passage which reads "This was in spite of widespread public support for Powell..." is clearly a value judgement remark which implies that Heath was wrong to sack Powell over his speech. Surely Wikipedia should be about historical record, not value judgement commentary.Multiculturalist (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies of assuming good faith and not making personal attacks on other users. In your edit of 21:58, 23 November 2010 to Talk:Edward Heath you said of me that he is unlikely to take anything but an anti-Heath line. I think this remark by you is in breach of both policies (and is also untrue). Please remove the offending comment and post an apology.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a personal attack: it was an observation. You stated that Margaret Thatcher was probably the only good prime minister since the 1960s. That implies you do not think Ted Heath was a good prime minister - which, accordingly, suggests you would be unlikely to take a pro-Heath line. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind: having reviewed some of your other comments about the Edward Heath article on this talk page and on Schrandit's talk page (in which you acted impartially as a mediator in an edit war) I think it was perhaps unfair to ascribe to you an anti-Heath perspective. Will amend the offending passage. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Schrandit (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Outback the koala (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Rivers of Blood

That was the right place for that comment. I have looked into it a little bit and I can see that you obviously have strong opinions on the legacy of Mr Powell. Where you live is for all intents and purposes irrelavent, as long as you have reliable sources to back up what you say then that is fine. The article should not be pro-Powell or anti-Powell it should simply state the facts backed up by reliable sources and let readers decide. We need it to be neutral. I have put a few of the articles on my watchlist and will keep an eye out. Regards, Woody (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Edward Heath. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Schrandit (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have protected the articles Enoch Powell and Rivers of Blood speech due to the long-term edit war that has gone on. From the edit histories, you are an involved party. Please discuss the issues at Talk:Enoch Powell#Edit warring and come to a consensus instead of reverting. Woody (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to this forum posting from June that I believe you made, I will quote the Wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

Please enter into the discussion on the Powell talkpage and keep discussion to the articles and the issues you have with the text and not with other editors. Woody (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votestacking

Please be advised - WP:votestacking. - Schrandit (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impartiality

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Impartiality shall reign (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, but the commentary was not based upon my own personal analysis: it was based upon the sources provided (which chronicled very clearly that the EDL is a far right organisation with a violent track record). Multiculturalist (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

A simple search and a tone of sources would have been made available to you. The best thing a good wikipedian can do is find sources instead of simply removing them. Please help to expand articles rather than diminishing them. If you dislike the quote Baroness Thatcher made that is your opinion, but it is best kept at home. At least discuss any major changes to articles before acting on them. Thank you. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Baroness Thatcher made the quote? She claims she did but Edward Heath claims that she made no protest at all about Powell's sacking. You have indicated on your user page that you are a Libertarian Conservative - surely then it is for you to provide a source if you wish for Baroness Thatcher's historical perspective to prevail. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the page. I applied two sources. Thanks Alexandre8 (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's good to provide sources for assertions, especially when you choose to remove other assertions which are themselves properly sourced. I am, however, troubled by how similar the article cited in reference number 15 is to the Wikipedia article itself. Much of it is pretty identical word-for-word - not sure if the The Wikipedia entry is based on the sourced article or vica versa. There does seem to be the potential for problems here, in that references may be circular. As for Heath's remarks, I will attempt to provide a source for his refutatian of Thatcher's claims. Multiculturalist (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! This kind of analysis will go a long way in wikipedia. Making the previous kind of edits, even out of good faith, I don't know what your motives are, (judging by your name I can have a good guess), will not. What I don't want you to do is huff and "Accept" my changes as if I've won. That really isn't the aim. Wikipedians are a community who share resources and information to create the best and most accurate article they can. I would prefer you to understand why certain edits are made, and other are reverted instead of accepting them as "that's what's been done. Sometimes people forget that this is meant to be an online encyclopaedia. Again the more you read up on the regulations and guidelines the better a contributor you will become and the less your material will be reverted. I suggest you bring up a discussion in the box as to the material being the same. People can review and give their opinions. It does seem to me that one source has copied the other. Good luck. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

Surely this guy's a troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.221.26 (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more, its hard to take someone serious with the name 'multiculturalist', and viewing his/her history just reveals vandalism or false representation of right wing political parties.Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apology

I fully apologise for the language I used in my defence, please accept it. In return I would be grateful if you would kindly not throw around the words nazi's and racist willy nilly. They're strong and offensive. If you object to my opinions, I urge you to do in a fashion which is unlikely to provoke this "problem" again. Good luck in your further edits Alexandre8 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your apology. I'm not sure where I have used the term "nazis" (other than in drawing attention to the fact that one of the sources reported that some EDL demonstrators had used Nazi salutes) but am happy to leave it at that. Multiculturalist (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Its pretty obvious that Steveg is a sock, its not so obvious its Alexandre, there are a few candidates. Any particular reason for suspicion? I quick internet search shows one likely candidate based in Colchester, but the earlier IP is Sheffield. So the picture is muddled --Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a fool. I live in Russia, how on earth could we be the same person. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming or insinuating that Steveg79 is a sock of Alexandre8. For several reasons it does not seem very likely, and incorrect accusations only make the situation more difficult.

If you are really convinced that they are the same person, the only acceptable way of proceeding is to file a report under WP:SPI. I would do this myself if I felt there was a chance that it is successful. Hans Adler 13:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and I'd tone down the comments a bit makes you look as bad as those you oppose. Steveg79 is clearly a sock, the issue is of who. I'm not convinced its Alexandre8 otherwise I would have made an SPI report. We are starting to see some stylistic patterns though which may give us a clue --Snowded ^TALK 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my opinion, I too think he's a sock. It's obvious, but the IP'#s make it clear it can't be me, and I don't think I can trust Multi to lead an investigation when he doesn't seem to want to research it in any detail at all. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Steveg79. Hans Adler 13:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steveg is clearly a sock, he has turned up out of nowhere all of a sudden with a large knowledge of the background issues regarding the EDL and thrown himself head first into edit wars and arguments galore. Johnsy88 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas who?--Snowded ^TALK 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not 100% sure but when i get home tonight i will take a look over the methods of writing used by a few editors and see if any match up. i take it an IP check has been completed? Johnsy88 (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say its not Alexandre8 due to the edit times between himself and other steveg on the EDL page which is normally about 5-10min gaps so unless he is running to another location to make edits it seems very unlikely. Could possibly be a user editing via mobile 3g device (apple or HTC most probably due to crap nature of other phones) as the IP address would appear different because they would be provide by the mobile provider and not the internet provider. im off for the day now but will look into it tonight and let you all know what i find if you like Johnsy88 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he used to make a lot of edits in the past. Got bored, and came back with a new alias.Alexandre8 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs evidence to initiate an IP check --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information provided by various contributors here. I probably shouldn't have made an accusation which was impossible to prove, no matter how strong my suspicions are. There is a clear consensus here that whatever the identity of the person behind him, Steveg79 is a sockpuppet. This sort of problem has the potential to seriously corrupt the quality of Wikipedia articles and I personally find it depressing. People on the far right (and I'm not aiming this remark at any individual) are invariably mendacious and deceitful - after all, their entire ideology is built on a lie. It's just a shame they have to use it to try and ruin this otherwise excellent on-line encylopedia. Multiculturalist (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so if anyones interested this is what i have found out about Steveg79 from studying his edit history

Possibly linked to ip 94.196.206.131 - 86.190.53.86 similar editing techniques and similar time of appearance on WP editing. EDL POV pusher potentially - biased towards EDL agenda from edits - also clearly does not wish to see EDL linked to NF and CB18 so possible EDL member/Sympathiser and wants EDL to be portrayed in a negative light by what he considers contentious sources Not inexperienced editor as understands value of reliable sources and yet uses unreliable sources to support own agenda. attempts smear edits on people like Gerry Gable - Possible passionate anti communist. What i can conclude is that the editor is not a sock puppet but is most likely one of the unregistered editors editing WP:EDL in last few months who has registered to try and legitimatise his edits after gaining an understanding of how WP works and this has been done to pursue inclusion of edits in favour of EDL POV

PS if you want to know where i source my information you need only look at Steveg79 edit history from this date - 17:55, 28 January 2011 Johnsy88 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suppose I'll get an official acknowledgement from you. Just take more care next time please. Alexandre8 (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Please remind yourself of the guidelines, you're become offensive and obnoxious and completely unprofessional. I am quite clearly not the same person as that other man and to delete someone's post with little more than a suspicious is downright ridiculous. If you carry on like this you can expect me to report your behaviour. Please stop. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are already offensive and obnoxious. Your agenda is to portray the EDL in a favourable light, and you register under multiple accounts to achieve that aim. Indeed, you have actually been warned about this on your talk page. You are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. In my view, all of your accounts should be suspended. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no proof of that. You are wrong, and need to be put in your place. Accept it please and move on. Your agenda is turn the EDL page into a propoganda page against the group, and you have so evidently said on multiple occasions. This is not good editing. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Multiculturalist your statement above also shows that you wish to show the EDL in a light which supports your point of view because you feel that they should not be shown in any favourable light and i would hope you wouldn't take this stance if for example a sourced broadsheet came out stating a story that you considered portrayed the EDL in a good light but this went against what you believed to be true on the subject matter because of POV. As i have learnt recently the best way to get things done on WP is to first of all not POV push regardless of your beliefs because it will only cause months of arguing and months of nothing at all getting done. If someone is trying to push a POV and you see this then by all means challenge that person and tell them why you think they are pushing a POV (try and do it with a degree of courtesy and you will normally get that same treatment back from other WP editor) but simply going on all out attack like the the guns of Navarone is simply going to antagonise other editors who are going to do exactly the same thing. Alexandre8 should also note that if someone needs to be put in their place then it will be done by the relevant people through proper procedures and there is no need to tell someone that this needs to be done because again it just antagonises the WP editor. If both of you tone down the way in which you speak to each other and other WP editors and try and keep your POV out of the discussions and edits and try to rely on facts that can be supported by trusted sources everyone should get along a whole lot better. Johnsy88 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a break

I'm asking you to tone down the rubbish in your comments. All your proposed edits about various aspects of the EDL have been extreme and widely unsourced anyway. You come home from school, add a load of crap to the talk page, and then go off again. Try putting on your scholar hat for once. I know this comment might make you cry, and I know you'll use it against me, but you're edits are throughougly useless in most cases. When will you stop? When the EDL page is a piece of UAF propoganda? really? that isn't going to happen so long as there are decent editors around so you may as well give it a break. comprendes? It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting under the name "It's not what you say, but how you say it" when your correct username is "Alexandre8"? Is it another ploy to make it seem as though more than one person shares your pro-EDL views? Multiculturalist (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shows your complete lack of understanding of how WIKIpedia works. IT's called a signature. You're welcome to change yours at anytime. And no, I never had any ploys in the first place. I think we proved that was another editor, or are you still fixated on proving it was me? You'll be there your whole life. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Have a reminder about the talk page It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That others have admonished you for logging in under multiple accounts is a statement of fact. You have now criticised me on my talk page under the user names of "Alexandra8" and "It's not what you say but how you say it" - which creates the illusion that I have been castigated by more than one person. I resent you coming onto my user page and shoving your pro-EDL rubbish down by throat. You are a typical "libertarian conservative" - someone who thinks he is at liberty to tell others what they may or may not think. Well, since you are on my user page I will tell you what I think: namely, that the EDL are the scum of the earth - and so are their apologists. Multiculturalist (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That others have admonished you for logging in under multiple accounts is a statement of fact. " WRONG. Fool. Get it right or you're gonna look like the clown that you are. You're not fit to edit the EDL and you know it. It's not about what you say, but how you say it (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. The above comment is unacceptable and I have told Alexandre8 that and asked him to strike and apologise. That said Multiculturalist the last sentence of your comment is pushing the edge of acceptable behaviour. Even on your own talk page AGF violations are unacceptable. I really suggest that the two of you accept a voluntary restriction to stop commenting on each other in any forum. If one person breaks that rule just ignore it and leave it to other editors to handle it. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Keen

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources I've removed the unsourced edits as I cannot find any reports to corroborate the material, if you can provide reliable sources then feel free to try again. Thank you. --Shakehandsman (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Norman Tebbit. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Geniac (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack

If you make another personal attack on me I shall report you. We agreed long ago that this would stop,, but you're blatantly ignoring it. Alexandre8 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello my stalker. You told me to "give it a break" when I reverted some unsourced material, so I called you the "forum policeman". By all means report me, the Wikipedia authorities already know how seriously to take you. Multiculturalist (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No you are vandalising countless pages by simply removing material that doesn't please you. And the WA are professional, unlike yourself. Alexandre8 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack? Multiculturalist (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAct hurts doesn't it. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to British National Party with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there's no need to welcome me to Wikipedia as I have been an editor for the best part of a year now. I fail to see why my edit was not constructive: I merely removed a piece of pro-BNP POV which had erroneously stated that "The BNP supports animal welfare". That is a biased statement and as such should have no place in the article. Multiculturalist (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Countryside Alliance. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ged UK 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but I think you'll find that I have not made more than three reversions on that page within a 24-hour period. Further more, I specifically started a section about this matter on the Countryside Alliance discussion page. My opponent - Alexandre8 - has added no comment to this, preferring instead to simply revert whatever I do. There is some evidence he is stalking me, because usually he only ever edits articles on race relations (a subject matter which is not connected to the Countryside Alliance). Multiculturalist (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you have. Edit warring isn't simply breaking 3RR, and you're very close to the line. It's just advice to step back. Alexandre8 was warned as well. Ged UK 07:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk page comments

"May I venture to suggest that your grasp of the English language is about as good as that of the average BNP member?" - "Searchlight is highly acclaimed. The only people who oppose it are Nazis" ..accusing BNP supporters of murder, no citation .."friends or relations of black and Asian people who had been murdered by BNP supporters near the party's Welling HQ." - your propagation and vocalization that all BNP party members are Nazis is way out of line and a personal attack on a group of people.

Hi, from the thread at the ANI - your comments on the talkpage of the BNP article are attacking in general and attacking a group of people - groups of people are also protected by WP:BLP and BLP protection applies just as much on a talkpage as in an article space - please stop your attacking comments or I will request your editing privileges are restricted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It's pretty clear that the BNP does want to establish a dictatorship, and at the very least the source provided by Kids4Fun proves that some BNP members advocate this, but somehow I doubt you'll get anything even mildly critical of the BNP past Alexandre8. Multiculturalist (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)" / Learn quickly don't you multiculturalist. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Dear Multiculturalist - could you please remember WP:CIVIL in your dealings with the BNP page. WP works best when we all try to reach consensus and apply the agreed rules. There is no cause to get heated, even on such a contentious page.--Red Deathy (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BNP

Hello, Multiculturalist. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – Richard BB 12:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Multiculturalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonshield (talk • contribs) 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked from editing until September 2012!

Hilarious! They did not even have the courtesy to inform me on my Talk Page that this had happened. To top it all, we have a BNP member (Saxonshield) accusing me of being a sockpuppet - but I'm not even allowed to defend myself against this baseless allegation as it appears I have been blocked from contributing to the page where the accusation is being discussed. So then, what was the result of the investigation into my alleged sockpuppetry? Did the authorities find that I shared an IP address with other users? No, of course they did not. Any apology? Thought not! Well done, guys, you've got your way - now you can continue to edit the EDL and BNP articles with your own malevolent views without me getting in the way. Multiculturalist (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there does not appear to be any mention of you being blocked in the log. Secondly, the sockpuppet investigation is over: you don't need to defend yourself as the checkuser tool gets to the bottom of such investigations, and you were cleared of any accusation. You can see the case here. Finally, the end result of this debate was Saxonshield in fact being blocked for sockpuppetry. You wouldn't be blocked until September 2012 for sockpuppetry, anyway: blocks for that are indefinite. – Richard BB 12:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. Yesterday, when I tried to log on to defend myself against sockpuppetry allegations, a message came up saying I had been blocked from editing until September 2012 due to "vandalism". This was after I had responded to Saxonshield's soapboxing about the BNP printing one million leaflets. (I told him/her: "That was a waste of trees"). For the record, I only offer such POV in response to others doing the same. Anyway, the block now seems to have been lifted.Multiculturalist (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Social Democratic Party (UK) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Centre

Social Democratic Party (UK, 1988) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Centre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Multiculturalist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]