User talk:SweHomer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, SweHomer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --FloNight talk 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats

  • Please resist the urge to put up the non-NPOV banner in the main article of Sweden Democrats. This dispute should be easily resolved as soon as another person verifies your claims about the translation of the sources. For now, the changes I've made should suffice. It's not just because you are a member of the SD that I would like such verification, but you are also the only person to date to dispute the neutrality of these particular components of the article. I would appreciate your cooperation. WGee 15:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats

Hello, SweHomer, and welcome to Wikipedia. I can see you've been editing Sweden Democrats quite a lot today. You've been reversing wholesale the edits by other users. We have a rule, called the three-revert-rule that forbids reverting other editors' changes more than 3 times in any 24 hours. It keeps the editing relaxed and prevents people being stubborn with one another. Breaking the 3RR can get you blocked from editing for 24 hours. You've already broken the rule today but, since you've never been warned, I'm going to let you off with a warning. If you revert the article again within 24 hours, you will, however, be blocked. Thanks. -Splashtalk 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's the reversing of other editors that matters, whether you add or take away, since it's a disagreement either way. As you say, talking is the proper Wiki way, and this is helped out by the 'electric fence' of the three-revert rule since most editors don't want to be blocked! I have checked the history of the article again, and, for example your last edit is a revert, since there are no net changes between the two versions. (Note that people consider not-quite reverts to count towards the 3, too.) There are 3 other such edits [1], [2], [3] (this one is a not-quite revert) in the last 24 hours, and so I am sure you have stepped over the line, albeit accidentally. I'm not going to investigate the problem in detail, since that's for the editors of the article, but even if "someone else started it", it's not good for you or anyone else to continue it. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, as they say, and it takes two to fight over something. So tread lightly and be sure you do not reverse another editors' changes in the next 24 hours. As an aside, I saw that the logo of the Sweden Democrats is very similar to that of the Conservative Party (UK), currently the main opposition party in the UK. They are also as close as mainstream politics here gets to being "nationalists", so I wonder if there is some common root to the logo. -Splashtalk 22:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The oldest example I've seen of the symbol is from a WW2 nazi magazine that used it as part of their logo. On Swedish Wikipedia it's claimed by an SD supporter that it's a common symbol of the "national liberalism" movement.

Coincidence? // Liftarn


I think not :) ---WGee 17:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome and suggestions

Hello SweHomer. I added some suggestions for editing Wikipedia at the top of this page. You may want to read them before you edit any more articles. WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V are the standard for writing articles on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. regards, --FloNight talk 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Insinuation

[edit] Sign talk page comments

Please sign talk page comments with four ~ . This puts a your user name and date. thanks --FloNight talk 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweden Democrats

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


After a controverse regarding the page "Swedish democrats" me and user Wgee have agreed that the material I have contributed with shall stand - and not be removed. The administrator FloNight have helped us reaching this agreement. That the material NOT shall be deleted is also her opinin.

The user 'liftarn' however don’t care about this and keeps deleting my contributions. I want to continue working with the material, as I, WGee and FloNight have agreed about. Then its obvious that its ‘liftarn’ that is going against this agreement and not me.

When I reinsert what he delets, he reports ME for violation of the three-revert rule and get my IP blocked. Can anyone help to correct this?

The only exception to the three-revert rule is for the reversion of bandalism, which isn't the case here. In these cases you need to work via other routes. You can place the article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment; see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other ideas. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds a little strange. Probably "liftarn" did not realise that the agreement existed, but evidently he does now. He is now following the agreement and have stopped deleting the material and is instead critizing it and asking for sources, as it should be. Also, I can not have inserted more times than he have deleted - so why is not he blocked?SweHomer 17:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I re-read the talk page and found no evidence of an agreement. // Liftarn 19:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
This sounds promising; when you return from the block, I hope that you will be able to edit together properly. (He wasn't blocked because he had only reverted three times to your four.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You can only revert 3 times per page in any 24 hour period. Liftarn probably wasn't blocked because nobody reported him for violating the 3-reversion rule (3RR). As long as the battle continues, use your 3 reverts per day, but no more than that, and keep asking for help. The more you ask for help, the more people will come and try to take care of the problem. In the meantime, I'll take a look at the article and see if I can be of any assistance. --Tradesecret 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore this advice; the fact that you mustn't revert more than three times a day doesn't mean that you're entitled to three reverts (Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day"). Reverting is sometimes the only way to deal with a problem, but it's not the best — you should try to discuss the issues with User:Liftarn. Asking for help, as I said above, is a good course of action though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From WGee

I don't think I'm your superior. You're edits are just too extreme and unencyclopedic to be included. If you insist on including your section, we'll never reach an agreement. We have to find a middle way and tone down the rhetoric in the article so people don't think it is a disguised politcal debate. That's what consensus decision making is about.

I have addressed several of your concers, have I not? I am really working hard to satisfy your demands so this dispute can end. But by including your section without compromise, you are basically disregarding both Liftarn's and my concerns. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you are the only person who insists on reverting the NPOV edits. I think that's an indication that you are going to have to compromise a bit, just like I have. For example, I got rid of the allegations, I added some of what you said in the talk page, and I added SD quotes so that the SD side is farily represented.

You often compared the SD article to the FN one, which includes no allegations from partisan sources. So I modelled the SD article after the FN one. I want to know what specific problems you have with the article as of now. I suspect they're things that we can easily work out.

WGee 18:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sweden Democrat's response to the controversy

The party claims that it is no more extreme than the anti-immigrant Danish People's Party, for instance, which polled 13.2% in the 2005 Danish parliamentary election.

The allegations against the Swedish Democrats has to be viewed from the very unique Swedish situation. Here is a list regarding this.

(1) Swedish Democrats does have a troublesome past. This is true of many parties, but SD is a young party – so the history is closer in time. The cleaning up, and ousting of racist and Nazis element started 1995 and was essential finished year 2000. After Year 2000 there have been almost no allegations of that kind. Today there is no more political extremist in SD than in other parties. (http://www.sverigedemokraterna.se click Våra åsikter, click Vi bemöter point 4)
(2) In Sweden there is a very strong consensus between the established parties and media to suppress all debate on immigration.. This self-censorship exists to some extent in many countries, but in Sweden the situation is very bad. According to an editorial in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, it is a taboo to debate immigration policy in Sweden[4]. The Weekly Standard makes the same conclusion. "The difference between the Swedes and the Danes is that the Swedes have suppressed all debate on immigration, while the Danes insist on carrying on an open and frank discussion." [5]
(3) The Expo/AFA organization. The established parties and media supports the organization EXPO to fight racism, Nazism and right wing extremism. Perhaps a noble initiative, but the persons in Expo have a leftwing extreme view of things that SD who is a normal nationalistic and Democratic Party who are critic about immigration for them becomes racist. Almost all allegations against SD in both media and from the established parties have the same source - Expo. People who either is working for Expo, or have been working there also works as journalists. Expo also has a darker side called AFA (Anti Fascist Front). This is an autonomic/anarchy extreme left wing organization, working in “secret”, always wearing masks and communicating over internet using encrypted messages. They have carried out numerous attacks on SD using acid, teargas, knifes, axes and so on[6]. Even if AFA is a secret organization at least two co-workers at Expo have been arrested and convicted several times for participating in these actions[7]. A defector from Expo have exposed in SD-Kuriren (the Swedish democrats newspaper) that EXPO is run by senior ex revolutionary journalists and younger activists who either is members of AFA or close to them[8].


The Danish People's Party, regarded the situation is so grave in Sweden that Søren Espersen of The Danish People's Party, took this up in Nordic Council and asked the Swedish government why they didn’t condemn these attacks, and why people have been fired from government jobs only for being members of SD [9].

Conclusons

(1) It’s very hard for any immigration critic party to reach 4% and be represented in the parliament. The demonizing works.
(2) The immigration policy is not formed by the democratic process. The moral elite of the political and media establishment handles this themselves without any public debate.
(3) Racism and Nazism reach record levels in Sweden, because no normal democratic party can absorb the displeasure, and people turn in frustration to extremism. In Denmark there are very few Nazis because parties like the Sweden Democrats can work open and free there.[10]

The Swedish Democrats believe there is a hidden agenda for EXPO/AFA. To grow, and to get revolution they need enemies and destabilization. They often quote Tobias Hübinette, founder of EXPO and a central person in AFA that made this statement the Swedish magazine Creole 1996:

“To have the feeling or even opinion that the white race is inferior on all possible levels is natural according to their history and present actions. Let the white race’s West world perish in blood and suffering. Long live the multicultural multiethnic and class free ecologic society. Long live the anarchy. “

[edit] Be patient

SweHomer, you are doing this the right way by bring up your ideas on the talk page for discussion. Now that other editors are involved we will look at it. Please be patient and assume good faith that we will make the article NPOV. It takes time to discuss this and work it out. --FloNight talk 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why would a new generation of leadership

Question: Why would a new generation of leadership "clean up" a political party with such a tainted past, rather than build a new organization?

WGee: It's an interesting question with a seemingly obvious answer: the party has not abondoned its original tenets. When reading the response section, which distances the SD from its neo-fascist past, readers will think about this question and come to the same logical conclusion I have, I expect. I think the response section should state whether or not the SD has abondoned ALL of its original values.

SweHomer: Good stuff! Now we are perhaps getting somewhere. WGee’s theory could only be valid if the people associated with this tainted past were still there, and in power. It would seem strange to leave the party in order to create this “deception”. But I liked he’s answer, it explains a lot about why WGee is taking the position he does, and it also indicates honesty – that he don’t work with a hidden agenda. Very good. Today SD on the national level have a new policy since year 2000. To get elected and to get a higher position in the national organization of the party u must fill in a document where you state what other parties you previously have been a member in. If any of them is more extreme than SD they are stopped. On the “right” scale this means that only the now dead “new democracy” is acceptable.

This system is first now implemented on the local organizations, the back door is now closing, and those two incidents with persons with tainted past getting into the party since year 2000 were at this local level. The party today are divided in two fractions. The “new thinkers” who is strongest in south Sweden (where SD also get most votes). And the old so called (by expo) “bunker fraction”. When Åkesson was elected president 2004, this was when the “new thinkers” officially took over the party. The “bunker fraction” have only a few positions in mid level and they are constantly pushed out of the party or resigns. You can categorize the “bunker fraction” as those who use the word “ethnic” a lot, and the NewThinkers prefer the word culture. There is a big party meeting right now and I suspect that the manifesto will be rewritten and the word “ethnic” will be used very little or not at all. So my answer is that the “bunker fraction’s” time is over. But I give this to WGee. In this bunker fraction this hidden agenda does exist to some degree. But their days are over. The party is moving mainstream and their focus is less and less nationalistic, and more on people like me – who in fact are not so nationalistic, but wants action against the mass immigration and islamization of not only Sweden but all of Europe. We who don’t want our children to live Eurabia. We who think that the integration is one sided, that there is a process of western values changing to accommodate the Muslims, but not the same from their side. The Muhammad drawings are an example of this.

In my personal view, the conflict is not national but global. It’s a cold war between MacWorld (the democratic global word) and MacJihad. Between civilization and tribalization.

But enough OT. The reason why there was no “fresh start” is because there were a better alternative. It has taken SD forever to be established, and a new party would have to start from zero. Another ten years lost. BUT it was close, very close. When Åkesson got elected 2004 many of us “NewThinkers” openly stated that if he not gets elected, then we would leave the party and start a new one.

[edit] From WGee Again

Yes, I felt that it was not fair. I was the one not deleting other peoples work, but trying to argument under the talk page. I was the one who followed the advice from Flonight. Its obvious that liftarn and WGee clams ownership of the page. Flonight who is the administrator who have followed this closest also was going to ask you to ban them, not me for ignoring her advice. Something I have not done. When I reinserted what they deleted I was only following her advice, that my work should not be deleted, but discussed.

Also I have stated openly that I am a member (on low level) of this Party and that this can implicate bias. My view of the page is that it has a clear journalistic approach. They are trying to use Wiki to “reveal” Sweden Democrats “true” nature. A propagandistic approach. They take no measures to check the bias of their sources, but are in fact mainly using the most bias source there is, Expo. They aggregate slander to prove a point. They mass allegations from the past to prove that the Swedish Democrats is much more extreme than they are. The Swedish Democrats openly admits that this problems have existed and took strong actions against extremism during 1995-2000. In the last six only one or two minor incidents have occurred regarding extremist sneaking into the party. Those persons have immanently been expelled from the party, with of course ‘liftarn’ very well knows, but this he don’t add to the page. So to use incidents prior to year 2000 to prove that the Swedish Democrats today have extremist as members is bias and propagandistic. Something a journalist can do in a tabloid magazine – but Wiki should not be used as a propaganda tool for Expo. The way liftarn is working is in fact exactly how Expo works. WGee is somewhat better, its possible to reason with him with the help of Flonight – but I have the clear impression that ‘liftarn’ is the boss of the two, and using WGee. All the allegations against SD is (as far as I can see) transferred from ‘liftarn’ to WGee. On the Swedish page it’s the same problem. The user ‘rapvatten’ (a VERY unique name, =burphwater) is acting exactly as ‘liftarn’ does here. The same ‘rapvatten’ is also active on the page “socialist.nu” where he argues for attacking Swedish Democrats meetings and so on. So for me it’s a very strong possibility that both liftarn and rapvatten represents EXPO/AFA. SweHomer 19:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My sole concern with the article is neutrality. I am not trying to slander the SD or propogate my personal views. It is true that the SD is portrayed negatively in the Controversy section, but that is why there is a Response section. Also, the Controversy section only lists things that party members have done themselves; it lists no allegations. I see absolutely no problem with expanding the Repsonse section, provided it's sourced, presents valid arguements, and is written from a NPOV. I have no hidden agenda, and I think I've demonstrated that. To be fair, you are a member of the SD, the subject of the article, so I don't think you should be accusing people of having a hidden agenda. ---WGee 20:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I really think this debate should move away from ad hominem accusations. They are not productive and never result in progress. ---WGee 21:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: why did the SD adopt a logo so similar to the BNP's if they have no ideological connection? If the SD doesn't want to be likened to the neo-fascist BNP, wouldn't it be wise to change logo? Another thing: if the party bears no connection to its racist "Keep Sweden Swedish" origins, why doesn't it change its name and expel all of the older members with connections to the movement?

---WGee 21:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The logo, i dont know. It should be changed, and fast. First time i did see it (BNP). I know it has been crtizised, but i dont remeber the arguments. It also resembels the "conserative parties" logo, but not so close.

The name is changed, from BSS to SD. So that is done.

"the older members". That is hapening all the time at an accelerating rate - but its hard to expel them only for beeing members a long time. There must be a reason, and if they have a extermist view, this will sooner or later show - then the creativity is quite good. There was a case not so long ago in Trollhättan, where no obvious reason could be found - but he got expelled for not following economic procedures properly.

The few that is left are very bissy bees, and work hard for the organisation - to keep what little influence and power they have left, still probably dreaming of gettin back into power. I would estimate their numer to between five and ten on any important level. But all this is of course only my private speculations.SweHomer 22:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you more or less satisfied with the article?

Will this edit war end if I label Expo as a source in the controversy section? WGee 00:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I labelled Expo as a source in the intro instead of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. Is there now an end in sight to this edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WGee (talk • contribs)

[edit] Re: Sweden democrats Nordic Council story

I have replied on my talk page. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 03:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your insertion of the deleted article here, since this talk page is really not the right place to put private material — it is reserved for messages between you and other editors. And it was causing your talk page to be wrongly listed on the "pages for deletion" category. Please see Wikipedia:Subpages, which will tell you how to nicely place material that is just for your reference.

Lastly, please don't copy the AfD notice from the article — look for the line which ends with "feel free to edit beyond this point", and start copying after that line. I don't want a sysop to come and delete your user talk page by mistake. :-) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The page has been userfied to User:SweHomer/Sweden democrats Nordic Council story. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on the AfD page, where you wondered what "userfy" means: It is a word used only in Wikipedia, which means to move a page from the article namespace (that is, http://en.wikipedia.org/Article) to the user namespace (that is, http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Article's creator/Article)

For a list of words that are used only in Wikipedia, you can refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are a Swedish Scum,

and as a Swede myself I am ashame of people like you! Why don't you write that you are a racist? That you believe in racial difference between people? That your race is superior to that of others? That you hate Jews, Africans and any human tha has a colour of skin darker than yours? Didn't you state that you are a Sweden Demokrats party member? Sweden Demokrats? What is so democratic about this party? Is it democratic to repatriat people without asking them what they would like to do? You say you believe in individualism. I don't get it, you mean YOUR individualism and fuck that of others! Isn't that right? How can you be a member of this party and say all this bullshit about yourself? YOU ARE CONFUSED!

- ANSWER:

Hmm, where do you get all that fantasi from? First of all im pro-israel, second im married to a dark-skinned girl and have a son with her. So i think my son is un-superior? Yes, its very democratic to repatriat people if thats what the people of a certin country wants. Its also very un-democratic to take in a lot of people against the will of the own poeple, as sweden is doing. Sweden belongs to the swedes, as most countries belongs (or should belong) to their people.

Du you think You have the right to demand that for example Thailand accepts 18 miljon immigrants (25% of it population). I dont think You do, but You demand that Sweden does. Can You explain this, mr "NOTCONFUSED"?

Finally, if the immigration policy of Sweden were done according to the democratic principles (public debate, trancparancy of the problems it causes, its benefits and so on like we have in all other major political issues) then i say whe can't repatriat. But the policy is done out of the democratic system by a political elite (witch u probably belong to). This clears the way for me. So let the people decide, im fine with that. The day we speak open and democratic about immigration, that day i will stand behind what ever policy that is decided, until then the democrasy stays kidnapped.~~