User talk:NinaHj

Welcome

Hello NinaHj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Naming conventions

Manual of Style

As a contributor to Norwegian articles, you may like to connect with other Norwegian Wikipedians through the Norwegian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! __meco (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Hello, and 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 Template:Islamophobia 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. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Template:Islamophobia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Template:Islamophobia has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. Dan653 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Document.no. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dan653 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Leaky Caldron 20:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smears

What are the "islamophobia-sidebar" doing on a page conserning document.no? We are not "far right", not "islamophobes", not "contrajihadists" and we have no "links" to Anders Behring Breivik, apart from him commenting on our articles - as he did, according to the police, on at least 40 other online newspapers and forums http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Anders-Behring-Breivik-20-e-postadresser-30-kallenavn-p-nett-Aktiv-p-40-nettsider-6701977.html#.T2Xft2Lj5cI

Breivik did not attend meetingS - he attended at one, open meeting in 2009. This is investigeted by the police, and Your article indirectly accuses us of lying to the police when You write meetingS.

PFU didt not merely critisize Eidvoll blad, as your article claims. They where "felt" - breaching the norwegian press` code of conduct, the strongest possible reaction on the press` behavior.

As for BBC, Financial Times, Der Standard and HopenotHate; they are certainly entitled to their opinion. Not so with your article, which clearly states that document.no IS a "far-right etc.". Wikipedia is not ment to be expressing opinions, is it? This is what the newspaper Dagbladet (not our closest friend), norwegian expert on right-wing extremism, Øyvind Strømmen (ØS), and leader of the Center for antirascism, Kari Helene Partapuoli (AS), think of us:

Document.no: Innvandringskritisk nettsted. Breivik var også aktiv her, men møtte motstand fra redaksjonen og kuttet forbindelsen.

ØS: Nettstedets redaksjon forfekter en del oppfatninger som kan beskrives som høyreradikale, og som minner om Dansk Folkeparti eller de mest innvandrerfiendtlige delene av Frp. Men har imidlertid markert avstand til ekstreme grupper som de tidligere Norgespatriotene og SIAN, og til kontra-jihadistiske ideologer som Fjordman. I det siste har redaktør Hans Rustad markert et tydeligere kristenkonservativt ståsted. Det mest intereressante med document.no er at det har fungert som et virtuelt samlingssted for folk med sterkt innvandringskritiske holdninger, i kommentarfeltene dukker det derfor opp høyreekstremister.

AS: Legger seg til tider tett opp til islamofobi og publiserer islamofobiske tekster, men har i stor grad prøvd å markere en grense mellom islamkritikk og islamofobi. For mange det nærmeste man kommer en norsk intellektuell debattarena for ytre høyre.

http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/05/03/magasinet/organisasjon/anders_behring_breivik/ekstremisme/nazisme/21428260/

This is what VG thinks:

http://www.vg.no/vgpluss/article/l9g7r3C

This is what Minerva (a website of the political party Høyre):

http://www.minervanett.no/2012/05/02/en-islamofobs-bekjennelse/

In fact: you claim that we are far-right, nationalists with "links" to Anders Behring Breivik, almost solely based on foreign newspapers who don`t speak or read norwegian. Strangely you have choosen to disregard the norwegian papers and another foreign newspaper - The New york Times - when it correctly describes us as "a popular conservative Website." Why is that, I wonder?

I suggest you read the norwegian wiki-page on document.no. I added "controversial" to this article because we are, as the norwegian page also will tell (I have two small edits there today: I corrected a misspelling of my own name, and I added that Rustad no longer are on Breiviks lawyers witness list). I dont know who wrote the article, which is essensially correct. There are critisizm, but no untrue allegations as in the english article.

So i would like to have an answer to why the irrelevant sidebar is attached to document.nos page - and i would surely like to see the relevance documented; not to forget why we are categorised under "zionism" (the only time I have ever heard/read "accusations" like this (and to our editor Hans Rustad for being a jew) is from known nazi-groups - and I really wonder why you choose to take a few newspapers, which does not read or speak norwegian, at face value, while you disregard almost every norwegian newspaper that contradict this AND NYTs description if the intention is to be objective and balanced?

Regards, Nina Hjerpset-Østlie

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making veiled legal threats and unilaterally blanking pages.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]