User talk:Norvegia suecica

Welcome!

Hello, Norvegia suecica, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

On a more personal note, thank you for your contribution of the Conquest of Stockholm article to Wikipedia. This is the kind of article that Wikipedia is looking for, and is precisely the kind of addition to Wikipedia that has made this website such a useful resource. I hope you come back for further addition to Wikipedia, and that you stick around making other contributions. Really, you are certainly welcome here, and know that everything you read on this website has been created by ordinary people like yourself. Don't get overwhelmed with all of the internal politics that sometimes happens with article development.

BTW, the offer to give me a message requesting help on my talk page is genuine, and as an "old hand" at Wikipedia I certainly can help you through some of the challenges you may have when trying to make contributions here. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a welcoming message on the internet that isn't completely pre-written. Most appreciated, I'll surely ask for help at some point. Norvegia suecica (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Stockholm riots

Thank you for your support. I'm completely with you on the issue of Fria Tider, but in order to properly assess its lack of credibility before a mixed audience of WP editors (including those sympathetic with its agenda), I need to point at factual inaccuracies, not their political bias.

I would never use it as a source myself, but before I simply revert the edits of others referencing it, I would like to see if there is consensus about it, so that I don't become involved in an edit war. I'm not sure whether such reverts are automatically exempt from the three-revert rule (3RR), and I don't have the time to keep monitoring this article for all the nonsense being added (if you haven't done so already, I would recommend browsing the edit history of the article; it makes it pretty obvious what is going on). --SM5POR (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]