i did accidentally miss some text from my post and have now corrected it i did not intend to say you were a bnp supporter i noticed that you had edited the british national party article recently and that was what i said and which i stand by i did not even look at your edit and even if i had i could not conclude or intend to say that you are a supporter of the bnp if it was possible to read it that way then i apologise i have edited the remarks to make it make sense i see now that it was incomplete it is true that you and steven slater have edited the article about the bnp which is a tiny and insignificant extremist party in the uk i did find it strange that two people who edit that article should descend and comment on the npov issue raised by jesanj especially when jesanj has also mentioned in the past a claim that i did not understand at all until i googled the matter and it led me to a larouche organization website i have no idea if he did get that comment from larouche or invented it himself independently but this has aroused suspicion because the larouche organization seems to me to be an extreme political organization not at all unlike the bnp there is also another connection i have found between jesanj's edits and the larouche organization which for the time being i will not reveal publicly furthermore an editor who was found to be a sock of a known larouche editor and who was apparently editing from a larouche ip address was actively involved in supporting jesanj in another edit dispute i have had with jesanj that user has now been blocked from editing wp here we have an editor jesanj trying to justify that palin was talking about nice when there is no evidence for that and now at nponv we have a group of editors with editing connections to matters of extreme right wing nazi like organizations all seem to wish to see preserved in wp the same thing an association no matter how remote and unlikely between nice and death panels jesanj also wants to connect nice and the ipab both are non mainstream or extremist views which is why i keep removing his multiple attempts to add pov bias to wp the combination of factors i describe is i believe a prima facia case for believing that there may not be any independence in the views being expressed by some of the editors who have commented on the npov issue the simple fact is that palin did not refer to nice as a death panel and as far as we know she did not even wish to imply that she has had plenty of opportunity to clarify her comments and not once has she mentioned nice the position of the uk journalists is absurd because it has no foundation and as far as anyone can tell so only an extremist would wish to support that view to repeat it twice in different places when there is already a reference to nice as a potential death panel candidate in the article is taking liberties and up with this we should not put which is why i deleted two of the references and left the third in