Tommynotom
|
@Ghmyrtle I am not able to understand what does "Asian" stand for in the article Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
@Ghmyrtle in west for most people Asian means people form "chinese, japanese and south-east-asian" countries.
@Ghmyrtle and there is no link to Asian, in article so that a person can navigate and see what the word "Asian" mean in the article.
- If you read the article Asian it explains how the term is used differently in British context.--Robin Thayler (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
there is nothing in the article Asian , which actually explains the meaning of Asian used in the article ->> Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Everybody in Britain does know that these were Muslim gangs, I don't think there is any necessity to use an umbrella term "Asian".
- I have added a link to British Asian. Your references to the gangs being "Muslim" is not generally supported by the sources. The people involved are criminals, of Pakistani heritage - we have no reason to suggest that their personal religious beliefs are significant. When you add comments to talk pages, please use four of these: ~ - which will automatically "sign" your comments with the date and time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Flawed logic of using "Asian" but not using "Muslim"
edit@Ghmyrtle By that logic even using the term "Asian" suggests a particular ethnicity, why can't we use "Criminal Gangs". Your logic is flawed, there are enough sources to suggest these gang members being Muslim, the links to such sources has been systematically removed from this page. Tommynotom (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- "Criminal gangs" is not disputed. "British Asian" is not disputed. "Pakistani heritage" is not disputed. All of those terms can be used, and are used. But we include information which is contained in reliable sources and which is relevant. The sources included in the article do not support statements that the gang members held Muslim religious beliefs, so we don't include it (and, similarly, we don't say that IRA members were "Christian"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/31/muslim-community-street-grooming-nazir-afzal
The "Muslim community" must accept and address the fact that "Asian and Pakistani" men are disproportionately involved in “localised, street grooming” of vulnerable girls, one of the UK’s most senior prosecutors (Nazir Afzal) has said. Isn't it common sense that tells us that this ->>"Muslim community" subset of theses ->>>"Asian and Pakistani" are mostly grooming gang members !!
I know if I add this link somebody will delete it instantly, u will say this is not directly related or some other stuff.
I rest my case. Tommynotom (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. So, use that information properly, in appropriate articles. with proper references. Sorry, but I'm not going to do your work for you. If you insert material of doubtful relevance that is not adequately sourced, you should continue to expect to have it removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ghmyrtle I was editing this page because I thought that it doesn't give out complete info!! I saw statistics of the page that shows max text deleted by you. You are taking it too very personal !! Good Luck!! Truth Alone Triumphs!! Tommynotom (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
edit
Your recent editing history at Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Rahil Gupta
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Rahil Gupta, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dai Pritchard (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Rahil Gupta, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Rahil Gupta. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Hi there! Tommynotom,
you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Arjun7007 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 00:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
Tommynotom (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not a case of sock puppetry Tommynotom (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You'd have to explain why you re-created a previously deleted article on a non-notable person with partly exactly the same wording as the version by Arjun7007. Huon (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.