User talk:NarSakSasLee

Please start a topic below under a new section. All concerns receive a response. If it's about theoretical physics then it's perhaps best you invest some significant time into our discussion. I'm very passionate.

Allegations of 'pov-pushing'
What is the 'pov' which you allege that I am pushing on Tell Mama? and Quilliam? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

You should check your talk page. And now you are accusing me of vandalism. Disagreement is not vandalism. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Because you are engaging in vandalism. Mass deletion of sources you disagree with are classed as acts of vandalism. NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Declined your AIV complaint


Please see my action here, declining your AIV report. I am disturbed by some of your recent edits at Quilliam which suggest you are unable to edit neutrally on this topic. To be included in an article, material must not only be well-sourced, it also must be supported by consensus of editors. My suggestion is to make a proposal at Talk:Quilliam for what you want to do before making any more edits to that article. In any event, edits that mention Pakistan fall under the sanctions of WP:ARBIPA, so I'm leaving you a notice of that below. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you got the wrong user. I was the one who reported the vandal. Also the article has nothing to do with Pakistan? NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you reported the other guy, User:Sweet6970. When I looked at the edits in question, it appeared to me that you were the one at fault, so I warned you instead of taking action against Sweet6970. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look again? I am NOT the one who is removing reliably sourced and referenced material. That other user was. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sweet6970 was removing statements that appeared tendentious to me. Criticism may be included but it should reflect the relative importance of the issues as determined from a review of the reliable sources. This kind of analysis usually requires a discussion among editors and it should not appear slanted to an outsider who knows nothing of the matter previously. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ridiculous. The sectioned edits were written under the "criticism" section which were nothing more that a direct quote from the article. How on earth are you NOT supposed to provide a slanted view? Criticism by definition is a view that is slanted. His removal of that criticism section is what makes the article biased. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So far there is nothing at all on the page at Talk:Quilliam (think tank) about the changes you have been making, for example this one. When you call out 'vandalism' in an edit summary you should be aware of making WP:ASPERSIONS, which can lead to boomerang sanctions against you. This whole thing is a content dispute rather than vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits regarding Pakistani people are covered by WP:ARBIPA
Repeating the Arbcom alert since it's more than a year since the last one, issued by User:Ivanvector in March 2019. If further edits suggest to admins that you are unable to edit neutrally in this domain, blocks or topic bans are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have never engaged with User:Ivanvector so I don't know what you mean by I can't edit neutrally. How is adding in sourced content from academic journals constitute not being neutral? Those are peer-reviewed pieces. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I sense that you must know the answers to some of these questions. You appear too sophisticated not to have heard of POV-pushing. My message above includes the diff of Ivanvector's alert which he left for you in March 2019. Do you not see the diff? When someone removes a notice from an admin, as you did, they are assumed to have read it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Problems reading the talk page of Quilliam?
I always use a laptop and I don’t have any experience of problems accessing Wikipedia on other devices. It occurs to me that you may have trouble reading my latest post on the Q talk page, so I repeat it here:

I am receiving contradictory instructions and I don’t know how to proceed. NarSakSasLee has asked me to split my arguments into headings. Johnuniq has told me not to. I cannot satisfy both of you. NSSL has said ‘I have no dispute with the other sections.’ If I understand NSSL correctly, this means that they are concerned only with the section currently titled ‘Erroneous Reporting on “Muslim rape gangs” ‘, which is my point 7. Perhaps agreement on that aspect could be reached quickly if NSSL would accept the proposal I made at my point 7(g): I propose that the Quilliam report, and criticism of it, should be referred to in one sentence: ‘The Quilliam Foundation’s report “Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation – Dissecting Grooming Gangs” has been criticised for poor methodology.’ The source would be the article by Cockbain and Tufail. Anything more would give undue weight to this report and the criticism of it. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have replied on the relevant talkpage. NarSakSasLee (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I replied to your post of 17 March on the Quilliam talk page on that page. Do you wish me to copy it here? When can I expect an answer? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I have replied to the talk page. My apologies for being a little slow. The coronavirus pandemic is a little worse in my area but I will responding hopefully by the end of today. It is currently 11 am here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Poverty map UK.jpg


The file File:Poverty map UK.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Italics
I noticed that you italicized some of the quotes in the WikiIslam article. Is this something that's covered in a Wikipedia style guide? I'd like to learn more. Thanks! Snuish2 (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems the policy has changed since I last read it. There appears to be no need for italics when using quotations. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

renewal of notification
Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing normal discussions
A normal talk page discussion generally shouldn't be closed. And definitely not by one of its involved participants (you). Please don't do that again. Thanks. El_C 05:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huddersfield grooming gang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardeep Singh.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)