User talk:Sikhvirtue

December 2011
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 Death of Muammar Gaddafi, 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. The reverted edit can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=467727528 here]. nprice (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The autopsy showed a gunshot wound to the head beyond what's necessary to subdue a prisoner of war. Also look to ref.20 for the proof of his being sodomised after capture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikhvirtue (talk • contribs) 09:05, 26 December 2011

Notice of article probation on Men's rights articles
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's liberation, is under probation. A detailed description of the terms of that probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' -- Cailil  talk 13:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

categories
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Child abuse, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ''Child abuse is not a form of behaviour modification, and domestic violence is not a form of dispute resolution. Please be aware that edits like this may be seen as vandalism if a pattern of such behaviour is seen in your contributions.'' Cailil   talk 14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What you have asserted first should be discussed. Do you have any reliably sourced justification for either premise?

blocked
{unblock|I would defend that there are participants in rape who are not "rapists", there are members of these gangs who lure, restrain and keep lookout. Participants is the broader, preferable term. Also, the classic techniques of child abuse eg. spanking, grounding, corporal punishment, circumcision and religious instruction, should not be doubted for their intention and effect w.r.t behaviour modification. I'll supply evidence.All your points are acknowledged and I am aware of the discussion forums for these matters. As we agree that I there is no "sock" issue, then unblock to enable participation in those forums.}}
 * Firstly, *your* reasoning and interpretation is not relevant, and you can't put it in the article - you may wish to sanitize rape and other sexual violence, but you'll have to do it elsewhere - unless, of course, you can get a consensus here, but that would seem unlikely. Secondly, I see no agreement that you were not socking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your edit patterns are pretty obvious, David. Give it up. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)