Toxteth34

AfD

Removal of an AfD tag as you did from Ethnic English is an offence punishable by blocking. So count yourself lucky that I am feeling merciful. -- RHaworth 10:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No wonder people give up using Wikipedia / it has such a bad name for itself.Toxteth34 10:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a very bad name for sticking to its rules and regulations. I am sure we can all live with that.  Ravenswing  13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No - you need to know what you are talking about. None of you know the actual chnages that ae being proposed by the UK Government. It is their changes and the increasing use of the term that this article is highlighting. Toxteth34 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• the onus is on you to prove your grand claims, not just tell other people they're wrong. tomasz. 13:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No the owness is on you to make the thought leap to what the Gorvernment in the Uk is talking about like I had to :-) Toxteth34 13:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, we do know about what we're talking: Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We understand that as a new user you're probably unfamiliar with them, but I'd suggest WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:V for starters. The only onus on us in an AfD discussion is to apply those policies and guidelines to articles. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for UK racial politics; I'm sure many of those exist and would be happy to take your personal essay.  Ravenswing  14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate is about deletion on that page I thought. Maybe I am wrong there too? Toxteth34 14:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say so, yes.  Ravenswing  15:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So where wikipedia says Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. - it is wrong as well? Like I am ? Toxteth34 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is correct. As you are seeing, we seek to arrive at a consensus as to whether an article meets policy grounds for inclusion. What we're not discussing in that particular AfD (nor is it appropriate to do so) are racial politics. We're discussing whether the article fulfills Wikipedia requirements for sourcing (WP:RS) and verification (WP:V) and the requirements that the article NOT be a neologism (WP:NEO) or constitute original research (WP:NOR).  Ravenswing  16:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have given sources for this term and it is real. Just like Ethnic Irish / German etc. It actually has been around some time and is a better term legally that say Englisg People - which in todays world means nothing. As for a racial thing - if I am getting you right - ask the Government etc. They came up with the term. So I would ask you to revert your delete to a keep. Toxteth34 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

Hi, I've been looking at some of your comments and editing. You seem to be focussed on a single article and seem to have some sort of point of view to push. I suggest you read this essay about tendentious editing. All the best. Alun 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No I am studying a certain legal area in law. Toxteth34 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)