User talk:The Mighty Glen/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, The Mighty Glen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Milo Yiannopoulos. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 06:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sargeant

Come off it...it can hardly be a Copyvio, when it was obviously the late Carl Sargeant himself or his family or political staff (or some or all of the above) who wrote his page up, and then copied the stuff wholesale onto here! --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, about 78% of it was a paste from a copyrighted Labour Party web page. I and other editors have now edited it to reword the text that was in breach of copyright. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sargeant: Cause of death (suicide) should NOT be written as if it had already been established (contempt of court)

In England and Wales, whether a person has died (in a suspicious, unnatural or unexplained death) from suicide or not, is usually only formally and properly established, concluded or determined by someone called a coroner, in something called a Coroner's Inquest ... until the Inquest on the matter of the death of the late Carl Sargeant AM has been concluded, I would suggest that reports of suicide from even from such eminent and respectable journals as the Mirror, the Guardian, the Socialist Worker and the Morning Star should not be misused here in order to "jump the gun" before the coroner (and his jury, if there is to be one) has actually have the chance of finishing doing his (or their) job under the Coroners Act 1988 (1998 c. 13) [1] and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (2009 c. 25) [2]. "From an unconfirmed suspected suicide", not "from suicide". (Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1981 c. 49) [3], which also covers the work of coroners and Coroners' Courts, the maximum penalty according to Section 14(1)(2) [4] is a fine not exceeding £2,500 or 2 years' imprisonment, or both. [5][6][7]: "Commenting on the results of an inquest could prevent a future criminal trial as the defendant may not be able to get a fair trial.") --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to this spam at ANI. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Sargeant

I took the death template off cause the activity levels have stabilized so don't come for me on my talk page with an attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawberriez (talk • contribs)

@Strawberriez: Then you need to say in the edit summary why you're taking the template off. You've never added an edit summary to a single edit you've ever made on Wikipedia, and been warned about this many times. Your response has always been to blank the warnings off your page and continue on regardless. I was polite on your talk page, but you've posted your reply on my page "with an attitude". The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Susan Fowler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book club (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Udayar

1) I accept that some people of udayar caste are following Christianity. But when compare to Hindus udayar not even comes to 1%. The reference what you have given is not worked based on caste or orgin. It deals with only south Indian Christianity people.

2) Socially Humbler than Vellar - Vellar is the group of people how doing agriculture. But udayar caste are belongs to Velir group. For reference please read Dennis B. McGilvray work on caste system in south India. One more all udayars are under obc category. Earlier it was in General category later changed to obc category after Dravidian movement has became ruling party in Tamil Nadu. But most of the vellar cast are in mbc category earlier they where in BC later moved to MBC. If the caste is humbler than vellar then how this this is possible.

3) Malayaman Udayar are belongs to Malayaman Dynasty. There are lot of inscription which has return on sangam period found in Tamil Nadu and also found in Literature. Please refer the following artical - http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_26/introduction_1.html We request you to don't revert the page. If you have any concern replay to this mail. Will make it clear. -> Archescientist