TickTock2

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, TickTock2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vrenator (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights

TickTock2, this edit is not constructive. There is no reason why you would delete a secondary CNN source that supports the material. There is also no reason why you would prioritize a primary source like the translation of the Pakistani penal code from pakistani.org (which is not a government site). Note that editors are to use secondary sources when possible. There is also no reason why you would delete the sentence that I added and sourced. I advise you to self revert. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

SonicYouth, I asked you to talk on the page but if you wish to bring it here sure. My Edits were valid for a couple reasons, the bbc source does not say that the accuser must have 4 witness to be charged. It deals only with being found guilty. The extra part about muslim and non-muslim while interesting also conflicts with the above sentence as well. (If assuming the pakistan.org source to be true and sourced, the above conflicts with that.) The last sentence does not apply at all to Pakistan with the source cited (http://www.weeklypulse.org/details.aspx?contentID=478&storylist=11) Now, let us continue this discussion on the talk page of Men's Rights, unless there is a better reason to post to my talk when we already have a relevant discussion ongoing. TickTock2 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TickTock2, your talk page is the place to discuss your behavior, e.g., unexplained removal of sourced content, addition of primary legal documents or untrusted translations of legal documents etc. That is precisely what the source says: If the victim does not provide four male witnesses, there is no case, i.e., the rapist is not charged. The person who is then charged is the victim, adultery charges.

The Pakistani penal code is a primary source, even if pakistani.org offered an accurate translation of the penal code, which is dubious. I repeat my advice that you should self-revert your unexplained removal of the BBC source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Charged is not the same as found guilty. First you are charged, then if enough evidence (in this case 4 males testifying to the same thing) you are found guilty. Those are two very separate actions and decision. The standard of proof is often much lower on being charged then found guilty.

Under the controversial Hudood Ordinance, brought in under Gen Zia-ul-Haq from 1979, a rape victim had to provide four male eyewitnesses to the crime. Failure to do so would open the way to her being charged with adultery.

Another quote

If the accusations are found to be false, then the complainant will immediately have a case registered against him or her, with a punishment of 80 lashes

Did I miss any relevant sections from the BBC source? TickTock2 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

TickTock2, the BBC source says that a man cannot be charged with rape unless a woman can provide 4 male eyewitnesses. This is exactly what an editor, I believe it was User:LikaTika, wrote in the article. You deleted the BBC source and replaced it with an untrusted translation of a legal text, i.e., a primary source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say this? here is the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6152520.stm , if I am missing it somewhere please let me know. A primary source is allowed TickTock2 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize about the other source, I'll correct it to a more reputable primary source such as http://www.punjabpolice.gov.pk/system/files/offence-of-zina-ordinance-1979.pdf unless you have objections to that as well TickTock2 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Notice of article probation on Men's rights

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 rights, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article 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. -- KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar

I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, TickTock2, with the Civility Barnstar! I have been really impressed with your handling of the Men's Rights article and your patience in working with contributors from all sides of the issue and who have varying levels of experience. Thanks so much for your contributions to Wikipedia - and being really civil in them =) SarahStierch (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)