![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
time and again every year we have the SAME issue. this is a list of RIGHTS not a timetable of events, for which a proposal was made to move the page but ignored as an accomodation, as such these are not rights as nothing has been gained. An act of parliament in the process of legislating is not a right. Furthermore the deceptive edit reverts everything blindly like spelling.
Opponents filed a petition for referendum. If the required signaturies are submitted by June 7, the law will not take effect until referendum. Ron 1987 ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is hardly AGF when it blindly reverts everything,and it hits that Otto's multitude of socks are back. It also indicates a blind revert of anything when the correct spelling was reverted, and without reason. But anyways, as explained this was an act which the revert doesnt explain why. This was epxlained too, the article is about rights not a list of weblog statements to record. What does this statement mean? Its legalised or will be? There are referenda in November, not all of which will even pass. This was explained while the removal was not. All in all each mentions was expained while the reverts (barring the 2nd one) were not. The onus is to explain such decision, not leave room for doubt where there has been constant sockpupeetry.( Lihaas ( talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)).
Would it be better to call these articles "2012 in LGBT history", "2011 in LGBT history"... instead of "2012 in LGBT rights", "2011 in LGBT rights"... This would significantly expand scope of these articles, and we wouldn′t have discussions about what is a "right" and what belongs to articles.-- В и к и T 15:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2012 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
time and again every year we have the SAME issue. this is a list of RIGHTS not a timetable of events, for which a proposal was made to move the page but ignored as an accomodation, as such these are not rights as nothing has been gained. An act of parliament in the process of legislating is not a right. Furthermore the deceptive edit reverts everything blindly like spelling.
Opponents filed a petition for referendum. If the required signaturies are submitted by June 7, the law will not take effect until referendum. Ron 1987 ( talk) 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This is hardly AGF when it blindly reverts everything,and it hits that Otto's multitude of socks are back. It also indicates a blind revert of anything when the correct spelling was reverted, and without reason. But anyways, as explained this was an act which the revert doesnt explain why. This was epxlained too, the article is about rights not a list of weblog statements to record. What does this statement mean? Its legalised or will be? There are referenda in November, not all of which will even pass. This was explained while the removal was not. All in all each mentions was expained while the reverts (barring the 2nd one) were not. The onus is to explain such decision, not leave room for doubt where there has been constant sockpupeetry.( Lihaas ( talk) 10:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)).
Would it be better to call these articles "2012 in LGBT history", "2011 in LGBT history"... instead of "2012 in LGBT rights", "2011 in LGBT rights"... This would significantly expand scope of these articles, and we wouldn′t have discussions about what is a "right" and what belongs to articles.-- В и к и T 15:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2012 in LGBT rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)