User talk:Panda2018 0: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:42, 12 July 2022

Panda2018 0, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Panda2018 0! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Guatemala

Hello Panda2018 0, please use uppercase and lowercase letters. Regards --Serols (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing tags again on LGBT rights in Greece

Please refrain from removing tags again like how you did on LGBT rights in Greece. They are not added without reason; the sections really could see expansion with any possible information. If you are not interested to contribute positively to it, then leave it alone. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 01:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, LGBT rights in Illinois, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Zachary Schr. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. FiberTech (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at LGBT rights by country or territory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. FiberTech (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on LGBT rights in the District of Columbia

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as LGBT rights in the District of Columbia. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to LGBT rights in India. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 16:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning LGBT rights in Fiji

Hi An update Concerning LGBT rights in Fiji Ahead of elections Different parties were asked ablut their stance about same sex marriage Some resonded some not Some respobded positively most responded negatively http://www.fijitimes.com/same-sex-marriage-issue/ AdamPrideTN (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas

Hi Concerning Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas I'm sure there are important updates needeed as the national bill in and the important updates in the constutuition and referendum in Cuba I think also updates to public opinion and future and current legislation is needed Thank you and that in Venezuela they are discussing it in the new draft constitution in Venezuela either by the end of 2018 or 2019 according to sources I would refer ylu to all respective recognition or lgbt rights pages of the countries Here are sources for Venezuela important update maybe you can added into its pages Plus cuba president backing same sex marriage Im new here and still learning so its better that the edit comes from you Thank you

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/407066-new-cuban-president-says-he-supports-same-sex-marriage

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/09/cuban-president-miguel-diaz-canel-backs-sex-marriage-180917162537797.html

http://www.elimpulso.com/noticias/nacionales/en-el-2019-se-podria-legalizar-el-matrimonio-gay-en-venezuela-15sep

http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/politica/nueva-constitucion-podria-legalizar-matrimonio-gay-venezuela_251900 AdamPrideTN (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe

Hi Concerning Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe Now that unfortunately the civil union bill in Slovakia have been defeated Should slovakia still be put in future legislation section Or what do you think? AdamPrideTN (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. In your edit summaries, when you reverted several changes I made that I explained clearly in terms of Wikipedia guidelines against editorializing in articles and that I obviously made in good faith, you described my changes as vandalism. This doesn't fly. Largoplazo (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IACHR

Sharing with you the comments I left for User:Xylo kai Gyali explaining the reason for my removals:

I've left the paragraph text in place in articles where it's serving as context for activity within the country that is a consequence of the IACHR ruling, such as when a lawsuit has been filed that cites that ruling as its legal basis. In other cases, where the ruling is mentioned without any discussion of actions in the country that have resulted from it, it's only serving an editorial function, as if to say "LGBT people don't have such-and-such rights in this country, but the IACHR ruling says they should have them". The articles rightly deal with what LGBT rights are, and on activities in each respective country related to the pursuit or granting or revocation of rights in that country, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to state what they're supposed to be.

Precedent for this is a similar set of removals of language in articles on LGBT rights in various African countries. AfricaTanz had added boilerplate language about an international agreement that was said to be binding on all those countries, without mentioning any actual impact the ruling had on any of those countries. After a lengthy feud, the removal of the content was sustained. Largoplazo (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous pertinent discussions, relating to a similar situation vis-a-vis African countries:

Largoplazo (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interpreting the absence of a response from you as an acceptance of the explanation and background that I've given you. Therefore, I'm understanding that when I again remove the material that you restored, you won't object; and that you are now aware of the terms of WP:AGF, so that you won't again refer to my edits as vandalism. Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're massive reverting my changes again. I'm supposing you prefer arduous dispute resolution processes over discussion and paying attention to Wikipedia guidelines and precedent. Since you refuse to discuss, I'm going straight in that direction. Largoplazo (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't made a single edit on any Talk or User talk page on Wikipedia, even despite various issues having been brought to your attention previously. Plowing through and doing what you want while ignoring guidance and refusing to discuss anything doesn't work well here. Largoplazo (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Largoplazo (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Panda2018 0: Last chance: I've explained why I removed the material, and you've refused to discuss it. The edit summary on your latest reversions, "Please do not remove important information", indicates a complete refusal to WP:LISTEN, and takes the form of a plea to let the material be there just because you want it there, without any sense of obligation on your part to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Any more reversions and we're going to the administrator's noticeboard, which may lead to you being blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud: A couple of your edit summaries read "you remove this content explanation again I will report you". Without explanation?????? You mean, besides all of the above??? Largoplazo (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another of your edit summaries reads "you remove this content explanation again I will report you". When you report a dispute, do you know what the first question is? It's "Did you discuss it and try to come to a resolution with the other party(ies)?" Well, you've refused to discuss, so there goes that. Largoplazo (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights article edits

We don't need duplicate information on each individual article. You could maybe add it to LGBT rights by country or territory near the top. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 18:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plural vs singular

With this edit you changed "Virginia's hate crime laws" to "Virginia's hate crime law" despite the fact that the source mentions three laws. I won't fuss about "protections" which I find clumsy but is technically correct, but if the source discusses laws plural, the text must reflect that. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting pride maps pics

Stop deleting prude map pics from pages they are important and wonderful Who said they are unnecessary People who put it before you in all of these did it for a reason okay Please stop it AdamPrideTN (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I saw your note here and went to see what you were talking about. In my opinion, those pics are inappropriate. They are devoid of informational value, just an outline of the jurisdiction covered by the article with the colors of the rainbow superimposed. As such, they serve no purpose other than as promotional illustrations, as advocacy for LGBT rights and trumpeting LGBT pride. I'm as much an advocate for our rights as anyone and a proud gay man, but this isn't what Wikipedia articles are for. These Wikipedia articles on LGBT rights, like all articles, are neutral, and don't convey pride in their topics. Largoplazo (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamPrideTN: I should have pinged you properly. Doing so here. Largoplazo (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i understand but these maps are for countries that have protections and did good to lgbt protections For example u can not do it in my shithole country or in afghanistan or in nigeria or kenya since they offer nothing Im not vandalising u know Thx

peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamPrideTN (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, you're putting up these graphics to express your appreciation for these places. Wikipedia isn't a forum for that. I didn't say you're vandalizing, you posted them in good faith, but I'm explaining why they shouldn't be here. They're contrary to Wikipedia policy. Largoplazo (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks Fls81245 (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Panda2018 0. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The LGBT Barnstar
		I know I vexed you with our original encounter, but I want you to know that I really appreciate your steady flow of contributions to Wikipedia concerning LGBT conditions worldwide. Largoplazo (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning LGBT rights in Nepal

Hello, I'm EkniBhattaKhas (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC) . I noticed that you recently removed content without explaining why. You need to describe why you have removed an important conent. edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on EkniBhattaKhas (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

EkniBhattaKhas (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in the Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Audiencia (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) 09:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I am giving you a warning over reverting editing I made on LGBT rights in India and Template:LGBT_rights_table_Asia. I have attached two citations that make it clear the law in Sri Lanka is varyingly decriminalized, whereas the anti-discrimination law does not exist in India as the BBC mentions that activists still want to see such a law. Hindianu (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still do not understand, do you? India has no anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, that is true. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unconstitutional. This is supported by all the references I added plus your own. LGBT activists want an explicit anti-discrimination law, to ensure that there are no loopholes. See Case law. Panda2018 0 (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for Sri Lanka, I still fail to understand how it is ambiguous. Their anti-gay law is still there, it has not been overturned or repealed. It is simply not enforced. Why should Sri Lanka be treated any differently to Bhutan to other countries where the laws are not enforced? Plus your own sources state that the police occasionally still use the law to harrass and arbitrarily detain LGBT people. Panda2018 0 (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hindianu: A good faith disagreement on facts and substance and how to present them isn't vandalism. Both of you, though, are engaged in edit warring, and you may have both crossed over the WP:3RR threshold and are vulnerable to being blocked. Please take the discussion to the article's talk page, where Hindianu got it rolling, and stop editing the article until a consensus is reached, even if you need to seek dispute resolution to get there. Largoplazo (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLDAVOID

You have been citing this in edit summaries while making edits in direct opposition to it. Please read the third example pairs there and then go self-revert. --JBL (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are my edits in "direct opposition to it"? I have removed links in bold. This is quite clearly stated "Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead." Panda2018 0 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite clearly stated is "if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear". --JBL (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, let's simply add a title. Panda2018 0 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are bolding random phrases that are not the title of the article! Please, read WP:BOLDAVOID, it is very clear and the guidance it gives is extremely reasonable. --JBL (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the title! They are not "random phrases", as you put it, but the institution provided by the recognition. Panda2018 0 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this means. Each of our articles has a title. The thing that gets bolded in the first sentence, if anything, is the title of the article. You are adding or preserving bold applied to phrases or words that are not the titles of the articles in which they appear. Don't do that! By contrast, in this edit of yours the phrase in bold actually is the title of the article. --JBL (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have tried to preserve the other parts of your edits that were improvements, so the vast majority of my "undo"s are not straight reverts. --JBL (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, you are dense and have a lack of will to understand or comprise. Civil unions are the institution which provides for the "recognition of same-sex unions in Italy". Either way, I will now go back to every article and readd a title in line with WP:BOLDAVOID, which I am sure you could have done yourself, but that would have been too revolutionary or taxing. Panda2018 0 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am dense because you act as if you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "title of the article"?! Oy vey. Anyhow, you are welcome to do what you propose -- I have no interest in doing it myself because it doesn't make articles easier to read or understand (whereas, removing bold from random disconnected phrases makes articles easier to read). Please keep in mind the second admonition at WP:BOLDAVOID ("If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it.") -- your first few edits along these lines seem fine in this regard. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this edit introduces unnecessary redundancy just in order to force the title of the article into the first sentence. There is a simple principle here. --JBL (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — kwami (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SSM in NL

Could you present your evidence in the NL thread on the SSM talk page? I have two sources that say there will be SSM in NL once the legislature modifies the code to comply w the SC ruling. Two others state that NL has SSM. I don't know which is correct. Have there been any marriages? — kwami (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTI rights in Nepal

Concerning the names of media and publications, they are not repeated but are actually two different books. One is just a Nepal Bhasa book while the other is trilingual book. Their news sources are different. Please also refer to references before making edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDSnepal (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba

According to the section "Non-equal treatment of married couples" in our article, registered SSM conducted elsewhere in the kingdom are not treated as marriage, unlike Israel -- indeed, from our description, it would appear that they are accorded less rights than registered SSM in Italy. Can you provide any RS's that such SSM are treated as full marriage in Aruba? Either one of us could then correct the misinformation in Same-sex marriage in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lgbt history in Mexico

Hello I was planning to create a Timeline of LGBT history in Mexico (which i did now) u can find it in the history section that is still there I was going to leave the history of precolumbian and moved to the history part that there is now And move the timeline section to a new timeline page (I hope its clear) A pity now that there is some editor who erased all the first history part containing timeline And now its blocked and i cannot find it to move it to the new intended article of timeline of LGBT History in Mexico Any idea how can that valuable content of the first removed history can be found and moved to the new page Any help please Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin explained to you on your talk page, the content you added had copyright problems. If the material really does infringe copyright, then it can't be here, unless the copyright holder agrees to have it here and satisfies all the requirements given at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. If you don't understand the nature of the copyright problems, or you disagree that there are any, you'll need to discuss that with the administrator. Largoplazo (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Same-sex marriage in the Pitcairn Islands does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on same-sex marriage

Hello. I would like to let you know that a few users are vandalizing the article same-sex marriage. They insist to remove sourced researches that have found that children to same-sex couples grow just as well or even better than children to other couples. They claim that these researches are not sourced, even though they are perfectly sourced. They probably do this because these professional scientific researches do not conform to their anti-LGBT agenda. I would highly appreciate it if you could participate in the talk page. We must not allow anti-LGBT bias in this important article. Thank you! Guycn2 · ☎ 22:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in Costa Rica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citizens' Action Party (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) 12:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal terminology

Thanks for tailoring the language in the Terminology section at LGBT rights in Nepal‎‎ to cover terms specific to understanding the legal environment. Largoplazo (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia

Thanks for the refs. The second one has the key wording "since January 2016 numerous partnerships have been registered based on the act", which, based on RS, trumps my more recent correspondence (feb 2019) with a human-rights group that people are still not free to get CUs. The whole situation's so confused that, like Armenia and many of the tribal jurisdictions in the US, we're probably going to have to wing it for a while. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ILGA 2019 Report

https://ilga.org/state-sponsored-homophobia-report

Hi the latest 2019 ilga report is very important and highly big and informative Many lgbt country pages in africa asia and (even americas) need to be updated urhently Take ur time and check and hope u can update the countries Some unapdated even from 2011

There is also the blog erasing 76 Like this just write the name of country and erasing 76 in google like that

Also there is The U.S. Department of State's 2019 Human Rights Report

I would do it happily but i'm focusing much on the translating English LGBT content pages into Arabic all the time and can't much

Thx good luck (no pressure of course, just a suggestion) AdamPrideTN (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT updates

http://www.equalityontrial.com/2019/06/25/625-open-thread/#idc-container

https://mobile.twitter.com/lgbtmarriage

https://m.facebook.com/nelfa.aisbl/

Are one of the best sites woth sources that provides daily updates about lgbt rights (some that go unedited for weeks)

I would advice you to check them from time to time for updates

I would do what i can happily but i'm focusing much on the translating English LGBT content pages into Arabic all the time and can't much

Thx good luck (no pressure of course, just a suggestion) AdamPrideTN (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SSM on res

Hi Panda2018 0. If you have sources for the factual changes you made, please provide them. Meanwhile I'm reverting to what is supported by the sources we do have. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the sources before changing factual statements. When a tribe does not conduct marriage, and you say they do, or they accept SSM, and you say they don't, that's a bit ridiculous. Especially when you revert me when I correct your errors. If you were an IP I would assume you were a vandal and have you blocked. Don't edit until you know what you're doing. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. The wordings of the four tribal codes explicitly use the term "man and woman" when referring to marriage. The sources provided in the article support this. Here is the Crow Tribal Code, for instance, "at section 10-1-104 that marriage is a consensual relationship between a man and a woman". Panda2018 0 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. (Well, three of them do.) But they also accept state marriage. Which means that they accept SSM. "Yes/No" is just gobbledygook. If you want to create another icon, equivalent to purple on the map, that's fine. But if someone checks the table to see whether s.o. accepts SSM or not, and they can't tell your edit doesn't tell them anything, then that's not useful as a reference tool. — kwami (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gay couples cannot marry on the reservations themselves. The "Yes" seems to indicate that they can, which is false. The "Yes/No" serves the purpose of informing the lectors that same-sex marriages performed outside the reservation are recognized, but they cannot take place on the reservation itself. Panda2018 0 (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Hopi Tribe, you are wrong. The Tribal Code does address marriage. There are sources in the article to confirm this. Again, I can only encourage you to read them. "Marriage is an institution according to any practice recognized under Hopi law", according to the Code. Panda2018 0 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Eastern Cherokee, no-one can marry on the reservation. Well, they can have a wedding, but that's not a legal marriage. So it's more like not allowing gay people into your town hall.

As for Hopi, I called the court and asked. Of course, they may be wrong about their own law. The code you point to specifies that traditional marriages are valid (as historically there's been attempts to invalidate traditional marriages on many res). But it doesn't define marriage other than that. — kwami (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the article says. According to the Eastern Cherokee section, couples can receive a marriage license from the tribal court if the parties are "a man and a woman". As for Hopi, it seems very likely that they messed up, because the Tribal Code quite clearly regulates marriage. Panda2018 0 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you're right, we could definitely use an icon for off-res only SSM. Problem is, in many cases we simply don't know. We know that a res accepts state marriages, but not whether there's been a ruling on whether SSM is acceptable under tribal law. So going this route would only add lots of question marks to the table. Easier to specify that 'yes' means either on-res or per the state. — kwami (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your edits to marriage equality articles. Just stay out of edit wars and you'll be fine. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue and White (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LGBT rights in Colombia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Corazón Abierto (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of "External links" sections to use "cite web" templates

Hi Panda2018 0, I noticed that you've converted the "External links" sections of several articles from the usual "square brackets" style of linking to use "cite web" templates. Your efforts to improve these articles are welcome and appreciated. However, I'd like to ask you to stop converting section link styles in this way, and to put the ones you've changed back to the original style.

The current practice for link syntax in External links sections is described in the Manual of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking § External links section. The "cite web" template is not designed for use in External links sections. It's not strictly prohibited, and where there is good reason, in rare cases it may be used, but in general the standard method is preferred. The description accompanying an external link should give readers "a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question." Using only the title, as is the case with "cite web" templates, doesn't provide this. This is explained in Wikipedia:External links § External links section. The "cite web" template should only be used with caution in External links sections; it's not appropriate for most links. At the moment, there's no template available specifically for external links.

Also, in general, when there are multiple optional styles under the Manual of Style guidelines, even when they are equally acceptable (which is not the case here), the usual practice is to maintain the existing style in an article and not to make wholesale conversions between them. If there is some good reason to do so, normally consensus should be sought on the talk page before making such a conversion. This is described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles. One exception to this is the conversion of citations that use bare URLs into full citations, often using "cite" templates. This is generally considered helpful, and it might seem that the same applies to external links, but it's not the case here. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to LGBT rights in Louisiana does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Please explain what you are doing. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm DEFCON5. I noticed that you recently removed content from Recognition of same-sex unions in India without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. defcon5 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Same-sex marriage in the Falkland Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roger Edwards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA-ty

Hello, Panda2018 0,

Your template created a red link category, Category:Tahitian language. According to WP:REDNO, red link categories either have to be removed from a page or a category created. Could you do one of these alternatives? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for same-sex marriage in Spain

I have nominated Same-sex marriage in Spain for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Same-sex marriage in Belgium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congregation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recognition of same-sex unions in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Your edit to Same-sex marriage in Nunavut has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Recognition of same-sex unions in Namibia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPA-new

Template:IPA-new has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPA-ts

Template:IPA-ts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPA-ve

Template:IPA-ve has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Same-sex unions

So, of the countries that have SSM, which have marriage equality (I believe the US does) and which have lesser rights (like Ecuador)? — kwami (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this isn't supposed to be fiction. A foreign court is irrelevant if the country decides not to abide by their rulings -- otherwise we'd need to include nearly all of Latin America as having SSM. If Romania enforces the ruling, or announces that they will, then we can include them.

I don't mind the fix to Bermuda. You can make a separate edit for that. — kwami (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of openly LGBT heads of state and government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Hi Panda. I thanked you for your edit on Winnebago, but my browser no longer shows that I thanked you. So I'm curious: did you see the thanks, or did it fail to go through somehow? — kwami (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Same-sex marriage in Slovenia

Hello Panda2018 0. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Same-sex marriage in Slovenia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please tag this under WP:G6 and provide a reason for the move. Thank you. BangJan1999 23:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BangJan1999, Hi! Just had a read through the proper procedures on when to delete redirects when they block page moves. "If it has a minor page history, generally meaning it only existed as a redirect, and was never a duplicate article, never had content that was cut and pasted to the present title, nor merged there, it may simply be deleted." I believe in this case, the article Same-sex marriage in Slovenia has a minor page history, and should be deleted. This would make way for Recognition of same-sex unions in Slovenia to be moved to the aforementioned title to reflect the recent legalisation of same-sex marriage in that country. Panda2018 0 (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia

@Panda2018 0 Panda 2018, you removed my contributions to the Same sex marriage page in Sloveni,a where I better explained that it is not entirely sure that the ruling makes smae sex marriage effective immediately. Check the RTVslo article. "The ruling is immediately effective" may refer to other provisions of the ruling (eg. the adoption by same-sex couples of children from outside te couple). I think you're reading the news too optimistically. If the Court had struck down traditional marriage 3 days ago, why then would it need to give 6 months to the parliameet to change the law? Touyats (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can’t find any sources confirming what you are saying though. Every source I have come across, in English or Slovene, states that the court struck down the ban. "May refer to other provisions of the ruling". We would need better confirmation that may. The court can strike down a statute but it can still remain on the books. Panda2018 0 (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I have the same problem, the wording of the articles is amiguous. Also, all the articles look very similar to each other, as if they were taken from the same source, and I fear it may be a brief press release that oversimplifies the ruling. I just checked the

Zakon o partnerski zvezi (ZPZ) law text (the smae-sex civil partnership law) and the Družinski zakonik (DZ) law text (the Family Code, where marriage is defined), along with what the RTVslo article says the Court sentence declared unconstitutional, and indeed it does seem that the key part of the Family/marriage law blocking same-sex marriage (art 22, first dash) is declared uncostitutional, along with the "wife and husband" text of article 3. Also, and I'm worried about it, the Civil partnership law is not struck down completely, which would be instead a good idea IMHO as it risks creating a parallel law on "unions" between same-sex people, with the risk of same-sex marriage being voted down in, for example, a constitutinal referendum to define "marriage" as betwen "man and woman" in the constituion. This is to say that i fear that the issue os same-sex marriage in Slovenia is still not over and crystallized. Is there an expert in Slovenia law reading? Another issues that I see is that the chnages removes the ban on adopition by same-sex civil partnership partners, but it does not remove the ban on assisted reproduction; so it looks like that assisted reproduction will be now available to same-sex marriages, but this seems too good to be true? Touyats (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 491: / Line 491: @@
 :@[[User:Panda2018 0|Panda2018 0]] Panda 2018, you removed my contributions to the Same sex marriage page in Sloveni,a where I better explained that it is not entirely sure that the ruling makes smae sex marriage effective immediately. Check the RTVslo article. "The ruling is immediately effective" may refer to other provisions of the ruling (eg. the adoption by same-sex couples of children from outside te couple). I think you're reading the news too optimistically. If the Court had struck down traditional marriage 3 days ago, why then would it need to give 6 months to the parliameet to change the law? [[User:Touyats|Touyats]] ([[User talk:Touyats|talk]]) 16:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 ::Hi, I can’t find any sources confirming what you are saying though. Every source I have come across, in English or Slovene, states that the court struck down the ban. "''May'' refer to other provisions of the ruling". We would need better confirmation that ''may''. The court can strike down a statute but it can still remain on the books. [[User:Panda2018 0|Panda2018 0]] ([[User talk:Panda2018 0#top|talk]]) 16:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
+:::Correct, I have the same problem, the wording of the articles is amiguous. Also, all the articles look very similar to each other, as if they were taken from the same source, and I fear it may be a brief press release that oversimplifies the ruling. I just checked the
+:::Zakon o partnerski zvezi (ZPZ) law text (the smae-sex civil partnership law) and the Družinski zakonik (DZ) law text (the Family Code, where marriage is defined), along with what the RTVslo article says the Court sentence declared unconstitutional, and indeed it does seem that the key part of the Family/marriage law blocking same-sex marriage (art 22, first dash) is declared uncostitutional, along with the "wife and husband" text of article 3. Also, and I'm worried about it, the Civil partnership law is not struck down completely, which would be instead a good idea IMHO as it risks creating a parallel law on "unions" between same-sex people, with the risk of same-sex marriage being voted down in, for example, a constitutinal referendum to define "marriage" as betwen "man and woman" in the constituion. This is to say that i fear that the issue os same-sex marriage in Slovenia is still not over and crystallized. Is there an expert in Slovenia law reading? Another issues that I see is that the chnages removes the ban on adopition by same-sex civil partnership partners, but it does not remove the ban on assisted reproduction; so it looks like that assisted reproduction will be now available to same-sex marriages, but this seems too good to be true? [[User:Touyats|Touyats]] ([[User talk:Touyats|talk]]) 17:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)