Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ rights in Algeria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page has high potential to be expanded. And this is a serious issue - it is not like I am doing "Gay rights in and around Loch Ness". --Nick Martin 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking in article

[edit]

Per WP:overlink, I removed a link that was linked in the section right above it. Not sure what the editor who reverted this was talking about in his/her edit summary, so I removed the link and opened this section for discussion. --Malerooster (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told before to stop edit warring to impose your pet interpretation of the Manual of Style, which is a mere guideline. AfricaTanz (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By whom? You? Again, there is no consensus for your change. If you gain it, fine. --Malerooster (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if I look at the history, that both of you were wrong. WP:MOS says that the first link should be linked, and then none of the other ones after that. This is not something one needs to get consensus for--an editor who wants to break the MOS would need to first get consensus to do that, and they would need an extremely good rationale. I've fixed it the way MOS says it should be. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwyxian, I am sorry, I missed that the word in question, honor killings, was not linked before the 2nd linkeing of it. This was an oversight on my part. I completely agree with your analysis below and support it, obviously. Thank you for stepping in. --Malerooster (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are even more wrong than Malerooster. You just invented out of thin air a standard about the applicability of the Manual of Style. That's very un-administrator of you. AfricaTanz (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I just explained on my talk page, I didn't invent anything. The MOS is applicable in all articles everywhere on Wikipedia. All guidelines are applicable everywhere on Wikipedia. If you want to argue for an exception, the burden is always on you to say why this article is so special that the second instance of a term should be wikilinked rather than the first. Please provide that argument now. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting this "burden" standard or the "special article" standard? The Manual of Style guideline applies to all articles, but it is merely a suggestion, as all guidelines are. When an editor comes to an article and changes it to conform to his pet interpretation of the Manual of Style, he is disruptive when after those changes are reverted, he reimposes them. The disruption is even more pronounced when that editor falsely claims that the reverter must get consensus to revert. Surely you know that already. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are 100% wrong, and edit warring to enforce your wrong understanding of our rules. A guideline is bascally a site-wide consensus. The consensus is, link an item the first time in the article, then don't link it after that, though there are exceptions for some templates and for tables. In this case, you are trying to say that this article is different. Fine. Show me a consensus that it should be different. Right now, there is a site-wide consensus against you, so you need to make a clear, direct showing why that consensus doesn't apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are wrong. You have avoided providing answers to my very simple questions. You keep on spouting the same unsupported stuff that justifies your participation in Malerooster's edit warring on this article. Malerooster changed the status quo of this article. (Read the history.) He was reverted. He then edit warred to impose his pet interpretation of the Manual of Style (MOS). I recommend you read the Arbitration Committee rulings about edit warring to enforce the MOS. Would you like to join the editors who have been blocked for doing that? AfricaTanz (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not edit warring. I edited the article to make it conform with a site wide guideline. You call this a "pet interpretation", when I have never once (in my many many years of editing Wikipedia) seen your position held by any editor in any other place on Wikipedia. Could we please stop the bickering, and could you please justify why you think this should not follow WP:MOS? Alternatively, if you want, take me to Arbcom, to ANI, or someplace else. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter who told you? You clearly and wrongly believe that you are justified in changing the status quo of multiple articles to impose your pet interpretation of the Manual of Style. You disregard objections from other editors and edit war and bully them to preserve your disregard of article consensus. When are you going to stop? AfricaTanz (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT rights in Algeria. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_rights_in_Algeria&oldid=1258486970"