Talk:LGBTQ rights in the Gambia

Latest comment: 2 years ago by AukusRuckus in topic Sockpuppet edits since 2014: "Vigilante execution"

RfC: The Gambia or the Gambia

edit

There is currently a request for comments at Talk:The Gambia on whether to capitalize the definite article in the country name. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

RFC on LGBT rights in Africa

edit

Editors are invited to participate in an RFC concerning this article at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on LGBT rights in the Gambia. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 12:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet edits since 2014: "Vigilante execution"

edit

There has been a persistent and prolonged effort to introduce variations on "vigilante torture, beatings and vigilante executions" into the penalty parameters of the article's infobox and summary table; unsourced changes to the maximum penalty are also made. In common with many other LGBT rights in [Country] articles, sockpuppets of the blocked user Jacobkennedy (SPI page) and associated IP users have placed unsourced, poorly sourced, and WP:SYNTH material:

Recording this here for a couple of reasons:

  1. User likely to be back to add similar material: they have been making such edits for years. On this article it's relatively few, on others there are a huge number
  2. On some of these low-traffic pages particularly, it seems that such unsourced changes are less likely to be caught and are sometimes only partially reverted. The quality of the article slowly degrades over time

My hope is that this post will assist with noting and handling any future similar changes. AukusRuckus (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply