User talk:122.62.139.6

June 2023
Hi 122.62.139.6! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of LGBT History Month several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. ''Your removal was contested. There is no consensus on the talk page to remove the material, so it stays in the status quo.''. Meters (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey I did write something on the talk page but without any response, it's not a popular article and there were no responses on the talk page until I removed/edited it.
 * I will reiterate that due to the lack of good information in those paragraphs, the fact that the article isn't a list and that I don't think it meets notability standards those paragraphs should be removed.
 * If you simply made an entry for every country that has had an LGBT organisation declare a month an LGBT history month with just the line 'x country celebrates LGBT history month' it'd be a quite poor article with no substance. 122.62.139.6 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. user:TimothyBlue responded on the talk page, writing that the material was sourced and that you needed consensus to make your change, and explaining how to get more participants in the discussion by taking it to DRN. Instead, you responded on the talk page, waited a few days, and restored your edits. Again, it is up to you to get consensus for a challenged edit. You have not done so. Meters (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * He has responded further and simply being sourced isn't enough justification for inclusion of something. 122.62.139.6 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So, why did you claim that no-one had responded? Did you think that I wouldn't even bother to look at the talk page?
 * For a simple list of where the day is celebrated, yes, a simple source is sufficient. If you don't like the sources feel free to look for better sources. but after seeing you remove Canada from the list my WP:AGF is more than a bit strained. Meters (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because he had stopped replying?
 * >For a simple list of where the day is celebrated
 * It's not a list and a list would probably not be that good given it's unofficial organisations, instead a detailed paragraph explaining the history, which organisations run celebrations and why like the UK paragraph is good.
 * > but after seeing you remove Canada
 * Why? The paragraph on Canada has absolutely nothing of substance and the source itself has been deleted. 122.62.139.6 (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)