Talk:Pride in London

message: This article is filled with spammy phrases and in places is simply a puff piece. I tagged it as such, but the tag was wrongly removed by an editor who says that the advert tag can't be added by an anon. Let me tell you now, TruthMonkey: it bloody well can be. Don't remove it again without sorting the article's terrible tone. I'm going to Pride this year as I usually do, but if I want corporate spiel I'll go to Pride's website. If I want neutral facts, I *should* be able to come to Wikipedia for it. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spammy 

message: This section does not appear to be a citation.  Is it a book about the event?  More detail should be provided.  Truthmonkey (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is cross cited from the Footnotes section and so is a citation. See WP:Manual of Style (layout)#Notes and References. The book is an account of the history of UK gay rights groups including the Pride events and marches. Fæ (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pride London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150201140843/http://www.prmomentawards.com:80/south-shortlist to http://prmomentawards.com/south-shortlist
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140629124731/http://prideinlondon.org:80/whats-on/2014/trafalgar-square-stage-2/ to http://prideinlondon.org/whats-on/2014/trafalgar-square-stage-2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Official numbers on the march are 40,000. Why does the article refer to a million "visitors"? If not on the march, how are they supposed to be involved?
 Streona (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers 2017

message: On July 2,  removed the statement that  with edit summary "Removed irrelevant info".  Earlier today it was added back by  with the edit summary of "Undid revision 904547014 by Uk55 (talk) Sockpuppet of blocked user." I am re-removing the material because as a statement on the views and actions of a prominent politician it should not be present in the article without being supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources.  Currently there is no source for the statement, and Johnson's views are not mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article.  Secondly, I see no reason to believe the IP editor's statement about Uk55, who is a long-term, if recently mostly inactive, user.  Accusations of sockpuppetry, if they are to be made, should be made at WP:SPI and not obliquely in edit summaries.  Wham2001 (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits from sockpuppets can be reverted per WP:BMB.  Uk55 is an obvious sock of Bhtpbank. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to reinstate the edit (and take responsibility for it). Revisiting the statement, I do concur with your reasoning. 109.152.208.48 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnson 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* Pride XTP1.JPG
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The subsection currently titled as this has previously flicked between this and "anti-transgender protest controversy." I think the "anti-transgender" wording is preferred, as it is clearly the focus of the source material. It calls the protesters first and foremost "anti-trans protesters" and most of the article is dedicated to discussing their relationship with transgender issues. The term "lesbian erasure" appears only in the headline, as an editorial shortcut for the aspects of lesbian discourse covered in the article. Awoma (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lesbian erasure protest controversy"